text:
Pontifications: The elephant in the room
June 17, 2019, © Leeham News: The Paris Air Show opens today and the elephant in the room is the Boeing 737 MAX.
There is no telling when the airplane will get FAA approval to return to service. According to some news reports, Boeing will hasn't turned over the MCAS revisions to the FAA for review, testing and approval.
The acting administrator of the FAA said he expects the MAX to be back in the air by the end of the year. Some leapt to the conclusion this means December—and it may, but let's remember September, October and November are before the "end of the year," too.
There's no telling how other global regulators will act, and when, to conduct their own review and approvals. Airlines would like a global action. It's tough to tell customers one country sees the airplane as safe but others don't.
Leeham News will be at the Paris Air Show this week, with coverage by Scott Hamilton, Bjorn Fehrm and Judson Rollins. All coverage will be open to all readers.
Safe fix, big, black eye
I'm confident the MCAS fix will make the airplane safe. LNA's Bjorn Fehrm, an aerospace engineer and former fighter pilot, wrote he has not hesitation about flying the airplane once it's got the MCAS fix.
My concern is, how can we be confident Boeing has told pilots everything there is to know about differences between the MAX and NG. There's been this stead drip, drip, drip of information coming about what Boeing knew and didn't tell pilots or the FAA.
The differences between training levels of competency across the globe, to me, mandate simulator training.
By now, there have been simulations on social media of MCAS "1.0" is virtually impossible for pilots to override. Aviation Week reported the simulation by pilots of one major US airline (there are only three that have the MAX), starting at 10,000 ft. Pilots were barely able to recover. They knew what was coming and why they were doing the simulation. The pilots of Lion Air had no clue what was happening and started at 5,000 ft. The Ethiopian pilots knew what was happening, but their event started at 850 ft and they never got higher than 1,500 ft.
Scott McCartney, the "Middle Seat" columnist for the Wall Street Journal and a private pilot, sat in the third seat of a simulator and flew the sim through MCAS 1.0 and 2.0. The 1.0 was virtually unrecoverable. The 2.0 was benign and easily recoverable.
Boeing continues to oppose sim training. Technically, there might be a valid argument to make.
To restore confidence in the MAX with the pilots and passengers, it should support sim training.
Little expected this week
Little news is expected this week about the MAX. Nothing is likely from the FAA or from Boeing. Certainly no orders are expected, though some good ones would be a real endorsement of customer confidence in the airplane if some were announced.
There won't be any announcement of an Authority to Offer the prospective New Midmarket Airplane (NMA, or 797) from Boeing. Any decision by the Boeing Board of Directors won't be forthcoming until the MAX position is clarified.
Any suggestion that Boeing will skip the NMA and go straight to a 737 replacement is also off the mark, in Leeham Co's view.
There are some 4,500 MAXes in backlog, which stretches well into the next decade. There's no new step-change engine to support a 737 replacement. There has been no market intelligence we've picked up—none, zilch, nada—in which Boeing has shown even a concept, let alone a design, to airlines and lessors of a 737 replacement.
Boeing isn't about to launch a new airplane without testing market reaction.
It's already been nearly seven years that Boeing has been talking about a Middle of the Market airplane, which has been a difficult project for which to close a business case.
A 737 replacement business case is pretty easy. But it isn't something that will be launched on a few months' notice.
So, no 737 replacement this week, either.
I often get asked, will Boeing and the 737 recover? My answer is, yes, absolutely.
Within a year or 18 months after the MAX is globally returned to service, and assuming no new accident associated with MCAS or some other design flaw, all will be forgotten by all but a few of the traveling public.
There will continue to be bad stories as federal, Congressional and accident investigation unfold. Lawsuits will keep the MAX in the news. Any new crash, or serious incident, will immediately raise questions about the safety of the airplane.
Image recovery depends, I think, on having the line pilots out front in a media blitz, not some "celebrities" that Boeing apparently has been thinking about, according to a Wall Street Journal article.
To me, and to passengers, there is one thing to keep in mind above all others: the first people to any accident scene sit in the cockpit.
If the pilots are confident in the fix (and simulators will help), then this should be the driving factor in restoring confidence in the airplanes.
I've already heard some airlines plan to simply quietly slip the MAX back into service. This is a poor move. Each carrier should have a pilot-flight attendant media team hitting their hubs and focus sittings to explain to the local press why they are confident the airplane is fixed and safe.
The head-in-the-sand approach is a disservice to the passengers and to their own flight crews, who will get questions from passengers. Reservations agents and airport personnel will also get questions.
All the MAX airlines need to prepare their employees up and down the line with briefings and answers.
This is unlikely to happen, though, making the MAX recovery longer and more difficult.
Category: Boeing, Boeing 737 MAX, ET302, Ethiopian Airlines, JT610, Lion Air, Paris Air Show, Pontifications
Tags: Boeing, Boeing 737 MAX, Ethiopian Airlines, Lion Air, Paris Air Show
← Bjorn's Corner: Why hybrid cars work and hybrid airliners have challenges
Looking at MAX beyond the grounding →
47 Comments on "Pontifications: The elephant in the room"
Grubbie
"Failed to communicate crisply "= we have been lying and covering up. I strongly suspect that there are more revelations to come.
I don't know how anybody can claim a software fix will make the airplane safe when Boeing haven't and refuse to explain why MCAS 1.0 was written in the first place and is so overwhelming aggressive in it's action.
Software fixes don't all of a sudden make an airplane stable. The laws of physics define the stability of an airplane not some software algorithm. The instability will still be there. The question is whether the sofware fix can prevent the instability crashing the airplane.
I don't have LNA (Bjorn's) confidence and won't have until Boeing explain the physics thereby explaining why MCAS 1.0 was developed in the first place and why it is so overwhelming aggressive in it's action.
As I said before, I don't think Boeing engineering exhibit collective incompetence or are collectively imbeciles. So there is a physical reason for MCAS 1.0. What is it?
Gundolf
If the solution to the problem could be found in a software fix and the connection to the second AOA sensor, it would long be in the hands of the FAA.
As it is not, my take is that the underlying stability problem is severe. And it's obviously quite different at high speed and at low speed. So instead of one MCAS we may need two!
No with two additional trim systems on top of the automatic trim we have three system that work in parallel. I don't want to be in the shoes of the programmers who try to make that faultless. And if it is possible at all, it will take a long time to develop and test. This would easily bring us to 2021 re-entry into service.
There is still a very good chance that this development will fail.
In this case we still need to address the fundamental problem, the insufficient aerodynamic stability. Gear, tail, pylons,…
Then what? Chapter 11?
Perhaps Chapter 11, but I don't really see what the exit strategy from that is. If Boeing does go down, it'll take a vast chain of suppliers with them. Does that go into Chapter 11 too? Where would the rot end?
It might be cheaper for Uncle Sam if they bought up Boeing.
And isn't there a bit of a problem with a bankruptcy, regarding continuation of their role as Design Authority for all their flying aircraft? If the company ceases to exist – even if only briefly – doesn't that mean all the aircraft have to be grounded too without adequate contingency plans for the DA role being in place? That could get very interesting, very quickly…
Aero Ninja
While I also would like to know why MCAS 1.0 was necessary and why they felt it had to be so aggressive (additionally why all of a sudden it does not need to be so aggressive?!), I wonder if any of the responsible certifying agencies will see these questions as being relevant to the issue?
Personally, I would take the view that the regulators were failing in their duty if they didn't find out why!
The regulators need to know the envelope of an airplane, with and without moderation using software algorithms in order to establish whether an airplane is safe. The FAA, EASA and others were NOT given the information. That in itself is a crime.
So, don't agree. The question isn't just relevant, I don't see how the MAX can be regarded as safe without the question being answered.
As I said software algorithms don't change the laws of physics. The instability is there. What is it?
My take is that the center of list is changing too fast and too far depending on the angle of attack and speed.
The large nacelles in the forward position in front of the wing must have a huge impact on the airflow over the wing behind and the stabilizer/elevator further back. And this effect varies with the airspeed, which is why the MCAS was extended from a high-speed system to a low speed system. Which apparently does not work quite a smoothly as expected.
I'd call this an unstable plane that could be flown safely only with a FBW system. Besides the fact that such an unstable plane would not be legal, this FBW system is just not available for the 737. It would basically mean a new plane.
Bringing an unstable passenger plane into service is a crime, covering it up by hiding the MCAS is the second crime.
I said the same a few months ago. Specifically, the pitching moment is accelerating with AoA.
The issue is inertia. Once the pitch up speed is there it is hard to stop, remembering that if the pitch up continues the wing will stall. So slam on the brakes before inertia sets in. That's the reason for the overwhelming aggression of MCAS 1.0. Slam on the brakes before inertia sets in, otherwise a stall can't be prevented.
Having said all that, we must remember that the stabiliser setting changed for straight and level flight from 0.6 to 2.5 (if my memory is right). So in straight and level flight the pitch up tendency is there.
"That's the reason for the overwhelming aggression of MCAS 1.0. "
Overwhelming aggression – I'll add that to my list of adjectives and adjective phrases.
Richard Davenport
from this web site http://www.b737.org.uk/winglets.htm#ATWinglets
they mention about the NG winglets..
"Operational Considerations
There is a small difference in rotation rate for airplanes with winglets installed and, as a result, the crew needs to be cautious of pitch rate. There is also approximately a ½ unit take-off trim change between non-winglet and winglet aircraft so the green band is slightly different for winglet aircraft."
I'm assuming the 737-MAX winglets might be even more of an effect. I assume 737-NG/MAX pilots are very aware of this caution.
A Jones
Phillip,
Move along, nothing to see here.
Basically, if they can get away with the not-so-robust minimal software fix in a global scale, it becomes much easier to blame the pilots if there isn't an MCAS to interfere and create incriminating evidence. Showing that the basic longitudinal instability caused a crash would be next to impossible if there is no obvious control system malfunction (see recent accidents involving 737NG: TAK363 and FDB981).
Real question is; will the foreign regulators, chiefly EASA, be able to block this strategy to make Boeing face the issue and provide a robust fix? I think it would take either a triple redundant AOA input or better yet, a passive aerodynamic fix (similar to a more horizontally oriented version of the ventral fins on the E-7A 737 Wedgetail).
…"next to impossible".
@ Philip,
I say "next to impossible", because having a neutered MCAS onboard opens the door for Boeing to claim, "well, the pilots must have known how to" if a crash is caused by instability, which would be difficult to argue with. Leaning on that argument is far less cut and dried than the explanation "a system malfunctioned" to blame the pilots.
To add to my no. It is basic functionsl testing to determine the envelope of an airplane. That means were the airplane is safe and stable. So determining longitudinal stability/instability is basic. Having done that we can all then know whether the pilots can fly the airplane safely with the software algorithms turned off.
Airbus has the concept of direct law to address my words above. Direct law means the software algorithms are turned off. All Airbus airplanes exhibit natural stability and can be easily flown by qualified pilots in direct mode. The software algorithms are nice to have but not necessary.
MCAS appears to be must have. Why needs to be explained?
This thrn comes to MCAS 2.0. MCAS 2.0 is significantly less aggressive. So it will be down to the pilots to control the airplane. They need to know what they are controlling. In other words they need to know the pitch instability and how to avoid it, if it can be avoided. Anyway the pilots should always know the airplane they are flying, with and without software algorithms.
Using fins is a possible hardware fix. I said it myself a long time ago. Much better to address the stabiliser/elevators. Much, much better to raise the undercarriage to allow a pylon to be used to mount the engine. Much, much, much better to do an NSA
The only folks to have flown a MAX without MCAS are Boeing's test pilots and the two crashes. Is that true? There is no way to 'turn MCAS off' from the cockpit. So as soon as you are flaps up and autopilot off, you'v armed MCAS. It does make you wonder why. And why more thought hadn't been put into the system. A typical 737-MAX pilot has never flown a 'naked' 737-MAX.
Keith Sketchley
You are at best guessing.
And haven't read Bjorn's articles on the reason for MCAS.
(Which by the way is not 'instability' but control feel approaching stall, which might contribute to a pilot pitching up into a stall in an emergency.)
An alternative explanation is that Boeing is being very thorough, triple-checking, as is the FAA – who may differ on some aspects, and are looking over their shoulder at other country's airworthiness authorities. Professional debates will occur, regulatory people sometimes get off track just as Boeing people do.
(There should be motivation to get the system right for sure, given that not being right the first time shows risk of poor work in general.)
The change probably includes not only walking back aggressiveness of the function, but logic of comparisons of AOA vanes – what threshold of difference, how much filtering (since momentary variation in vane position is possible), what speed to enable alerting to crew during takeoff roll, …. I'm guessing.
(And wasn't there a claim that Boeing found something in an unrelated part of the control computer's software so delayed to fix that?)
Sowerbob
The insouciance shown by Boeing for the first 6 months after the initial crash is coming back to hurt them. Simply if they had truly 'owned' the problem then they would be in a far better place now. They have upset powerful stakeholders in pilots, airlines, national regulatory bodies etc to such a degree that no one is inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Notice the silence of the past couple of weeks, it is almost as though Boeing is paralysed into inaction. They need someone untainted by the present issues to kick the 'group think' back into shape. They are going to take hits, legal, regulatory and financial but need to focus on the business at hand which is:
Re-certify plane
Recommence deliveries
Rebuild pilot confidence
Re-establish airline relationships
Regain public trust
A lot of RE..
Matth
The fact that Boeing is obviously still working on MCAS 2.0 seems to indicate, that the fix is not a simple and easy one as they keep claiming.
While it hopefully means, Boeing this time really wants to make sure they get it right, it raises more questions for me what it is that makes it so complex. Is it a physical instability that many imply, or is Boeing suddenly just so diligent?
The information provided does not make me feel confident, and I guess I'm not the only one.
The issue I think is that they've found that something MCAS-esque is required to make the aircraft's handling legal as per FAA requirements, but have come to realise that this cannot be met with a single software channel implementing the function. It needs a full, triplicate FBW system, but all they've got is a single compute platform; that's 2 short. My reasoning follows.
Note that this is more than a question of how many AoA sensors are being read. One sensor feeding a single computer is not enough. That's crashed twice now. Two sensors feeding a single computer still not enough, because you are effectively compelled (by certification requirments) to doubt that the single computer will react correctly to a failed sensor input (especially if it'd put 2.5 degrees down trim in if it got it wrong). Three sensors feeding three computers is enough, because by then you'd accept that the chance of all three computers and AoA sensors failing whilst still giving identical results (upon which the system would then act) is vanishingly small.
The alternative, i.e. to give pilots the option of power assisted manual control over the stabliser having turned off all the magic, cannot be implemented on the MAX either without wiring changes. Even if they did that, there'd then be huge pressure to train pilots in how the aircraft flew in that mode. And if Philip and Gundolf's suspicions about the true flying characteristic are correct, the certifying bodies may not let it fly at all in that mode.
Matt, this is the best reasoning I have seen as to what might be the hold up on the software fix. Again I think FAA will sign off on anything so long as noone else is watching. In this case, they have all those other regulators to worry about – mostly EASA.
By the time it's all said and done, it may very well turn out that a hardware/passive aerodynamic fix is cheaper than a triplex redundant FBW augmenting of the controls and/or alternate over-ride + extra training for the "direct-law". That would be a tough sell: Boeing would have to argue 'sorry folks, no the software fix wouldn't work, infect, we'd like to replace the MCAS 2.0 with a solid state aerodynamic fix'. And that would beg the question, why wasn't this done from the start? and there lies the dirty secret and the deceptive intent. In the end it will be a power struggle between the FAA and the rest of the world.
The MAX does have two FCCs, one for thr left seat, the other for the right seat. They do talk to each other; airspeed mis-match is an example.
Not an A350. The A350 has three primary and three secondary FCCs to allow voting. The secondary FCCs only run direct law.
Sorry Matthew, you used "software channel". The MAX has two FCCs and one software channel. A software channel looks at all sensors.
For example, on Airbus, that means each of the three FCCs looks at all three alpha vanes.
The two FCCs on the MAX look at their own sensors; for example left seat/left alpha vane and right seat/right alpha vane.
I stand to be corrected, but I don't think there is a Level D simulator for the MAX. Level D means the software algorithms can be turned off, meaning the pilots are truely flying the airplane. In Airbus terminology, direct law.
If I'm right, it should also be understood that it takes quite a long time to develop Level D simulators. So if Level D is required, returning the MAX to service by the year end is unlikely to happen!
Still think the MAX requires hardware changes!
First it was going to be June…then that became July, which slipped to August, and then September. Now it's "before the end of the year". It's hard to believe that a supposedly simple software fix is taking so long to get certified, so one starts to (strongly) suspect that there's a rat under the carpet that we're not being told about…
Scott, with your position that NMA will come before NSA, what sort of timeframe do you believe any NMA will force upon the earliest launch date for any NSA? Would it wait until any NMA EIS? First flight? Design complete? What year? Would it push any launch past the technologically/commercially optimal point?
Going to NMA dates, do you believe it can be launched while the current Boeing leadership is in place and the investigations into the FAA/Boeing relationship are still ongoing? My feeling is there is too significant a likelihood of enduring taint to launch until there has been seen to be some significant cleaning (preferebaly to include the replacement of Muilenberg).
Agreed. That there hasn't yet been a housecleaning at Boeing given what's already been reported is quite surprising.
In fact, one has to wonder if it's "just" a matter of "fixing" the bugs/defects in the MCAS software (or other aspects of the plane's aerodynamic's/mechanicals, etc.) to get it recertified for reentry into scheduled service, or more realistically, a matter of "fixing" the corporate culture that prioritized profits over the 346 lives that were lost – and put at risk each and every other person (passengers and crews) that ever stepped aboard any 737 MAX but for whom vital safety information and product defects were never disclosed to until several recent news reports which allege that either critical safety related information was deliberately concealed/withheld until only after 346 lives were lost in two (2) possibly entirely preventable accidents had that information been provided to regulators, pilots, airline managers and the traveling public in a timely fashion; and for another safety feature which the company decided "could wait until 2020" to begin undertaking an effort to update/remedy.
Sorry – NOT sorry!
But, asking the traveling public to trust the same people to oversee any "fixes" when they're the same ones who sat on their hands already is simply unacceptable as the problem is NOT just a defective product that needs to be repaired – but also the clearly defective decisions made by people who bear responsible for NOT acting immediately to disclose defects they were aware of, and who sure do seem to have taken a very casual approach towards scheduling the implementation of a fix three (3) years AFTER the defect allegedly was known by them.
In fact, it's not a matter of being "simply" unacceptable; but rather "wholly unacceptable" that the discussion to date seems to be confined to "just fixing" the defects of the the 737MAX, while overlooking the bigger picture of the abject immorality and moral bankruptcy of the people who made the decisions that were made, and in doing so, created, embraced, advanced and enabled a corporate culture that allowed this debacle to happen in the first place⚠
For Boeing to regain the public's confidence, they must do a lot more than simply "fix" a 50+ years ago designed and engineered platform for a long ago obsolete plane that probably should've never been built in the first place – but rather the people and the corporate culture they created must go, too, with new managers, and a more competent Board of Directors with expertise in aerospace and aviation instead of how best to make money.
And yes, agree 100% with Scott, too; pilots and crews should be the people who "sell" the plane to a public that has every right to be skeptical, including SIM time for pilots.
But, as Scott also noted, Boeing will probably blow that, too – or at least the current management and BoD will anyway – which is all the more of a reason why a thorough housecleaning is what's DESPERATELY needed at Boeing.
Paging Gordon Bethune…please pick up the RED courtesy phone for news of an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention…Gordon Bethune…please pick up the RED courtesy phone… a very sick Boeing needs you (or someone like you…) 😉
JMHO…
A house cleaning hasn't happened yet because if they fire those managers right away, legally it can be construed as indirect admission of fault on Boeing's part – that being said, the lists have probably been prepared for an extensive purge. They will most likely wait until the next big layoff to have a good fig leaf excuse, then "layoff" those managers in solidarity with the rank and file being let go (this is possibly coming to a Boeing site near you, and sooner than you think).
This is quote from a Reuters article, referring to things that Dennis Muilenberg said, "He said he expected the MAX to return to service this year and that 90% of customers had participated in simulator sessions with its upgraded MCAS software as the company works toward a certification flight with regulators soon. "
Don't Boeing usually refer to quarters to give themselves some leeway?
If he says he expects it to return to service this year, is that not the Boeingspeak of the last decade for, "It will probably be back in service around the first quarter of next year?"
Also, I wonder of Lion Air and Ethiopian are amongst that 90%?
If they were, would it not be wise for him to play that fact up?
Tim Nash
While Boeing wants to reinforce the FAA's position as the lead in returning the 737MAX to the air, if the FAA moves without at least european backing there is unlikely to be much confidence in the airlines or the flying public. This could lead to half empty planes and/or the need for sizeable reductions in fares. Neither will help Boeing get airlines to accept new deliveries.
The Chinese authorities are unlikely to finish recertification before the end of the trade war and given that neither Garuda nor Lion want the 737MAX, the Indonesian authorities won't accept it either to put pressure on Boeing to cancel their orders without penalty and pay compensation. This will lead to problems for asian airlines wanting to fly into their airspace.
Dave O'Flynn
> Leeham News will be at the Paris Air Show this week, with coverage by Scott Hamilton, Bjorn Fehrm and Judson Rollins. All coverage will be open to all readers.
This is a really nice touch. Thank you.
In terms of physical changes to the MAX it should be R.E.M. reed that this was indeed the recommendation of Boeings first chief test pilot on this aircaft – now retired.He felt and suggested that adding some additional vortex generators would help resolve the issue.It does not make him right of course,but he was overruled and the 1st gen' software was created.This then expanded when both high and low speed issues were uncovered.
It would be interesting to know how many times ( in the short time the aircraft has been operational) the software has felt it necessary to cut in and trim the aircraft.If the AOA is working correctly then it might be hard ( even to the pilots) to know. Whether they had 'help' because the software became 'worried' about the increasing AOA and – the consequences?
Boeing will no doubt know the answer to this question.
Did the chief test pilot say what the purpose was? Vortex generators can be used to create lift and destroy lift. Depends on where they are generated.
Either way they cause drag and therefore a fuel penalty.
Equally, care must be taken with the stabilise. Another commentator has suggested that the flow over the stabiliser ie bring disrupted causing elevator inoperability. A theory, but worth consideration
What new FAR's should be put in place from lessons learned on the 737-MAX?
One, that I'd like to see, is that any input control system affecting the major control surfaces, of the aircraft be fully described in the flight manual of the aircraft.
It's operational details, normal known fault limits and required override procedures and backup systems and procedures described. How Boeing was able to add an
additional control function (stall protection) to the (STS) speed trim system, without any explanation of it, to even its own test pilots, amazes me.
One that operated and depended on a single AOA sensor. With limitless (to the physical limit bounds of the trim system), activation ability. And with no ability to
switch it off. Are there any other changes on the 737-MAX, not fully described in the flight manuals?
Boeing has made references to their MCAS 2.0 change being limited, so as to not allow loss of elevator authority over the stabilizer. Still no OFF switch for MCAS,
in an emergency. So, ultimately, with the control column in one pilots lap, the other is still working with a hard to operate, manual trim wheel in certain instances.
No backup trim motor, no electric / hydraulic backup. Just a cable and pulley system to work with. At least a geared low/med/high manual shifting system would seem
to be in order. As in a bicycle, when you're going up a steep hill, vs when you're on level ground. So as to give the pilots a last fighting chance. Rather than some
dipsy-doodle flying technique that eats up thousands of feet of valuable altitude.
In the past, Boeing had large, design review meetings, with multiple groups involved. Your piece of the project was presented, and questions answered, from various groups.
By the end of the meetings you had a much better understanding of how everything worked together. I wonder how the MCAS change would have fared in that environment? Would
the only one AOA sensor be divulged and challenged? The reason for MCAS be looked at from different angles? It sounds like the MCAS change was reviewed and put into production
by just a few peoples knowledge. A small software change, ultimately controlling the pitch of the aircraft. Nothing for the FAA to review here.
One thing I don't understand. Is the root 'pitch up' at close to stall condition, (the reason for the MCAS change) caused entirely by the new engine placement? Is it just
the pitching force from the pivot point? Are there any other parameters such as the speed of the change? The acceleration of the engine being more powerful than previous
engine versions? I'm not that well versed in aerodynamics, but, a slow change of speed seems to me, to be less of an issue, than a sudden acceleration causing a pitch change.
Is MCAS software the best alternative? The Ercoupe, a stall proof aircraft, simply limits the ability of the control column. Could a similar system be employed to avoid
high AOA situation in the 737? A stiff spring is engaged on the control column over "X" degrees of movement? If a mountain appears on takeoff, then the pilot would still
have the ability to pull hard into the high AOA region, to try and avoid the mountain, being aware he needs to be more alert to a stall.
As regards to simulators. From what I understand (and that is not much), full motion, level D simulators are just that, simulations of the real thing. They are very good for
training devices, but, they weren't designed for hardware/software flight testing. The Flight control computer for the 737, is not built into the simulator. (I could be 100% on this, I don't have direct access to a simulator to find out). Any MCAS 2.0 software fix, can't be downloaded directly into a simulator. It would have to be described from the
FCC vendor, to Boeing, to the Simulator vendor, and then incorporated into the simulators own software. (Anyone that knows better, please chime in) So, if and when airlines have the OK to load new MCAS 2.0 software into their grounded aircraft, I hope they have some testing, verification of their own to see that it's installed correctly. Pilots
will then have a new control system installed into their aircraft, with no real ability to 'fly' with it, unless all of the changes had already been built into an updated simulator. Obviously, Boeing is flight testing the MCAS 2.0 changes, and hopefully an official Boeing test pilot report written for airline pilots, will be available. I don't
trust the FAA, looking over Boeing's shoulder at this point. I want a Chuck Yeager type to come out and say, I've flown this aircraft, under these conditions and here's what I found. To put his personal reputation on the line. The same with the engineering and software. I'd like to see the engineers on the firing line, not some manager. I want to hear from the Morton Thiokol engineer, not the manager that signed off, but, the engineer who wouldn't.
Richard, I get upset too. A great list of questions. All need to be answered!
Just a few more questions:
Why didn't MCAS 1.0 look at height and airspeed sensor data. Why didn't MCAS 1.0 look at inertial reference data, given they contain accelerometers.
Why the questions? MCAS 2.0 will now look at both alpha vanes but still ignore other data. Why? It takes a long time to write software algorithms that moderates numerious data inputs. So no, limit the inputs. The software algorithms becomes simple. But it doesn't work, as proven by two crashes.
Boeing is still mickey mouse relative to Airbus. If Boeing want to use software algorithms to control their airplanes they need to do a lot more thinking!
Lots more questions!
As an illustration of Boeing's Mickey Mouse-ness, look no further than their recent announcement that they were adopting a "model based systems engineering approach". Terrific. That's decades after everyone else, and I'm pretty sure NASA had a model based systems engineering approach back in the 1960s, i.e. back in the time the 737 was being developed.
Boeing feels like the sort of company that has got away with not doing systems engineering for a long time because there was no effective competition, and then it's run into a competitor that does do systems engineering properly (Airbus) and has not paid sufficient attention to that. And so they've got into trouble almost without realising it. How else does one explain why Airbus made the A350 6″ wider than the 787?
I strongly suspect that the current delays to returning the MAX to the skies are because the truth of what is actually required is slowly sinking into the minds of Boeing's management. However they're probably still asking questions like "are you sure?" and "can you have another go?". The fact that US politicians seemingly are now queueing up behind Boeing (and insulting pilots all over the world in doing so) is another bad indication that they've not fully accepted the situation they're in.
"Model based…". I noticed that too. Emperical science defines safety not theoretical science. If true, Boeing have lost it, big time.
Too true, Boeing seems to be affected by a paralysis of inaction. No one seems to believe in the MAX and they are going through the motions as if on strong tranquillisers. To think that we are looking at something close to 700 aircraft either grounded or not delivered by the back end of the year and still no design fix.
If, "Boeing (still) hasn't turned over the MCAS revisions to the FAA for review, testing and approval."
But on April 3, two and half months ago this read:
"(Reuters) – Boeing Co said on Wednesday its chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg, had joined a test flight on a 737 MAX 7 jetliner for a demonstration of updated MCAS anti-stall software.
During Wednesday's test flight, the flight crew performed different scenarios to test failure conditions, Boeing said.
"The software update worked as designed, and the pilots landed safely at Boeing Field (near Seattle)," it said in a statement.
"Boeing will conduct additional test and demo flights as we continue to work to demonstrate that we have identified and appropriately addressed all certification requirements. We will submit the update for FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) review once that work has been completed in the coming weeks."
Wonder what the hold up is on submitting MCAS 2.0?
No final accident reports have been issued yet. MCAS softwre has problems. That we know. But, the Lion Air aircraft had issues that seem to be more than just a bad AOA sensor. Multiple previous flights had airspeed issues. The installed a different AOA sensor and still had problems. Maybe there's other software issues in the air data computer software? The Ethiopean accident working therory is that a bird hit the AOA sensor causing a sudden large change. I don't know if anyone yet knows for sure. Again, a problem with the air data unit, or some other component might prove the problem, not the AOA sensor. If Boeing comes out with a fix for MCAS and then the final accident reports show that the cause is in another part of the software, or another part of the air data computer.. What then? Boeing probably has folks trying to help decipher the accident data, sifting out the true cause. They have to get it right this time, or go back to square one.
Not that I read.I think it was the New York Times article a few weeks back but not 100% certain.But I am 100% sure it was the previous chief test pilot who has now retired.And as I recall it was the 'mark 1" problem which was the AOA at higher speeds as I recall.The article definitely states that he suggested the application of vortex generators.I guess to kill some lift at a particular AOA.But as you say they do create drag.Also the common theme running through all of this is that it had to be 'just like the NG' so they probably didn't want to deviate too far and use a software correction.
This confidence is based on something other than actual facts; it's important to acknowledge that. Let's call it a "feeling" that attention is now being paid. Fair enough. As far as we know, erroneous activation of MCAS will still be possible with <5.5 degrees of discrepancy between the 2 AoA sensors. This means that STAB TRIM would need to be cutout. That leaves the pilots with only manual HS trim for the remainder of the flight. This, as we now know from a lot of anecdotal feedback from pilots, is a potential problem at some level of probability for a second event X, unrelated to MCAS (I am assuming that the pilots would fairly easily have re-trimmed the airplane first).
Boeing could restore the STAB TRIM switch and circuit architecture of the NG to the Max, thus providing an off switch for MCAS but maintaining pilot access to the HS electric motor. Such a step would cut through a lot of nonsense. Peter Lemme has gone into this in detail.
Scott wrote:
That's fine, but it rather assumes that an MCAS 2.0 system that is supposed to be limited in how much down trim it can generate is in fact genuinely limited, and that there are no fault conditions / failure paths leading to it acting inappropriately. Given that (AFAIK) there are only one FCS in circuit at any time on the 737, and that safety critical certification requirements demand 3, it's difficult to see where that guarantee comes from.
So yes, it may well have behaved nicely whilst a WSJ chappie was in the cockpit, but that's not the same as "safe to fly" under all reasonable circumstances. However it does indicate what behaviour an appropriate implementation should exhibit.
I wonder if Scott McCartney will get called as a witness against Boeing in the coming court cases?
There was a Wall St. Journal Article 6/20/2019 .. discussing the effort involved in moving the manual trim wheel in certain situations. Unnamed FAA and Boeing were reviewing the manual trim wheel procedures in terms of physical strength.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/physical-strength-of-pilots-emerges-as-issue-in-returning-737-max-to-flight-11560937879?mod=hp_lead_pos2&ns=prod/accounts-wsj
or the non-paywalled version The FAA today refuted some of the discussion
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/faa-says-pilot-strength-isnt-delaying-boeing-737-max-recertification.html
I have a simple solution. Change the two Stab Trim Cutout switches to work as they did on the original 737. That will give pilots something to do, when they see the AOA disagree light come on. Emergency Procedure step 1) flip Stab Trim Cutout switch #2 to OFF position, disabling the autopilot and MCAS. Step 2) fly the plane using manual electric trim. This would involve changing the switch wiring, repainting the switch panel and another page in the quick reference guide. No hand cranking of the trim wheel required. I wonder why they haven't thought of this yet? (and why Peter Lemme's doesn't have an answer from Boeing on why they changed the switch settings in the first place).
There's seems to be more focus on the trim system of the 737-MAX because of the inability of the ET 302 flight to move the trim manually at high speed.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-wp-boeing-737-max-cockpit-controls-20190620-2du2u45m7bdvnmvqhv3dqfxa6a-story.html
MCAS is part of the STS (Speed Trim System). Could the FAA / Boeing be thinking about limiting the amount of trim ability at high speeds on the 737's? It would have to be a fully FBW certified system, but, would limit the ability of the Stabilizer at high speeds. I can't think of any need for high trim settings at high speeds? If a pilot notices a mountain on go around, he'll be pulling up on the elevator, just long enough to clear the obstacles. This would help keep the aircraft in the safe zone of the flight envelope, from the trim point of view, still allowing elevator authority. The only bad thing I can think of would be working against a jammed elevator. You'd want all the trim ability you could muster then.
As for someone's claim that Boeing would not keep producing 737s if there were to be hardware changes, not just software changes, note that rework after rollout is often done. Yes, it is costly, but so is stopping and restarting a production line. Think it through as if you were in the shoes of Boeing's bureaucrats.
(Of course changes to computer and display hardware are easily done since those are in LRUs easily changed, though needing some testing after reinstallation.)
(Boeing may have a workforce problem – if they slash production rate people who get laid off may bail to other jobs to feed their families, etc. and not return soon if at all. Perhaps Boeing can convince more production employees to take vacation in this summer.
Technicians will be very busy once the software change is approved, depending in part on how much testing after installation is needed in this situation where some people may be concerned about the possibility of existing wiring errors. (Yes, I'm guessing, perhaps wiring checks can be done before then.)
We keep referring to Boeing's MCAS and Boeing's software changes, but, I'm guessing Boeing is really just directing, helping manage, and testing the software. The actual software being written and produced by a 3rd or 4th party. Actually, Boeing has outsourced for years, a lot of the avionics. As referred to in this article.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-setting-up-new-in-house-unit-to-build-avionics-controls/
And…. I don't think people commenting on 'model-based' know what they are talking about.
It isn't a panacea, and its usefulness depends on what the aspect being coded is – logic or user interface for example. And what is meant by 'model' – a display layout for example can be made graphically but the logic behind what to display when may be trickier.
Yeah, even Nancy A. Levenson misled in a trashy article someone published, her remarks did not cover practices in high integrity work like aircraft.
(And certainly we don't want 'model' to mean a theory that have not been checked against reality – the case with climate alarmists.)


text:
Kojo Antwi to host virtual concert
Legendary Ghanaian musician, Julius Kojo Antwi, has disclosed that he would be hosting a virtual concert in August.
Mr Music Man as he is also known, said it is important for artistes to put smiles on the faces of people in these difficult times.
"We are planning on hosting a virtual concert which will be happening in August so we can put smiles on the faces of people in these difficult times," he said in an interview on Top FM.
He further revealed that, he would release a new album, however, he didn't give details of the said album.
"There is a new album on the way as well. There are a lot of things on the way but I believe in actions than words that's why I don't talk too much.
"I would rather love to continue working instead of talking," he added.
Kojo Antwi stated that, he would be doing his virtual concert with different artistes such as Epixode and Dhat Beat God.
Other artistes to also feature include Krymi, Bless, Ofori Amponsah and all his artiste friends who are also in support of it.
SourceAngel FM | Elsie Takyi
Kojo Antwi
My mother doesn't watch my movies – Yvonne Nelson discloses
Kojo Antwi loses father
RTP Awards: Blakk Rasta returns all plaques to organizers and dissociates himself from scheme

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
10.13.20 — Events
Michael Mandiberg named a 2020 NYSCA/NYFA Fellow
Read on NYFA.
Congratulations Michael Mandiberg on receiving one of this year's NYSCA/NYFA Fellowships in Digital/Electronic Arts!
Michael Mandiberg in their studio, 2020.
NYFA has awarded $588,000 to 85 New York State artists working in Craft/Sculpture, Digital/Electronic Arts, Nonfiction Literature, Poetry, and Printmaking/Drawing/Book Arts.
The New York Foundation for the Arts (NYFA) has announced the 2020 recipients and finalists of the NYSCA/NYFA Artist Fellowship program, which it has administered for the past 35 years with leadership support from the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA). For the 2020 Fellowship year, the organization has awarded a total of $588,000 to 85 artists (including one collaboration) whose ages range from 28-73 years throughout New York State in the following disciplines: Craft/Sculpture, Digital/Electronic Arts, Nonfiction Literature, Poetry, and Printmaking/Drawing/Book Arts. Fifteen finalists, who do not receive a cash award, but benefit from a range of other NYFA services, were also announced. A complete list of the Fellows and Finalists follows. Since it was launched in 1985, the program has awarded over $32.5 million to more than 5,000 artists.
The NYSCA/NYFA Artist Fellowship program makes unrestricted cash grants of $7,000 to artists working in 15 disciplines, awarding Fellowships to five disciplines per year on a triennial basis. The program is highly competitive and this year's recipients and finalists were selected by discipline-specific peer panels from an applicant pool of 3,536 artists.
Each year, the NYSCA/NYFA Artist Fellowship offers a unique snapshot of contemporary arts across New York State. From almost 4,000 applications in five disciplines, there were key themes that emerged. Shining a light on the diverse cultural fabric that makes up the state were explorations of race and ethnicity, immigration, cultural displacement, and what it means to be a first-generation American as well as work that examines current political issues such as climate change, LGBTQIA+ rights, and racial and gender equality from highly personal perspectives.
"This year is an especially meaningful one in the long history of this program, as unrestricted artist grants are needed now more than ever," said Michael L. Royce, Executive Director of NYFA. "We are thrilled to partner with NYSCA to recognize artists of all disciplines across New York State with NYSCA/NYFA Artist Fellowships; to be selected by a peer jury is an incredible honor and hopefully a validating one no matter the artist's career stage," he added.
"The NYSCA/NYFA Artist Fellowship recognizes that artists of all disciplines, backgrounds, ages, and career stages are at the heart of our state's powerful creative ecosystem and make vital contributions to the diversity of expression in New York," said Mara Manus, Executive Director of NYSCA. "As our field faces innumerable challenges, we are proud to continue our partnership with NYFA to provide critical support to artists whose work helps build healthy communities in all regions of the state."
Tags: Michael Mandiberg, NYFA.


text:
Man sentenced to eight years in Village of Oak Creek child exploitation case
Richard Sumner
By Halie Chavez | @haliephoto
Originally Published: March 29, 2018 1:51 p.m.
CAMP VERDE – One of two men involved in a child exploitation case was sentenced to eight years in the department of corrections this week.
Richard Byard Sumner pleaded guilty to three counts of exploitation of a minor in December of last year. His attorney, Jonathan Cochran, asked the court to grant Sumner probation.
Sumner and his then-husband, Gary "Jay" Zimmerman, were both indicted on charges of child exploitation after law enforcement received sexually-explicit photos Sumner took of a minor in the Village of Oak Creek in 2014.
A woman Sumner knew received the photos from Sumner. She then delivered the photos on a CD to the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office.
An investigation uncovered the photographic evidence during service of search warrants in Long Beach, California, where Sumner was residing at the time of his arrest. He was extradited to Yavapai County.
State prosecutor Ethan Wolfinger confirmed that despite Sumner traveling with the photos on a cell phone and laptop across states lines from Arizona to California, it was unlikely that Sumner will face federal charges. All of the photos had been taken in Yavapai County, according to Wolfinger.
It was later determined that the victim was a minor older 15, not younger as the State previously determined. The prosecution determined through interviews the victim turned 15 two weeks before the incident.
The sentencing range for Sumner ranged from seven years of probation to 12.5 years of prison.
Wolfinger described the victim as "resilient" and did not cite emotional damage as an aggravating circumstance.
"The State would submit there really aren't mitigating circumstances … The [victim] coming into their lives was an opportunity for them to get sexual pleasure from taking advantage of a child. And I think that is the type of conduct that warrants a prison sentence," Wolfinger said.
Cochran told the court his client intended to use the photos against his ex-husband, Gary Zimmerman.
"This incident with the photographs began with the intent of Mr. Sumner having images to bring Mr. Zimmerman's conduct to light. Unfortunately, Mr. Zimmerman caught him, and in the context of a very violent and very abusive relationship, Mr. Zimmerman used that violence and manipulation to get Mr. Sumner to take additional photographs," Cochran said.
Judge Michael Bluff asked Sumner what he had to say.
"I truly regret not having the courage to come forward with this at the time … I see now where I could've done things differently. I could've turned in these photos earlier," Sumner said. "When I saw him with the victim that was the end of my marriage. I'm truly sorry."
Bluff told Sumner he was "fortunate" the victim was over the age of 15.
"I send a lot of young men to prison for most of their lives for looking at pictures – and you created them," Bluff said.
Bluff determined emotional damage to the victim was indeed an aggravating factor, citing body language of the victim in the video interview with Wolfinger. He did not find any mitigating factors.
"I also reviewed the video of the victim and I do find there was emotional harm to [the victim.] He seems to be doing OK, but I watched his mannerisms, I watched the way he answered questions – he's not OK."
Sumner was sentenced to a slightly aggravated term of eight years of prison as well as lifetime probation upon release. His co-defendant and ex-husband, Gary Zimmerman, is scheduled to be sentenced April 4.
Second man in VOC child molestation case sentenced to 32 years in prison
Man pleads guilty to charges in Cornville/VOC molestation case
Man involved in Village of Oak Creek child porn case pleads guilty
Man involved in child porn case set for trial
Man sentenced to 30 years for Rimrock burglary turned murder


text:
Return to U.S. Foreign Policy for the Middle Class: Perspectives from Colorado
Some politicians and policymakers contend that drastically reducing U.S. defense spending could make a big difference for the middle class. This could free up badly needed resources to address the broad range of domestic challenges Americans face. But in Colorado, the defense industry has substantial support and provides economic resources for many of its middle-class citizens.
Research Approach and Methodology
Top Middle-Class Concerns
Trade, Aid, and Immigration
Implications for U.S. Foreign Policymakers
Appendix A. List of Individuals Engaged, March–June 2019
Focus group participants and others interviewed pointed out that Colorado receives more defense dollars for personnel and contracts than most other U.S. states, in part because it has steadily become a leader in military aerospace and space over the last several decades. Its leadership role in those sectors has helped it grow its civilian aerospace industry and attract veterans and military retirees looking to start new careers. The defense sector now accounts for a sizable number of middle-class jobs, and it anchors the economy and community in El Paso (Colorado Springs), Colorado's second-most populous county. In other words, defense spending is seen to have a positive economic impact for the middle class in key segments of Colorado's economy and society. It is not self-evident, therefore, how Colorado's middle class would come out ahead by drastically cutting it.
However, some of those interviewed were worried that the United States spends far too much on defense. Some described defense spending as excessive and wasteful. Others stated that it has led to an overly militarized foreign policy and diverted resources away from vital, unfunded investments at home. Yet even some of these critics stopped short of calling for drastic cuts in defense spending because they feared a weakening of the U.S. military in a dangerous world or an economic blow to their own state.1 In other words, they believed the United States could not afford to spend as much as it did on defense, yet were also unsure if it could afford to be spending far less.
Colorado Is a Leading Defense State, Especially in Military Aerospace and Space
Many people in Colorado might find it difficult to advocate cutting defense spending because the state has spent the last several decades building up its leadership role in the military aerospace and space industries. That investment continues to yield economic dividends, including an increased number of defense personnel and contracts, which often generate middle-class jobs.
In 1951, the Chamber of Commerce in Colorado Springs formed a Military Affairs Council to petition the U.S. government to locate the newly created U.S. Air Force Academy in its region.2 Colorado Springs was already home to the Camp Carson Army Base (later renamed Fort Carson) and the Peterson Air Force Base, but the area was suffering from a recession. It needed a catalyst to lift the local economy and create jobs. Like so many other U.S. states, Colorado sought to increase its military role for economic purposes.
Colorado worked hard to win the bid to host the Air Force Academy over formidable competition from around the country. That was just the start of Colorado's leadership role in defense. Other notable military aerospace and space sites soon followed and grew:
At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. Air Force constructed a new military facility in the Cheyenne Mountains just outside of Colorado Springs. The Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station (CMAFS) initially hosted the Combat Operations Center of North American Air Defense Command (NORAD). The center's mission was to watch for ballistic and air attacks against North America.3 Since then, the Cheyenne Mountain CMAFS has continued to house additional elements of several other combatant commands, and NORAD is now defined as the North American Aerospace Defense Command.4
Peterson Air Force Base (AFB) in Colorado Springs hosts the headquarters of NORAD, the U.S. Northern Command, the Air Force Space Command, theS. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, and the 21st Space Wing.5
Schriever AFB in Colorado Springs hosts the 50th Space Wing, which is responsible for the operations and support of 185 DOD satellites.6
Buckley AFB in Aurora (near Denver) hosts, among other critical units, the 460th Space Wing that delivers "global infrared surveillance, tracking and missile warning for theater and homeland defense and provides combatant commanders with expeditionary warrior Airmen."7
In addition to these important aerospace and space capabilities, Colorado hosts the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, where soldiers are prepared and trained for the battlefield.8 The personnel at this base alone account for almost half of all military personnel in Colorado.9 And Colorado has been largely spared by successive rounds of base realignments and closures (though two important facilities in the Denver area, Lowry Air Force Base and Fitzsimons Medical Army Center, closed in 1994 and 1999, respectively).10
In total, there are eight major military installations and two smaller ones in Colorado and approximately 60,161 DOD personnel (of which 58 percent are active duty, 22 percent national guard and reserve, and 19 percent civilian). The federal government spent $3.5 billion on these personnel in FY 2017 and an additional $5 billion on defense contracts.11 To put things in perspective, it is useful to compare these amounts to those in Ohio, a state with almost double the population of Colorado (see Table 5).
Table 5: Defense Spending, Fiscal Year 2017
Colorado Ohio U.S.
Total Spending on Defense Personnel and Contracts (billions) $8.4 $7.0 $407.0
Personnel $3.4 $3.1 $135.3
Contracts $5.0 $3.9 $271.7
Total Spending as % of GDP 2.4% 1.1% 2.3%
Total Spending per Resident $1,498 $603 $1,466
Source: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, "Defense Spending by State: Fiscal Year 2017," Revised Version, March 2019, http://www.oea.gov/sites/default/files/fy2017-r2/FY2017_Defense_Spending_by_State_Report_Web_Version_20190315.pdf.
Many people interviewed in Ohio pointed to defense spending as one of the aspects of foreign policy that most affects the state's economy. It is not surprising that a greater number of those interviewed in Colorado did so, in even more strenuous terms. Overall, Colorado ranks tenth in the nation for defense spending on military personnel based in the state, thirteenth in the actual number of defense personnel, fourteenth in total defense spending per resident, and seventeenth for defense contract spending.12 And while it is not in the top tier in terms of defense spending as a percentage of GDP, it is nonetheless still ahead of most other U.S. states, as indicated in Figure 9.
As one of the planners with the Army Corps of Engineers indicated during an interview, the Corps alone was spending roughly $300 million per year on infrastructure and security at the Buckley, Peterson, and Schriever AFBs; Fort Carson; and other areas in Colorado. It was building water systems, roadways, bridges, and electrical grids and investing in cybersecurity.13
Colorado will likely move further up the list of U.S. states benefiting from defense spending if it becomes the permanent home of the unified Space Command (USSPACECOM). The DOD formally established USSPACECOM on August 29, 2019, at Trump's direction, and it is temporarily headquartered at Colorado's Peterson AFB, with additional personnel and functions at Schriever AFB, Colorado; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; and Vandenberg AFB, California.14 Further consolidation of Colorado's leadership role in military aerospace and space could complement its brand as a leader in the aerospace industry, in general. Colorado is perennially among the top states securing NASA contracts (totaling $1.8 billion in 2017, or 13 percent of the nation's total). The Air Force Academy and CU Boulder offer two of the nation's top aerospace engineering degree programs. Eight of the United States' biggest "prime" aerospace contractors are based in Colorado. As of 2016, Colorado hosts the second-largest number of aerospace industry jobs of all U.S. states. And Denver's metropolitan statistical area has over 21,000 aerospace industry employees, surpassing any other big metropolitan area in the country.15
Thus, to speak about defense spending in generic terms, as if it were just about spending "x percent" any given year, fails to take into account the bigger picture. Some states like Colorado successfully establish comparative advantages in their military capabilities and leverage those advantages to complement or support wider economic development strategies. In the case of Colorado, the state's leadership in aerospace and space has helped it capture highly skilled jobs within the defense sector and bolster its R&D sector.
Colorado's Defense Sector Generates Middle-Class Jobs
In addition to the over 60,000 military and civilian personnel employed by the DOD, the defense sector also encompasses contractor personnel, veterans, military retirees, and employees with the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as workers in other industries spurred by defense activity. By one study's account, in 2016, the defense sector directly and indirectly accounted for up to 247,000 jobs in Colorado and about 7.5 percent of the total state wage and salary employment.16 In many, but not all, instances, defense sector jobs support middle-class households.
Active military personnel generally fall within the middle-income band, though officers at the highest ranks break into the upper-income bracket. According to representatives of the military community interviewed for this study, once enlisted personnel get to the rank of E-5 (for example, a sergeant in the Army), they can start earning enough to sustain a modest middle-class lifestyle. Personnel also gain skills, such as in combat medics and signals, that can later help them break into related middle-income jobs in the private sector.17
Veterans make up almost 10 percent of Colorado's adult population (in comparison to 6.6 percent nationwide), and their income can vary considerably.18 Many have opportunities to earn wages that afford them a middle-class lifestyle. Some veterans earn upper-income salaries with defense contractors, as their clearances and skills are particularly desired. Focus group participants in Colorado Springs noted that there are also many veteran-owned businesses that serve as key subcontractors for companies such as United Launch Alliance, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin.19 Other veterans (notably at retirement age) may just be living off their Pentagon pensions. The sheer number of veterans also creates employment opportunities for other Coloradans, including at the Department of Veterans Affairs and its new hospital in Denver.
The variety of jobs spawned from defense spending illustrates why people might associate the defense budget with the middle class. At the top end, former senior military engineers can go on to work in the aerospace industry, where salaries top $130,000 on average per year.20 Many others might not reach six figures but nonetheless can earn solid middle-income salaries, including in construction-related jobs.21
But it should also be noted that not all military personnel are guaranteed a middle income. According to focus group participants in Colorado Springs, not all enlisted personnel reach the E-5 rank before completing their military service or perform functions that could earn them a middle-class job after their service. This is especially true in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, where there are many combat troops and turnover is high. Base pay for enlisted personnel starts around $20,000, which does not meet the middle-income threshold (though they receive healthcare, housing, food, and other allowances).22 Therefore, enlisted personnel who leave the service before rising up the ranks enter the civilian workforce without savings, the demanded skills, or a college degree that could help them land a better-paying job with defense contractors or private sector companies. In response, the U.S. military has invested in transition support services for departing military personnel. But as this is not always enough, veterans have also been dependent on the goodwill of local businesses and the support of nonprofit organizations—both of which are abundant in Colorado Springs.23
The Defense Sector in El Paso Creates Prosperity and Challenges
While those interviewed noted the importance of defense spending for the state as a whole, 90 percent of DOD personnel are concentrated in just two counties—El Paso and Arapahoe—with El Paso having the lion's share between them. El Paso is the second-most populous county with over 700,000 residents, and the majority live in Colorado Springs.24 As shown in Figure 10, the county hosts eight of the ten military presences in Colorado and accounted for $2.1 of the $5 billion in defense contracts awarded in the state in FY 2017.25 The defense sector impacts all parts of the economy and society in El Paso.
According to one study, the defense sector directly and indirectly accounted for about 41 percent of El Paso County's total labor income in 2016.26 A sizable portion of that income stemmed from military retirees and veterans. El Paso hosts the largest percentage of veterans in the state, though a sizable number also live in and commute from neighboring counties, where housing costs are lower.27 Focus group participants in neighboring Pueblo County, for example, stressed that many members of their community also depend on defense spending in El Paso for their livelihoods, as a significant number of them commute to the Colorado Springs bases.28
Focus group participants explained that a tight-knit community has developed in the region, comprising military personnel and their families, veterans and military retirees, local businesses, and nonprofit and faith-based organizations. And this community looks after its own. For example, one participant conjectured that her daughter, who was one of those leaving the military at a junior rank, "probably [still] had a higher likelihood of getting a job straight out of the military than she would straight out of college."29 That confidence appeared to stem from the benefits of living in Colorado Springs, where local businesses went out of their way to hire veterans. Other focus group participants recalled local businesses in Colorado Springs offering temporary jobs and discounts to furloughed defense personnel during government shutdowns.30
El Paso's economic fortunes have risen and fallen with major fluctuations in the defense budget. Focus group participants in Colorado Springs stressed that the local economy took a clear hit when defense spending cuts associated with "sequestration" kicked in between 2011 and 2015.31 While defense personnel, small businesses, and local communities have shown the ability to work together to weather temporary downturns, the region's economy would be devastated by drastic cuts in defense spending over a sustained period of time. Community and business leaders recognize this danger and stressed the importance of advancing economic diversification in military towns. In the case of Colorado Springs, this means growing other industries, such as cybersecurity, that leverage the presence of former military personnel with security clearances.32 One focus group participant described the conundrum: "We don't want the balance we have right now where it's so high in the military. We'd rather this other sector grow so we can absorb the hits. But also the DOD allows us to absorb the blows when other industries in town take a hit because the legs are so long and relatively solid."33
Concluding Thoughts: Moving Beyond a Binary Choice on Defense Spending
Those who work in and around the defense sector tend to think of it as an important source of good middle-class jobs. Therefore, they see Colorado's middle class as having benefited considerably due to the military role the state has cultivated and built upon over the last several decades. That is why they might push back against those who argue that cuts to defense spending are required to help the middle class.
Yet there were Coloradans who cautiously supported defense cuts that, among other reasons, would eliminate wasteful spending and make U.S. foreign policy less oriented around the military. However, those expressing such views tended not to be in one of the four counties in Colorado where defense spending is concentrated, particularly El Paso.
Economic developers in El Paso were nonetheless among the most vocal proponents of diversifying their economy, because they have lived through the pain associated with downturns in defense spending. They clearly have compelling reasons to continue developing other industries. And it seems to be in the interests of those on all sides of the spending debate that they do so.
Decisions on defense spending levels in the years ahead should ideally flow from assessments about the evolving threats the United States faces and the military capabilities and capacity it requires to meet them. In Colorado's case, that could mean sustaining or investing even more in the units it hosts, because military aerospace and space capabilities could become even more important in an era of rapid technological advances and increasing competition among major powers. Yet places like El Paso cannot afford to assume that will be the case. The economic costs of being wrong could be dire. And defense priorities and the politics around defense spending could shift decisively and unexpectedly.
Regardless of which side of the argument politicians and policymakers may fall, they should find common ground in advancing ideas on how to help communities heavily dependent on defense spending to more rapidly diversify their economies. In some cases, the goal might be to help communities better prepare for, and weather, temporary fluctuations in defense spending. In other cases, it might be to give Pentagon leaders' greater flexibility to shift resources in relation to evolving threats, or it might be to enable significant reductions in defense spending over the longer term.
1 S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, B. Lewandowski and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Durango, February 25, 2019; S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Denver, March 19, 2019.
2 Cynthia Ambriz, "United States Air Force Academy," Colorado Encyclopedia, last modified November 25, 2018, https://coloradoencyclopedia.org/article/united-states-air-force-academy.
3 North American Aerospace Defense Command, "Cheyenne Mountain Complex," https://www.norad.mil/About-NORAD/Cheyenne-Mountain-Air-Force-Station/.
5 Peterson Air Force Base, "21st Space Wing: About Us," https://www.peterson.af.mil/About/Welcome-to-the-21st-Space-Wing/.
6 Schriever Air Force Base, "The 50th Space Wing," https://www.schriever.af.mil/Units/.
7 Buckley Air Force Base, "460th Space Wing," https://www.buckley.af.mil/Units/460th-Space-Wing/.
8 U.S. Army, "Fort Carson: 4th Infantry Division," https://www.carson.army.mil/units/4ID.html.
9 Summit Economics, "The Economic Impact of Department of Defense, Veterans and Military Retirees, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Activities in Colorado," December 2017, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59fba45ddc2b4ac95abbef63/t/5ce54a233e26da00018fd20b/1558530600071/2017+-+31+page+Abridged+Mil+Study+5-10-2018+%28Final%29.pdf.
10 Bruce Watson, "Denver's Lowry Air Force Base Defies the Odds After the Military Departs," AOL.com, August 17, 2010, https://www.aol.com/2010/08/17/denvers-lowry-air-force-base-defies-odds-after-the-military-dep/, accessed May 2019; and U.S. Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment, "Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado," October 2017, http://oea.gov/project/fitzsimons-army-medical-center.
11 U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, "Defense Spending by State: Fiscal Year 2017."
13 S. Ahmed, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, interview with planner with the Army Corps of Engineers, Colorado Springs, April 3, 2019.
14 U.S. Department of Defense, "Department of Defense Establishes U.S. Space Command," August 29, 2019, https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1948288/department-of-defense-establishes-us-space-command/; and United States Space Command, "United States Space Command Fact Sheet," https://www.spacecom.mil/About/Fact-Sheets-Editor/Article/1948216/united-states-space-command-fact-sheet/, accessed September 4, 2019.
15 Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, "Aerospace," http://www.metrodenver.org/industries/aerospace/.
16 Summit Economics, "The Economic Impact of Department of Defense, Veterans and Military Retirees, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Activities in Colorado."
17 S. Ahmed, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Colorado Springs, April 3, 2019.
18 National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "State Summary: Colorado," September 30, 2017, https://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/State_Summaries_Colorado.pdf.
19 U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, "Defense Spending by State: Fiscal Year 2017;" and Salman Ahmed, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Colorado Springs, April 3, 2019.
20 Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, "Aerospace."
21 Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages," www.bls.gov, accessed June 20, 2019.
22 Defense Finance and Accounting Service, "2019 Military Active & Reserve Component Pay Tables," April 2019, https://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/payentitlements/Pay-Tables.html; S. Ahmed, B. Lewandowski, and R. Wobbekind, focus group, Colorado Springs, April 3, 2019; and U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, "Defense Spending by State: Fiscal Year 2017."
27 National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "State Summary: Colorado."
28 S. Ahmed, A. Gelman, and B. Lewandowski, focus group, Pueblo, March 5, 2019.


Reading this book is a truly magical and uplifting experience that should not be missed. Read it today!
This book is also available as a part of a story bundle under the name The Delilah Dusticle Adventures.
5.0 out of 5 starsDelightful !
Eliza Bluebell comes to town. She is unique, her shadow is her best friend. Together she and her shadow open a sweet shop and the whole town is in awe and happy.
An original and fun story with lovable characters and magical happenings. A pure delight for middle school readers and adults young at heart. I highly recommend Eliza Bluebell to all. Also recommended Delilah Dusticle and Delilah Dusticle's Transylvanian Adventure also by A.J. York.
Eliza Bluebell has a special talent; her shadow is a separate entity and is invisible to all bar Eliza. When Eliza and her shadow arrive in Blossom Brook they begin running a tearoom on the high street. On the side, Eliza and her shadow help members of the community with any problems they might be having.
This is a delightful chapter book! Some magic and humour, and a lesson that helping others can be very rewarding. The language is simple with short chapters, perfect for younger children. Each chapter began with a black and white silhouette illustration of the main theme of the chapter. The flow of the story was very smooth without the interruption of illustrations within the text. I love the cover of Eliza Bluebell too, it's so simple, yet striking.
Eliza is a bit like Mary Poppins, arriving when needed, and leaving quietly when she is no longer required. She is kind and gentle, while her shadow is quite cheeky. I really liked grumpy old Mr Groop, with his sour expression and insistence on telling the bus driver how late the bus is running. I'm glad someone was able to cheer him up though!
Eliza Bluebell is suitable for lower and middle primary school students. It would make a great read for early independent and reluctant readers, as well as being a nice story to share. I liked this story very much, and I hope there will be more Eliza Bluebell adventures in the future.
This was a very sweet novella! It is touching and heartwarming to see how Eliza helps each of the residents of Blossom Brook, from the young to the old.
Eliza has a bit of magic in her; her shadow is its own person, and Eliza is great friends with it. When she arrives in Blossom Brook, she fixes up a dilapidated old shop and turns it into something wonderful and new and improves everybody's lives.
I enjoyed Eliza's kind disposition, as well as the interactions between her and her shadow, not to mention the interactions with the townspeople.
In each chapter there was a person who needed assistance, and you got to see how Eliza helped them. Each person had a different problem, but each received an equally good solution.
Each chapter is a story in itself, and you can read one without having any cliff hangars thrown at you, which, for this story, works.
I would definitely recommend this one, and it should appeal to both children and adults alike, as long as the adult in question doesn't mind a simple, easy read.
5.0 out of 5 starsSimply Magical!


Organised by Morningside Tenants and Residents' Association, with support from Sanctuary Housing, the event took place at Morningside Community Centre, in Cresset Road, with more than 100 people of all ages attending.
They enjoyed music, games and a traditional Christmas lunch, generously provided by the Tesco superstore in Hackney.
Meals were served up by volunteers from the local community and there were chocolates and some early Christmas presents for all the children who attended.
Nicolette Nixon, chair of Morningside Tenants and Residents' Association, said: "The Christmas party is a chance for residents to come together and enjoy a real seasonal celebration.
Toby Moore, Sanctuary's neighbourhood partnerships manager, added: "The Morningside Christmas Party is a wonderful social occasion that always gets everyone into the festive spirit.


How's everyones Monday going so far? If you're home, hope you're enjoying it, if you're working, hope you're not suffering, and finally, if you're home and working, you're just like me :).
with crunchy little baby carrots on the side.
Next up, a delectable D'Anjou pear for dessert. Such an American lunch, love it. How's that for a lunch break quickie? ;) Gotta run to catch the train... off to have some fun in NYC!


The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company was founded in 1990 by Harvey Firestone in America. Its purpose was to manufacture pneumatic tyres for buggies, wagons and other kinds of wheeled transportation back in the day. Later, the marketing potential in terms of tyres for automobiles increased. Therefore, the company was one of the first to mass produce tyres for vehicles. The founder of the company was a friend of Henry Ford, so he was also supplying equipment to the Ford Motor Company. The company was later sold to the Japanese Bridgestone Corporation in 1988. Their tyres are high-quality products meant to ensure the safety of a car's passengers. They live up to the expectations of the customers and help you have a great winter. Extreme weather conditions can happen anytime during the cold season, so it's better to protect yourself. Firestone winter tyres are great in providing you with the best driving experience during this time of the year.
Winter can be ruthless. It comes with temperatures that make you tremble and sometimes even extreme weather conditions and intense snowing. Roads can become very dangerous, as ice makes them slippery and you risk a lot without Firestone tyres for SUVs or smaller cars. The company provides great services for good costs and it has many great models, like Firestone Winterhawk 3, Firestone Vanhawk Winter, Firestone Destination Winter and Firestone Winterforce lt 275 65r20. Winterhawk 3 has been tested and is meant to offer you amazing performances on the roads during winter. Their stability and reliability are why they are so successful and so preferred by customers. So, keep in mind that Firestone winter tyres offer comfort and stability to ensure your security.
Customers are seeking high-quality tyres, so they don't have to worry about the ice on the roads. You can rely on Firestone winter tyres, as they are manufactured specially to help you cope with the weather conditions. The Firestone tyres cost is quite low, so you'll have no problem in getting them. You can find them on eiretyres.com to help you stay safe during the whole season.


Buy your bird feed from Original Organics to get the highest quality produce at the best prices. Our range of bird feed includes aviary favourites like dried mealworms, suet cakes, fat balls, bird nuts, and more. Our bird feed favourites will attract wild birds to your garden in no time, and keep them fit and healthy to boot. With many items on sale, you'll find the best prices for all your bird feed here.


EVERYTHING ON 1 FLOOR!: This Ranch Home has not only the Laundry but also a large Storage Room with plenty of Shelves in the oversized Garage. UPDATED: Renovated Kitchen--all newer Appliances, Cabinetry, Fixtures, and Floors. Newer Mechanicals - Forced Air Heat & AC and Water Heater installed in the last few years. New Landscaping, Brick Walkway, & Edging make the house stand out. GREAT LIGHT: The Living Room Sliders extend the Space onto the Patio and Large Fenced Yard on warm, summer days. SO CONVENIENT: Just a mile to Lake Ontario, 2 miles to Wegmans/Wal Mart and 15 minutes to downtown Rochester. PLENTY OF WORK SPACE: Attached Garage has a Workspace with a Sliding Door to the Backyard. Work Shed with electricity (and more storage space) ready for some great projects or activities.


Here is a great looking Stone Coated Steel Roof that we installed in Mokena IL. We also replaced the skylights with new Velux Skylights for this homeowner! They can rest easy knowing the new metal roof with last for decades, and the skylights will keep up too!
This home in Mokena lost the gable when a storm blew through the neighborhood. After a thorough examination, we replaced the entire left side of the gable in the back of the house. Good as new!
This homeowner had 5 year old fiber cement siding that wasn't very good quality. We replaced it with the industry leader, James Hardie, and now this home looks beautiful once more!
We are looking to get our house vinyl sided and possibly a new front door.
I am looking to obtain quotes for a new roof.
Looking to replace my whole house siding that is 30 years old with hardie board siding also gutters sofit fascia etc , I just had my roof replaced summer 2016 we have a square colonial hoping to give it a new look would like finance options also .
Second floor cedar siding is rotted where siding boards meet edge of first floor garage roof. Same area where rain water from second floor gutters empties onto garage roof and runs down to garage gutters.
Stan's Roofing & Siding has served the residents of Mokena since 1967 with a wide range of roofing and siding services. Our employees are professionally trained and capable of installing or repairing your roof or siding quickly and efficiently.
Our crew carefully removed all damaged framing and insulation and replaced it.


When your roof is leaking or needs repair it is best to let the professionals handle such jobs. Finding the right company to handle it can be hard but with a little research you can find one near you that works. Having a family owned and operated business is best because they can take care of you the way you deserve to be taken care of. They are passionate about their company and their jobs.
They really work to take care of you so you are happy and their company is happy. The company you choose should be fully insured and have experienced roofers that have the skill and talent you need to get the job done right. The jobs should have 5-year workmanship guaranteed on them so you know your house isn't going to fall apart in another year or two. The people that come to your house should be extremely safe professional and clean. They will take all the debris they have taken off your house and haul it away off of your property. They will make sure the house looks new. Every nail and small piece of debris will be gone.
The first step to laying a roof is putting down Ice and Rain Protective Underlayments. This goes in all the creases and edges of your roof. Ice and wind driven rain are the biggest causes of roof leaks. This will help prevent water from penetrating your roof. It is great for skylights and decks as well. It has a self-adhesive backing on it to seal around nails to make it water-tight. It will help extend the roof life as well.
The second step is underlayments. The underlayments go over the entire roof. It is made of either organic, fiberglass or synthetic materials and it is used to prepare the roof deck and be an extra reinforcement that will protect the roof.
Shingle Starter is what goes all along the border of the roof. It adds speed and convenience to the roof installation. They make the job more accurate and neat. Next are the shingles. These are the pieces of material that lay over each other and go over the entire house. There are many styles colors and materials that shingles are made out of as well as quality.
The next step is to cement or sealant. These products will help maintain or repair leak areas as well as hold the shingles down. Good ones will last you a very long time.
Roof ventilation goes at the peak of the roof. Every one of them should have proper ventilation. Hip and Ridge shingles go over the ventilation.


The auction there is mine, how come I did put "You'll never going to pay"?! I myself payed over $1500 for it and almost 3 years hunting one (the 3 years alone is worth $1000!). I don't believe you'll ever find another one in this state (is trully MINT)... this is what I mean there (I hope). Btw, is very possible I sold it... we're still in deal.
Huey is in pure jealousy mode.
The guy did a good deal, both of them. Some items are really rare and you just can't find them anymore.
Well, that Comic Bakery started at about 10€ and it was bidded by many people to 300€, so it wasn't overpayment. One could of course argue if it's reasonable to offer that kind of amount for old game.
No Aki, you can't have it for 200, but you will get a 10% discount!!...promotion fee!!
Confirmed, my GT was SOLD today.
This way, the auction is now ended.
I also sold my Moonsound, FM-PAC and PAC.
Another auction with rating R for Ridiculous .
US$ 850? Pretty normal, I even saw over $700 (months ago) directly from Japan.


You know that song "Angie" by the Rolling Stones? Yeah, this one. I love it. I guess it was only a matter of time until I named a lady after that song.
I usually sing it to guys named Andrew. Especially if they hate being called Andy. I'm good fun like that.
Angie was drafted up at the same time as Doris. Doris may be in the gutter, but Angie is staring at the stars. I put the two ladies together on the front of a hoody. They're partners in crime.
Obviously I fucked up the quoting verbatim bit and used 'staring' instead of 'looking'. I'm an artist, I can be creative like that. Lol.
If you like Angie on her own, you can purchase the t-shirt here.


Leaving aside the headline that asserts the 'envy of Europe' as a present and existing fact, when even the writer, Prof Harvie, only puts it up as a 'potential'; although that may not be any sinister framing of the debate by the Scotsman so much as the kind of error that ever reducing staff levels tend to lead to at ever more deserted subs desks; this kind of screeching hyperbole has been thuddingly familiar throughout the project.
It contrsats with the reality that the nearer we get to opening day the less we have in the way of any factual justifications being offered for the past, present and, sadly, ongoing disaster the project has been, is and will continue to be.
Instead, as in this article we are left with nothing but the echoes of that hubristic hyperbole that has been such an un-Edinburgh like feature of the whole thing.
Now, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, the last piece of justificatory effort left hanging in the air after the everything else, is the hyperbole and hubristic spin.
Increasingtraffic congestion bringing the noise, disruption, pollution and danger to more and more residential streets: Not inevitable traffic increases yet to be tackled by our dynamic council--but predicted and avoidable increases caused by our council's blind allegiance to a flawed tram plan.
The huge opportunity costs that will continue for the next three years, and be measured by the £25M a year (or is it £30M) costs of financing the final pay day loan that the council were strong-armed into taking by Holyrood in 2011.
The continuing incomptence, or negligence -- or worse-- in project management that means the exact losses every year are still unclear, partly because they are constantly being covered up: For example the way a £2.5M a year 'opearting contribution' asserted confidently in a key report to councillors in 2011, that became less than 2 years later...in an era of low inflation and with no material major changes to the conditions of the tram's operation...a £3M a year loss (at least).
These are just some of the facts to weigh against the kind of brittle argument of the tram's supposed glamour however much this may overawe the simple minded Europeans visiting the city.
Indeed the 'Glamour of the Trams', as presented in the article is a two edged sword of course - less the grin of a Cheshire Cat of a fact-lite justification, and more a leer.
The glamour of the Edinburgh route depends on the visual appeal of the route out of Shandwick Place and up Princes Street to St Andrews Square, not even the most fervent fan of Edinburgh would advance the description of the section from the Bypass along the industrial estates, suburbs and Business Parks as being one 'glamour' likely to be the envy of any part of Europe.
However there may be a danger, that glamorous as the view from Princes Street will be, even for those tired visitors distracted by having to wrestle with baggage and, possibly, small children , there may be a danger other cities could well try and usurp our title of 'most glamorous', and make them the object of our gnawing envy!
For example all the Pope needs to do is build a tram around St Peters Square, the Parisians send one along the garden infront of the Eiffel Tower to cut through it's base, President Obama respond by taking a tram from the Washington Monument on a track over the lake and around the Capitol Building through the White House grounds, and the Indian Government build one that goes over the ornemental pool and around the Taj Mahal and where would our claim to world leading glamour be then?.
Although on reflection I think we're probably going to be OK.
It's hard to see the people responsible for those cities and monuments being lured by the prospect of creating the most glamorous tram route in the world by grievously damaging the view itself in the process, and it's appeal for the very much greater number of people not trundling ON the tram but trying to find a viewpoint not obscured by either the tram itself or it's wires and poles.
Lets hope the Council don't get enthusiastic about creating the most glamorously sited household waste recycling plant in Europe --- while I think recycling is a brilliant idea, I do like Princes Street Gardens just fine as they are now.