UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 25, 1967
Patricia Meryl GATENBY and Percy Evans, Administrators of the Estate of Ian Alexander Gatenby, Deceased and May Thora Mole, Executrix of the Estate of John Henry Mole, Deceased, Plaintiffs,
ALTOONA AVIATION CORPORATION and Paul Peterson, Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEBER
WEBER, District Judge.
This case involves an action for the death of two passengers for hire in an air-taxi plane owned and operated by defendants out of Peterson Field, located about ten miles northeast of Altoona, Pennsylvania, on the main highway between Altoona, Pa., and Tyrone, Pa. On December 8, 1963, the pilot of defendants' plane took off from Peterson Field at about 1 p.m. to pick up two passengers at the Washington, D.C. airport. At about 1:26 p.m., the pilot received a weather briefing from the Phillipsburg, Pa. flight service station while enroute to Washington, D.C. Phillipsburg is the closest weather reporting station to Peterson Field being located about twenty-three miles northwest. The weather report showed a cold front moving on a north-south line from Eastern Ohio into Western Pennsylvania at about twenty knots per hour. At Washington, D.C. at 2:55 p.m., the pilot picked up his two passengers to transport them to University Park, Pennsylvania. The pilot departed Washington, D.C., without a further weather briefing but while enroute over Frederick, Maryland at 3:12 p.m., received a weather briefing from the pilot-to-forecaster service that informed him of near minimum visibility conditions for FAA Visual Flight Regulations
along the line of his flight, and of turbulence and moderate icing conditions enroute throughout the line of his flight. At 3:17 p.m., a special weather broadcast from the Phillipsburg station indicated less than visual flight regulation conditions in the area of his home field. The pilot could have heard this report with his equipment had he been tuned to that station or could have received it at any time on request. This report was repeated at the regular broadcast time of 3:45 p.m., by all weather stations along his route.
The pilot was unable to land at University Park Pennsylvania, because the field was closed by adverse weather conditions that prevented landing under Visual Flight Regulations. University Park is approximately twenty-eight to thirty miles southeast of Phillipsburg. At about 3:50 p.m., the pilot contacted his employer at Peterson Field advising him that he could not land at University Park and was returning with his passengers to Peterson Field. The compass course from University Park to Peterson Field was approximately 226 degrees (southwest). The pilot reported that he was over Port Matilda, Pa., which is approximately 270 degrees (due west) of University Park and about twelve miles distant. At that time the ceiling was about 800-1000 feet at Peterson Field. At 3:59 p.m., the plane crashed into the side of a mountain in a heavy snow storm with ceiling and visibility zero. The plane crashed at an altitude of twenty-six hundred feet, 150 feet below the summit of the mountain. The site of the crash was Bald Eagle Mountain, about ten miles southwest of Phillipsburg and about fifteen miles northeast of Peterson Field. The site of the crash is 270 degrees (due west) from University Park. At the time of the crash the plane was in level sustained flight, cruise condition.
The plane was not equipped at the time for Instrument Flying Regulations under the applicable Federal Aviation Agency Rules. It was not multi-engine with dual controls, it had no co-pilot. It is undisputed that the plane could not legally operate under Instrument Flying Regulations. The evidence of the weather conditions at University Park, Phillipsburg, Pa., and the Peterson Field showed that less than minimum visibility conditions for Visual Flight Regulation operation prevailed at these three points of a roughly equilateral triangle in the area of the pilot's destination, since the conditions were less than those which permit VFR flight, a ceiling of 1,000 feet and visibility of one mile. These had prevailed at Phillipsburg since 3:17 p.m., at University Park at 3:50 p.m., and for sometime prior thereto, and at Peterson Field at 3:55 p.m., and at Bald Eagle Mountain, within the area of the triangle, at the time of the crash. Since the pilot could not continue his flight under VFR conditions the pilot was attempting instrument flight contrary to the IFR provisions.
The plaintiffs allege negligence by reason of the violation of several applicable FAA regulations and by reason of the violation of the "highest standard of care" owed by a common carrier to its passengers. The violation of both the FAA regulations and the "highest standard of care" was established by an almost overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants in the face of the great weight of evidence of liability. The defendants' evidence to dispute liability was fragmentary and speculative. It is the opinion of the court that the verdict of the jury for defendants is so contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to represent a capricious disregard of the evidence by a jury. We are firmly convinced that a new trial is demanded to prevent an unjust result. Fed.R. of Civ.P. 59[a]. Magee v. General Motors Corp., 213 F.2d 899 (3rd Cir. 1954). This is a principal not only of the controlling federal law which governs this action but of the law of Pennsylvania, the state of the forum in which the action was tried. Clewell v. Pummer, 388 Pa. 592, 131 A.2d 375 (1957). Eisert v. Jones, 408 Pa. 73, 182 A.2d 717 (1962); Brandon v. Peoples Natural Gas Co., 417 Pa. 128, 207 A.2d 843 (1964).
We turn now to Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment N.O.V. Does the record compel the Court to grant this motion despite our prior refusal to direct a verdict on liability for the plaintiff at the close of all testimony in this case? At the outset we believe that the consideration of plaintiffs' motion is to be decided by the Federal standards which provide that the Court shall direct a verdict in favor of the party having the burden of proof if the evidence established the facts in his favor so clearly that reasonable men could entertain no doubt with regard thereto. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Co-op., 356 U.S. 525, 78 S. Ct. 893, 2 L. Ed. 2d 953 (1958); Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U.S. 91, 51 S. Ct. 383, 75 L. Ed. 857 (1931).
"The quantity and quality of proof necessary to make out a case for submission to a jury in a federal court are determined by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the decisions of the courts of the United States." (citations omitted) Isaacs v. American Petrofina, 368 F.2d 193 (5th Cir., 1966).
Defendants dispute that the federal rule is applicable and argues for the application of a rule established in Pennsylvania that, "From time immemorial, it has been the province of the jury in trespass cases, where oral testimony is concerned, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, even though uncontradicted by defendant witnesses or even though the defendant introduces no testimony at all." Dorn v. Leibowitz, 387 Pa. 335, 127 A.2d 734 (1956). Defendants further argue that plaintiffs' case depends in a large measure upon expert testimony to which relatively little weight should be given under Pennsylvania law.
In examining the Dorn case, we are impressed as was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with the fact that after directing the verdict for the plaintiff, the trial judge awarded a new trial. In sustaining that order the court considered briefly and without citation the rule as quoted above. The rule has been repeated in Williams v. H. E. Stoudt & Son, Inc., 404 Pa. 377, 172 A.2d 278 (1961) and in Kopar v. Mamone, 419 Pa. 601, 215 A.2d 641 (1966). However, all of these cases involved the testimony of the injured plaintiff in a trespass case, upon whose credibility the entire case rested. In the Williams case the matter was tried before a judge without jury and the issue was whether the judge was bound by plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony, or was free to disbelieve it. The opinion held that credibility was a matter for the trier of facts.
The rule has been applied to extreme lengths in Pennsylvania. In Elia v. Olszewski, 368 Pa. 578, 84 A.2d 188 (1951), a contract case, the court held:
"While it is true that however indisputable may be the proof resting on oral evidence, a trial judge may not assume its truth even though uncontradicted to the extent of directing a verdict or entering judgment n.o.v., yet this does not mean that a perverse or capricious verdict or one plainly against the weight of the evidence must be allowed to stand. The remedy is to grant a new trial, (citations omitted) and repeatedly if necessary."
But this is not a rule of universal application in Pennsylvania. It is not so applied at the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence in cases where defendant moves to dismiss, it is not applied when the court determines that here is clear and unmistakable evidence of plaintiff's contributory negligence. Murphy v. Bernheim & Sons, 327 Pa. 285, 194 A. 194 (1937); Pewatts v. J. C. Penney Company, 356 F.2d 586 (3 Cir. 1966).
It is not a rule of universal application. In Lonzer v. Lehigh Val. R. Co., 196 Pa. 610, 46 A. 937 (1900), the court held:
"But this rule is founded on common sense and knowledge of human nature, and must be limited by the same standards. When the testimony is not in itself improbable, is not at variance with any proved or admitted facts or with ordinary experience, and comes from witnesses whose candor there is no apparent ground for doubting, the jury is not at liberty to indulge in a capricious disbelief. * * * The verdict should have been set aside as in direct disregard of the evidence, and where that is the case the court may refuse to submit it at all, and direct a verdict accordingly. Holland v. Kindregan, 155 Pa.St. 156, 25 Atl. 1077, 46 A. p. 938."
Our view of the Pennsylvania cases is that the "oral evidence" rule is a procedural rule confined in its application to cases where the evidence comes solely or largely from the oral testimony of an interested witness, the plaintiff himself. "Aside from the question whether a fact issue of credibility is presented where an uncontradicted and in no way discredited witness gives testimony which, if accepted, controls the case, it has been held in a large number of cases that if the witness has a personal interest in the result, his credibility must always be regarded as involving an issue of fact which must go to the jury." 62 A.L.R.2d 1191. Annot. Credibility-Court or Jury Question, at p. 1198.
This is the meaning and the rationale of the Pennsylvania "oral testimony" rule. Second National Bank of Pittsburg v. Hoffman, 229 Pa. 429, 78 A. 1002 (1911). It is also a rule of the Federal courts, Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U.S. 401, 19 S. Ct. 233, 43 L. Ed. 492 (1899); Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 175 F.2d 86 (6th Cir. 1949). In Mihalchak v. American Dredging Co., 266 F.2d 875 (3rd Cir. 1959), a case arising under the Jones Act, the Court of Appeals for this Circuit held:
"Most of (plaintiff's) case rested on his own testimony, while the defendant put in no evidence at all on the issue of how the accident happened. In passing on a motion for directed verdict all evidence and inferences most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made must be indulged. Always when the motion is made by the proponent there is a problem of the credibility to be attached to his evidence, for if it is disbelieved in important degree his motion must fail. And yet there must be some reason other than caprice for disregarding the proponent's evidence to any significant extent.
Here adequate reason for leaving questions of credibility to the jury lay in the facts that the chief witness had an obvious interest in the case, that the testimony as to how the accident occurred was not very explicit, and that a considerable measure of improbability prevented the conclusion that the dog simply had slipped out of the gear. We conclude, therefore, that the trial judge correctly refused to direct a verdict * * *." (p. 878)
We conclude that the "oral evidence" rule in Pennsylvania is primarily a procedural device to guide the trial court in determining whether there is an issue of fact to submit to the jury. The issue is credibility of the witness, and where the issue is lacking, as where there is no reason to doubt his candor, then the reason for the rule falls. In the present case no interested witness testified for plaintiffs on the liability question. They are dead. The testimony was all from independent witnesses, largely recounting physical facts, the existence of which was not disputed, and the existence or non-existence of these facts was equally open to verification by defendant.
There being no state rule of substantive law at issue, we believe the matter is controlled by federal standards. 5 Moore's Federal Practice (2nd ed.) Para. 38.10 advocates this rule. "But the sufficiency of certain evidence to raise a question of fact for the jury, or for the court where trial is without jury, should not be controlled by state law." While Moore cites a substantial body of cases from the various federal circuits in support of his proposition, he also notes that the Supreme Court has specifically avoided the problem in Dick v. New York Life Ins. Co., 359 U.S. 437, 79 S. Ct. 921, 3 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1959), awaiting a case where the issue is directly raised, briefed and argued. Moore notes as "contra" the rule of three cases of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and states (p. 102 fn.): "Most, if not all, of these 'contra' cases are only superficially opposed to the position stated in the text, for usually the question posed was partly as to what facts would constitute a cause of action, undoubtedly a substantive matter, and partly as to the requisite measure of proof."
In the Third Circuit cases noted, Cooper v. Brown, 126 F.2d 874 (3rd Cir., 1942), the Court applied the state's "best evidence rule" as a matter of substantive law in the interpretation of a contract. In Waldron v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 141 F.2d 230 (3rd Cir. 1944), the opinion shows the existence of conflicting facts and circumstances which required a determination by the jury even under the federal standard. In Lennig v. New York Life Ins. Co., 122 F.2d 871 (3rd Cir., 1941), the court dealt with the effect, under Pennsylvania law, of the probability of accident rather than suicide, where the evidence is otherwise evenly balanced. Such probability is a matter for jury consideration under Pennsylvania law in life insurance cases.
We conclude that this federal court is not bound, under the Erie rule, to submit this matter to a jury solely because of the "oral testimony" rule, if the evidence is otherwise conclusive.
What then is the standard upon which we determine the plaintiffs' motion? In Mihalchak v. American Dredging Co., 266 F.2d 875 (3rd Cir., 1959), the court provided the following standards:
"From the form of the pleadings he had, on both of these issues, the risk of non persuasion - the persuasion burden - and the accompanying initial risk of non-production of evidence or the production burden. The question raised by plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, then, is whether he had so well succeeded in carrying his burden of producing evidence that he was entitled to a verdict in his favor as a matter of law."
"The propriety of directing a verdict in appropriate situations in favor of the party imposed initially with the risk of non-production of evidence seems to be well settled.
Yet though a motion for directed verdict in favor of the proponent of an issue is cast in the same form as when made by the defending party, it requires the judge to test the body of evidence not for its insufficiency to support a finding, but rather for its overwhelming effect. He must be able to say not only that there is sufficient evidence to support the finding, even though other evidence could support as well a contrary finding, but additionally that there is insufficient evidence for permitting any different finding. The ultimate conclusion that there is no genuine issue of fact
depends not on a failure to prove at least enough so that the controverted fact can be inferred, but rather depends on making impossible any other equally strong inferences once the fact in issue is at least inferable." (p. 877).
Apart from the argument that the matter must be submitted to the jury because of the "oral testimony rule", defendants' principal arguments are that violation of applicable FAA regulations was not conclusively proven and that there was no evidence of the proximate cause of the accident. As to certain of the FAA regulations there may be some ground of argument. The failure of the pilot to secure a weather briefing before departing from the Washington airport may not be a clear violation of Reg. 42.51(b) because the pilot had secured a weather briefing before leaving Peterson Field on the first leg of his journey, he secured a briefing in the air from Phillipsburg station shortly after his takeoff from Peterson Field, and after taking off from Washington on the return flight he received a briefing from the Pilot-to-Forecaster Service. Likewise, the report from Pilot-to-Forecaster Service received over Frederick, Md. told of light to moderate icing conditions below 10,000 feet along the line of his route. It was a violation of FAA Regulation 42.54 to fly a plane unequipped with deicing equipment, as was this one, into such conditions, but there is no clear evidence that icing conditions were the cause of the crash. Defendant further argues that the fact that the pilot reported to his home field about 3:55 p.m. that he was over Port Matilda establishes that the pilot was flying under VFR conditions at the time because he could see Port Matilda. Defendant's expert expressed his opinion that this report indicated VFR flight conditions, but he also admitted that the pilot could have estimated this location from his course and time elapsed. It was also testified that the pilot might have seen Port Matilda and yet have been flying below the minimum altitude requirements. Defendant's only other evidence to dispute the violation of the VFR rules was the opinion of its expert that the reports of local weather conditions did not always accurately report local conditions at a given moment, and that the only test was to go into the area and see. In essence, this testimony was a positive invitation not only to violate the FAA regulations but to take the very risk that they were intended to prevent.
The Visual Flight Regulations require a minimum ceiling of 1,000 feet and visibility of one mile. This did not exist at Phillipsburg, at University Park, at Peterson Field, and at the scene of the crash. It was established without contradiction by the plaintiff's meteorologist that the pilot passed into a general area of less than minimum visibility at some point in his flight to University Park. If he could no longer see, the only conclusion is that he was attempting to fly by Instrument Flight Regulations. But this would be illegal also. While the plane was equipped with the necessary instruments, the IFR rules require that when passengers are carried the aircraft shall be multiengine with dual controls and that a second pilot shall be required.
The Minimum Flight Altitude Rules for day VFR flight require a pilot to fly over 500 feet above the surface and over 1,000 feet above any mountain, hill or other obstruction to flight. The IFR rules for minimum altitude require flight not less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle located within a horizontal distance of five miles from the center of the course intended to be flown.
The pilot was in territory that he knew well. There were long ridges of mountrains along his course. The course from University Park to Peterson Field is about 240 degrees, and from Port Matilda is about 226 degrees. The pilot reported from Port Matilda that he was flying direct to Peterson Field. Yet within four or five minutes he crashed into a mountain 2,750 feet high at a point 150 feet below the summit, or at about 2,600 feet. The point of crash is due west or a course of 270 degrees from University Park and Port Matilda. The pilot was not on his course to his home port, he could not see where he was going, and he was below the minimum altitude required. The plane was in a condition of sustained level flight, cruise condition, at the time.
The clear, uncontradicted physical evidence of the crash itself establishes a violation of FAA regulations which is negligence as a matter of law.
While it is true that the violation of a statute or regulation is not grounds for liability unless that violation was a proximate cause of the accident, nevertheless when the statutory standard of conduct is enacted for the purpose of avoiding the particular harm that ensues, the causal relationship is established.
"The statute itself charges one that its violation will result in an injury of the character sought to be prevented in its enactment. A statute having for its purpose the preservation of life and the minimizing of personal injuries may impose a duty which is greater than the duty of ordinary care as such duty exists at common law, but a person who is charged by the statute with the necessity of exercising increased diligence must perform such duty or bear the consequences of his neglect." 38 Am.Jur. Negligence § 160, p. 832.
It is obvious that the intention of the minimum flight altitude rules for both VFR and IFR flights were intended to prevent the airplane from crashing into obstacles in its line of flight. Yet, this is exactly what happened in this case. The plane followed a 270 degrees course from University Park west passing over Port Matilda and crashing into Bald Eagle Mountain at an altitude of 2,600 feet in sustain level flight. The pilot was familiar with the area. Behind him at University Park there was less than minimum visibility conditions, to the southwest at Peterson Field, his intended destination, was less than minimum visibility conditions, to the northwest at Phillipsburg there was less than minimum visibility conditions, and directly ahead was Bald Eagle Mountain into which he crashed because he could not see it and because his altitude was less than the prescribed altitude for either visual or instrument flight. "If the injury complained of is a natural and probable consequence of a violation of the statute, then that violation is correctly taken as the proximate cause of the injury. If the very injury has happened which was intended to be prevented by the statute law, that injury must be considered as directly caused by the non-observance of the law." 38 Am.Jur. Negligence § 166, p. 838.
"But the existence of an ordinance changes the situation. If a driver causes an accident by exceeding the speed limit, for example, we do not inquire whether his prohibited conduct was unreasonably dangerous. It is enough that it was prohibited. Violation of an ordinance intended to promote safety is negligence. If by creating the hazard which the ordinance was intended to avoid it brings about the harm which the ordinance was intended to prevent, it is a legal cause of the harm." Ross v. Hartman, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 217, 139 F.2d 14, at p. 15, 158 A.L.R. 1370 (1943).
"If the injury complained of is a natural and probable consequence of a violation of the statute, then that violation is correctly taken as the proximate cause of the injury. If the very injury has happened which was intended to be prevented by the statute law, that injury must be considered as directly caused by the non-observance of the law." Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Green, 136 F.2d 88 (4th Cir., 1943)
Whether or not this pilot was off course because of lack of visibility or because he was attempting illegally to operate by instrument, whether or not he was misled by "magnetic variations" in the area, or a sudden snow storm, he was not fying at the prescribed altitude in mountainous terrain which he knew well. His failure to fly 1,000 feet from any mountain caused him to crash into that mountain. The question at issue is not what caused the pilot to depart from this standard. The record is bare of any evidence as to this. The question of causation is solely whether the pilot's flying on a course due west from University Park at an altitude of 2,600 feet caused him to crash into a mountain 2,750 feet high directly in the path of his course. We think that only one reasonable rational conclusion can follow, that the violation of the altitude regulation was the legal cause of the crash and the consequent damages.
There is another aspect to the claim of negligence here. The deceased passengers were passengers for hire on an airplane owned and operated by defendants as an air-taxi service. The defendant corporation operated several planes of different types and was so licensed to operate and fly to any part of the United States. As such a public carrier it owes its passengers a high degree of care. Griffith v. United Air Lines, 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964).
The evidence in this case is replete with instances of lack of due care, and that evidence is almost wholly uncontradicted or unrebutted. When the pilot started his flight there was a weather report which he received of a storm front moving into the area from the west. While the speed of its reported movement was such that he might have expected it not to arrive until he had completed his flight, it should have alerted him. He secured no weather briefing on the ground at Washington, D.C. before taking off, but when airborne over Frederick, Md., received a report that foretold deteriorating conditions. These should have alerted him to listen for future reports and be specially observant. In one respect it told him of icing conditions on his route, which he proceeded to ignore in violation of the regulations. So alerted he should have received the 3:17 p.m., special report from Phillipsburg, which would have warned of the lack of visibility at his area of destination. Or, being otherwise alerted, he could have called for this report at any time. Similarly, at 3:45 p.m., the same report was repeated, and earlier indications raised a duty to be alert to these reports. The exercise of a normal degree of care would have required the pilot to keep abreast of the weather changes as they occurred. He either failed to keep informed of the rapidly deteriorating weather conditions, or he proceeded into the adverse weather and substandard visibility conditions. Either course of conduct would constitute a failure to exercise the high degree of care required.
When the pilot actually encountered bad weather somewhere along his route before reaching his intended destination, he chose to fly directly into it, in the knowledge of a weather front approaching from the west and in the knowledge of the mountainous terrain. It was established by defendant's admissions read into the evidence that there were alternate airports, Harrisburg, 80 miles southeast of the accident site, and Williamsport, 74 miles northeast of the accident site, at which the weather at 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. was well above the minimum visibility requirements. Harrisburg was approximately along the line of flight from Washington, D.C. to University Park, and the pilot had passed over this area shortly before arrival at University Park where he found the visibility obscured. It was established that when the pilot encounters weather ahead of him which makes it impossible to proceed under visual conditions, the proper course is to turn back into the prior condition of visibility from which he had just come. FAA Regulation 42-51-1 makes the pilot responsible for pre-flight briefing on alternate airports and the weather conditions at those places.
All of these matters show a disregard of the high standard of care required of the pilot under the circumstances. They establish a course of conduct the negligence of which was not seriously disputed. Defendant's expert testimony to counter this was largely speculative, and attempted to promote the idea that it is sometimes possible to ignore the weather warnings with impunity because the weather conditions may be variable from place to place, and a personal inspection may reveal that the flight may safely proceed. All of these courses fly directly in the face of regulations which impose a standard of conduct, and certainly indicate less than the standard of care required under the circumstances.
"A natural and probable consequence of not thus landing safely before flying into the overcast obviously was that the plane would crash. If the injury is a natural and probable consequence of the negligence, then that negligence is the proximate cause of the injury * * * Since a natural and probable consequence of not returning to the Allegheny County Airport or landing at some other airport in the vicinity while he could have done so safely was that the plane would crash, Prashker's negligence in not so landing was a proximate cause of the crash and its accompanying fatality." Weissman v. Prashker, 107 Pittsb.Leg.J. 299, 301 (1959).
Defendant argues that since the pilot is dead, there is a presumption that he exercised due care. But this presumption does not stand in the face of the specific and definite evidence that the deceased did not use due care. Newsome v. Baker, 395 Pa. 99, 148 A.2d 906 (1959); Johns v. Baltimore & O.R.R. Co., 143 F. Supp. 15 (W.D.Pa., 1956), affd. P.C. 239 F.2d 385 (3rd Cir., 1957). The defendant produced nothing to controvert the physical evidence in this case of a crash in level flight against the side of a mountain, which could not happen if the statutory standards were being observed. "Thus, the defendant here was called upon to show how, consistent with due care, his car sheared through a telephone pole and visited death upon the passenger in his charge." First National Bank of McKeesport v. Simko, 384 Pa. 603, 605, 122 A.2d 47, 48 (1956).
In conclusion we can see no other reasonable finding from the evidence but that the plane was flying below the minimum altitude prescribed by the regulations and that this violation of regulations was negligence as a matter of law. The regulations had for their purpose the protection of lives from a collision with an object in its path. The plane did collide with a mountain and the passengers were killed. The violation of the regulation was a legal cause of the death. No testimony controverts the fact of the collision. There is no issue of credibility of this evidence. These are physical facts reported by disinterested witnesses, and are not established by opinion testimony. There is no presumption in favor of defendant that saves this issue for the jury.
We find this evidence to be identical to the type of evidence upon which the court granted summary judgment on liability in favor of plaintiff in American Airlines v. Ulen, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 307, 186 F.2d 529 (1949).
The plaintiffs' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict will be granted and the case assigned for inquisition of damages before a jury.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DITTER, District Judge.
This suit was brought to secure the right for a Catholic high school to engage in athletic contests against public schools. It comes before the court on a motion to dismiss an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs, all minor children of George M. Horn, Jr., attend a Catholic grade school, St. Mary's in the City of Lebanon. It is averred that they are "prospective enrollees and students of Lebanon Catholic High School." The complaint alleges that this high school is not permitted to field teams in the Lancaster-Lebanon Public High School Athletic Association. To take part in organized competition against member schools, Lebanon Catholic would have to join the Athletic Association. However, membership in this Association is limited to public schools. Plaintiffs aver they will be denied educational and character building benefits provided by athletic competition. They contend this is discrimination against them because of their religious practices, affiliations, and beliefs in violation of rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles III, IV, and VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000b et seq., 2000c et seq. and 2000e et seq.
In the original complaint in this case, George M. Horn, Jr., the father of these children, was the only plaintiff. His suit was dismissed for lack of standing on the authority of Sierra Club v. Morton, 401 U.S. 907, 91 S. Ct. 870, 27 L. Ed. 2d 805 (1972), and Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 99-102, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 1952-54, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968), with leave to amend. The amended complaint has not solved the standing problem. The current plaintiffs do not attend Lebanon Catholic High School, nor does the complaint indicate that they will do so in the near future. For all that is said, they may be in the first or second grade thereby rendering their action premature. See Fuller v. Volk, 351 F.2d 323, 329 (3rd Cir. 1965). In the absence of some indication of immediacy, plaintiffs' reliance on statements made by the District Court when Fuller was remanded to it, 250 F. Supp. 81, 83 (D.N.J.1966), that parents of fifth grade students have standing to attack a sixth grade desegregation plan is not well taken.
I conclude that the amended complaint, like that brought originally, must be dismissed for lack of standing.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.


decided: April 13, 1978.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE,
JAMES QUENTIN RILEY, APPELLANT
No. 111 March Term 1977, Appeal from Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Criminal Division at No. 2403, 1973.
Frederic G. Antoun, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Harrisburg, for appellant.
Marion E. MacIntyre, Second Assistant District Attorney, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, District Attorney, Harrisburg, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, President Judge and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Jacobs, President Judge, concurs in the result. Watkins, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 262]
The instant appeal arises from the revocation of appellant's probation. Appellant raises several arguments to bolster his contentions that the hearing court lacked the power to revoke his probation and impose a prison sentence and that the court, even if it had such power, abused it by relying extensively upon hearsay evidence proffered by appellant's probation officer. While we agree with the Commonwealth that the hearing court could validly revoke appellant's probation, we agree with appellant that the court erred in relying upon hearsay evidence in exercising its power in this case. Hence, we will reverse and remand for a new hearing.
On October 25, 1973 appellant and his wife were caught by the police inside a beer distributor's store after its closing. The door to the store had been pried open and the office had been ransacked prior to the arrival of the police. Since the day's business receipts had been removed before closing, no money was stolen. However, appellant forced entry into the building and his futile search for money caused approximately $198 worth of damage.
After making restitution to the proprietor of the business,*fn1 appellant eventually pleaded guilty to burglary. Thereafter, on April 3, 1975, the court imposed the following punishment:
"The sentence of the court is that the defendant pay a fine of $300, the cost of prosecution and that he be placed on a period of state probation under the supervision of the
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 263]
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole for a period of three years. One of the conditions of probation is that the fine and costs that have been imposed upon him be paid within ninety days from the date hereof."
With respect to appellant's argument that the court lacked the power to revoke his probation, the critical aspects of the foregoing order are its imposition of a "fine" plus the establishment of probation. The difficulty arises because of the construction the courts have given two complementary statutes empowering the courts to grant probation to persons convicted of crimes against the Commonwealth, both of which were in effect when appellant committed the burglary in 1973. The older of the two statutes is the Act of June 19, 1911, P.L. 1055, § 1, 19 P.S. § 1051 (1964). In pertinent part that act granted the courts the power to order probation and set terms and conditions which may include "the payment of money for the use of the county, not exceeding, however, the fine fixed by law for conviction of [an] offense, as it may deem right and proper . . . ." [Emphasis added.] Moreover, the act concludes: "No such condition for the payment of money shall be considered a fine or a sentence nor prevent the court from thereafter sentencing any defendant under the act under which he or she was convicted, upon violation of his or her parole." The power of the courts to set probation was expanded somewhat by the Act of August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, 61 P.S. § 331.25 (1964) which eliminated the probationary bar posed by some offenses in the 1911 Act,*fn2 but re-emphasized that probation may only be imposed "instead of imposing . . . sentence."
The problem in construction is that a fine is a sentence which, when imposed as such, the language of the Act of 1911 notwithstanding, precludes the further imposition of probation. Commonwealth v. Peterson, 172 Pa. Super. 341, 94 A.2d 582 (1953). Cf. Commonwealth v. Denson, 157 Pa. Super. 257, 40 A.2d 895 (1945); Commonwealth v. Ciccone, 84 Pa. Super. 224 (1924). Hence, it should be apparent
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 264]
that Pennsylvania has been laboring under a semantic anomaly. If the sentencing court clearly imposes a fine as a sentence, it may not additionally establish probation. However, if the court establishes probation, it may require the defendant pay a sum of money equal to the legally permissible fine "to the use of the county" as a condition of probation. Commonwealth v. Rooney, 223 Pa. Super. 757, 299 A.2d 344 (1972). The case law and the statutes together presented an intolerable loophole whereby an inadvertent slip of the tongue could frustrate, almost entirely, the judgment of the sentencing court. Furthermore, the problem rose to a nightmare of interpretation because the mere fact that the court designated the condition of monetary payment a "fine" did not render the probation void. Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 201 Pa. Super. 649, 193 A.2d 657 (1943).
Presumably alert to the problem, soon after adopting the Crimes Code, the legislature removed this anachronism by adding the Act of December 30, 1974, P.L. 1052, No. 345, § 1, 18 Pa.C.S. § 1326 (Supp.1977). This act expressly grants the courts the power to impose a fine in addition to probation and call it such. By doing so, the legislature simply eliminated the necessity for the sentencing court to couch its phraseology in terms which parroted the Act of 1911; for, in substance, Section 1326 gave the court no power which it already did not possess.
Appellant argues, however, that applying Section 1326 to his case gives the statute an impermissible ex post facto effect, because he committed the burglary prior to the effective date of Section 1326, although Section 1326 was indisputably in effect when he was placed on probation. Regardless of whether the effect of applying Section 1326 to this case is retroactive, we are not persuaded that it is impermissible. In general, one of the following criteria must obtain before a statute, or the application thereof will be held invalid as an ex post facto law: (1) The law makes an act criminal which was not criminal when done; (2) The law aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed; (3) The law changes a punishment, and
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 265]
makes it greater than it was when the punishable act was committed; and (4) The law alters the rules of evidence and requires less or different testimony than the law required at the time the offense was committed, in order to convict. Commonwealth v. Kalck, 239 Pa. 533, 538, 87 A. 61 (1913). See also Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798). Of the foregoing, it can be seen that only the third standard is arguably offended in the case at bar. However, as has been discussed above, Section 1326 did not enhance the power of the court to assess money damages in addition to probation, it simply eliminated a semantic pitfall. Hence, we do not perceive its application to the instant case as violating the prohibition against ex post facto laws. In short, Section 1326 did not increase the punishment which a probationer could receive, but merely expanded the terminology the court could employ in imposing that punishment. Therefore, as applied to this case, it is not an ex post facto law. Cf. Commonwealth v. Kalck, supra; United States ex rel. Forino v. Garfinkel, 166 F.2d 887 (3rd Cir. 1948); Padgett v. Stein, 406 F.Supp. 287 (M.D.Pa.1975).
Having determined that the court properly established probation and, therefore, could validly revoke it and impose a prison sentence, the question remains whether the court abused its discretion in the instant case by relying in substantial part on hearsay testimony.
At appellant's probation revocation hearing appellant was charged only with one technical violation of probation, failure to maintain employment. The sole witness for the Commonwealth was appellant's probation officer, Mary Leftridge, whose testimony began with a narrative history, not in question and answer form, of appellant's prior conduct and emotional problems. The portions of this testimony which were probative were almost entirely hearsay, having been distilled from conversations Miss Leftridge had and reports she read concerning appellant.*fn3 When appellant's
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 266]
counsel objected to this hearsay testimony, the court noted that probation revocation proceedings were less formal than a trial, and indicated that the court was not inclined to require the Commonwealth to bring in those witnesses whose firsthand knowledge of particular incidents and reports could substantiate Miss Leftridge's testimony. However, the court then asked the witness if there were a specific charge to revoke probation. Miss Leftridge responded that there was one charge, appellant's failure to remain in the employ of a company called Pennsylvania Sick Room Supply. According to Miss Leftridge appellant had reported to work for the company, but quit after one hour.*fn4
Appellant subsequently took the stand and disputed much of the hearsay testimony, explained that he had worked nearly two hours at telephone solicitation for the supply company making only one dollar, and testified that he got another job immediately after quitting the supply company. Having received this evidence the court revoked appellant's probation directing that he be committed to the state prison
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 267]
where he should report forthwith to the diagnostic and classification center.*fn5
The Commonwealth agrees with appellant that probation revocation proceedings entail the right to confront and cross-examine accusers. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102, 305 A.2d 701 (1973). Instead, the Commonwealth argues that with respect to the violation relied upon by the Commonwealth to revoke probation, appellant's leaving the employ of the Pennsylvania Sick Room Supply Co., no hearsay evidence was introduced. We find this argument to be misleading.*fn6
First, we find it extremely unlikely that the court would have revoked appellant's probation solely on the basis of this one technical violation, especially in the light of appellant's undisputedly prompt and successful attempt to remedy his unemployment. Indeed, we feel that such a brief hiatus from employment would not be sufficient to convince a court that probation has not been "an effective vehicle to accomplish rehabilitation and a sufficient deterrent against future anti-social conduct." Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. at 115, 305 A.2d at 708; Commonwealth v. Davis, 234 Pa. Super. 31, 41, 336 A.2d 616 (1975). However, we need not determine whether the court would have abused its discretion if it had relied only on the cited violation in revoking probation, because the court clearly relied on the inadmissible hearsay in determining that probation should be revoked. In announcing its decision on this matter, the court stated that it "was satisfied that there had been sufficient violations of a technical nature to support the request for a revocation of parole. . . ." [Emphasis added.] In light of the foregoing we find that the revocation
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 268]
of appellant's parole rested in large part on hearsay and may not be sustained.
Judgment of sentence is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.


Juici Up Ur Photo
Aug 24, 2013Juici Up Ur Photo
Aug 24, 2013 - FruJuici Beverages, Inc is proud to introduce the Juici up Ur Photo app! It's not just another photo editing app- you won't find cropping, rotation, flash, or blemish removal here. Juici Up Ur Photo is a great picture editing app for today's teens and tweens. Juici up Ur Photo is easy and fast! The app features four different walls for you to place your soon-to-be graffiti on. Next, choose from three graffiti styles for your chosen photo. Choose from one of the pre-made tags or type in your own.


So far, I’ve been pretty slack at representing the diverse range of insects across the globe. So for the very last AOTW of the year, let me present to you the Tarantula Hawk Wasp.
This voracious critter gets its name from the way it aggressively hunts Tarantulas. The female hawk wasp injects these spiders with a paralyzing sting, drags her prey into an underground burrow and lays an egg on top of the tarantula’s body. When this egg hatches the wasp larva is able to enjoy a delicious meal of paralyzed spider. The larva is particularly careful to avoid the tarantula’s vital organs, keeping it alive and fresh for as long as possible. As if this wasn’t enough, the sting of the tarantula hawk wasp is described by the Schmidt Sting Pain Index as if “a running hair-dryer has been dropped into your bubblebath” and is rated only slightly less painful than the bite of a bullet ant.
Surprisingly, adult hawk wasps are nectarivores, feeding off the flowers of milkweeds or sweet fermenting fruit. The natural alcohol in this fruit often gets hawk wasps as crunk as a first year on a Wednesday night and they have been described by one random internet blogger as doing “nosedives into the swimming pool for no apparent reason, crashing into me, falling to the ground and just laying there flailing about.” AOTW OTP.


By Michael Fitzhugh
GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE:GSK) is raising its stake in Theravance (THRX), adding $129 million to support the pair’s shared pipeline of drugs for late stage asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other ailments.
The private placement raises to 19% GSK’s share of Theravance, building on an investment GSK made in the company when they first formed their partnership to develop novel long-acting Beta2 agonists for the treatment of respiratory diseases in 2002.
Chief among the products of their collaboration to date is Relovair, heir to the throne of Advair, GSK’s best-selling medicine for asthma attacks and COPD. Advair loses patent protection in 2011.
But even without a generic rival breathing down its neck, GSK is keen to gain approval for Relovair’s improved dosing scheme - once daily, versus twice daily with Advair. The duo also face some urgency in gaining approval for Relovair, which is working through late-stage clinical trials at a rate that could allow GSK to beat Novartis’ alternative inhaled medicine, QMF149, to market.
Moncef Slaoui, GSK’s chairman of research and development, says the two companies have built a strong relationship since inking their first agreement. He says GSK’s expanded investment in its South San Francisco, Calif.,-based partner reflects the confidence GSK has in the Relovair program and the wider late-stage respiratory pipeline built up through the collaboration.


'24 Karat' Shimmer Brick Highlighter
Product not available
Give the gift of gold - with the 24 Karat Shimmer Brick, that is. Five bars of pearlescent shimmer highlight the skin for a lit-from-within glow. Each bar also doubles as an eyeshadow.
How to use: Sweep the Face Blender Brush through all five shades of Shimmer Brick Compact and dust lightly on cheekbones after blush. Focus on applying shimmer to the top of cheekbones where light naturally hits the face for the most flattering look. To add a highlight to your eyes, use your fingertips to apply the lightest shade in the compact just beneath the brow bone.
- By Bobbi Brown.


They took away their golf course, but they couldn’t take away their friendships. For over five decades, the women of the Ponce de Leon Women’s Golf Association met on Tuesdays to play golf on the historic Donald Ross-designed course on U.S. 1 in north St. Augustine. Over the years the women formed lifelong friendships, shared each others joys and woes, planned social events and supported various community causes.
In time, the membership roster of the Ponce ladies changed, but the group’s open, welcoming attitude remained the same. Nancy Frohardt recalls joining the association in the mid-1990s. “As a newcomer to St. Augustine and golf, The Ponce de Leon Women’s Golf Association was a welcoming and tolerant group of gals of all ages and skills. It was a most humbling experience when I got paired with someone almost twice my age. Although I could almost always out-driver her, she could beat me. She was right down the middle every time, while I was left, right and in the woods.”
Connie Lewis recalls the “Mixed Hilly-Dilly” events held on Friday nights that included both men and women. “This was a nine-hold scramble with each person putting in a dollar. Afterwards we met in the lounge for a Happy Hour and awarded prizes to winners. It was probably the best times for Will (her husband) and me at the Ponce. We gathered many lasting friendships because of the group.”
The least happy memory the women share is of the day in September, 2001 that changed their world. “We had just finished playing the front nine,” Lilly Vaill recalls, “and we were passing the Mulligans Snack Shop, when someone came running out to the 10th tee to tell us there had been a plane crash in New York. It wasn’t until we got back to the clubhouse that we learned the whole story. Mary Hafeman, golf director, and all the members were crowded about the big TV set, stunned by the news that the World Trade Center buildings had been reduced to rubble and that the Pentagon had been attacked.”
But, for the most part, the women’s memories of the Ponce days are happy ones — the welcome breeze that sprang up off the Tolomato River regularly at 10 on hot summer mornings, the deer and foxes that bounded across the fairways just when a golfer was about to make a critical shot, the charming otter family that lived by the pond on No. 13, the congregation of woodstorks that often gathered under the mossy oaks at No. 5, the picturesque old barn sagging on the outskirts of No. 7 fairway.
Then, in May of 2003, developer Chester Stokes bought the course from the previous owner, a foreign investor. He announced that 750 luxury homes would be built on the Ponce’s 431 acres and that the golf course, founded in 1912 and one of Florida’s oldest, was to be closed.
The ladies played their final tournament, a scramble May 1, 2003, and said a sad farewell to the historic course. There was anger and even a few tears among the women, but also a fierce determination to keep the 431 acres of beautiful marsh and riverfront from being desecrated. In conjunction with various other groups such as the Audubon Society and other environmental and historical organizations, the ladies mounted a fierce fight to preserve the land.
In the end, despite endless meetings and appeals, the developer won what now seems an ironic victory. First, his plans were delayed by the necessity to remove much of the golf course’s soil because of the presence of the arsenic that had been used for pest control in years past. Then the housing bubble burst and the plan to construct luxury waterfront homes hit a reef.
Today, only a few houses have been built on the northern part of the property nearest the airport. In the nine years since, the course has set idle. Its fairways, tee boxes and greens have become grossly overgrown and almost indistinguishable from the surrounding wild. If there is any satisfaction to be gleaned from that outcome, perhaps it is that the deer and birds and foxes and otters have not yet been displaced from their homes.
As for the Ponce ladies, no developer has been able to sever the bond they share. They have stayed together and even picked up a few “honorary Ponce ladies” along the way. With alternate members serving as hostess, they still meet once a month, sometimes to golf together at various courses, other times to share an English tea or a picnic in Vaill Point Park, or to explore St. Augustine’s many restaurants.
This coming April, the hostess will be the group’s senior member and one of its most active over the years, Elwyn Hancock. She has invited the women in the group to come celebrate with her on her 90th birthday.
The Ponce ladies will be there.


Just a super quick post this morning to add a quick card!
|I used Nichole Heady's trick of outlining the flowers in a Copic close to their color. Love how this looks|
|Just a strip of the sunflowers cut off the front panel makes for an easy border on the inside.|
A few weeks ago, Impression Obsession came out with 12 or so (maybe it was 16) new Cover-A-Card stamps and I fell in love with this one from the very start.
Sunflowers to me ARE summer!!! I once was in total awe when we passed a sunflower field on the PA turnpike because I swear for 3-4 miles it was just a sea of golds, yellows and browns. It was just stunning.
I'm entering this card into the Impression Obsession's "Fun in the Sun" challenge this week because I just love their stamps.......and to me, flowers are the fun part of summer!
Have a great summer day and go enjoy some flowers!!!


Recent news articles on the Parthenon Restoration Project
23 October 2007
30-year campaign for chips off an old block
Read more from The Sydney Morning Herald
Greece makes booty call for lost marbles
Read more from The Australian
© 2002-2011 The University of Sydney.
ABN: 15 211 513 464. CRICOS Number: 00026A. Phone: +61 2 9351 2222.
Authorised by: Dean, Faculty of Architecture, Design & Planning.


Oh you spring, you sure had us fooled for a while!
Anyway, chillier or not, the sun has been out this week and so have I and my little supergirl, constantly by my side or in my arms whatever I do. With some common sense in mind that should have restricted my wardrobe to jeans and more childproof items by now, but that won’t happen, at least as long there’s no mudd involved!
Oh you spring, you sure had us fooled for a while!
I have lost count how often people ask me how old my baby boy is, instantly thinking the absence of pink and silly dollish prints, substituted with black, blue or other “non-gender-related-colours”, means she’s a boy. According to my mum, apparently the same thing happened to me as a child, but once an elderly lady told her it would bring good luck in life being mistaken for the opposite sex. Whether or not the latter being true, I’m feeling quite lucky and blessed in life, and I still stick to my “boyish” pieces that somehow ended up dominating my wardrobe.
One of the magazines always glittering up my coffee table is Acne Paper. The 15’th issue that was released last week is a tribute to some of the greatest actresses of our time and includes portraits, interviews, illustrations and tributes to the likes of Greta Garbo, Isabella Rosselini, Liv Ullman, Robin Wright, Jessica Lange, Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, and the list goes on.
I’m so into my denim pieces these days and have pretty much worn all my favourite denim pieces this past week, mixed with old and new accessories. In this case my new cat eyes by Celine, and these floral pumps that will be perfect to spice up a pair of worn-out denims, a white shirt, and coat when it gets cooler.
For now we’re still blessed with summer in London (hurra!), so I’ll push those thoughts of coats further away, but we all know we can’t wait too long to get our hands on the best pieces for fall, so ‘my-favourite-coats-picks’ are coming up here soon.
After fantastic days in Sardinia I’m back on the concrete with whites and pale colours on my mind, which are perfect for the high temperatures we’re still blessed with in London. Though I’ve invested in and eyeing gorgeous new heels for my wardrobe, I pretty much swear to flats when I’m on the run these days. In the summer heat, and hectic days with work and my little girl in my arms it’s the obvious alternative. Flats me, hehe, who would have thought?
Jeans+shirt, an unbeatable combo of mine, worn with sandals is probably what you would most likely see me in if we run into each other this summer. Not complicated at all, just like me, wishing you a fabulous Friday noon superstars!
Right now I’m about to jump on a train to Paris along with my little girl, and if I ever thought I had difficulties packing and organising before I certainly have pushed the barrier a little further now.
Anyway, here’s close to what I’ve been wearing a lot lately, denims and flats, which simply suits my lifestyle and (London) weather, like when these images were snapped it went from sunny to rainy almighty.
Wishing you all a fab weekend!
Sorry for disappearing for a couple of days but I’ve had too much to do privately, my mum visiting and a few last preps for the baby who could arrive any time soon(!!!).
I’ll be missing out on most fashion-week-stuff this February which is for someone, workaholic like me, a little frustrating, but bless online screenings with today’s highlights such as Tibi, Alexander Wang and Altuzarra from NY.
As for my own outfit posts there won’t be many more from me in the weeks ahead, having had my wardrobe totally recycled lately, but I promise I’ll be back for sure afterwards finally fitting into my New life, New ideas and New wardrobe.
Wishing you all a fabulous weekend!!!
After some pretty dark and London-cloudy-months it finally looks like days are getting a little brighter with the sun popping out more frequently, and I bet(!) no one is happier than me! The sunglasses are back on and this oversized wayfarer pair by Acne that I got last year will definitely be spotted on my nose come spring as well.
Happy Monday noon folks!
Winter has hit London town and we’ve had days of snow and minus degrees for the first time in ages. Though it hasn’t been the brightest light it’s kind of ok, the wet snow I mean, though I’m sure many find it quite frustrating sartorial wise. Well, on my side I don’t really bother as I already feel quite limited, and can’t really fit into much anylonger other than my “every day-uniform”, stretchy dresses, coats and boots. I’m afraid there won’t be many colourful “new” outfit posts here until my baby is due, which feels a little frustrating being who I am and seeing the new fabulous season hitting stores.
Anyway, this duvet parka by Acne, that gives you the feeling of being wrapped up in a blanket, has ended up being one of my best buys for this winter, perfect for chilly days!
Jersey dress from Topshop, merino tights by Wolford, knit and duvet parka by Acne, boots by Isabel Marant, necklace by Cooee and bag by Proenza Schouler.
I dont’ know why, but for some reason I find it almost impossible to find chic iphone 5 cases these days (did you hear that all brands out there!). And since I’m neither into rabbit ears nor funny dog faces, this printed case by Weston does the job for now for a reasonable price of £33. Bag by Acne.
I’ve lost track of how many mails I’ve received the last 2 years from readers asking to buy my Scale bag by Acne that pretty much sold out globally back in 2011. Well, happy news is that the gorgeous bag is back in leather and suede, in different colours and shapes, with the signature buckle designed by Husam El Odeh. If you fancy any of these beauties you’ll find them here, pricing from £300 to £600.


Ryan Hemsworth has always set himself aside as an eclectic producer, and with a tune like this on his belt, he is showing the rap game he is ready to produce for and with the best. Most producers who DJ as well in the same “field” as Ryan Hemsworth is in, generally speaking, are in sights of working with huge rap artists, or even composers to bring their music to the next level. I could hear Weezy coming in on this track, or even Quincy Jones writing some of this out for his orchestra as a nice, trill little interlude. Hell, when this track first started, with the horn section and clicks like horse-feet trotting, I easily could have pictured Kanye making this beat, however, in a classic Hemsworth fashion, the buildups and percussive elements have that unique electronic style that could only be Ryan himself. Stay tuned to your boy, he’s obviously up to some big things!
Download: Proto – Ryan Hemsworth


We previously talked about extratorrent alternatives, and now how to download extratorrents movies. What you will learn here is basically how to download extra torrents movies from PC or desktop without registration and free using Bittorrent.
Extra torrents is one of the best Torrent sites with Alexa ranking of 211. In the world of downloading Torrent files one must be conscious of virus affected files to play safe. That is the more reason we are looking into extratorrent.cc today.
However extratorrent has proved to be one of those Torrent sites without affected files on its database ever since we got to know it.
Extratorrent.cc is like other Torrent sites where leechers download files and subject its to admin vetting before live. And over time we found out that most poeple don’t know how to download extratorrents movies using Bittorrent client. Some don’t even know how to use Bittorrent.
In fact most Extra torrent users don’t really know about using Bittorrent client to download Torrent files.
This post is going to be short and precise and it will centered on how to download extra torrents movies using a Torrent software called Bittorrent client.
How to Download Extratorrents Movies Using Bittorrent Client
This post will reveal to you everything you need to know on how to download latest Extra torrents files, browse extratorrent.cc for your favorite files and finally, download extratorrents movies without registration.
1. Download and Install Bittorrent client for PC and or Android phone. You can restart your device but it is not compulsory.
2. Visit Extratorrent file download site and search for the files you want to download with Bittorrent. Right click on the file and copy the URL.
3. Click on the hyperlink icon on your Bittorent client and paste the file URL you copied from Extra torrents. Then click OK to start downloading your Torrent file.
Note: On so many occasions you may get error encoding. There is nothing to much about that. Just make sure you internet connection is averagely Ok and be so sure that you copied the right code from your Torrent site.
This procedure can be used to download Torrents movies from any Torrent site. Here is a list of most popular Torrent sites as at this hour of the day.
How to Hide Your IP While Download Extratorrents Movies
On so many occasions you may want to hide your IP address while browsing a Torrent site. This is advisable as it protects your IP address from being traced, and also keep you safer from hacker. However there are quiet a reasonable number of sites to hide your IP. Here is a list of 350+ sites to unlock torrents sites.
Here we will talk on how to hide your IP using extratorrents.cc free VPN. It’s free and you are free to use.
1. The moment you landed on extratorrent site a warning message will pops as seen in the image below.
2. Click on the second option that says ” Extratorrent strongly recommends using trust.zone.vpn to anonymize your torrenting. That is advisable though but you may be prompted to make payment after free trial.


Egg Films’ Kim Geldenhuys’ directed Moving Forward, the new Standard Bank commercial from TBWA\Hunt\Lascaris. The spot showcases the significant historical moments from the 1900s to the present day, telling the story of how the human race has progressed and how good it feels to move forward.
BlackGinger seamlessly integrated new actors into the stock footage of iconic breakthrough moments like the Wright brothers’ first flight, women voting in the US for the first time, the end of the Second World War, and, closer to home, South Africa’s first democratic elections in 1994, the Rugby World Cup victory in 1995, and the SKA astronomy project that has taken South Africa to the forefront of international science and technology.
“With each step forward for humanity, regardless of its scope, one thing remains constant: our joy in celebrating the act itself – that breakthrough moment of progress,” says Geldenhuys.
The advert features an all-star cast, including Albert Einstein, Charlie Chaplin, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Miriam Makeba, Haile Gebre Selassie, and James Small, but Kim says it’s not about lauding the hero of every moment. “It’s about celebrating the moment itself for the sake of ‘Everyman.’ It’s about reminding people of how far we have come and how justified we are in celebrating our progress as a global collective.”
Edited by Kobus Loots at Upstairs Post, the spot is held together by some clever lip-synching to RobRoy Music’s mashup of various versions of Sh Boom Sh Boom (Life Could Be A Dream), originally written by The Chords.
Watch it here.


Looking for a Faster Website? Thanks to Our Plugin, WordPress has never been so Efficient. Don’t waste your time taking advantage of a quick and intuitive configuration. Stop tearing your hair out and leave WP Rocket propel your site to the stars.View Demo
Our Rating / User rating are closed.
Download – WP Rocket v2.6.13 – WordPress Cache Plugin reviewed by Nergal Scott on December 15, 2015 rated 4.9 of 5
AIT Easy Admin WordPress Dashboard Plugin Offer your customers a simplified WordPress administration without any ...


Frank is feeling a little better today. Thanks for asking.
While the UK entrenches itself up to its neck in car culture, the scientific world debates whether it is best to starve us all and destroy our biodiversity in the name of biofuel or bio-electricity - whichever gives most miles per acre. Motorists, as ever, expect to be coddled through without inconvenience.
Those on two wheels had better watch their backs.
So many choices, so little accurate information.
What price action?
China and Italy invest heavily in renewables


This item is only available as the following downloads:
August 10, 2007John F. Kennedy Space Center Americas gateway to the universe Spaceport News http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/snews/spnews_toc.html Vol. 46, No. 16 STS-118 crew members proud of modified EndeavourNASAs Phoenix begins journey to sample Mars water (See PHOENIX, Page 7) THE DELTA II rocket carrying NASAs Phoenix Mars lander launches from Pad 17A on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Phoenix will land in icy soils near the permanent ice cap of Mars in May 2008.By Linda Herridge Staff Writer A t press time, the Space Shuttle Endeavour and the STS-118 seven-member crew were scheduled to lift off from Launch Pad 39A on Aug. 8. Commander Scott Kelly will lead Pilot Charlie Hobaugh and Mission Specialists Tracy Caldwell, Alvin Drew, Rick Mastracchio, Barbara R. Morgan and Dave Williams on the scheduled 11-day mission. The 22nd flight to the International Space Station will be the first mission for Morgan, the teacher-turned-astronaut whose association with NASA began more than 20 years ago. The mission also marks the first flight for Endeavour since 2002. An excited orbiter team cheered as Endeavour made its way from the Orbiter Processing Facility to the Vehicle Assembly Building last month for mating to its external tank and solid rocket boosters. After spending nearly five years in the facility for intense orbiter modification and maintenance, known as OMM, Endeavour was ready to fly. When the OMM and returnto-flight modifications were completed in June, the team had inspected, tested, repaired, replaced, modified or upgraded practically every piece of the orbiters components. The first station-to-shuttle (See ENDEAVOUR, Page 4) N ASAs Phoenix Mars mission blasted off Aug. 4 and is now aiming for a May 25, 2008, arrival at the Red Planet for a close-up examination of the surface of the northern polar region. Perched atop a Delta II rocket, the spacecraft left Cape Canaveral Air Force Base Launch Pad 17A at 5:26 a.m. The spacecraft established communications with its ground team via the Goldstone, Calif., antenna station of NASAs Deep Space Network at 7:02 a.m. after separating from the third stage of the launch vehicle. The NASA Launch Services Program at Kennedy Space Center and the United Launch Alliance are responsible for the Delta II launch service. The launch team did a spectacular job getting us on the way, said Barry Goldstein, Phoenix project manager at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. We are all thrilled! Phoenix will be the first mission to touch water-ice on Mars. The spacecrafts robotic arm will dig to an icy layer believed to lie just beneath the surface. The mission will study the history of the water in the ice, monitor weather of the polar region, and investigate whether the subsurface environment in the far-northern plains of Mars has ever been favorable for sustaining microbial life. The Phoenix Mars mission is the first of NASAs competitively proposed and selected Mars Scout missions, supplementing the agencys core Mars Exploration Program, whose theme is follow the water. The University of SPACE SHUTTLE Endeavours cockpit instrumentation was replaced with a new multi-functional electronic display system, also called the glass cockpit. The orbiter has undergone nearly five years of modifications.
SPACEPORT NEWS August 10, 2007 Page 2 AwardsT he National Space Club of Florida will recognize space pioneers Norris Chief Gray, Jay Honeycutt and Charlie Murphy with the 2007 Lifetime Achievement Awards during a luncheon at 11:30 a.m. Aug. 14 at the DoubleTree Hotel in Cocoa Beach. Jay, Charlie and Norris each have made significant contributions to the space community through their impressive careers, said Adrian Laffitte, chairman of the non-profit organization. The Space Club is proud to acknowledge their achievements. Gray, retired since 1984, still serves as a NASA public affairs volunteer with almost 60 years of involvement in rocket launching activities at Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center, spanning from the Bumper rocket launch to the Space Shuttle Programs STS117 mission. His spaceport career began in 1949 at the Joint LongRange Proving Ground before moving on to the Cape Canaveral National Space Club honors three with Lifetime Achievement Awards Missile Annex as fire chief and emergency preparedness officer. Honeycutts career has spanned almost the entire history of the U.S. human spaceflight program. He served as director of Kennedy Space Center and director of shuttle management and operations at KSC. He was responsible for engineering management and technical direction of preflight, launch, landing and recovery activities for shuttles. Honeycutt served as special assistant to the associate administrator for spaceflight, and coordinated Presidential Commission and Congressional activities related to the Challenger accident. He retired from a Lockheed Martin program vice president position in 2004. Murphy, a recently retired senior executive for United Space Alliance, is a 48-year veteran of aerospace launch operations. He has served critical roles on theFROM LEFT, Norris Chief Gray, Jay Honeycutt (pictured left) and Charlie Murphy will be honored by the National Space Club of Florida with Lifetime Achievement Awards on Aug. 14 at the montly luncheon. XSM-64 Navaho Program; the Titan, Atlas and Minuteman Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Programs; the S-II stage of the Saturn V; the Apollo Command and Service Module; and the Space Shuttle Program, where he directed launch and landing operations and all orbiter logistics. For reservations, contact LaDonna Neterer at 867-0895 or LaDonna.J.Neterer@boeing.com T he crew members for NASAs STS-120 mission recently completed their Crew Equipment Interface Test, or CEIT, at the Kennedy Space Center. Among the activities standard to a CEIT are harness training, inspection of the thermal protection system and camera operation for planned extravehicular activities. The STS-120 mission will deliver the Harmony module, christened after a school contest, which will provide attachment points for European and Japanese laboratory modules on the International Space Station. Also known as Node 2, it is similar to the six-sided Unity module that links the U.S. and Russian sections of the station. Built in Italy for the United States, Harmony will be the first new U.S. pressurized component to be added. The STS-120 mission is targeted to launch on Oct. 20. Visit www.nasa.gov/shuttle for the latest update.STS-120 crew members complete test for October mission INSPECTING THE thermal protection system, or TPS, tiles under Space Shuttle Discovery in Orbiter Processing Facility bay 3 are, from left, Expedition 16 Flight Engineer Daniel Tani; Mission Specialist Douglas Wheelock; Pilot George Zamka; Mission Specialist Paolo Nespoli (sitting), a European Space Agency astronaut from Italy; Mission Specialist Scott Parazynski; Commander Pamela Melroy; Allison Bolinger (kneeling), an EVA technician with NASA; and Mission Specialist Stephanie Wilson. STS-120 CREW members handle tools they will use during the mission. Around the table, from left with flight suits, are Mission Specialists Scott Parazynski, Douglas Wheelock, Paolo Nespoli and Expedition 16 Flight Engineer Daniel Tani. GIVING A close inspection to Discovery are Mission Specialist Stephanie Wilson (left) and Commander Pamela Melroy.
SPACEPORT NEWS Page 3 August 10, 2007 Hail monitoring system provides accurate analysis JOHN LANE, an ASRC Aerospace engineer, kneels next to the hail monitoring system. Other developers of the monitor include, from left, Joe Dean, Bill Haskell, Bob Cox and Dr. Bob Youngquist. August NASA employees of the month By Jeff Stuckey Editor B etween the late-February hailstorm that forced Space Shuttle Atlantis to roll back from Launch Pad 39A to the Vehicle Assembly Building, to the July torrential rainstorms that brought the potential for more hail, Kennedy Space Center engineers have been relying on a new hail detection system more than ever. NASA and ASRC Aerospace engineers have developed a special hail monitor, called the size distribution impact transducer, to better detect and assess hailstorms that could damage a space shuttle or its fuel tank while standing on a launch pad. The shuttles have been struck five times while at the pad undergoing preparation for launch. The new hail monitoring system was first used at Launch Pad 39B for last years STS-115 mission. Armed with this hail impact data, a more informed judgment can now be made as to the size, depth and number of damaged sites to expect, and the possible type of repair that may be required, said Charlie Stevenson, NASA technical assistant to the shuttle chief engineer. When fully deployed, the hail monitor will transmit data back to the Launch Control Center. This is another great example of NASA ingenuity. The original hail detection system used sheets of aluminum foil stretched over Styrofoam, a system developed by Colorado State University. The foil revealed when hail struck an area by showing large indentations on the surface. The need for an advanced system became apparent after hail struck Space Shuttle Discovery in May 1999 while awaiting launch for STS-96. The hail monitors have not replaced manual inspections after a storm, but rather supplement visual inspections. Engineers retrieve information from the monitors at the launch pad. According to ASRC Aerospace engineer John Lane, the sound of rain deflecting off a vehicle is distinctly different than the sound produced by falling hail. The sound of hail is not only louder, it also contains higher frequencies due to its hardness. The hail monitor sensor is a metal plate in the shape of a shallow pyramid which deflects hail from the sensor surface after one hit, thus preventing multiple bounces from the same hail stone, Lane said. A microphone pickup is mounted beneath and in the center of the metal plate. The output of this microphone is connected to an electronic circuit which digitizes and processes the microphone signal. By placing three hail monitoring systems close to the launch pad, any hail striking the shuttle or the launch pad structures can be detected by the monitors and recorded by the liquid crystal display, or LCD, counters. Ground operations personnel check the counters daily when a vehicle is on the pad. Lane said by performing special data processing, the hail data, coupled with velocity data, can be merged into a four-dimensional picture showing space and time of hail size distributions. Specific impact areas can then be pointed out for inspection crews immediately following a hail storm. T he August NASA employees of the month include, from left, Renee Debing, Information Technology and Communications Services; Fayann Hull, External Relations; Sheila Plourd, International Space Station and Spacecraft Processing; Tammy Burlein, Procurement Office; Damara Belson, Chief Financial Office; Maurice Lavoie, Center Operations; Theresa Kroning, Launch Services Program; Giselle Altman, Engineering Directorate; and Vera Murphy, Safety and Mission Assurance.
Page 4 SPACEPORT NEWS August 10, 2007 Endeavour ready to fly after major modifications ENDEAVOUR . .(Continued from Page 1)power transfer system was installed in Endeavours payload bay. The orbiter also received return-to-flight modifications including the orbiter boom sensor system, wing leading edge instrumentation and a digital external tank separation camera. NASA Launch Director Mike Leinbach said the changes make Endeavour quite unique. In particular, the station-to-shuttle power transfer system work makes the orbiter a more flexible ship to support the continuing construction of the station by allowing for longer docked times with the station. The orbiter also carried with it something not visible the hopes and dreams of hundreds of NASA, United Space Alliance and Boeing engineers, planners, technicians, quality inspectors and many others who painstakingly worked around the clock to prepare the vehicle for flight. During the OMM, the processing team completed 195 modifications and 205 special tests, according to Tassos Abadiotakis, Endeavours flow director since 2000. This was a long and challenging flow for the team and Im really proud of their hard work and dedication, Abadiotakis said. Extensive structural and wiring inspections were completed on the vehicle. Approximately 150 miles of wiring was inspected and many components were removed to gain access to the vehicles airframe for inspection. The orbiters cockpit instrumentation was gutted and replaced with a new multi-functional electronic display system, also called the glass cockpit. A global positioning satellite system was added and the cockpits outermost windows on each side were replaced with thicker window panes. Approximately 2,045 tiles were removed and replaced, and 72 Boeing reusable insulation tiles were installed in critical areas on wing leading edges, and main and nose landing gear doors. All wing leading edge reinforced carboncarbon panels were removed and inspected using non-destructive evaluation. A record-breaking 2,000 thermal control system insulation blankets were removed from inside the vehicle and either refurbished or replaced. This was a unique flow with the large volume of work accomplished by a lot of great people, said Mike Parrish, USAs operations chief for orbiter Endeavour. Among the major components removed, inspected and reinstalled were the remote manipulator system, forward reaction control system, orbital maneuvering system pods, rudder speed brakes and body flap. Every orbiter system was inspected and tested, including the hydraulics, electrical and main propulsion systems. The vehicles mechanisms, communications systems, environmental control life support system, fuel cells, structures, cryogenics and flight controls were also tested. TECHNICIANS REINSTALL the remote manipulator system (above) in Endeavour as part of the orbiter modification and maintenance. At left, a technician inspects one of 2,045 tiles that were replaced. M ore than 400 participants attended the Innovative Strategies for Cultivating the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) Conference in Orlando and at the Kennedy Space Center on Aug. 5-8. They included educators of kindergarten through 12th grades, university faculty and students, informal education leaders (from science centers, the Girl Scouts and others), and companies such as Microsoft and Google. The conference focused on discussing innovative programs at all educational levels to attract and retain more students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines to help build the technical work force of the future. The conference was sponsored by NASAs Office of Education and the Space Operations mission directorate. Teachers in space conference helps build future work force FORMER NASA astronaut Robert Springer talks to attendees of the teachers in space conference in the Apolllo/ Saturn V Center.
Page 5 SPACEPORT NEWS August 10, 2007 T he Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex and the Netflix Live! on Location concert and movie series teamed up to offer a live concert with the Bruce Willis Blues Band on Aug. 2 in the Rocket Garden. The concert was followed by a free outdoor screening of the 1998 Academy Award-nominated classic Armageddon, which included scenes filmed at the center. The series pairs a free screening of a popculture movie classic with a live musical performance by one of the films featured stars in locations uniquely associated with the movies. Entertainment correspondent and actress Maria Menounos hosted the event and introduced the band and the film. Bruce Willis Blues Band, Armageddon screening entertains guests at Visitor Complex THE BRUCE Willis Blues Band begins performing in the Rocket Garden at the Netflix Live! on Location concert held Aug. 2. BRUCE WILLIS (right) plays harmonica during the concert. The actor also appeared in the movie Armageddon shown after the music performance. THE AUDIENCE, estimated between 6,000 to 7,000 people, was able to bring lawn chairs to enjoy the Armageddon screening. For the day, the Visitor Complex set a one-day attendance record of 9,400 people. The Netflix Live! on Location concert series pairs a free screening of a movie classic with a live musical performance by one of the films featured stars in locations associated with the movie. CENTER DIRECTOR Bill Parsons welcomes the crowd to the concert while host Maria Menounos looks on. THE CROWD at the Netflix Live! on Location concert at the Visitor Complex welcomes The Bruce Willis Blues Band to the stage.
Page 6 SPACEPORT NEWS August 10, 2007NASAs Space Grant projects inspire students, teachers Plourd honored by space station, spacecraft processing team SHEILA PLOURD of the International Space Station and Spacecraft Processing directorate is an August NASA employee of the month. By Linda Herridge Staff Writer C ollege students and their instructors will soon participate in exciting and educational research and development opportunities through NASAs new Space Grant Student Project and Space Grant Faculty Project. The agencys Exploration Systems mission directorate oversees both projects. Dr. Lesley Garner, who manages the projects for the agency at Kennedy Space Center, said they support NASAs education framework by contributing to the development of the science, technology, engineering and mathematics work force. The goal is to establish a close relationship between NASAs centers and the National Space Grant Consortia, also known as Space Grant, and increase the collaboration between NASA and the academic community that contributes to the agencys objectives. Students are exposed to systems engineering in a realworld setting through internships and senior design projects, Garner said. Garner is a higher-education program specialist in the education programs and university research division of the External Relations directorate at KSC. For the Faculty Project, Garner said five faculty members were competitively selected for the 10week summer program, with each working at two NASA field centers. They serve as liaisons between NASA, the universities and the students. At KSC, the Exploration Systems Space Grant faculty participant is Dr. Jose Granda, a professor in mechanical engineering at California State University in Sacramento. Prior to arriving at the center, Granda spent five weeks at Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif. He has been a NASA Faculty Fellow since 2002 and serves as the campus director at CSUSacramento for the California Space Consortia. Granda met with researchers and engineers to gather senior design project ideas and internship opportunities relative to the directorates needs. The word inspire is key to the success of students in any NASA internship program, Granda said. What Im doing has a direct impact on motivating and training the future NASA and contractor work force, and contributing to the success of students is a very rewarding experience for a professor. Its very exciting, working with the engineers that make the space program move forward. It is an enriching experience, both technically and personally. Granda met with representatives from the Launch Services Program, the Life Sciences Division, Applied Technology, Constellation Project Office, Engineering Development, environmental, guidance and control systems, and many others to discuss their internship and senior project needs. The directorates internships and senior design projects for 2008 will be available to view at http:// education.ksc.nasa.gov/ ESMDspacegrant/ .DR. JOSE Granda, a professor in mechanical engineering at California State University, has met with representatives from many of the centers directorates to talk about future internship and senior project needs. What Im doing has a direct impact on motivating and training the future NASA and contractor work force, Granda said.By Jennifer Wolfinger Staff Writer M anagement support assistant Sheila Plourd was chosen as the International Space Station and Spacecraft Processing directorates August employee of the month for her ability to balance an everchanging schedule of activities, a demanding work load and the competing priorities of her colleagues. I was very honored to be selected, because our directorate has a lot of high achievers, so to be compared to them was a great honor, she shared. When her husband, Steve, was assigned to be a senior chief and medical department representative at the Naval Ordnance Test Unit at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, she immediately wanted to work at NASA. Plourds wish was fulfilled when she joined the agency in 2005. She supports the directorates deputy of operations, the chief of operations, branch managers and their staff. She handles all the administrative tasks for 35 employees, streamlines the divisions activities and calendars, coordinates travel arrangements and performs many other tasks. The people are very appreciative and I feel valued at my job. I consider it a real honor to be a member of the International Space Station processing team, she said. An added bonus was being able to see the flight hardware up close and personal, and touring the Orbiter Processing Facility and both launch pads. Plourd believes her can-do attitude and dedication to helping people led to her recognition. Her division chief, Gennaro Caliendo, recently was impressed by her ability to handle complex and international travel orders. Her professionalism and excellent attitude in making lastminute changes to travel plans removes the stress from the traveler, allowing them to focus on the actual business rather than worry about travel planning, he said. She and her husband have one adult daughter, Jennifer, who is studying finance at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Plourd also looks forward to sharing her experiences with future generations. She said, I cant wait to tell my grandchildren, with pride, that I worked with the people who built the International Space Station, which helped us prepare to go back to the moon and travel to Mars.
SPACEPORT NEWS August 10, 2007 Page 7 Remembering Our Heritage THE ORBITER Enterprise soars above the NASA 747 carrier aircraft only seconds after separating during the first free flight of the shuttle Approach and Landing Tests. Astronauts Fred Haise (left) and Gordon Fullerton were the crew members of the Enterprise.By Kay Grinter Reference Librarian O n Aug. 12, 1977, astronauts Fred Haise and Gordon Fullerton took the orbiter Enterprise for the first piloted free flight during the Approach and Landing Test, or ALT, program for NASAs new manned vehicle, the space shuttle. Sixteen various exercises were conducted altogether, culminating in five free flights. The free flights were designed to verify the orbiters subsonic airworthiness, the operation of its integrated system, and its pilotguided approach and landing capabilities. The crew was trained to separate the orbiter from atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, or SCA, and glide to a landing on a dry lake bed at Edwards Air Force Base in California. During the first free flight, a tail cone was installed over the orbiters dummy main engines to reduce buffeting. Roy Tharpe is the deputy site leader for Boeing Florida Operations at Kennedy Space Center. From 1975 to 1977, though, he lived in Lancaster, Calif., and was NASAs manager of the Shuttle Test Support Office at Dryden Flight Research Center.30 years ago: First free flight for shuttle orbiter draws a crowd The office staff was made up of employees assigned from three space centers, Tharpe recalled. A Johnson recruit interacted with the flight crews, a Dryden employee coordinated the logistical support, and Kennedy provided a manager me and a console operator, Don Eversberg. I was the go-to guy for anything and everything that had to do with test support for ALT ground operations. The first free flight was the first test to require all aspects of an actual shuttle mission: ground processing to prepare the orbiter and SCA for flight, a mission profile, and landing and postlanding ground operations. In flight, the SCA performed a shallow dive on cue, and Haise triggered the explosive bolts linking the two aircraft. Enterprise lifted free. One of the redundant computers on the orbiter failed at separation, cutting off flightcontrol accelerometers but without affecting the flight. Both astronauts gave the orbiter a good evaluation. Enterprises handling qualities were better than experienced in our simulators, Haise reported. Fullerton described its performance as like a fighter aircraft, rather than a freighter. After flying free for 5 minutes, 22 seconds, Enterprise touched down on Rogers Dry Lake at a speed of 207 miles per hour and rolled about two miles before coming to a stop. Approximately 70,000 spectators braved the heat in the Mojave Desert just after 9 a.m. Pacific time for the orbiters historic first landing. Arizona was selected to lead the mission in August 2003 and is the first public university to lead a Mars exploration mission. Phoenix uses the main body of a lander originally made for a 2001 mission that was cancelled before launch. Samples of soil and ice collected by the landers robotic arm will be analyzed by instruments mounted on the deck. One key instrument will check for water and carbon-containing compounds by heating soil samples in tiny ovens and examining the vapors that are given off.PHOENIX . (Continued from Page 1)The lander carries seven instruments. They include the robotic arm, which will dig into the ground and deliver samples to two instruments for analysis; the robotic arm camera, which will provide close-up color images of the soil and ice; the thermal and evolved-gas analyzer that will heat soil samples delivered by the arm and measure how much water vapor, carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds are given off as the temperature climbs; the microscopy, electrochemistry and conductivity analyzer; the surface stereo imager; the meteorological station; and the Mars descent imager, which will provide geological context for the landing site. ON LAUNCH Pad 17A at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, the first half of the fairing is moved into place around the Phoenix Mars lander for installation. The spacecraft is scheduled to land on Mars on May 25, 2008, for a close-up examination of the surface of the northern polar region.
Page 8 SPACEPORT NEWS August 10, 2007 John F. Kennedy Space Center Managing editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amber Philman Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jeff Stuckey Copy editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Corey Schubert Editorial support provided by InDyne, Inc. Writers Group.NASA at KSC is located on the Internet at http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedyUSGPO: 733-049/600139 Spaceport News Spaceport News is an official publication of the Kennedy Space Center and is published on alternate Fridays by External Relations in the interest of KSC civil service and contractor employees. Contributions are welcome and should be submitted two weeks before publication to the Media Services Branch, IDI-011. E-mail submissions can be sent to Jeffery.Stuckeyfirstname.lastname@example.org. Intercenter Walk/Run set for Sept. 18 at landing facilitySPACEPORT EMPLOYEES line up for the start of last years Intercenter Walk/Run at the Shuttle Landing Facility. This years 2-mile walk/run, 5K run and 10K run events are scheduled for Sept. 18. T he Kennedy Space Center Fitness Centers are sponsoring the Intercenter Walk/ Run which will start at 5 p.m. on Sept. 18 at the Shuttle Landing Facility. The 2-mile walk/run, 5K run and 10K run are free for all spaceport employees. Stop by either fitness center by Sept. 14 to pre-register. Late registration will take place at the race. T-shirts may be ordered at any NASA Exchange store beginning Aug. 13. The order deadline for T-shirts is Sept. 7. Anyone interested in helping out should call 867-7829 or e-mail Debra.L.Orringer@nasa.gov By Steven Siceloff Staff Writer S PACEHAB is preparing to close the hatch on its shuttle research and cargo carrier enterprise 14 years after its first pressurized module flew into space on an orbiter, while the company begins its strategic journey into space-based microgravity processing. The company provided its first space-rated travel trailer of sorts to NASA in 1993. Later, the design would come in especially handy for missions to the Mir space station and during the construction of the International Space Station. The single module bolted into Endeavours cargo bay will continue that work by carrying some 5,800 pounds of equipment and supplies to the International Space Station, according to Don Moore, director of ground operations at the companys Cape Canaveral facility. Pete Paceley, SPACEHAB Flight Services vice president said, It is a transition flight for us and were excited about the demonstration tests for microgravity processing that were flying, as well. The space agency could still enlist a pressurized module for a shuttle supply run in the future, but the flight manifest currently leaves that task to the Italian-built multi-purpose logistics modules, or MPLMs.THE LAST SPACEHAB module is loaded for transport to Endeavours cargo bay for the STS-118 mission. Last SPACEHAB module assists STS-118 mission The MPLMs are built to attach directly to the space station during a shuttle mission, but still come back with the orbiter. A module from SPACEHAB remains in the cargo bay during the entire flight. Since flying its first pressurized module in 1993 aboard STS-57, the company has claimed the mantle of a successful aerospace corporation by catering to researchers and others willing to pay to get their experiments into space and back aboard an orbiter. The hundreds of past experiments carried out aboard the modules include aerogel, the super-lightweight substance that became the centerpiece of the Stardust mission to gather particles from interstellar space. Just packing the module takes considerable planning, especially considering that some of the bags have to be loaded while the module is on its back inside Endeavour at the launch pad. The loaders devise a complex choreography to get the 5,800 pounds of gear on racks and stacked in bags exactly where the astronauts expect to find the items. In the case of STS-118, the crew can expect a tight fit in the module because of all the gear strapped to the walls. The good news is that what seems like a tight fit on Earth opens up significantly in space, where the lack of gravity lets astronauts float up to the modules window.