1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
The Guards’ Report
11While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
The Great Commission
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age
When I worked on slides and Emergency doors, I followed the maintenance manual religiosly, having a slide deploy is not a thing that I want to happen. Also something else that most don't know is that the standard to empty an airplane of all passengers and crew, and get everyone out is 45 seconds. The standard was set because of an accident on a "Boeing 737" that during a takeoff, one of the engines decided to "FOD itself" and punctured fuel tanks and the resulting fumes, not the fire killed almost half of the passengers. The resulting investigation made huge changes in safety and training and the making of material inside of the aircraft to minimize fumes. A little over 20 years later, another B737 had another engine fire and "Everyone escaped with 4 people having minor injuries." No I am not disparaging the B737, she is a damm good plane. Both instances were not the planes fault, but the engines.
I saw this article and I thought it was worth "clipping"
Latecoere has aimed to simplify door opening and positioning to speed up evacuation times.
Credit: Latecoere
In the rare event of an emergency cabin evacuation, successful egress depends on how well the exit doors and their built-in escape slides and actuators perform.
A quick emergency exit from an aircraft depends on two categories of doors, explains Thierry Eftymiades, senior vice president for engineering at Toulouse-based Latecoere, a manufacturer of cabin doors for commercial airliners and business jets. The first category consists of passenger-entry and service doors, which are opened and closed during regular aircraft cycles. The second category applies only to emergency-use doors, including cockpit escape and overwing emergency-exit doors (OWEED).
Eftymiades says Latecoere uses “functional and customer analyses” to define and specify in detail customer expectations for each door.
“These analyses help to optimize the design and manufacturing technologies as well as the development process to reduce recurring and nonrecurring costs,” he explains. “Design trends are focused on composites, specifically thermoset and thermoplastics from our composite development center.”
Major inspections of escape slides are performed every 3-5 years. Credit: AJW Technique
Another Latecoere design trend involves the “kinematics” on new types of mechanisms, Eftymiades says. “That has been driven by the regulations, which continue to evolve, while taking into consideration the events faced in real-life emergency landing conditions,” he notes. “In that regard, we have been granted specific patents to simplify the mechanisms’ actuation.”
Eftymiades cites, for example, simplified door opening and positioning that clears the way for outboarding passengers within an evacuation target of less than 90 sec. “The common objective is to make the opening as obvious and easy to use as possible,” he says.
Ease of activation is particularly important under adverse conditions that can make opening doors more challenging, Eftymiades stresses. Those conditions include high winds, fuselage icing and an awkward position of the aircraft due to collapsed landing gear or a side crash.
“[The] current development and innovation focus is on increasing robustness and decreasing costs through specific simple but high-efficiency design items taking into consideration these kinds of adverse conditions,” he says. “These design items can be selected as building blocks while defining the door baseline architecture.”
Escape slides must be inflated to carry out leak and pressure tests on the tubes. Credit: AJW Technique
Despite evolving requirements and greater system complexity, aircraft doors are becoming lighter, Eftymiades points out.
“Doors are complex systems with multiple and contradictory requirements,” he says. “They need to stay closed in flight but opened safely under all conditions, leading to optimized choices to be made. Door weight optimization can be provided for at all project stages, from concept to detail design generation.”
Eftymiades adds that during an emergency cabin evacuation, three subsystems come into play: the door, an ejector that assists emergency opening by pushing the door open and the slide. He emphasizes that during the design phase, discussions take place with the slide supplier to decide on the quality of the interfaces among the subsystems; Latecoere does not manufacture slides.
“Generally, for a passenger door, there are four types of interfaces with the slide,” he says. “They are the structural attachment of the panel holding the slide to the bottom of the door; the panel between the slide and the door lining; the laces between the slide and the bar holding the slide with the door open; and the controlled door ejection speed component, allowing the slide to be deployed safely, especially under adverse conditions.”
OWEEDs are smaller than passenger entry and service doors and do not contain the slide, which is often located at a distant nonpressurized part of the fuselage, Eftymiades explains. “This requires defining the triggering subsystem—electrical or mechanical—-that will inflate the slide on the wing,” he says.
Fuselage-installed slides deploy on pilot command, saving the cabin crew the task of arming and disarming them. In contrast, cabin-door-mounted slides automatically deploy when the door is opened if they are not disarmed.
“Usually for overwing exits, the slide pack is located at the corner between the wing leading edge and the fuselage,” Eftymiades says. “During an emergency opening, the passenger has to walk on the wing to reach the slide location to evacuate.”
It generally takes 4-5 years and as many as 20-100 engineers, depending on the scope of the project, to bring a new door and escape system on stream, taking into account design, simulation and prototype tests, according to Eftymiades. The process also involves hundreds of stress analysis reports as well as test plans and reports, especially given the number of parts.
“For a regional airliner, there are about 500 part numbers for one passenger door and usually four doors per aircraft, plus 2-4 overwing exits,” Eftymiades notes. “For large commercial aircraft, the part numbers are 800 per door, with eight doors per aircraft. For the ejector—the emergency door-opening system—that is an additional 70 part numbers.”
Two other major aircraft door OEMs, Airbus and Collins Aerospace, declined to share their insights into door and escape system developments for this article. Airbus cited the recent Alaska Airlines inflight door-plug loss as to why; Collins did not provide a specific reason.
MAINTENANCE CONCERNS
Today’s escape slides are much lighter but more complex due to incorporation of additional features, according to Andy Wheeler, divisional vice president and managing director at AEM Ametek MRO. The UK-based company has facilities at Luton, Ramsgate and Stansted in England.
Some slides have pressure indicators that connect to the cockpit, for instance, while others contain gas generators and several are fitted with pneumatic door release components, Wheeler tells Inside MRO. “The main benefits are quicker actuation, fewer accidental deployments and improved safety features,” he notes, adding that some slides also incorporate lighting systems that are now brighter, lower energy and more efficient.
Wheeler reports that advancements in materials and design have led to better deployment, improved durability and lighter weight. “For instance, the slides used to be made of neoprene and are now polyurethane,” he says. “When lighting systems were introduced, they were chemical. Now they’re LED-battery-powered. Also, on newer aircraft, the inflation cylinders are composite instead of steel, and the slide’s enclosure—the packboards—fit into the fuselage rather than the doors.”
Wheeler stresses that regular maintenance and inspection of escape slide systems are essential to identify and address potential issues before they become problematic.
“The slides have to be maintained in accordance with the OEM component maintenance manual,” he stresses. “They require inflation to carry out leak and pressure tests on the tubes. The inflation cylinder must be hydrostatically tested and the valve overhauled and flow regulation adjustments made as necessary.”
Asked about the kinds of problems those inspections often reveal, Wheeler cites damaged light systems and low-pressure gauge indications as typical as well as cracks in the packboards from mishandling.
Louis Philippe Mallette, senior vice president of operations at AJW Technique in Montreal, reports that while “the fundamental design concept” of emergency cabin evacuation systems has remained largely consistent across newer aircraft, there have been some improvements, primarily involving materials and weight reduction.
“Advancements in material technology have led to lighter systems and quicker deployment during emergencies,” he says. “This is allowing manufacturers in some cases to extend maintenance intervals to five years while still demonstrating the required reliability over that period, thereby reducing operators’ costs.”
Despite these advancements, he says, “the interface between components and the main and over-wing exits” has remained similar to traditional designs. “Typically, the evacuation slide is still located on the door, maintaining consistency across generations of aircraft.”
Mallette stresses that as long as the slides are undisturbed, the evacuation systems are traditionally very reliable and will typically stay on wing for their full scheduled overhaul life of 3-5 years. “Where we do see issues is when they are disturbed for some reason by people servicing the aircraft, which is very often the case with front door systems and may result in an unplanned deployment,” he says.
Mallette adds that door-mounted packboards and slide actuators can be vulnerable to damage during scheduled airframe inspections, especially if technicians are careless. Accidental deployment during aircraft maintenance can also occur if the system is improperly handled or installed.
“The airframers have taken steps to reduce potential damage by providing comprehensive training and documentation for technicians on proper handling and installation procedures, implementing stringent quality control measures during maintenance and ensuring release mechanisms are protected from accidental activation,” Mallette says.
Given the risks he describes, Mallette was asked if the packboards and actuation components could be trending toward fuselage installations and away from the exit doors.
“No,” he says. “The current [design] remains consistent, with the slides in the packboard mounted on the door. One notable deviation from this pattern is observed with overwing slides, where the exit doors are physically smaller and have insufficient space for a door-mounted slide. Often the slide is airframe-mounted with a separate cylinder assembly also mounted within the fuselage. But this approach is limited to overwing slides at this point and from our experience hasn’t been extended to the main door slides.”
Mallette cites two main components as the focus of an evacuation system inspection: the inflatable slide and the air system that houses the cylinder containing the compressed gas and aspirators. “During scheduled maintenance, AJW will perform an inspection and overhaul of the cylinder assembly to ensure the regulator and the reservoir are still serviceable and functional,” he says. “Part of this process involves hydrostatic testing, which is a critical process used to evaluate the integrity of pressure vessels such as cylinders, and to detect any potential leaks or structural weaknesses.”
For the slide, the inspection focuses on its general condition—in particular looking for porosity, tears and leakages—including conducting an overpressure test.
“What we tend to see on aging slides are small tears at the folds, the buildup of porosity and weakness at the seams, all of which may result in a failure to maintain the pressure over a period,” Mallette says. “Minor tears can be repaired; however, with the older slides, we need to replace the full inflatable system.”
I saw this on "Quora" and I thought it was a good explaination. It expounds on what I have said in the past. the post was well written.
The guy name is "Ted Kord"
The question should be, why don’t more self-professed liberals actually fear Critical Theory.
Actually, some are afraid. As Edward Slosser pointed out in a Vox article titled I’m a Liberal Professor and my Liberal Students Terrify me (link below).
Professors, often leftist professors, have every reason to be scared of students who have been indoctrinated on one branch or another of Critical Theory (not just Critical Race Theory.
Consider for a moment what happened at 2015 at Yale University. Highly regarded Educator Erika Christakis had the poor taste to opine that colleges shouldn’t be in the business of telling students what Halloween costumes the students can and cannot wear. Professor Christakis expressed that students should be free to make mistakes and commit faux paus.
“Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity—in your capacity—to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you? …What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their strength and judgment? Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that.”
Her Husband Nicholas, also a professor at Yale, agreed with her. I can understand that as I would never publicly disagree with my wife. But Both professors are advocates for a truly liberal model of a university.
For agreeing with his wife Nicholas Christakis found himself surrounded by an angry mob insulting him and calling for a change in his employment status.
Mind you, Erika and Nicholas Christakis are deeply liberal Democrats, what we used to talk about when referring to “liberal college professors.” The video of Professor Christakis being insulted and berated by students for not publicly disagreeing with his wife. I don’t know about you, but as someone who’s been happily married for quite some time, publicly disagreeing with my wife is something I just don’t do. My wife is a career educator, and if someone came up to me and asked me to denounce something she’s written or said, I’d tell them to perform a sexual act on themselves.
The Christakis video from Yale shocked many, but it was nothing compared to what would happen to another professor with even more left-wing cred.
I present the case of Bret Weinstein, whom I mentioned earlier. Professor Weinstein taught Evolutionary Biology at a crunchy little left-wing college in the Pacific North-West called Evergreen State College. Weinstein is a pretty left-wing guy. He supported Bernie Sanders and Occupy Wall Street. If you go listen to his first interview with Joe Rogan, you can hear him make very well-crafted arguments in favor of abolishing nuclear power and why the capitalist system needs to be replaced.
If you truly listen to his arguments, you will see that by any objective standard Weinstein is a deeply committed progressive wanting America to adopt some, as yet, untried form of socialism.
Despite being of the left, when Evergreen State College asked White faculty and staff to stay away for a civil rights-related day of absence, Weinstein sent this very carefully-worded letter of protest to colleagues and administration.
For sending this very measured e-mail, Weinstein was targetted by his more radical-left colleagues who whipped students into a fury, then sent them out to disrupt his biology class.
The students began with insults and profanity, but progressed to the point where armed students were searching cars (Portland Antifa style) for the professor. The campus police chief called Weinstein and told him not to come on campus because it wasn’t safe, and the college president had ordered the campus police to stand down…that is: the college president ordered the campus police to NOT PROTECT Professor Weinstein.
This illiberal violence directed at Weinstein was stirred up by one of his very colleagues. Naima Lowe, an “art” professor at Evergreen State College who sees activism as the focus of her teaching.
When some of her left-wing colleagues at Evergreen disagreed with her on how to achieve a more egalitarian campus, here’s how she responded. “You are now these motherf***ers that we’re pushing against. You can’t see your way out of your own ass.” She helped instigate verbal assaults on Professor Weinstein.
Weinstein might be “deeply progressive,” as he describes himself, but when he disagreed with Lowe he found his classes being disrupted and his family being threatened by her students.
This socialist educator lost his teaching position because he had become the subject of a witch hunt. One can assume that there were one or two conservatives on the Evergreen staff, but they survived by camouflaging themselves and hiding their opinions. Unable to find real conservatives, the raging SJWs went after the nearest thing to a witch (conservative) and that was a mild-mannered biology professor who had supported Bernie Sanders in the previous election.
Critical Theory is a utopian political ideology that seeks to dismantle the centuries long liberal project that turned western and northern Europe, along with North America, into the destinations of choice 90% of the world’s migrants.
I first became aware of Critical Theory more than a decade ago while earning a graduate degree in Educational Administration. Years earlier I had noticed the general lift-wing bias in graduate Education courses while earning my first credential. But by the time I was working my first masters degree, Marxists like Brazilian Paulo Friere…
…along with 1960s/70s “new-left” terrorist turned “educator” William Ayers were becoming the dominant voices within the field of Education, often displacing older Progressives like John Dewey.
The sudden predominance of Marxists and Neo-Marxists as part of an educational curriculum for aspiring principals and education bureaucrats was part of what is called Critical Pedagogy.
Douglas Kellner, a proponent of the neo-Marxist Critical Theory, describes the evolution of thought from Karl Marx to what I had to learn to get my credential in California 20 years ago in From Classical Marxism to Critical Pedagogy by Douglas Kellner.
“Alongside of the proliferation of neo-Marxian theories of culture and society and globalization of cultural studies, forms of an oppositional critical pedagogy emerged that explicitly criticized schooling in capitalist societies while calling for more emancipatory modes of education. In his now classic The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1972), Brazilian educator and activist Paulo Freire criticized the "banking concept of education" while calling for more interactive, dialogical, and participatory forms of pedagogy that are parallel in interesting ways to those of John Dewey. While Dewey wanted education to produce citizens for democracy, however, Freire sought, in the spirit of Marxist revolutionary praxis, to develop a pedagogy of the oppressed that would produce revolutionary subjects, empowered to overthrow oppression and to create a more democratic and just social order.”
Most people would assume that Education graduate programs were left wing. But they would shocked if they learned how one small branch of left-wing politics, a branch so radical that it is at odds with both liberalism and even classical Marxism, has taken over teacher training.
Over he last 2 decades, many branches of humanities and social studies have embraced what is known is Critical theory. So what is critical theory.
In the early 20th Century, Marxism has become a political force. Proponents of Marxism made claims, and among them were:
Communism was scientific and its benefits would be easily measurable.
Those benefits would include a higher standard of living because of the efficiency of state control.
Communist countries would be more humane than capitalist countries.
By the 1960s, data was rolling in and it didn’t turn out exactly how the proponents of Communism had intended. Among the pieces of evidence the intellectuals had to take into account.
The mass starvation of Ukrainians by the Soviet Union.
Forty-five million Chinese peasants being worked, beaten and intentionally starved to death during China’s Great Leap Forward.
The numerous purges through which the likes of Lenin, Staling and Mao killed more communists than all the world’s anti-communists combined.
The final straw for many was the use of Russian tanks to suppress Hungarian student protesters in 1956.
By the 1960s, an honest intellectual could not defend communism either on economic or humanitarian grounds. But as it turned out that there were plenty of intellectuals who thought that something … kinda … sorta … like Marxism was just what west’s culture needed. Intellectuals of the The Frankfurt School created a form of Marxism mostly devoid of economics. Instead of workers vs. capitalists, advocates of Critical Theory saw almost every cultural interaction as an instance where someone was oppressing and someone was being oppressed. It was men vs. women, whites vs. blacks, and homosexuals vs. heterosexuals; in all these interactions someone was being oppressed and someone was doing the oppressing.
I’m oversimplifying to some extent. Professors of education and humanities didn’t just decide to adopt Neo-Marxist Critical Theory as the operating system (so to speak) of academia. First academics embraced the French philosophy of Postmodernism. This radical philosophy was great for dissecting and deconstructing existing institution, but it wasn’t really suitable for building institutions.
Postmodernism went through academia like a tornado through a trailer park, overturning assumptions and dismantling previously reliable ways of knowing.
Now, just to be clear, Postmodernists are not communists. If the Postmodernists had any particular mission, it was the dismantling of all grand narratives whether that narrative was The Scientific Method, Christianity or Communism. But postmodernism created a void that was filled by hard-left authoritarians with a new all purpose ideology, Critical Theory.
Critical Theory is the term that Marxist social critics (sometimes called Neo-Marxists), such as Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer gave to their particular approach to political and social philosophy.
Critical Theory is basically Marxist ideology as applied to everything outside of economics. Where Marx was obsessed with class differences, Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer created a new ideology that focused on power rather than money, and through which the world could be divided into oppressors and oppressed.
Make no mistake, you’re either one or the other.
These three men invented the ideology called Critical Theory. I capitalized the words critical and theory because it is a title, a proper noun. “Critical Theory” is basically the brand name Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer gave to their particular brand of Marxism. There are some peculiarities that result from the particular interests of the original authors.
For example, Marcuse was far more obsessed with sexual liberation than Marx ever was. He seemed to think that if humans were freed from capitalist drudgery they could spend all days learning new and better ways to orgasm.
Marcuse was also a big fan of Martin Heidegger, the German collectivist philosopher who’s most famous contribution to history was putting the socialism into German National Socialism.
The ideology devised by Marcuse, Horkheimer and Adorno is sufficiently malleable that it can be applied to other areas of interests.
Critical Race Theory, for example, is merely the application of Neo-Marxist Critical Theory to race.
Gender Theory is Marxist Critical Theory applied to issues of gender.
Critical Legal Theory is simply a Neo-Marxist interpretation of law.
And of course Critical Pedagogy is the application of Marxist Critical Theory to Education.
The important thing to understand is that none of those are “theories” as the term “theory” is understood by science. A theory is a hypothesis that, after being repeatedly challenged through experimentation, is found to be correct.
But the assertions made in the various Critical Theory “disciplines” are immune from being challenged. If an advocate of Critical Race Theory asserts an idea, someone challenging that idea might find themselves treated much the way Bret Weinstein was treated…if not worse.
So not only are the offshoots of Critical Theory free of theories, they are largely free of hypothesis. What Critical Theory has is dogmas. So in all important ways, the branches of Critical Theory are more akin to a religion than to science or social science.
Critical Theories are new secular religions.
These new religions were crafted together based on equal parts mis-understanding of Postmodernism and a piss-poor understanding of Neo-Marxism. While the overriding philosophy is a miss-mash of “postmodernism” and “Neo-Marxism” As it evolved since the turn of the century, the guiding principle became Intersectionality. The idea is that some people are privileged in multiple ways while other people are oppressed in multiple ways.
Look at the diagram above. Everyone will fit into more than one category.
The more of your categories that appear above the horizontal line, the more privileged you are in society.
The more of your categories that appear below the line, the more oppressed you are.
Within this system of understanding, “knowledge” is given credibility based not on whether is is empirically true, it is based on the extent you are privileged or oppressed.
If you mostly fit into categories below the horizontal line, your opinions are given greater weight, and it doesn’t matter whether or not your beliefs are based on reality, because there is no real way of knowing; it’s all about power.
If you mostly fit into categories above the horizontal line, your opinions are given less weight, even if you’ve compiled lots of facts and data to support your believe. The fact that you rely on “factoids” rather than emotion to make your argument means that you just don’t get it.
More so than Postmodernism or Marxism, this is the overriding philosophy at work in American universities. If you have any interest in understanding how these ideas took hold in academia, I would recommend listening to Helen Pluckrose.
Ms. Pluckrose is a left-wing critic of Postmodernism and Critical Theory. Remember earlier where I said that Critical Theory often finds itself in conflict with liberals and old-school Marxists. Much is made of the cultural wars on college campuses, with narratives that seem to pit conservatives against wacky liberals. That is a misrepresentation. Critical Theory is at odds with both conservatives and liberals, and for the moment the world’s newest religion seems to be winning.
Critical Theory, and its many offshoots are undeserving of being taught in public schools because they are a political ideology that has been raised up to the status of secular religion.
We should not be indoctrinating children in politics or religion within our public schools.
