caesar novus

Where is the list of standard nomenclature? There are 3 kinds of slip... generic (= accidental), side , and forward. Sometimes all of them are just shortened to "slip", because in context you know which one. It's conceivable that a lot of pilot communities lump a forward slip under "sideslip", but I question whether they comprehend the crucial forward slip mode. Maybe a third of world pilots don't know forward slips, another third knows them under that name, and another third lump them in with side slips. But why impoverish terminology, when the point is to revive the use of forward slips? Some think they are obsolete due to the use of flaps or spoilers, but they have the advantage of being able to modulate instantly. Turn it on, cut it back, increase it... much faster than cranking a flap motor (assuming it works). There are some minor drawbacks such as wear on the rudder linkage, unreliable airspeed readings, or shuddering of the aircraft, but it's fine in an emergency mode. Here are diagrams that distinguish the very crucial difference between the forward vs other slips: click here ->

First of all, my point is only about airline and power pilots putting themselves at needless risk by the over trust of engines or flaps being available to correct during the last seconds of landing. Sailplane pilots and even second-day US student power pilots learn ways to harness the energy you already have in the form of altitude and speed, and how to modulate it by forward slip, etc. So you aren't in the position of needing to add extra (unreliable) energy, but more or less killing off inherent energy. This point has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH CROSSWIND TECHNIQUES. Nothing to do with crabs or slips or sideslips! You can do all that stuff as recommended as a separate issue. Although diagrams in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosswind_landing#Techniques from Boeing show that a literally crabbed landing is silly (= crash landing)... you want a de-crabbed one or side slip. If you just do a search on videos about forward slip, demo's come in all languages. It isn't a localized technique or term. A forward slip can be distinguished by the pilot looking forward thru the SIDE window. A side slip may involve similar cross controls, but is done with the pilot looking out the FRONT window to see the same oncoming ground rush. Here is a ground view of an extreme parachute-like forward slip. He comes down almost sideways, in spite of no crosswind. Here is the case of the Boeing 767 that used that technique in an emergency landing w/o flaps or power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider "Pearson decided to execute a forward slip to increase drag and lose altitude. This maneuver is commonly used with gliders and light aircraft to descend more quickly without increasing the already-too-fast forward speed." Here is video of a german sailplane demonstrating the usage of forward slip to prevent him from plowing into the hangers at end of airfield. I can't read the german caption, but I imagine it reads "thank god the Mosquito pilots didn't know how to do this, or there would have been even more overhead that we couldn't shoot down in the war. Their sorry manual just says if the flaps dont work, you only can come in too fast and pray". Here is an italian video showing forward slip, with the caption "Eurofly Firefox forward slip to land practice, multiple view, Obiettivo Volare Airlfield, Fontanellato (Pr) Italy. This maneuver is used to reduce the height during the approach without increasing the speed. Is very useful in case you realize to be too high on the approach, or in case of an emergency landing out from the runway It is different from the side slip which is used to keep the plane straight on the runway during an approach with crosswind." Note you have to replace the first x with h because this forum can't handle more than 2 videos per post. xttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKyFh3wX0Q0"] Here is a video showing forward slips being learned second day of US pilot training. xttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoPqkUqvWBM"] Here is a video where towards the very end a pilot shows a friend forward slips and how they were a lifesaver when his flaps didn't work (think about losing power as well). Nothing to do with crosswinds! xttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3-Lu0EKSmQ"] To bring it back to Asiana crash, I was trying to reverse the knee jerk dialogue about their plane coming in "too low". Oh, dear if they just would come in higher. But they intentionally played around by coming in too high. That meant they only needed engine power at the last second. Instead they could have come in normally lower, and sooner found and fixed the lack of power. Or to be super safe, come in even higher and not needed engine power at all... just forward slip to burn the energy off. All to do with energy control, not expecting power to be there at the last second like so many pilots

. Pilots unfamiliar with forward slip may HAVE to come in dangerously fast or high. Like the Mosquito instructions for flapless landings. Or like the French airline pilot gliding back to his island of departure... he was at least wise to not risk arriving short (like Asiana at sfo) but came down with enough speed/height to overpower any little downdraft or miscalculation. The priority was to make the runway, and then somehow deal with the screeching overspeed. Or for more informed pilots in the same situation, the forward slip can be used from a fast/high approach to safely soak up energy, then if you hit a downdraft or see need to avoid undershoot, then you pop out of forward slip early and have energy to extend glide as needed. . . Just giving you a functional term since you criticize the term forward slip. You are stuck on it implying "sideness". As I have repeatedly stated, and included videos and definition references... it is a dead ahead straight maneuver. Very much like the snowplow when skiing... one goes right (stick) and is exactly opposed by the other going left (rudder). Soaks up energy and allows more pinpoint landings when flaps/power not available. It needs to be more widely known and practiced, not just an obscure one time thing to pass a test. I was amazed the Canadian airline pilot used it, until they explained he was also a sailplane pilot. Power pilots are pretty sloppy due to thinking the throttle will always respond to correct their mistakes. Sailplaners know to come in high/fast to guarantee no undershoot. Then they can use flaps, spoilers, or if they don't work "forward slip" to avoid overshoot/overspeed.

The mosquito manual gave the exact speeds to use landing flapless, and although it is screamingly obvious that it ought to be faster... I didn't bother comparing the actual numbers. Thus I didn't use false certainty in spite of 99.99% chance. It is a case of me using precise language, and my life experience of knowing there are exceptions. The point the reader should draw is... Holy moley, how many mosquito planes and crew suffered damage due to not knowing parachutal mode. How many airliners too. You seem to be reading forward SIDEslip vs forward slip. The former would be ridiculous, whereas a slip could logically be in any direction 360 degrees. It can't be confused with a skid because that has an upward component vs slips have downward. It is revealing that this proven miraculous procedure is so unknown, unused, and that you attack the message instead of appreciate its usefulness.

I can agree with most of your previous post, except for the need of the world to know and love forward slips. It would do better with a new name, but an accurate one would sound nerdy... it is sort of a backwards slip, or more exactly a less-forward slip... how about parachutal mode! Supposedly the ancient Greeks had 10+ words for love, which modern scholars reduced to 6 actual seperate concepts. But let's be sure the British aviation scholars haven't reduced their terminology down to a dangerous 5, such as would share the same term for sibling love as jealous, possessive love! We could almost dispose of the whole nerdy world of slips other than forward ones. I hate the monitoring of slip vs skid during flying... let's say all new planes must have a switch to handle this by computer. I also would like to ignore the nerdy crosswind landing tricks... yeah, a crab is nothing special; it's just the normal way you always fly up high or anywhere pointing a bit into the wind to avoid missing your destination. Intentional sideslip for crosswind: let's say new planes can't be certified if they actually need them. You just fly down normally (crabbed), then kick the rudder pedals to halfway straighten on landing. Forward slips: I have a ww2 british Mosquito manual and it says if you have to land without flaps you will descend with very flat angle. I believe much faster as well. This is a recipe for disaster because there will be so little room for error in under or overshooting the runway, especially without power. A (less) forward slip is the supreme answer. It's one of the first things a sailplane student learns. I can't vouch whether all US power pilots learn it before solo, because I went thru that at age 15 where my memory cells hadn't gelled yet. Maybe forward slips are known and used in UK and elsewhere under the sideslip name, but I doubt it. If they merrily can come in crooked in an emergency, bless them, but I hope they max out that rudder (against weathercock) to a forward slip because anything more timid like a conventional sideslip will speed them up and be inefficient. There are differences with various dihedral, swept wing, etc but that can usually be worked around. The slip side swept wing will resist with increased lift, but in an emergency you can force it. Note dc10's and the air canada (767, 777?) do it. Let's call it parachutal mode rather than forward slip. Just to be complete, someone might figure a comparable emergency maneuver involving a skid (to outside of turn)... sort of an anti-parachutal mode. You might approach runways long and high in a fast skidding turn, then (if needed) shorten/modulate the overshoot by snuffing the skid. Rudder would be used in opposite way as forward slip. I'm very unsure this would work, but I actually like curved approaches rather than rectilinear, invented I believe by UK carrier radial pilots who had poor forward visibility. I read that modern US pilots with poor forward visability (in a non-crosswind) may use the forward slip instead, to approach straight but point crooked!

It IS claimed in http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/464013-forward-side-slip.html that forward as applied to slip is mostly American, or limited to one sector of UK pilot types or other Europeans. This is appalling because the forward slip is a stunningly unique and useful technique. That's why it was such a miracle that a Canadian airline pilot used it right. And understandable why the French pilot I mentioned failed to take advantage. The concept is super simple. Sideslips are your plane sliding to the side relative to the air. You partially check the slide by opposing it with your rudder, modulated to stay on track with a runway when the air you are in makes a crosswind. The totally revolutionary concept, which surely needs a precise name... is when you mash that rudder hard to essentially check all slippage to the side... It's the ANTIsideSLIP or the forward slip because it only affects your forward glide slope. You can go steeper down and land without over speeding... Much safer without power because you can arrive high so as to prevent undershoot a la Asiana, then create a bunch of straight drag to avoid overshoot. Just because the controlling is similar, and maybe you combine it with crosswind handling makes people casually think they are no different, or defined by your intention. But an absolutely straight relative to air (rather the ground) forward slip is a lifesaver that needs a name for the different concept, because it isn't a logical extension of what calls for a sideslip.

Holy cow, I see in http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/flight-schools-training/38263-side-slip-forward-slip-4.html that the dc10 airliner series recommended the forward slip as their STANDARD worldwide crosswind landing technique... That was brought up by air force kc10 pilot who has the manufacturer manual. Boeing recommends the more conventional crab because any kind of slip can bonk stuff they hang under the wing into the ground. DC trijets had different geometry forgiving more bank, but very strange they didn't use sideslip. Strange because if you do forward slip with crosswind, you yaw INTO the wind like a crab. With sideslip you yaw AWAY from the wind. Contrasting and putting them together is shown in this video, although I would rather see forward slip reserved as a simple emergency maneuver. Let the airline pilots bonk stuff in emergency, and they they can approach higher and not risk shortfalls like Asiana.

I am watching Sophia Lorens - boy on a dolphin - which has time capsule views of Greek ruins, some of which must have been from roman occupation times. The differences a half a century made is sort of an uncluttered look... Like manicured by a hundred sweepers and rakers, surely not just for the movie? And very uncrowded, but it probably was off limits during filming. I think things were in better shape in the movie (Athens, epvidaurus, some islands) but less excavated than now. Next may try Sophia in north African ruins in an awful john Wayne movie. Well, she takes herself too seriously as well.

Reread your post... i say forward slip and you respond with sideslip... they have little connection in intent. You could go a whole flying career avoiding a sideslip, but even an early student should learn forward slip for emergency landings without power. All airline pilots should know it in case flaps become inoperable in total power outs like air canada (dead apu). I didnt mean helmet cams for flyers, but firemen. It is becoming common and only a few places ban them including the now brilliantly timed sfo fire chief. I don't know her story, but california chiefs including police are famous for benefit extortion... so i hold them to high standard. I posted quotes here a few years ago on how something like 40%? get "chiefs disease" in california where they claim backaches and pension off at astronomical rates. Towns have been bankrupted. We had that here where an unmotivated minority figurehead was named as a chief, then soon went on leave for months due to backache, then retired young with benefits times three. The problem is no market economy in public sector... the hard workers dont get rewarded but the incompetant and manipulators hit jackpots.

I have only randomly seen a few news updates, but now the young genius who is playing grownup sfo firechief at probably hyper extortionate taxpayer expense has appalled many by banning the use of helmetcams that showed they were running over passenger. Even the crew want helmetcams as a way of improving, and in this case the cam evidence pointed to higher ups not passing on certain info to drivers. This is what you get by promoting public servants to the top based on alleged victimology rather than seasoned and effective candidates. PS, forward slip doesnt involve one iota of slipping to a side... you proceed absolutely straight as if on rails (altho crooked heading) and this has included air canada swept wing airliners (they can barrel roll for heavens sake). You snuff the sideward slip with counter yaw, and genteelly float downward using all that crookedness as dive brakes. It's not about correcting for sidewind, like crab or sideslip. Wiki has a better explanation with diagram somewhere, but that awkwardly phrased version is mostly correct and well emphasizes the centrality of this maneuver for even beginners.

Our version excludes the energetic Dan snow, except for a minute in Romania, where he was strangely dominant over the women who is OUR onscreen focus (non)personality... Hosted by a dull disembodied voice instead. They promised specific other site visits in coming episodes, but I don't see it scheduled yet. Maybe the advertisers are boycotting our bland version after seeing results. My recording cut off the end credits that might explain the origin of our series, which has content but no sizzle.

You worry about sink rate, but the aviation world doesn't need to. You can simply dive low to build up energy, then level out or even climb if you wish... simply on your retained energy with no engine power at all. Sink rate problem gone, you've just got to time it right when and over where your speed bleeds off, like Asiana didn't. At my previous location it used to be a fetish of recreational pilots to do a virtual suicide type dive on landing approach to blast thru wind shear layers... the surface wind howled in a much different direction than winds just a bit higher, and could stall or disrupt a pokey pilot at the transition. But they did it more for showoff and the excitement of flattening down on that ground effect at high speed. You criticize side slips, but I specifically said forward slip (contrasted here with sideslip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_slip#Forward-slip ) which go straight and worked great. Dialogue is going in circles partly because the difficulty of me multi-quoting. You denied my explanation of the control handoff, saying it required confirmation, then went back to agree with my original explanation with the addition that it is an eternal practice. Umpteen official crash evaluations disprove that, and in 1990's led various airline companies to train copilots to easily and assertively utilize that phrase, and for head pilots to respond submissively. If you disagree, take it up with the Smithsonian tv channel.

The time of year would color many decisions. I visit in shoulder season and the hotel values tend to be awful for the price. Maybe try hotels owned by the church http://italytravelista.com/where-to-stay-in-rome-convent-and-monastery-accommodation-in-rome-travel-to-italy/ , but the Italian gov't may have revoked their bargain tax free status. At the airport you can just show up at the kiosk for shared airport vans. It may appear chaotic, but soon you are flying like a racecar thru Rome with maybe a singing driver and won't mind the intermediate stops. I tend to take the overpriced train back just because there is more certainty about the schedule. Or use the Naples airport for one end of your tour... there is actually an infrequent airport bus direct to pretty Sorrento where you are in the backyard of Pompeii or Jovian palace of Capri... then you can train back to Rome. For the other end you could also avoid FCO if easyjet or whoever will take you to CIA. They have busses meet the planes and its a shorter drive than from FCO. Or land in Pisa, walk to town and sightsee before boarding the train. Ostia Antica is big, but in kind of appalling shape (degraded even in past few years) and not worth a full day. Holy cow, with that time you could do Pompeii, Herculeum, villa Poppea (sp?) etc! But for Ostia combine things along the way. I guess you could take a taxi there from extremely nearby FCO if they would let you store your bag like Pompeii let me store mine, then train to Rome. Or hit spots in Rome southern outskirts like power station branch of capitaline museum, st paul vatican church, or better things that slip my mind. EDIT: baths of caracalla! Villa Hadriana is a must-combine with the lesser Villa Este, but takes careful homework to schedule. There is an oft mentioned way you can find on the internet that uses a northern subway station/bus hub. It used to be the northern end of subway, since extended. The advantage is it has a manned window to buy all your bus tix (cotrel?) to a stop near Hadrian, onward to Tivoli for Este, then back. On the return get off the bus a stop or 2 early where 80% depart for the new subway end station. You can get all details on the web from casual and official web schedules with exact stop locations. It should become apparent that you don't want to use the closest stops to Hadrians place which would require complex transfers and bad scheduling. Use stops a half mile away with much more traffic, and be prepared to navigate the quaint neighborhood maze on the ground. There is a train between rome and Tivoli which I might consider for the return... I think you would walk down a virtual mountain to the north side of Tivoli for a rare, slow train or something. In any case, start super early and be prepared for overload at Hadrians. Like any sprawling place, you can attack it clockwise or the reverse. I wish I went clockwise because that left side starts with dense jumbles of famous stuff that got disorienting when I was tired near the end (was sick anyway). The other side is more serene and quietly monumental. But that right side does have a little museum with the usual ridiculous hours... closing for lunch or the day at practically half past dawn. I was annoyed that the guards were trailing great streams of breadcrumbs from eating their overflowing sandwiches among the exhibits, well before their ultra generous lunch closing time. I guess gov't workers there feel less obligated by their job because it is ruthlessly taxed, whereas private employees have great latitude to evade income taxes? Anyway pay close attention to days of the week closures... usually monday. Sunday pedestrian day is heaven for an Appian way walk... I might try a bus or archeo bus for that rather than the Tericola train next time. It is horrible to walk from Rome, not due to the distance but the extremely narrow roads and fast cars. Except if you take a roundabout path to include the really nice WW2 massacre commemoration site... that has a walkable shortcut to the racetrack/villa/temples part of appian way. There is a deli or two here for a nice carryout snack... i can still taste their nice eggplant sandwich and fruit juice. Use some planning to at least recognize the near-impossible constraints of opening times. For example the racetrack closes extremely early. The fantastic Q. Bros. villa complex may claim to open early but may not open their appian back door til quite late. These exhibits have shared tickets (aha... including caracalla baths in southern rome which you must see) and good bathrooms which are sparse further down the road (I complained earlier here about repeatedly seeing women apparently going to pee on the back of nice roman tomb markers, leaving piles of tissue and corrosive ammonia... yes, you mingle with the dog walking rich local mansion residents in early morning here). Don't miss the national museum branch near the train station and the baths near there which are particularly rich in Roman stuff and not as crowded as others. I think I already discussed getting in the great Roman-only section of the vatican, possibly bypassing the horrible mile long monday lines (4 or 5 people wide!) by getting an online ticket for garden or other vatican tour.

Is it worth having a discussion area for the Discovery Science TV docu-series "What Lies Beneath: Roman Empire"? I think it is getting rarer to have such a series, and maybe some don't have it available. Also it seems to have a weak presence online, and hard to tell what episode will come when (doesn't appear in the same timeslot next week). Anyway it seems to be an extension of a recent documentary on Egyptian archeology guided from computer processed satellite photos. Now the same researcher is panning around the whole Roman empire and knocking archeo-collegues off their chairs by what a few photo hen scratching appear to suggest about ancient villages etc. I'm not sure any great answers are made, but at least good questions... and some cool site visits or computer recreations that look scrumptious in HD. First episode focused on Ostia. Visited the hexagon port now inland, and eventually tramped around the surrounding wastelands. The photos suggested various canals (remind you of Mars?) such as a shortcut to Rome along the winding Tiber. I would guess the function isn't as they said to relieve congestion so much as to allow animals to haul the barges from paths alongside against the current, then riding the river current on the way down (riding higher over sandbars, etc). She found a possible extra warehouse area (yawn) and an oval interpreted as an amphitheater on the far outskirts of Ostia. Some hen scratching was suggested as the famous lighthouse, which they scaled using the base size to estimate about 35 stories in height. I guess the harbor was expanded by Trajan, so they took a sidetrip about his attacks on Rumania. The harbor received grain from inland Tunisia, so they used photo hen scratchings to ID an unknown inland fort to protect this. Those site visits were very brief... I almost preferred the unusual peeks of Rome proper thrown in. Some OxBridge accents had to chime in for the obligatory rants against Rome as a fascist bully... the architecture of large boatsheds and big Trajan statue supposedly being aimed at psychological terror of visiting diplomats. What diplomats did they need to impress, and do we even know the height or flavor of that disappeared architecture? Isn't most of Roman architecture alternatively understandable as an expression of societal pride and morale building? Anyway not like modern dictatorship architecture; here are quotes from Dom Joly's "Dark Tourist" book on visiting Pyongyang: "It was the usual, ugly, brutalist architecture so loved by totalitarian regimes." ... "I wondered if anyone had attempted a picturesque dictatorship." I note that public architecture/facilities/parks in the US often have prominent plaques giving credit to the mayor or governor. This seems strange when you realize that they aren't desperate for re-election... it's almost impossible to kick out incumbents, and it isn't always big egos. Rather, I think it is more more trying to gather of support of the majority who benefit a little bit from these improvements VS. the whiner self centered activists and the powerful not-in-my-backyard obstructionists that the mayor or whoever had to fight to get anything done. A canal thru the backyard of my villa... death to Trajan! I think today's plaques imply: It almost killed me to get this obviously beneficial thing done; I had to call in all my favors and still may get stabbed in the back, so give this project some props and support me to do more of this. And they went on to depict Rome as a chronic military and administrative bully, although this was done with such a skeleton crew (150k soldiers they said) that statically they would be absolutely lost among the millions of Roman citizens.

This post generated by error... see prev post here instead http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/11550-coming-up-next/page-4#entry124582

It's a series, so look for it next week. Also repeats, and maybe online videos. The first episode seems to cover speculation about Rome's port based on satellite images leading them to new trace evidence. Computer reconstructions ensue.

High sink rate is normally easily tamed through ground effect and aggressive properly timed flares, if the runway is long enough. You get cushion from your wingtip vortices squashing against the ground, and flares can convert forward/downward speed into lift and drag. There can be a problem with moveable passengers; a bunch of people changing seats in a small turboprop can shift to bad CG which can prevent or prematurely promote flares. Airliners don't do well with off runway landings. There was one success recently covered in Air Disasters where a south/latin American airliner glided onto a random grassy area in California, and later even flew off after an engine and tire was replaced. But it turned out to be a manicured area at a Nasa facility that maybe was intended for future emergency air use, although unmarked and unused. Of course the French pilot I mentioned did better gliding to his island of departure rather than ocean landing (craggy coast without rescue infrastructure). He had the wisdom to set up biased toward overshoot rather than undershoot, but he didn't know how to angle down with a slow forward slip once the runway was guaranteed. So they probably got a lot of fright lawsuits from the fast and bumpy panic braking. The Canadian airline pilot did right to aim for an inland runway because he was also a sailplane pilot whose every molecule is tuned to never land short (a la Asiana) and with a bag of tricks to avoid running long after the runway is guaranteed. Landing off field is tricky with half invisible power lines, and even your runway may have stone walls or trees at the end. In Alaska, I guess they encourage light aircraft pilots to practice emergency landing on freeways even amongst traffic The "I have the controls" phrase and it's mandatory acceptance by the other was presented as an airline company policy. First by Korean Air, then by others. Even useless remedies may need to be followed to avoid lawsuits in future crashes. But I think it could have helped for instance the case of a Korean co-pilot who recognized the fatal mistake of his retired-general ex-fighter pilot. It was almost understandable that the co-pilot struggled for the right words, which probably was a familiar pattern because I think the senior pilot had been a poor student at airliners.

OK, the "What Lies Beneath: Roman Empire" series starts Monday and is bookended by repeats of 2 other quality Rome documentaries. Don't cancel that overpriced cable TV yet, or else tell us all an alternative way to access these from Discovery Science HD:

Well, I'm laid up again with a nasty foot injury... strange how disabling that can be, due to it's location rather than the severity. So I thought I would reflect here a bit. I just put on some background video of a Bocelli concert in Portofino, which makes somewhat sappy music in a pretentious location quite magical... is it the Italian touch, or maybe my memories of hiking the pretty hills in the background (better than crowded Cinque Terre!). I recorded it off cable tv and was about to flush it, but then found it is a real cinema movie, This trailer makes it seem brash rather than it's actual mellow, scenic character: Anyway, I didn't realize the extent of my injury because it had a numbing effect at first. I got all distracted by trying to create my own salt free Cajun seasoning by mixing up stuff on hand. This was after much frustration of trying to subscribe to that from Amazon... if you subscribe to 5 things at once regularly they deduct 15% and charge no postage. Anyway, why not mix various pepper, paprika, garlic, onion and others powders together? Came out a little harsh, so why not add some mellow thai seasonings and nutritional yeast... pretty good, but what is that throbbing in my foot... YIKES! Another liberating area of self-mix is sodapop. Got the neat Sodastream carbonating machine (did I mention this earlier?) and concoct my own syrups. A good one is root beer extract mixed with the super healthy agave syrup instead of the usual corn syrup. Or canned frozen concentrate of lemonade mixed with coconut syrup... refreshing! I found an adaptor valve online to use paintball co2 chargers which are vastly cheaper bubblemakers than from sodastream, yet fit in their machine. Real quality results, cheaper, and I save all the lugging of cans and such. My next mixing direction is something I touched on in a topic here about fermented applesauce. I am crazy about bubbles (not alcohol) in what I eat or drink, and accidentally created a perfect mix of fermented cranberry juice mixed with applesauce. The bubbles stay suspended in place and are amazing to encounter. But it's hard to perfect. Too thin and the apple pulp just sinks below a watery gruel. Too thick can be fun, but has problems I talked about earlier. The trick seems to be starting a tad too watery, then the yeast turns the mixture a bit gluey with absolutely immobilized bubbles. But you can drink it, sort of like a smoothie with tart bubble bursts!

There is a Rome documentary coming on the discovery science hd channel (and maybe elsewhere) called something like Rome... revealing the underground on Aug 12. It is new, and not the same as two very similar themed series in the past. Sched should appear at the bottom of http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/tv-schedule.htm in a couple days. Computer aided reconstructions seem to be involved.

It's been confirmed that the fire truck killed one of the victims. It was under the supervision of a very immature looking fire chief, and just reminds me of the dysfunctional public sector situation in California. Steven Greenhut's "Plunder!" book documents a world where merit or experience can mean nothing but instead is on some reckless utopian social experiment. A local newspaper recently quoted a United Airlines pilot who instructed at Korean Air for 5 years. He also brought up the cultural issue of Korean copilots being reluctant to correct a pilot. Also he said those students tended to be overly trustful of technology (thus not monitoring autopilot closely?). Normally this would raise red flags for some who seem to believe the world is driven by racism, but this was a well documented issue in multiple Korean Air crashes. Last I heard Korean Air itself solved their safety record with strict training that a copilot in any doubt of the pilot immediately take over and simply say "I've got the controls". All airlines apparently teach that now, and insist pilots defer to it. The "Air Disasters" documentary episodes showed in chilling detail both a Korean and non-Korean co-pilot failing to over ride a pilot who they see making correctable but fatal mistakes. You're talking about good glide angle but high sink rate and thus excess speed. First of all, I only brought up Asiana's fast/steep glide as being a factor that allowed them to not notice their speed autopilot was disengaged. If they weren't playing training games and had a normal descent, they would have needed power kicking in earlier and overridden it before it was too late, Secondly, I think it's a shame airline pilots don't get elementary glider experience. The "Air Disasters" series had two episodes of airline pilots gliding into landing. You have to come in high, because as seen in SFO falling short is a disaster. Then you land steeply and fast as did a French airliner who took off with an empty fuel gauge which they thought was faulty. The pilot glided back to the Atlantic island for 45 minutes and scared the passengers with a fast bumpy landing. Or you land steeply and elegantly, such as a Canadian pilot who knew how to forward slip a sailplane. He had no power to lower the airliner flaps, but plopped down nicely even on a disused Ontario runway with kids biking on it. I love forward slips which synchronize the stick and pedals backwards to increase drag, and even wonder if it might help to alternate a forward slip from side to side to further increase the safe descent angle.

Caligula's reputation seems in an upswing over recent years http://www.unrv.com/book-review/caligula-review.php and even on the history channel, as can be seen on their documentary I recently posted under numismatica/Scotland (topic drift alert... grin). I abandoned an audio recording of Suetonius's 12 Caesars because it just rung so false. I mean compared to their refined level of architecture and bust sculpture. I am quite used to associating crass examples of that from crass totalitarians like Stalin, Mussolini, or Mao, and find it hard to believe the most sensationalist mud thrown at the "bad" Caesars who oversee such sublime art and engineering.

Maybe Grant brought logistics to the world stage, and Sherman brought counter-logistics to the equation... instead of just army vs army. I dunno; my closest related education is just reading umpteen pilot bio's in an Air Force library as a kid. Nice to know that Petreaus scares were overblown. I happen to live where such fringe movements come to roost after being rejected as too looney even in California. They get laws passed that just amaze unbiased mayors or governor as being of no practical use and very expensive and restrictive. But they don't dare veto them because the movements use exactly what Goebbels recommends... hit simple emotional rather than logical points, and repeat and repeat. Make your falsehoods big and brazen, which are harder to tackle than small lies which can be disposed of more easily.

I don't think he's saying who was best in a particular war, but who has special transcending qualities in all history of recorded warfare. I was unfamiliar with his Roman choice because that late eastern empire period doesn't grab me for some reason yet. It's nice he didn't rehash the obvious choice from second punic war, since I am reading Goebbels vast diaries and he was pushing that as a prime example to everyone why not to surrender and to continue the hopeless meatgrinder to the end. I barely knew about Ridgeways story because Korea was kind of an embarrassing, error prone conflict. I barely followed Petreaus because I was so disgusted at the left democrat agitprop attempting to deny him senate approval to head USCENTCOM. He was so obviously the ideal, effective, yet humanitarian choice which should have pleased the left, but they needed to stereotype some random target to make a point. They do the same Goebbels-style agitprop today for example on laws for (but sabotaging) green-ness. Of course Patreaus did a transformational job, and as this book says of course he was then reviled and torn down (by the right?). Sherman is spun so nicely in this video that it may be worth sliding the dial to find that section. He is of course reviled in southern memory, yet inflicted and incurred miniscule casualties in his famous march in the SE (I realize he had a rough start further west). He caused property damage that was targeted against warmaking capability and the elite, not against everyman such is remembered. With Grant's slow progress and high attrition, the north was risking to lose an election and the supposedly anti-slave european countries were itching to recognize the slave south to restore cotton trade. The north couldn't afford many more Grant style victories, so Sherman had to think out of the box. Goebbels at one point convinces Hitler and Goring to try something similar, in switching the final bombing of England from military or urban targets to the homes and neighborhoods of the elite ruling class, but I guess it wasn't followed up.

Well, here is a decent recent History Channel doc on Caligula... they seemed to use good judgment in choosing among less sensational explanations. Only marred by the usual over dramatic recreations, they had a few good site visits (be ready to pause because it goes away fast), and best of all had reasonable hosts. A few quirky greybeards and some younger presentable hipsters, all seeming to give plausible academic views. At least I was lulled into liking "Caligula: 1400 days of terror" http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZT6LVwZlQyU