The fuel intended for a prop plane with an old-fashioned gas engine is avgas, which at this kind of airport would be an oddball fuel that comes from what looks like ordinary gas station pumps in an out-of-the-way area. It would be completely out of the fuel trucks' workflow.
Contaminated fuel isn't totally impossible but is highly unlikely since no other planes had an issue that day, and even with contaminated fuel the odds of the two engines shutting down so close together are quite low. The theory of the jet fuel being contaminated with avgas is also pretty much impossible at a big commercial airport like the one this jet took off from.
Something weird may have caused an electrical or electronic failure that took out both engines at once. Highly unlikely again but not impossible.
Another greater possibility is that one engine failed for some reason and the pilots reacted incorrectly causing the good engine to be shut down. This is the most likely and there have been other crashes caused by this kind of mistake. Pilots spend their whole careers maintaining equal thrust between a plane's engines, but then when an engine failure happens they have to go for maximum unequal thrust.
Well, your buying power would be crippled.
I read it as All Pies.
These stories on the supposedly shortened British working week are never specific as to whether they're working less hours per week for the same pay. If hours per week are the same, then the only thing workers may be gaining is some scheduling flexibility.
Today's workers should be down to about a 30-hour work week based on productivity improvements since the '70s. Either that or about 40% more pay.
The bill now in the House takes an ax to clean energy incentives, including killing a 30% tax credit for rooftop residential solar by the end of the year that the Biden administrationâ(TM)s Inflation Reduction Act had extended into the next decade. Trump has called the clean energy tax credits in the climate law part of a âoegreen new scamâ that improperly shifts taxpayer subsidies to help the âoeglobalist climate agendaâ and energy sources like wind and solar.
Of course the hypocrisy from those who applaud this cutting isn't lost on people with at least one brain cell:
âoeIf you require a money-spigot from Washington to make your business viable, it probably shouldnâ(TM)t have been in business in the first place,â said Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Funny how they never mention the money-spigot from Washington the oil and gas companies have received since day one, or the huge subisidies companies like Haliburton receive every year.
Oh look, here is the actual wording from the House bill posted on the congressional web site. But they're lying about this as well, right?
I once had a single IT job that contained about 2 jobs worth of work. Maybe I should hook this guy up with them?
That's just a minor side effect, what they actually used it for was to grow corporate profits continuously for half a century while keeping worker pay stagnant. If workers got any benefit from their own productivity improvements over that time, they'd be making 40% more money or working 2 less days per week on average now.
From your link "the surface warming increases signicantly for the case of water feedback assuming xed relative humidity"
it literally explains the "Feedback Loop" that's the problem. CO2 causes some warming, which causes more H20 vapor to be released, which causes far more warming...and repeat.
a given CO2 concentration will obviously reach a heat/radiative equilibrium - but it's not acting alone.
Also, Venus would like a word.
I am not. I see you are a fool.
Good day.
Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry up is not nailed down. -- Collis P. Huntingdon, railroad tycoon
