http://www.sr.se/cgi-bin/International/nyhetssidor/artikel.asp?ProgramID=2054&Nyheter=&artikel=1385360

Those must be some HIGH G forces if this has never happened before. I had thought that he was on appraoch to Vidsel when it happened, not manuevering or anything. Thats what he said in an interview i heard. Is this not right??

Sounds like this one
The erection ejection.

When Pants Attack: A Cautionary Tale of G Suits and Planes

You may or may not have read reports last week about a Swedish fighter jet crashing in the Arctic Circle. So far, so what, you’re probably saying—after all, there were no fatalities. And so began the questions. What caused the accident&madash;was it pilot error? The wrong kind of snow? Maybe a flock of seagulls flew into the engines. Well, with those haircuts, it was a miracle the pilot survived…

A week on, we have our answer. Swedish Airforce investigators have concluded that the incident was all down to a problem with the pilot’s hi-tech pants. Find out what led to the pilot saying “Sayonara cockpit” and “Hello parachute canopy” after the jump.

The pilot was wearing a standard air-force-issue G-suit, also known as Speed Jeans, inflatable pants which blow up as the G-Forces increase during high-energy movements. These blow-up trousers squeeze the pilot’s legs, thus preventing blackouts, tunnel vision and, I suppose, impure thoughts about that hot chick with the ear protectors and neon lollipops who’s been waving him into the hanger this past month.

What the investigators think happened is that the pants, in their aerated state, nudged against the ejector button and caused the pilot to whoosh-boom outtathere before he could even say, “Mälmø, we have a problem.” It seems that fingers are being pointed at the trousers. “When subjected to large forces the suit fills with air,” said Mats Helgesson of Central Command. “This is thought to have affected the ejector switch.”

Now, Justin Timberlake’s people might have called Janet Jackson’s nipple-slippage during that Super Bowl performance a “wardrobe malfunction.” If that was a wardrobe malfunction, then exploding strides leading to a high-speed fighter jet having carnal relations with the ground are verily (I say unto thee) a wardrobe atrocity. For the moment, the Swedish air force has restricted the newest-gen Gripens, whose pilots wear the wrong pants, to a paltry maximum 3g. Older models (and pants) are, apparently, not affected. – Ad Dugdale
Source
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pants/when-pants-attack-a-cautionary-tale-of-g-suits-and-planes-255464.php

Another article on the same incident.

Defective automatic trousers hurl pilot from plane
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/26/wallace_joins_the_swedish_airforce/

I’m not sure if you can do an Anti-G Straining Manoeuvre (AGSM) while reverse bangee jumping…

…whatever that is! :confused:

To do the G maneuver while inverted would be dangerous and would be the opposite of what you need to do physiologically.

It sounds more like he is getting motion sickness.

All I usually get from inverted G is a headache and tired. Yes you can get nauseous, but most people get over it right away.

I think some people get nauseous because the extra blood to the inner ear and brain can throw your senses off. However most people recover quickly after returning to positive G..

I agree with kicks some moderate weight lifting/strengthening exercise should help some.

If you’re just having motion sickness, just a little practice on the bungee cord will probably build your tolerance up.

I’m not happy about the prices, but I’m really not complaining about it either. I am making fun of the Democrats playing politics and getting their foot stuck in their mouth. I’m also predicting that the Democrats will likely start trying to blame the high prices on Republicans. Remember a while back when they were demanding investigations on the price of gasoline? They were blaming the Republicans and big business and having conspiracy theories.:rolleyes:

I can still remember the photo opp that the Democrats had on the Capitol steps with Nancy Pelosi claiming that since they gained power they are going drive down fuel costs and they were blaming the Republicans for the high prices. It was nothing but a grandstanding event to try to blame the Republicans for the cost of fuel, however since the Democrats made their promise to lower fuel prices, the prices have spiraled upward and I suspect will continue.:rolleyes:

I do think the higher fuel prices are bad for our economy. 🙁 However I think it would be worse if we kept the fuel prices artificially low which has caused an awful lot of the problems we’re having now. I think the market should seek its natural price which will likely slowly rise, which will help ease us into changing into other fuels. I’m afraid if it happens suddenly it could screw up the economy and the conversion will be sloppy.

It is much like how I am against the fact that the US has not built a new nuclear power plant for decades. I’m afraid that were putting it off to the point where we will be suddenly forced to build a lot of them and it might be sloppy. I think it should be a slow ongoing advancement so we can learn by making small mistakes instead of rushing into things and making big mistakes.

I suspect the fuel prices will go up and as a result the US economy will take a slight dive and that the Democrats will try to blame the Republicans. When that happens remember I told you it was going to happen and remember that the Democrats said that they were going to lower the prices of fuel. So they only have themselves to blame. 😉 I find it hilarious.;)

I think it is about $3.10 USD USG in my area for gasoline.

I had a Tahoe it got better fuel economy then most SUVs. I went from Ohio to Florida on less than 20 gallons of fuel. Though the fuel economy is only fair around town; on the highway it is pretty good.;)

Nitromethane costs about $65 a gallon the last time I checked. 😉

Capacity has been blocked for over 20 years. So why blame the dems when the last 6 years the reps have had full control?

Well the Republicans were not the ones that vowed on the Capitol steps to lower gas prices while demonizing the Republicans.

It’s obvious grandstanding for political gain. The Republicans have played similar games, though usually not as dishonest or frequently.

It wasn’t the Republicans that stuck their foot in the mouth, it was the Democrats.

Actually instead of the capacity increasing the capacity has decreased for several decades.

They could have legislated for a lot of refineries… did not happen heh?

What they have done has been quite on the contrary. It is partly what I call the Robin Hood effect, blame big business and attack it. Overtax it, overregulate it and drive it under and away.

It’s not the government’s job to build refineries, however it should try have reasonable laws and regulation to allow reasonable competition to encourage business; what I have seen has been much on the contrary.

Instead of encouraging more refineries, the taxes and regulations have caused refineries to shut down and to move to other countries. While we are shutting down our refineries, other nations are building more refineries.

It’s cheaper for the oil companies to operate a few refineries at maximum capacity than it is to operate more refineries at less capacity. The problem with doing that is that there is surges in the supply and demand. There is also technical difficulties with the refineries, such as fires, maintenance, storms. We have a centrally shut down all our refineries that gave us reserve capacity, so every little hick up in the refinery system drives up the prices.

Look at it from the bright side…. in 30 years time you will be one of the only countries left with black gold. Just think what it will be worth then!

There is some truth to what you say, in that by delaying drilling we will be able to stretch out our supply. However I think generally we will run out of oil about all at the same time.

It’s not like the tap is going to run dry. There always will be oil, the thing is how expensive it is. Eventually the price of oil will become so high that it will not be practical to use for most purposes.

As far as the US not reasonably tapping its Gulf of Mexico oil fields, that is completely foolish. It’s not going to all sit there and wait for us to take it out. Cuba is already starting to drill and pump from many of the same deposits that the US government fought the US oil industry from harvesting.

Sounds like someone is volunteering to get a refinery in their back yard.

There have been several refineries in the United States that have shut down over the past few decades.

Just a few.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB858811470783373500.html?mod=googlewsj
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-139455073.html

Not only is this not wise for the natural fluctuations. It also makes oil refineries a more juicy target. We had to reserve refining capacity, we could lose our refinery without missing a heartbeat, now days all it takes is a hick up and it screws up the whole system. Just speculation that there might be a problem will send the market off in a tizzy. So even hysteria can substantially effect the price of fuel.

There are many towns in the US that would welcome a refinery. There are probably refineries that could be restarted and trained workforce ready to man it relatively quickly.

However this global warming panic that Al Gore in the Democrats has started encourages more refineries to shut down in the US and for more refineries to start up in other countries. The regulations that primarily Democrats have set give many US companies like refineries, steel companies, ect… and unfair disadvantage in the world market.

Why should they continue to operate in the US under strict environmental standards with high wage costs; if they can go to another country with less regulation and pollute more and exploit cheap labor?

The price should mainly be set by the market. Most of the time that government interferes it creates problems instead of helping. A while back the government strong-armed the oil industry into lowering their prices, sure that was great temporarily, however in order to offset the costs they didn’t invest as much into drilling and refining capacity, so in the long run it raised the prices.

All this grandstanding about switching to alternative fuels is a bunch of nonsense in my opinion. People will switch on their own to other fuels as the price of oil become so expensive that other sources of energy become relatively cheaper, so the market will gradually shift naturally. By excessively toying around with the oil industry and automotive industry is screwing up the shift to alternative fuels.

Most other countries besides the US have better automotive fuel economy. Is that because they are higher technology, or have a higher social conscious? No it is because few prices are much higher in most other countries. Once US citizens start paying $5-$10 a gallon you will see more people driving alternative fuel vehicles and more people driving small cars that most Americans would consider ridiculously small.

Another reason that our vehicles have less fuel economy is because of the US safety standards. A lot of these little midget buggy style cars would not hold up to the US crash safety tests standards.

Nice photo Trident, I haven’t seen one like that, though I’m certainly no expert.

Who is the stupid that placed the “Airliners.net” letters in the middle of the plane? Nice way to ruin a great and rare photo 😡

It’s obviously a watermark to discourage unauthorized use. It obviously protects the rights of the photographer. As someone else pointed out, many photographers are possessive of their photography and the object to people that copy it, particularly if they use it for unauthorized and or commercial use. Sometimes photographers like to keep the rights out of pride or for financial gain. If you earned your living as a photographer, writer, ect… how would you like it if someone copied your work, and widely distributed it, thusly deflated the value of your work and deflating your income? (Do you like to eat and have shelter?) How would you like it if you worked long and hard to achieve something, and someone else stole it and put their name on it and claimed it was their work?

Putting a watermark on a photo is a form of copyright protection. Have you ever heard of “copyright protection” concepts, ethics or laws?

I’m sure he has a high quality unmarked version of the photo, I suspect if you tried to contact him it would be for sale, otherwise he has it for show and wants to take precautions to keep others from taking the credit.