DSC PC3000 Lockout

I snapped rolled the UFO I borrowed from an ET. Does that count?

No, unfortunately UFO's don't rely on aerodynamic principles to maintain flight.

You ought to hear what Tech support at Napco has to say about him.

I never would have believed that I could sense someone rolling their eyes, over the the telephone. But .... I guess it could be because it was accompanied with a groan and an incredulously asked ..... DO YOU

*** KNOW *** HIM???

I once un-snapped a 24 hour stay-up bra that was pretty aerodynamic looking. But I was able to identify all objects involved.

Does that count?

Olson is lying (again). It's his real name. Before he hid it that was also the name on the WHOIS report for his website.

Sure, and it's just as true as Olson's ridiculous story.

does all sorts of installations. He's not even an

been installing there for years yet none of them

(once again) for your benefit (since you're quite

explanation for this is really quite simple. You figure

the industry?? Have I got news for you.

physically impossible)

Citabria, a C-150 Aerobat, and a Pitts Special.

In your dreams, perhaps. You're not a pilot either.

One of the tough things about making up a story is you've forgotten what you originally said.

story, Olson originally claimed that the plan was to

informed hiom there's an interlock which prevents the

on the ground).

Nope. It cannot be done. There's a reason for that, too. Deploying reverse thrusters in flight would stain the terrain.

of structural damage.

Structural damage? That's a nice way to describe crashing into the earth. You said that *after* I pointed out that you couldn't do it.

Hahahahaha. "Simulate reverse thrust", right. You're a complete idiot, Olson. No one but Leuck is stupid enough to believe that one.

BTW, the 737 had a known defect in that era. Sudden application of too much rudder caused the linkage to break. Two separate fatal crashes were the result. Hundreds of people died.

The best part of Olson's lie is the claim that Boeing lent him and his two idiot pals a brand new 737 before delivering it to an airline. Supposedly Boeing just went along so he could test his theory of why an airliner crashed. The crash in question occurred when a 737-200 tried to take off again after landing and deploying reverse thrusters. There was a snow plow on the runway and when the pilot saw it he tried to make it back aloft. The airplane flipped over and smacked into the terrain immediately, exactly what would have happened if anyone deployed RT aloft.

Because of the possibility of accidental deployment of RT in flight, Boeing wisely interlocked the mechanism with the main landing gear. When a 737 lands it puts many tons of weight on the mains, compressing what amounts to some huge shock absorbers (for lack of a better description). This also engages the mechanism which allows the reverse thrusters to be deployed. There is no way to over ride it in flight because doing so would cause immediate loss of control. Once deployed, the RTs cannot be stowed until the airplane slows to a near stop.

BTW, reverse thrusters are what cause that strong braking sensation a fcouple of seconds after the nose gear touches down. Some folks think the engines are actually reversing but it's much simpler than that. Reverse thrusters are large deflectors which come out from the rear sides of each engine, move into the path of the exhaust and deflect it forward. Once deployed the pilot guns the engines for a few seconds to creat enough reverse thrust to slow the airplane down, saving on brake and tires wear and allowing the airplane to use shorter runways.

And you have repeatedly lied about what was said.

Robert L Bass wrote:

the name on the WHOIS report for his website.

You're right, Bass. It is my legal name. I just don't go by it. Hint: "Two Fathers".

Prove it, Basshole!

Citabria, a C-150 Aerobat, and a Pitts Special.

Proof, Bass, proof!!!

originally said.

Nope. I never said *I* borrowed a 737 from Boeing. I was new to the business (of crash investigation), and worked as an insurance adjuster. Not even the company I worked for had that kind of power. I used the collective "we", and "us" when describing this particular event. You have always taken that to mean "me". You're an idiot. Boeing was just as interested in finding out what would happen if a reverser deployed in flight. So was the NTSB (US) and Transport Canada. My company didn't have anything to do with arranging the demonstration. I just went along for the ride.

story, Olson originally claimed that the plan was to

informed hiom there's an interlock which prevents the

on the ground).

thrusters in flight would stain the terrain.

Heh. You know a hell of a lot about what can and can't be done. There are several ways in which to override the reversers. Boeing ruled out deploying them because they didn't want to risk damaging the aircraft. You forget. This was a test flight.

of structural damage.

You said that *after* I pointed out that you couldn't do

Nope. That's not the way it went down. I gave you a detailed account of what we did right from the start. You (with your detailed knowledge of all things aviation) decided that it couldn't be done. It bugs you that you can't track me down and harass my "employer", or the people I do business with so you resort to posting nonsense about how you've "talked" to several aviation "experts" to discredit me. I've been a major thorn in your side for years. I must admit that it's been a pleasure to circumvent your efforts at usurping this Group for your own purposes. Your and asshole, Bass. The biggest liar in USENET.

Olson. No one but Leuck is stupid enough to believe that

It's interesting how you're not even responding to me. This is typical of your "cut and run" tactics. You're a coward, Bass, and have LOST every aeronautical related debate because you're such a pompous "know-it-all" pilot-wannabe. Remember how you insisted the Cessna 152 was a tail dragger? Remember how you then "switched" your story to say it was a Cessna 150? Remember how you then insisted that all you had to do was "reverse" the main landing gear (rake it forward) to make the aircraft "squat" on it's tail when I finally put you out of your misery by finding a picture of a C-152 tail dragger *conversion*? You're

*still* an idiot, Bass. The entire main gear assembly has to be moved *forward* to the main strut attachment hard point so the aircraft will "sit on it's tail". Ever pushed down on the horizontal stab of a Cessna 150/152? It takes quite a bit of effort to raise the nose wheel off the ground so you can pivot the aircraft. How would "raking the gear forward six or twelve inches" make it squat on it's tail?

rudder caused the linkage to break. Two separate fatal

You're an idiot, Bass. The linkages didn't "break". In fact the linkages remained intact all the way into the ground. And the failure of the rudder servo didn't have anything to do with application of full right or left rudder. There are limiters that don't allow you to do this. They limit the amount of rudder travel in various flight regimens. Failure of the servo was precipitated by other circumstances that had nothing to do with application of rudder.

idiot pals a brand new 737 before delivering it to an

Now its "two idiot pals". What a moron.

airliner crashed.

Boeing didn't just "go along". Their engineers were intimately involved.

thrusters. There was a snow plow on the runway and when

and smacked into the terrain immediately, exactly what

And the thing we've always said was that if they had enough "air" underneath them, they would have been able to recover the aircraft.

wisely interlocked the mechanism with the main landing

what amounts to some huge shock absorbers (for lack of

reverse thrusters to be deployed. There is no way to over

We're "good" until this point.

There you're wrong. There are reverser override switches located on the overhead console. What happened in this accident was really quite simple. It's a classic case of a pilot landing on a runway and trying to avoid a collision with a large object. If you have enough speed, it's much easier to get airborne than trying to stop. Every pilot is taught this simple basic fact (and it's easily demonstrable to any

*student* pilot by any qualified flight instructor). Unfortunately this basic principle doesn't apply to the Boeing 737 once you've engaged reverse thrust. When the pilot pulls up on the reversers, he's committed himself to land (according to Boeing's flight manual). Instinct, however is a far more powerful force than mere words in a book. The pilot saw the yellow light of the plow ahead of him (we figure he didn't actually "see" the plow because of the blowing snow and limited visibility), realized that there was "something big" on the runway ahead, and elected to "go around". He pushed the reverse levers down and advanced the thrust levers to full power. He did this so quickly that he engaged a series of micro switches that turned off the hydraulics to the reversers before they were fully stowed. The aircraft became airborne. It was actually hanging on a stall (a condition in which the flow of air over the wing is no longer "laminar" and lift becomes compromised). The aircraft was further hindered by the fact that full flap was still deployed as well as the landing gear, so it was extremely "dirty" aerodynamically, slow, and difficult to handle. The co-pilot realized there was a problem with the reversers because there were two "reverser unlock" lights illuminated on the instrument panel in front of him. The pilot also stated that he couldn't keep the thrust levers at full power, that they were trying to come back to "flight idle" because of the fact that the reversers are actually interconnected to the throttle assembly and were slowly being pushed back to "open" as the speed of the aircraft increased. The co-pilot undid his seat harness and rolled his seat back so he could engage the reverser override switches located above his head. He had actually broken the cover on the left switch when that reverser slammed "open", breaking the pilot's thumb as that lever sprang suddenly back to the idle detent. The aircraft rolled to the left and the rest is history. Several people actually managed to survive the crash. I interviewed one of the stewardesses (Gail Bunn).

of seconds after the nose gear touches down. Some

that. Reverse thrusters are large deflectors which come

deflect it forward. Once deployed the pilot guns the

down, saving on brake and tires wear and allowing the

That's not quite the way reversers work, but you're close. The pilot places the thrust levers into the idle detent, then reaches around to pull a second set of levers "up". This action deploys the reversers. He then continues to pull up on the second set of levers which spools up the engines (not to "full power" though). Reverse thrust is canceled

*before* the aircraft comes to a complete stop (usually at about 40 - 50 knots) because at slower forward speeds you risk the reversers kicking debris on the runway "forward" where the engines might ingest it. Bass of course, will continue to cling to his idiotic assertion that I know nothing about flying the 737 even though I have 150 hours on Boeing's and Pacific Western's simulator (Pacific Western Airlines was the operator of the jet that crashed at Cranbrook. They bought out CP Air which eventually merged with Air Canada).

Oh? And what did I "lie" about?

message

Sorta the same reaction I got from the Honeywell folks at the E House Expo in Orlando and they didn't hold anything back.

>

I'd take all that with a grain of salt. If ADI wanted to get rid of Bass or anyone selling like Bass they could turn off his account in an instant and let the lawyers hash it all out. ADI has more lawyers and more expensive ones I bet. Guess who'd win? I know of guys running various rep firms losing some lines they rep just for telling the wrong joke around the big wigs at the companies of products they rep. Everyone knows about the letters Bosch sent out kicking folks off the tit. It is not hard to do. So if everyone of these manufacturers and supply houses has a story about Bass, it might be more for the listener's benefit and less a reflection of the real conditions of the business relationship Bass has with them. If Bass is moving any decent volume of their stuff, and they haven't seen fit to boot him by now, I doubt they ever will. If you sell enough of their gear, they will invite you to a black tie ball and let you attend in a g-string if you like, and still bill you as the guest of honor. In fact if ADI were to start booting folks using the 80% versus 20% rule, guys like Bass probably wouldn't be hurt, but it might end up being that Bass' store was the only way to get parts for some folks here.

I have told countless horror stories about various dealer's or integrators work to different manufacturers. To date none has ever bothered to take any action against any dealer that has any real volume with them. That is just the way it is here in this industry, and everywhere else I suspect. Money talks and BS walks. Some of you guys like to point the finger at Bass, but if Bass had a really evil twin the folks at GE, Honeywell, etc. could give him lessons in vermin business behavior that would make him puke. Although it's unlikely, Bass may be improving and getting away from his role as group gadfly. At least for some reason he didn't get around to posting this yet: Former Congressman Ciro Rodriguez defeated seven-term Republican Henry Bonilla in a runoff election Tuesday, adding another Democrat to Congress. So I'll post it for him just to steal his thunder. What can it matter now since Bass' politics are all wet anyway in my opinion. My take is that at this point Congress needs another Democrat like a randy stray dog needs another blood sucking flea, or Clinton needs another young female aid. Wait, maybe that's saying the same thing twice.

You are right in your assumptions. It isn't the people making those bottom line decisions that are the ones that necessarily wish he would go away. It is the ones that have to deal with him that have their own opinions. We all know that we don't always like the people we have to deal with. However, with that being said, it is the ones making the decisions on their bottom line that have put some restrictions on him, which mostly have to do with warranty issues. Again, to be fair, if he got that straightened out, great. From what I know, at the time of that discussion, he was doing a good bit of business with them (I am sure he will appreciate that I keep the dollar figure to myself) but he went to other distributors for some reason. I am sure he has his reasons. Was it to regain something lost?

You're missing the obvious. He's lying. There was nothing at EH Expo. I buy more from ADI than Mugford and ten like him. Do you think they give a rat's olson what he thinks? They bend over backward to take care of my account. The same is true of most of the others. I say most because I don't buy enough GE stuff to keep an open account with them. They're more interested in the ADT's of this world. That's fine with me. I get better prices on their stuff from a 3rd party distributor than I could get buying direct.

I also supply a few small dealers and every once in a while (like today, for example) I actually get orders from a small distributor. I buy certain CCTV lines in enough quantity that my cost is now lower than some distributors are paying.

Naah. Itt was for your "benefit". Mugford and Worthy are inveterate liars.

Hmm. The black tie dinner sounds great but that G-string event would get ne killed. Angela bought a pair of scissors from this Bobbit woman on eBay and... :^)

For a few small dealers it is. One guy in Tennessee losthis account with ADI due to business problems. He orders a few Ademco/Honeywell panels from me two or three times a month.

I'll give you a clue as to what Napco says about me. They wrote a story about one of my customized Napco installations for an Orthodox synagogue in their newsletter a few years ago. The story was titled, "Friday the Rabbi Slept Late". In another issue they wrote about a custom job I did for a blind couple.

I've been a Napco dealer longer than most of these jackasses have been in the trade.

The more the better. :^)

Awe, shucks!

We won though, didn't we? :^)

I suspect he has an ample supply of willing, young ladies. It's a shame he wasn't more selective though. Monica? Yuck!

Is the two fathers deal a take off on the lame joke about the most confusing holiday in the ghetto? If so expect a call from either Jesse Jackson or Michael Richards. Or is it the equal of the gay tele tuby for this group?

He doesn't buy direct, he goes through another distributor so turning off his account will do no good since he likely doesn't have one

Gay marriage?

holiday in the ghetto? If so expect a call from

tuby for this group?

Naah. He's just lying again. His story changes ever so slightly every time he gets cornered. It's like the "telephone" game except he's the only one playing.

then where'd Frank come from? cabbage patch?

"Roland Moore" a écrit dans le message de news: L1Mfh.9006$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.texas.rr.com...

And I "snap rolled" the girlfriend of my worst enemy when I was in high school,do that count to?

That should count I think, especially if the "structure" moaned from the strain, but I don't have a vote I'm afraid.