Thrashy

The "finding a job" part is the sticking point, I'm finding. Many places are clamping down on immigration due to the various enduring refugee crises of the last decade, and even when one has a profession listed by their target country's government as a high-demand occupation, few employers are willing to jump through hoops to hire somebody who doesn't already have a visa and work authorization.

Right now I'm looking at international firms with US presence as a way to perhaps get assigned overseas down the road, but it's not a straightforward process. Unless you've got the liquidity buy a "golden visa" (cheapest option right now is Malta at €125k...) most of the easy visa options only allow for tourism or education, not work and long-term residency.

737s don't have RATs. According to some 737 pilots I've seen commenting, the APU is operable in flight, but doesn't kick in automatically and would have required ~60 seconds to start. The main electrical generators don't automatically restart after tripping, either, so a scenario where electric power is hypothetically available, but a panicked or overloaded flight crew don't take the steps to bring it online, is plausible.

Hydraulics and electric system are independent in commercial aircraft -- hydraulic pumps are directly driven from the engines, as are electrical generators. Redundancy is provided via independent loops/buses from each engine. A bird strike on its own is unlikely to be energetic enough to sever one of those independent systems, let alone all four. Losing both engines could do it, -- but again, they had enough thrust to attempt a go-around, so they weren't a glider immediately after the bird strike. The 737 is an old-school design, too, so most critical components have full manual reversion -- as long as you have airspeed and altitude enough to get to the runway, you can fly and land the plane just with cable controls and manual releases in the event of total electric and hydraulic failure.

I did a bit of reading from other sources and this particular aircraft predates the requirement for battery backup of the FDR and CVR, and the APU does not start up automatically on a power failure, so the failure chain for that part of the incident isn't as long as I initially thought. Still, lots of questions, and I think the simplest explanation so far is the aircrew panicking and making a survivable situation into a bloodbath.

Everything about this incident is just so fucking odd. That a bird strike could take out both engines isn't unheard of (see US Airways Flight 1549) but I've heard reports that there was a failed emergency landing attempt before the one that we saw video of, so they clearly had thrust enough to stay in the air for a go-around, and from the video we saw they carried in a ton more speed than I would expect if there had been catastrophic damage to both engines.

Except that the lack of landing gear suggests loss of hydraulic power from both engines... Except there is an emergency release that drops the gear on a 737 with just gravity, and there's no evidence this was even attempted.

Now it looks like some electrical systems, including power to the data recorders, died right at the start of the incident, which would require not just double engine failure but failure of the APU and backup battery systems. That just seems incredibly unlikely.

Catastrophic electrical failure several minutes before the crash, though, would suggest that it wasn't just a case of a panicked aircrew making a chain of bad decisions, which was my initial read of the situation and maybe the best fit for the rest of the circumstances.

I just can't think of a chain of events that could reasonably lead to all the failures in evidence while still allowing the aircraft to remain airworthy for two landing attempts.

And then you get to the horrifying fact that a relatively new and modern airport had a giant concrete obstacle in what would be considered the Runway Safety Area at a US facility... Like, what the fuck? That seems like it's designed to create this sort of a disaster.

I'd been planning for a new HVAC system for a while when that video came out, and it gave me the idea to cross-check the thermostat data with the Manual J calc I'd already done. They were in general agreement, though the Manual J block load was more conservative than empirical data for a design day.

In your case, since you don't have data from a healthy system on a representative heating design day, I'd suggest using a web tool like CoolCalc to simply calculate an approximate Manual J total heating and cooling load, and use that to guide your choices.

A little headroom ain't bad, but it had three times the required heating capacity for my area's "design day" low, which meant that for most of the winter it was kicking on for maybe 5-10 minutes per hour and then leaving massive cold spots in the house, because the thermostat was smack in the middle and all the walls were bleeding heat.

My new heat pump is just about 2x the design day heat requirement, but that also means it's got capacity to handle extreme lows without resorting to resistance heat, and in any case it's fully modulating so the house has stayed quite comfortable so far.

My old furnace was hilariously oversized for the house.

One of the nifty things about smart thermostats like Ecobees is that you can pull usage data from their web portal. I grabbed a CSV file covering a cold snap last year that reached a 100-year record low, and using Excel I summed up the total heat output while we were at that low.

The furnace was only running 50% of the time, even when it was with a couple degrees of as cold as it's ever been where I live.

Needless to say, when I got a new system installed I made sure it was more properly sized, and given that I had a convenient empirical measurement of exactly how many btus I actually needed in the worst case as scenario, that was easily done.

hard disagree. The residential building code isn't terribly hard to adhere to -- especially in new construction -- and nearly every bit of it is written with the health and safety of building occupants in mind. I'd much rather deal with a bit of bureaucratic oversight to be sure my house and/or my neighbor's house doesn't collapse in a stiff breeze, or blow up from a gas leak, or kill all its occupants in a fire, or turn into a heap of rot after the first heavy rain, etc., etc. You might have the skills and ethics required to do the job right without somebody looking over your shoulder, but not everybody does, and I'd venture at least half the big home building firms would cut every corner they could in the absence of code enforcement.

There's no reason you couldn't still do that, as long as you pull the necessary permits and your work can pass inspection. Most jurisdictions make specific exemptions in the contractor licensing rules for homeowners working on their own properties.

Just got my late, not-so-great furnace and AC replaced with a new cold-climate heatpump setup, and in the process moved the indoor equipment from a too-tight niche in the main floor of the house into the basement where it really should have been to start with. Now I need to frame up a wall where the furnace access panel used to be, properly tie in the return ductwork, and (eventually, need to relocate some other utilities first) add a linen cabinet in the vacated space. Next big stage in the huge-slow-moving basement Reno I'm in the middle of is to get the 60-year-old galvanized steel water supply line replaced, and then I can start inside plumbing work.

The Cirrus CAPS system works as low as 400 ft if the plane is still in level flight, but if it's not got forward motion -- say, in a spin or stall scenario -- it needs more altitude to fully inflate. I'd guess that in this case, if they'd had a BRS system it probably would have had time to work, if only just, but they'd have needed to deploy it pretty early on in their emergency.

Cirrus aircraft are expensive even by the stratospheric standards of general aviation, which leads to a "no seatbelts, we die like real men" attitude from your average GA pilot with a 60-year-old Cessna that flies backwards in a stiff breeze.

That said, the RV-10 is a (relatively) inexpensive kit plane, and one that has a couple parachute systems available for it. In the case of a kit plane, I think it's not unreasonable to say that adding the parachute system is a good idea... the incident rate with such aircraft is much higher than with other general aviation aircraft, and the cost of adding the chute isn't eye-popping compared to the other costs involved.