Sunday, March 17, 2019
South Africa sweep Sri Lanka series after floodlight failure
The home side then reached 135 for two after 28 overs and were well on course for victory when one of the five floodlight pylons at the ground failed to fire.
South Africa completed a clean sweep of their five-match one-day international series against Sri Lanka with a 41-run victory via the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method on Saturday as the final match at Newlands was ended prematurely by a failed floodlight.
After electing to bat, Sri Lanka were bowled out for 225, three balls short of their 50 overs, for another below-par score in a series where they have found no answer to South Africa’s rampant pace and spin attack.
The home side then reached 135 for two after 28 overs and were well on course for victory when one of the five floodlight pylons at the ground failed to fire in the growing gloom.
Despite the other four providing illumination, the umpires deemed the conditions unsafe for the players and, after a two-hour delay, called off the contest.
Kusal Mendis (56) top-scored in the Sri Lanka innings before he was run out, a wasteful end to an impressive half-century.
Priyamal Perera (33), Isuru Udana (32) and Angelo Perera (31) all got starts but could not go on as Sri Lanka lost wickets at regular intervals, with seamer Kagiso Rabada (3-50) the pick of the home bowlers.
Opener Quinton de Kock’s run of five straight half-centuries came to an end when he was dismissed for six in South Africa’s reply, but Aiden Markram gave his World Cup chances a boost with an unbeaten 67 from 75 balls before the players left the field.
The teams will now contest a three-match T20 international series that starts in Cape Town on Tuesday.
Manohar Parrikar, Goa Chief Minister passes away after a long battle with pancreatic cancer
source http://www.ncairways.co/india-news/manohar/
40 LS seats in Bihar: NDA takes lead in announcing candidates, Others lag behind
source http://www.ncairways.co/india-news/bihar-nda/
Q&A: A look the Ethiopian Airlines crash and investigation
The search is ongoing for answers in the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines plane shortly after takeoff for Nairobi on Sunday, killing all 157 people on board.
Ethiopian authorities said Wednesday that they will send the flight recorders recovered from the plane to an as-yet-unspecified European country for analysis.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said “new information” indicated some similarities with a Lion Air crash in the Java Sea that killed 189 people in October. The agency grounded the jets while investigators determine whether there was a shared cause of the two crashes. The FAA had been criticized for allowing the planes to fly while dozens of countries suspended their use.
U.S.-based Boeing said it has “full confidence” in the 737 Max but supports the decision to temporarily ground all 371 of the planes.
Here are some questions and answers about the crash, the plane and the investigation:
___
WHAT PROMPTED THE FAA TO ACT?
The Federal Aviation Administration initially declined to ground the 737 Max, cautioning against comparing the Ethiopian Airlines crash with the October crash of a Lion Air 737 Max off of Indonesia or assuming that they are related.
Pressure on the FAA grew as more than 40 countries including the entire European Union and Canada suspended flights by the plane or barred it from their airspace.
On Wednesday, the agency ordered the grounding, saying that new information from the wreckage in Ethiopia, along with satellite-based tracking of the flight path, “indicates some similarities” between the Ethiopia and Indonesia crashes.
The agency said it was ordering the jets’ grounding while investigators determine whether there was a shared cause of the two crashes.
Indonesian investigators have not stated a cause for the Lion Air crash, but are examining whether faulty readings from a sensor might have triggered an automatic nose-down command to the plane, which the Lion Air pilots fought unsuccessfully to overcome. The automated system kicks in if sensors indicate that a plane is about to lose lift, or go into an aerodynamic stall. Gaining speed by diving can prevent a stall.
The Lion Air plane’s flight data recorder showed problems with an airspeed indicator on four flights, although the airline initially said the problem was fixed.
___
WHAT ARE FLIGHT RECORDERS AND WHY ARE THEY SO IMPORTANT?
The FAA requires every large commercial aircraft to have a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder, known as “black boxes.” The recorders, which can withstand temperatures of 1,100 degrees Celsius and water depths of 20,000 feet, collect information about a flight.
Voice recordings pick up the flight crew’s voices, as well as other sounds inside the cockpit. Information from the data recorder can generate a computer animated video reconstruction of the flight. Investigators can then visualize the airplane’s altitude, instrument readings, power settings and other details of the flight to help with the investigation, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. Some experts have said the search for answers about what caused the crash could take months.
___
WHAT IS BOEING DOING IN RESPONSE TO THE CRASHES?
Boeing says it supports the temporary grounding of the entire fleet of Max planes, while reiterating it believes the planes are safe.
Prior to the grounding, Boeing had promised to upgrade some flight-control software “in the coming weeks.”
Boeing began working on the changes shortly after the Lion Air crash. It is tweaking the system designed to prevent an aerodynamic stall if sensors detect that the plane’s nose is pointed too high and its speed is too slow.
A Boeing spokesman said once updated software is installed, the system will rely on data from more than one sensor to trigger a nose-down command. Also, the system won’t repeatedly push the nose down, and it will reduce the magnitude of the change, he said. There will also be more training for pilots.
___
HAVE THERE BEEN COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PLANES?
Airline pilots on at least two U.S. flights reported that an automated system seemed to cause their Boeing 737 Max planes to tilt down suddenly. The pilots said that soon after engaging the autopilot on Boeing 737 Max 8 planes, the nose tilted down sharply. In both cases, they recovered quickly after disconnecting the autopilot.
As described by the pilots, the problem did not appear related to a new automated anti-stall system that is suspected of contributing to the Lion Air crash in Indonesia.
The pilot reports were filed last year in a data base compiled by NASA. They are voluntary safety reports and do not publicly reveal the names of pilots, the airlines or the location of the incidents. It was unclear whether the accounts led to any actions by the FAA or the pilots’ airlines.
___
WERE AIRLINE EMPLOYEES AND PASSENGERS WORRIED?
Patrick Smith, a Boeing 767 pilot who writes a column called “Ask the Pilot,” says he’s been telling passengers who ask that the 737 Max is safe. He also says he hasn’t heard of any pilots who worry about flying the plane.
Others didn’t want to take any chances. The Association of Professional Flight Attendants, which represents more than 26,000 flight attendants at American Airlines, called on CEO Doug Parker to “strongly consider grounding these planes until an investigation can be performed.”
Also Read : How the industry has reacted to the Ethiopian Max crash
Also Read : Piece Found At Ethiopian Airlines Crash Site Shows Jet Was Set To Dive
Mid Air Collision Averted
source http://www.ncairways.co/india-news/collision/
Opinion | When it comes to energy, the weeds is a good place to be
David Toscano, a Democrat, represents Charlottesville in the Virginia House of Delegates.
We hear a lot today about the Green New Deal, a great aspirational statement that tells us much about where we want and where we need to go but often lacks specifics. The real deal on energy policy is in the details, the weeds of social and economic policy. In Virginia, that means understanding the State Corporation Commission and how it works to support or frustrate the intent of the legislature and sound energy policy.
At the end of January, a key subcommittee in the General Assembly considered legislation to cap Virginia’s carbon pollution through a program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. In the hearing, a representative from the SCC testified that the costs to Virginia’s consumers from our participation in the program would be much higher than any other previous estimate or study that had been discussed much less seen.
For context, the RGGI is a market-based partnership of nine neighboring states designed to take action to lower energy costs, reduce pollution and bolster a clean-energy economy.
The SCC staffer provided no supporting evidence or details to justify the cost estimates, which were then used as justification to oppose Virginia’s involvement with the RGGI.
The SCC is supposedly apolitical, but you could have fooled many in the room that day. No one had seen the cost model the SCC cited. The SCC, because of a quirk in Virginia law, is exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests, so it cannot be compelled to provide the model to the public.
After substantial pressure, the SCC disclosed limited information in the form of a two-page letter provided to the committee chairman — not to the entire committee — and it was not considered by the members as they voted on this significant legislation. Only after the legislative session ended did the SCC provide its modeling to the Department of Environmental Quality.
The model and letter provide some insight into the staff’s presentation. First, SCC staff apparently asked Dominion Energy to develop numbers using a proprietary model that is known to favor utilities and uses an artificially low price for gas.
Further, the SCC assumes that most coal plants will keep running even if the commodity is no longer competitive with gas, even projecting coal generation through 2051. Few, if any, believe this, but the SCC built this into its analysis. There are other basic mistakes in the SCC staff analysis; for instance, the SCC builds new gas capacity into its analysis to replace coal but charges all of those costs to RGGI, when it is not clear that that capacity will be needed or that Dominion would build it or procure it from an independent power producer.
The SCC model also assumed that the mandates for renewable energy and energy efficiency in the Grid Transformation and Security Act would not be fully implemented or approved by the commission, despite that these are legislative requirements the SCC must follow.
Finally, the SCC analysis incorrectly assigns an allowance price within the RGGI program that is simply wrong. The allowance price in the RGGI is the price a polluter will have to pay per ton of carbon emitted. The SCC used a price that is significantly higher than RGGI’s historical price or a forward-looking modeled price.
Even if you agree with the SCC, its analyses should be public information designed to inform the public debate. The SCC, however, has chosen a less transparent route, disadvantaging the public and the legislature from having all the necessary information to determine energy policy in the commonwealth.