Nicola_M

Lucky you. You can't have been doing much on your site in March, then. Because that's when they had a near-revolt on their hands, through so many being unable to load, view or access their sites.

Yeah, I'm sort of of the same opinion. How can you say it'll be payware when 1. So far you haven't released anything previously 2. With the best will in the world, payware quality can't be determined at the ideas stage. That'll be obvious either way much later down the development line. And, if you plan on sticking with webs as your main website, be prepared for your customers to sooner or later be (extremely) pissed off when they can't access it. Or for YOU to be unable to access it. I tried to set up a site with webs.com earlier this year, and images didn't load or show up, tech help blamed third parties, tech help fob you off, and rather than sort the issue out, they delete the threads of everyone rebelling because they don't want new customers finding out how shite they are. Here's proof it's not just me, and it's not just a one-off. http://www.webhostingreviews.com/webs-reviews.htm My advice, get a different web host, quick.

Usually, if you get the up and down arrows as you describe, multiple clicks of the left mouse button activate the action. Eg, if your cursor is forward/above the desired switch, and an up arrow appears, pressing the left mouse button will move the switch up/forward, hence giving you the desired action. Might be handy to know what aircraft you're in where you're having problems.

Uh, yeah. I think I might have spotted a bit of wayward fluff on the top of seat 12A

Some of us still are........that's London in xp10 Plausible emptiness.

They've got to leave the US first, and if there's any issue of culpability it's gonna be.... a while before Korea gets them back.

Not funny.

Would've been funny if people hadn't died....

Another Chinese girl has died from her injuries, bringing the death toll now to three. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23296760

"Dreamliner."

Hope they get to the bottom of the cause. The Dreamliner doesn't need much more bad press.

Heathrow closed after Dreamliner catches fire - breaking news. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23294760

It certainly looks like autpilot was disengaged, and with it autothrottle too, as jetjerry said a few posts back. Could be a basic pilot error, or something mechanical. I can't believe that mulitple someones with that many hours would make such an elemental error. But at the end of the day, we're all guessing. "The instructor pilot reported that he noticed four red PAPI lights and concluded that the autothrottle had not maintained speed." Interesting, considering it's been widely reported the PAPis at SFO were off, and have been for the last two weeks.

Not really. The NTSB have told us what happened, which matches what we've seen on the news videos. They haven't told us Why. We don't know that it's pilot error so we just have to sit and wait to see what the NTSB says the cause was. I have to say I'm disgusted with pprune; the amount of people there slamming the Asiana crew in the absence of any facts is awful. Glad I don't work in that industry and have to regard them as colleagues.

See the post above.

Where on earth are you getting your figures from ??? The one with 43hrs was not the captain. He was PIC, but not the captain. Quote my post #25 "Yes and no. The man sat in the captain's seat was F/O Lee Kang-gook. He's the one with 9,763 hours, 43 of which on the 777. He had previously flown to SFO 29 times on different aircraft. (Reuters). It was, though, his first attempt at landing at SFO. And was being supervised by: Capt Lee Jeong-min, who was sat in the co-pilot's seat, and had 12,387 hours, 3,220 on the 777."

Although the NTSB have told us the speed was [significantly] low, TOGA carried out too late, throttles applied too late, something like the throttles staying at idle could be down to something electrical for all we know, not necessarily pilot error. Even taking into account the CRM stuff, I'm finding it really hard to buy the idea that a pilot with 10K hours would make such a monumental screwup and that someone next to him with 12K hours would sit there and let him. Watched a tv program a week or so back about a LOT flight where landing gear failed due to a circuit breaker popping and no one thought to check. Could a circuit breaker in charge of A/T have failed, leaving it at the last setting, ie idle?

But at the moment that's pure conjecture, not for definite what happened.

What has really amazed me is not just the survivability of the airframe, but how so many people suffered spinal injuries and were able to get off. If the plane had gone up in flames immediately, like so many aircraft seem to, the fatality toll would have been much, much higher.

That's why I queried the definition of the PIC, because to my way of thinking the Captain was flying as PNF but still supervising - inferring overall control - means he'll still carry some of the blame. He wouldn't therefore let his "student" deliberately do something that'd drop them both in it. And something's very badly wrong at a basic level if a very experienced (for that's what he is) pilot F/O with nearly 10,000 hours can't land a plane manually (everyone here can do that, for god's sake), which is why I hope the cause is mech/tech. Because if it is down to pilot error, then that entire part of the world's aviation industry is in the toilet.

Hmm, I get the logic about the spiteful captain bit, but you'd have to be a real warped character to put yourself in a situation that is 50-50 you'd survive just to get one over on your F/O.. If this CRM stuff is to be believed, then the F/O would be bowing and scraping to the captain. Not for an F/O to put his captain a hairsbreadth away from being in a wooden box - he'd be doing all he could to keep the captain happy. Curious, too, that apart from the captain sitting in the right hand seat with 12K hours, all the rest had 10K each, give or take a few. So the second crew captain and F/O both had similar hours. I would've expected captains to have had more hours than their F/Os. In any event the NTSB have said they "will not reach a determination of probable cause in the first few days that we're on an accident scene" so it's going to be a while before anything substantive comes up.

Yes and no. The man sat in the captain's seat was F/O Lee Kang-gook. He's the one with 9,763 hours, 43 of which on the 777. He had previously flown to SFO 29 times on different aircraft. (Reuters). It was, though, his first attempt at landing at SFO. And was being supervised by: Capt Lee Jeong-min, who was sat in the co-pilot's seat, and had 12,387 hours, 3,220 on the 777. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-crash-asiana-20130706,0,54068.story http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/07/us/plane-crash-main/ Does make me wonder about the term Pilot in Command. Is that by definition the one with the stick, or the senior one who is supervising?