text:
Bullying and Cyberbullying - Prevention in Schools
It is the position of the National Association of School Nurses (NASN) that the registered professional school nurse (hereinafter referred to as school nurse) is a crucial member of the team participating in the prevention of bullying in schools. The school nurse role includes efforts to prevent bullying and the identification of students who are bullied, bully others, or both. The Framework for the 21st Century School Nursing PracticeTM (NASN, 2016) provides direction for the school nurse to support student health and academic success by contributing to a healthy and safe school environment poised to prevent and mitigate bullying and cyberbullying.
In 2014 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Education released the first federal uniform definition of bullying for research and surveillance; the core elements of the definition include unwanted aggressive behavior, observed or perceived power imbalance, repetition of behaviors or high likelihood of repetition, and the intention to harm (Gladden, Vivalo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumkin, 2014). The 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System indicates that nationwide 20% of students in grades 9-12 experienced bullying on school grounds (Kann, McManus, & Harris, 2016). The effects of bullying involve not only the individual but also families, friends, schools, and neighborhoods.
Bullying includes both traditional (in person) bullying and cyberbullying, which is defined as using technology to share aggressive messages on social media. Social media can include but is not limited to Facebook, Twitter, or Snapchat. There are two types of students who are more likely to bully others: 1) students who are well-connected to their peers, have social power, are overly concerned about their popularity, and like to dominate or be in charge of others; and 2) students who are isolated from their peers and may be depressed or anxious, have low self-esteem, be less involved in school, be easily pressured by peers, or do not identify with the emotions or feelings of others (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2018a). Some students may be the subject of both traditional bullying and cyberbullying. The 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System indicates approximately 16% of high school students were bullied electronically (CDC, 2016). Cyberbullying may provide a venue for some students to bully when they might not otherwise do so in person.
Despite a dramatic increase in public awareness, the prevalence of bullying is still one of the most pressing issues facing our nation's youth (Luxenberg, Limber, & Olweus, 2015). Bullying is a persistent public health concern that has a significant impact in the school setting (USDHHS, 2017a). However, until the past decade, bullying was often dismissed as normative and without long-term effects (Bradshaw, 2016). Research has led to a better understanding of the serious, often long-term, consequences of bullying. Society's shifting perspectives on bullying have been driven by high-profile cases that have resulted in death or suicide. With the growing concern in the U.S. and throughout the world regarding school violence, researchers, educators, and healthcare providers have found that bullying affects students' social-emotional health and has implications for school safety. Therefore, schools and public health officials are looking to understand why children bully and are seeking ways to develop effective strategies to reduce or eliminate risk factors for bullying (Bradshaw, 2016).
While any student can be bullied at school, students with disabilities (USDHHS, 2017a) and other vulnerable populations such as students with academic difficulties and speech impairments (Bradshaw, 2016) are particularly at risk. Students may be bullied based on their physical appearance such as glasses, hair color, and weight (Perron, 2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students are more likely to be subjected to all types of bullying (USDHHS, 2018b). Research shows a higher number of female students are bullied at school when compared to male students, but a higher number of male students report being physically bullied and threatened with harm (Robers, Zhang, Morgan, & Musu-Gillette, 2015).
For both the student who bullies and the student who is bullied, bullying can have serious and often long-term consequences including increased school absenteeism, diminished educational achievement, behavior issues, low self-esteem, sleep deprivation, depression, anxiety, and self-harm (Luxenberg et al., 2015). Bullied students are also at risk for physical symptoms including stomach pain, sleep disturbances, headaches, tension, bedwetting, fatigue, and decreased appetite (Kowalski & Limber, 2013). In the Bullying in U.S. Schools report, data found that students who bully were more likely to report recent use of alcohol and drugs (Luxenberg et al., 2015). The consequences of bullying can continue into adulthood (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013).
At present, no federal law directly addresses bullying. In some cases, bullying overlaps with discriminatory harassment when it is based on race, national origin, color, sex, age, disability, or religion. Federally funded schools have an obligation to resolve bullying and harassment. If the situation is not resolved, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division may be able to help (USDHHS, 2017b).
Bullying can have serious health, physical, and psychological effects on the student who bullies, the student who is bullied, or the student who both bullies and is bullied. Bullying is not an isolated incident but occurs repeatedly over time. Therefore, according to Selekman, Pelt, Garnier,and Baker (2013), the school nurse should
Be knowledgeable about bullying, aggression, victimization, and long-term consequences;
Be aware of the importance of not labeling students as "bullies," "targets" or "victims";
Participate as a key member of the school team that identifies students who are bullied, bully others or both;
Share information and observations and alert the school team to signals that may identify students at risk;
Assess students with frequent unexplained somatic complaints explicitly to screen for bullying and stress;
Create a safe space at school where students can verbalize concerns about all health issues including bullying and other incidents of violence; and
Strengthen working relationships with other school staff to be able to share concerns about school bullying (Pigozi & Jones Bartoli, 2016).
School nurses can educate students and staff and advocate for student support. According to Bradshaw (2015), school-based programs could include
Multi-tiered systems of support, which includes three tiers of interventions, a) universal programs or activities for all youth within the community or school, b) selective interventions for groups of youth at risk for being involved in bullying; and c) preventive interventions tailored for students already involved in bullying.
Multicomponent programs that address multiple aspects of bullying behavior and the environments that support it. Examples include examining school rules and using behavior management techniques and social emotional learning in the classroom and throughout the school to detect and provide consequences for bullying.
School-wide prevention activities that include improving the school climate, strengthening supervision of students, and having a school-wide anti-bullying policy.
Involving families and communities by helping caregivers learn how to talk about bullying and get involved with school-based prevention efforts.
Developing consistent, long-term, school-wide approaches that strengthen youth's social-emotional, communication, and problem-solving skills.
Bullying can have severe short- and long-term negative social and emotional effects on the student who is bullied, bullies others, or both. Creating a safe and supportive school environment is critical to preventing bullying and supporting learning and academic achievement. The school nurse is often the sole healthcare provider in an academic setting. Twenty‐first century school nursing practice is student‐centered, occurring within the context of the student's family and school community (NASN, 2016). School nurses are, therefore, ideally situated to work with other school-based professionals to facilitate bullying interventions (Pigozi & Jones Bartoli, 2016). The school nurse can support evidence-based interventions to prevent and mitigate bullying in the school. The school nurse provides key leadership to promote and enhance student safety, wellness, engagement, and learning.
Bradshaw, C.P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70(4), 322-32. Retrieved from
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-a0039114.pdf
Bradshaw, C. (2016). Preventing bullying through science, policy, and practice. August 2016 data report webinar. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Retrieved from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/BCYF/Science_on_Bullying/index.htm
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016) Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/2015/ss6506_updated.pdf
Copeland, W.E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(4), 419-26. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504
Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., & Lumpkin, C.D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf
Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W.A., et al. (2016). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance-United States, 2015. MMWR surveillance summary,65(No. SS-6),1-174. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1
Kowalski, R.M., & Limber, S.P. (2013). Psychological, physical and academic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, S13-S20. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.018
Luxenberg, H., Limber, S.P., & Olweus, D. (2015). Bullying in U.S. schools: 2014 status report. Retrieved from https://olweus.sites.clemson.edu/documents/Bullying%20in%20US%20Schools--2014%20Status%20Report.pdf
National Association of School Nurses. (2016). Framework for 21st century school nursing practice. NASN School Nurse, 31(1), 46-53. doi: 10.1177/1942602X15618644
Perron, T. (2013). Peer victimization: Strategies to decrease bullying in school. British Journal of School Nursing, 8 (1), 25-29. School of Nursing, Kean University, Union, New Jersey, United States. doi: https://doi.org/10.12968/bjsn.2013.8.1.25
Pigozi, P. L. & Jones Bartoli, A. (2016). School nurses' experiences in dealing with bullying situations among students. The Journal of School Nursing, 32, 177-185. doi: 10.1177/1059840515613140
Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R.E., & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2014 (NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015072.pdf
Selekman, J., Pelt, P., Garnier, S., & Baker, D. (2013). Youth violence. In J. Selekman (Ed.), School nursing: A comprehensive text (2nd edition, pp. 1087-1117). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2017a). Bullying and children and youth with disabilities and special health needs. Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/groups/special-needs/
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2017b.). Laws and policies. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/federal/index.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018a). Warning signs of bullying. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/warning-signs/index.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018b). Who is at risk. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/at-risk/index.html
Acknowledgment of Authors:
Joann M. Wheeler, BSN, RN
Carol Ward, MSN, RN
Darla Rebowe, BSN, CSN, RN
Adopted: June 2018
This position statement replaces Bullying Prevention in Schools, adopted January 2014.
Suggested citation: National Association of School Nurses. (2018). Bullying and cyberbullying— Prevention in schools (Position Statement). Silver Spring, MD: Author.
All position statements from the National Association of School Nurses will automatically expire five years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.


Jamie Stafford Bathrooms are an independent Bathroom Company established in 2000. At Jamie Stafford Bathrooms we Design, Supply and Install your Bathroom for you.
In fact, we will endeavour to go above and beyond this to exceed your expectations with our wealth of knowledge, practical solutions and creative flare. With this in mind, go to our 'Testimonial' page to see for yourself what our client reviews will tell you about Jamie Stafford Bathrooms.


Valentine's Day is a day dedicated to love and passion. It is the day to present gifts and shower your partner with love. However, choosing the right Valentine gift for your man can be pretty difficult. This is mainly because the conventional Valentine's Day gifts are geared towards women. Men usually do not like getting flowers or teddy bears on Valentine's Day. Thus, you have to think of something that he will appreciate. Make sure that the idea is a unique one.
Keep in mind that most men tend to like functional gifts that they will be able to use. Here are some gift ideas for men on Valentine's Day.
Men usually tend to like beer. Thus, gifting them beer mugs can be a good idea. They look great and when you personalize them it makes the mug even more special. Personalised gifts always make any gift item memorable. If you want you can print his favorite photo and quote on the beer mug. Beer mugs have become collectible items these days. If you gift them a good looking beer mug, they will proudly proclaim that their wife or girlfriend gifted them that.
Men too need bags to put their belongings. It's simply not possible to put everything in one's pockets. These days every one is usually also carrying an electronic device or two.There are different stylish bags in the market. You will find them in various sizes and shapes. Even though your husband or boyfriend might not ask for one, they need it and will love it when you gift them one.
Everybody knows women like to pamper themselves with bath products. But men are not far behind! This is the reason bath and body products can be a good option for gifting your boyfriend or husband. You can gift him a shaving cream kit. If you know his taste, you can also gift him a kit containing shower gel, shaving kit, after shave, and other products he may like.
One of the best ideas is to gift him something related to his hobby. Irrespective of whether he is an outdoor enthusiast or an animal lover, there must be some things that he likes to do. If your boyfriend or husband likes reading books, he can gift him some of his favorite storybook. Or if he likes watching movies, you can gift a DVD of their favorite movie. If he likes the outdoors you can choose a nice pair of hiking boots. A book on wood working or painting might even inspire a new hobby!
They always say that the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. Whether he is basic burger guy or a gourmet guy, ask him for a few of his favorite foods. Thereafter, you can prepare a special dinner for him. Make sure that you prepare the table for the special occasion with elegant placements and tablecloths. You can add some flowers to the vase and keep it on the table. A romantic meal makes an excellent gift for Valentine's day!


text:
Networks, System Safety,
Embedded and Distributed Systems
Research Group of Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Ph.D.
Electromagnetic Interference with Aircraft Systems: why worry?
Peter B. Ladkin
Article RVS-J-97-03
Abstract: There are worries about suspected electromagnetic interference with aircraft systems from electronic devices used by passengers. Some first-hand incident reports from colleagues are included. The phenomenon seems to be hard to pin down -- colleagues explain why. It may be that the current regulatory situation affects reporting and investigation of suspected incidents. Finally, I suggest some ways in which the regulatory environment could be changed to aid investigation.
Everybody knows how difficult listening to the radio or watching TV becomes when someone is using the vacuum cleaner in the next room. The vacuum cleaner causes significant interference with the radio signal. I used to live in a house in Kensington, CA, with an electric garage door opener, activated from the road by a small radio device carried in my car. The door would occasionally open by itself, early in the morning, on some rainy days when SFO was using RWY 19 for arrivals, and the flight path came more-or-less overhead. Now, there's an anecdote. I don't know it was aircraft transmissions; I don't know it wasn't a passing taxicab whose driver was talking to base; I don't even know it wasn't a fault in the door opening mechanism. We may presume that the system was not very well shielded from electromagnetic interference, and it is certainly not certified to the same rigorous standards as avionics (`aviation electronics').
Nevertheless, there are similar worries in aviation at the moment. Passengers use electronic devices on board aircraft, including some such as cellular phones that they shouldn't in any case be attempting to use, and pilots have reported anomalies with their navigation equipment that seem to correlate with use of personal electronics in the cabin. An overview of the technical issues may be found in (Hel96).
There have been to my knowledge no reports so far of interference with electronic flight control on the Airbus A320/330/340 series or the Boeing B777. These systems are shielded very well against electronic signals, because they have to fly through radar beams and other electromagnetic fields that may be occasionally very strong. There is nevertheless some experience with electromagnetic interference with electronic flight controls. Five crashes of Blackhawk helicopters shortly after their introduction into service in the late 1980's were found to be due to electromagnetic interference from very strong radar and radio transmitters with the electronic flight control systems (1). So concern about this phenomenon is not purely the result of speculation. It has actually happened, and it is appropriate to be concerned about the possibility of similar phenomena in transport aircraft.
Bruce Nordwall (Nor96), writing in Aviation Week and Space Technology in September 1996, reported on the topic of an RTCA report to the FAA Administrator. At the request of the FAA, RTCA Special Committee 177 was formed in 1992 to look into the possibility of interference with aircraft systems from electronic devices operated by passengers during flight. Such devices include laptop computers, Gameboys and, more insidiously, portable personal telephones employing cellular technology.
Nordwall reported the RTCA advisory group to be worried that no group was testing or systematically tracking the potential effect of passenger electronics on avionics. The group was also concerned that the flying public is not being educated about the potential hazard, and that the airlines must largely figure out how to deal with the issue themselves. Most airlines in the US already prohibit use of passenger electronics of any sort below 10,000ft altitude. There is most concern for the future; that rapid increases in the technology of personal communications may allow passengers to bring aboard with them, and inadvertently or surreptitiously use, devices such as personal satellite phones that may be capable of significant levels of electromagnetic radiation. The RTCA report recommends developing and installing devices in aircraft cabins that could detect and locate potentially harmful radiation coming from within the aircraft. John Sheehan, the chairperson of RTCA SC-177, kindly provided the Executive Summary of SC-177's report, RTCA DO-233 (RTCA96). The Summary is included here as Appendix A.
Navigation systems are particularly vulnerable for two reasons:
they have parts devised to detect and act on signals coming from `outside';
radio-based systems are particularly susceptible to low levels of interference.
Aircraft control systems are located entirely within the aircraft and are shielded from absolutely any signals not coming from one of their own devices; they are also not radio-based, but are based entirely on electrical signals conducted through wires as are most computer networks (in the future, maybe also light signals conducted through glass-fibre cables). Navigation avionics, on the other hand, must have some designed sensitivity to environmental radio signals in order to perform their function. Nordwall says
THe antennas of radio-based avionics may be affected by [electromagnetic] field intensities of only microvolts per meter. But being outside the aircraft, the antennas get some protective attenuation from the fuselage of radiation originating inside the aircraft. Non-radio systems generally have higher signal levels, and so are less susceptible to low levels of interference.
The hull of a metal aircraft forms an effective electromagnetic boundary between the outside and the inside of an aircraft. Electromagnetic signals find it hard to get in, or to get out. That is why the navigation and radio antennae on an aircraft need to be placed outside the aircraft hull. But while outside they must be sensitive, the navigation electronics inside the hull can be in principle just as well and securely shielded as control avionics, because there is no reason at all for navigation systems to be sensitive to electromagnetic signals coming from inside the aircraft -- indeed, very good reasons for these systems to be very insensitive, namely, that there is lots of other electronics working there as well.
The Regulatory Environment
US Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21 prohibits the use of any portable electronic devices on board aircraft, with the exception of voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers, shavers, and any other device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication systems of its aircraft:
91.21 Portable electronic devices
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1)Portable voice recorders;
(2)Hearing aids;
(3)Heart pacemakers;
(4)Electric shavers; or
(5)Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by the holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.
The regulation puts the responsibility firmly on an individual airline to determine that there is no interference. However, as Nordwall points out, `Compact consumer electronic devices have proliferated in numbers that defy cataloguing, let alone testing.' The question is what would constitute an appropriate `determination of no interference'. In contrast to the US Federal Aviation Regulations, the International Civial Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has no regulations relating to portable electronics.
US airlines implement a general ban on using any portable electronic devices (PEDs) below 10,000ft. According to former FAA associate administrator for regulation and certification, Tony Broderick, this action was first initiated by Northwest Airlines, and other airlines quickly followed suit. Broderick notes that use of PEDs during takeoff and landing phases is to be discouraged anyway, not only because of possible consequences of EMI but also to encourage passengers to pay attention to the cabin crew in case an emergency should arise during these critical phases of flight (Bro97) (a commercial aircraft is below 10,000ft usually only during the takeoff and landing phases of flight, and according to the Boeing statistics, 20.9% of all fatal accidents to jet aircraft have happened during takeoff and initial climb, and 46.6% during initial and final approach and landing (Boe96)). Broderick also believes that the FAA, in cooperation with the industry, will need to determine if there is indeed a problem with PEDs on board aircraft, and that it will soon become commonplace to have PEDs on board that are doing things (for example, transmitting) that their owners aren't really aware of.
Some Issues Particular to Cellular Phones
Cellular phones, often called Cellphones in the US and Handy's in Germany, are a particular source of problems because, regardless of whether they may interfere with aircraft systems, the technology on which cellular telephones are based precludes their effective use on aircraft. This applies to all cellular phones, including the analogue technology in the US and the digital GSM technology in Europe. It may be worthwhile first to explain the known problems associated with attempted use of cellular phones while flying.
The technology of cellular phones is based on small local ground-based reception areas called `cells'. A cellphone user is served by just one cell, and when reaching the boundary of a cell, will be `handed over' to another cell which (s)he is about to enter. The topology of coverage is based on the assumption that the user is on or near the ground, and it is a technical assumption on which the entire system is based that a user will be within `sight' of just one cell except when nearing a cell boundary. When in an aircraft, however, a user is within radio `sight' of many cells, simply because (s)he is way off the ground. An attempted call or reception from an aircraft would activate many if not all cells in the local area, which `breaks' the technology -- it causes many transmission problems and the system is disturbed. Therefore the various communication authorities, such as the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), ban the attempted use of cellular phones while on board aircraft. However, such attempted use is not ipso facto rendered dangerous. It is technically inappropriate and antisocial, as well as mostly futile.
On Saturday 1 March 1997, German Transport Minister Matthias Wissmann was reported in the German and international press as wanting a fine and up to two years in jail for people attempting use of cellular phones on board aircraft. He was reported as saying that
In order to further increase air transport safety there will be new regulations in the use of these dangerous things [...] In future the use of electronic equipment by passengers in aircraft will be banned.
(Uhr97)
Herr Wissmann's comment mentions the danger of attempted cellphone use. He therefore seems to be speaking about the possibility of interference with aircraft systems, which if true is certainly dangerous, rather than simply the problem that it causes the cellphone technology to malfunction.
While one may applaud Herr Wissmann's proactive stance in addressing a potential hazard, one may also query the wisdom of publically declaring aerial cellphone use to be dangerous in the absence of any concrete proof. My colleague Prof. Dr. Klaus Brunnstein of the University of Hamburg, who avidly follows various potential public computer risks, commented that
[...] German law still forbids mobile communication (with specific exemptions) [...] It is interesting that airlines don't specifically refer to this law when announcing that [attempted use of] mobile telephones [is] not permitted on board.
(Bru97)
Brunnstein is not aware of any concrete proof of electronic interference on German aircraft, but reports that EUCARE has more than 60 pilot reports of potential cases of interference, including some with cellphones. He laments the anecdotal nature of these cases, since one requirement for accurate `forensics', as he aptly terms it, is verifiability of the source data.
General Worries on Interference
Nordwall reports that the RTCA Committee 177 inquiry found 137 `incidents' (pilot reports, anecdotes) reported either to them, or to the FAA/NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) program, or to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). VOR reception (2) was affected in 111 incidents -- by far the most common occurrence. From the 33 reports direct to RTCA, 21 incidents related to laptop computers and only 2 to cellular phones. Navigation systems were affected in 26 of those incidents; fuel systems, warning lights and propulsion reported one incident each. Rough correlation of suspect with effect by turning the suspect device on and off was found in 14 cases, on-off-on in 6 cases, and no correlation in 13 cases.
Some Anecdotes and Discussion
Jim Irving is a colleague who flies B737 aircraft for a major US carrier. He has an anecdote:
[...] One day departing Portland Oregon we noted that the FMC [Flight Management Computer] Map display showed a disagreement with the "raw data" VOR position. Our training is such that we would normally immediately switch over to "raw data" and assume the FMC was in error.
We would have done that except that it was a beautifully clear day and I looked out the window and was able to determine that the FMC seemed to be right on. I called back to the cabin and asked the flight attendants to check for someone using a cell phone or computer. A few minutes later they called back to say that a man had been using his cell phone and it was now off. Strangely (?) our VOR and FMC map now agreed.
Later in the flight the flight attendants called back and said that they had caught the man using his cell phone again but this time we had not noticed any problems, perhaps because we were in cruise far from the ground and not paying as much attention.
(Irv97),
André Berger (who also has a homepage) is a colleague who flies B737 aircraft for a major European airline and who has had first-hand experience of some of these incidents. While interference is not proven, he believes it gives considerable cause for concern; and that while it may be difficult to demonstrate the relationship using Brunnstein's `forensic' criterion, this could be due to the fact that the equipment needed to do so is not on board the aircraft at the times the incidents occur. Berger monitors the IATA confidential incident reports, and also has some experience of his own to contribute:
In our company we recently had a Localizer deviation (out of tolerances) on a B737-200 related to a GSM (mobile phone) being operated by a passenger (who was disregarding our company regulations). When requested by the cabin crew to switch off his GSM, localizer indications became normal. Is this scientific proof? Certainly not, but good enough for me as a captain to insist that all the electronic toys, computers, mobile phones, etc., are OFF during critical phases of flight. [...]
I had fuel indications on the FMC going crazy on board the B737, that returned to normal when all electronic stuff in the back was switched off. I suspect a "Gameboy" electronic game device to have interfered, but this is no more than a guess. No, I did not ask to switch the toy back on again and investigate more in depth as I was responsible for the safety of 140 passengers and this would have been extremely irresponsible! This is not a situation in which to do such testing! This [ever-present responsibility accounts for why] there is no "proof" of the relationship.
I also recall experiencing *impossible* mode annunciations on the FMA (flight mode annunciator) on B737. Having both the autothrottle AND the pitch channel of the autopilot trying to maintain speed (both in MCP SPD mode) for example, not programmed by the pilot (you cannot program that). After an expensive in-depth troubleshooting session by our maintenance department, the incompatible mode annunciations were traced to a ... faulty cockpit window heat wiring. This caused electronic interference with the auto flight system.
(Ber97.1),
Berger has also recounted two more incidents:
June 07, 1997. B737-300: *Verify position* was indicated on the CDU. Both IRS and radio position were correct, the FMC position was not. The difference rapidly increased to 8 nautical miles. After switching a GSM in the cabin from STBY to OFF, the FMC updated normally. FMC was correct for the remainder of the flight and on the return flight.
April 30, 1997. B737-400: During level cruise, the AP pitched up and down with ROC/ROD of 400 fpm indicated. Other AP was selected: no change. Cabin was checked for PC's and other electronic devices: nothing was found. Requested passengers to verify that their mobile phone (GSM) was switched OFF. Soon after this request all pitch oscillations stopped.
Just glitches or did interference really occur? Don't know, but EMI (electro-magnetic interference) is a problem that needs more research.
Apparently, there are also some incidents with older aircraft. Here is Berger's response to a query from another colleague:
> Has anyone heard of EMI incidents involving older Aircraft, i.e. 707,
> DC9,747-200, where system signal strengths are larger, and a lot more
> are analog?
[There was one incident reported with a] B737-200. During approach to MAN (Manchester International, UK), the LOC for landing runway 24 oscillated and centered with the aircraft not on track (but offset), confirmed visually. Ground equipment was monitored and working normally. When a GSM in the cabin was switched off, all indications became correct.
Frank McCormick, an aerospace engineering colleague who is also a FAA Designated Engineering Representative, wonders about the physics of such possible incidents:
The threat levels presented by the gadgetry in question -- personal computers, cellular phones, compact-disk players, hand-held video games and so on -- are mere background noise compared to the threat levels that must be demonstrated during environmental qualification testing [of the aircraft systems]. How could an FMC [Flight Management Computer] pass, say, DO-160C [standard certification] tests, yet lose its mind in the presence of a cell phone on standby?
(McC97),
and Peter Mellor, of the Center for Software Reliability at City University in London, reports that
The cabling on the A320 has not only been tested for resilience to "normal" EMI, but for its ability to withstand the much greater pulse that would result from the aircraft flying through a powerful radar beam, for example.
(Mel97),
While doubting that the suspected-EMI phenomenon is ubiquitous, McCormick suggests that some sort of systematic investigation could proceed by inviting protagonists (actual airplane, pilots, customer with suspect device) to participate in attempts to reproduce the incidents. Berger reports that in fact very few systematic tests are performed anyway: he asked a major portable phone manufacturer's representative what tests they performed for EMI from their devices in aircraft. The manufacturer performed none because use of cellphones is illegal in aircraft. Berger notes that nevertheless such tests are relevant, because these phones are frequently used surreptitiously or inadvertently on aircraft. He also notes that most electromagnetic interference testing is `bench-testing', performed on independent subsystems, and that this may suggest an interesting suspect point of weakness in the aircraft, namely the system interconnections. Recall one of the incidents he noted above: neither the electronics nor the well-shielded wiring itself, but the wiring connections seem to have been problematic. He reports incidents to specific aircraft (whose registration `tail numbers' are also given in the reports):
On a specific B737-300, a MCP (mode control panel) was doing weird stuff intermittently during several flights. I mean really weird: like letting both pitch and autothrottle fight each other to maintain speed. Nearly all boxes involved (MCP, FCC, several AFDS boxes) were changed before a clever mechanic found out that the windshield heat was not correctly grounded. This is located just a few inches from the MCP and is one of the big consumers on board. Tightening a few nuts solved an engineers nightmare.
On a specific B737-400, the FMC was doing weird things, mainly in cruise. Some pilots reported that after a request to the passengers to switch off electronic equipment, the problem was solved, others said it did not help anything even with every electronic gadget switched off in the cabin. Others reported nothing abnormal with CD's, PC's, Gameboys and more of that stuff trying to jam the system unsuccessfully. Troubleshooting was done and it was decided to replace another black box that was suspected. It was pulled out but, no spare was available. So the same black box was pushed in again. Problem solved, it never happened again!
Connections are a possible weak point. And difficult to duplicate if a problem exists. Can an imperfect connection make a tested system EMI susceptible or not?
He emphasises, as do the RTCA and the other correspondents, that more research and systematic methods of testing are urgently to figure this situation out.
John Dimtroff is an electrical engineer on the Transport Standards Staff of the FAA Transport Aircraft Certification Directorate in Seattle. He is also a member of the Joint Airworthiness Authority/Federal Aviation Administration Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group. He has been a Federal Communications Commission investigator and inspector, a Boeing RF design engineer and a US Air Force Radar Specialist. Dimtroff reports some incidents first-hand:
...even the aircraft's own certified airborne equipment can play games on itself. [A few] years ago I was involved in identifying the source of [navigation instrument indicator] needle swings and voice modulations in the pilot's headset. [The culprit turned out to be a] certified airborne-authorized telephone broadcasting on a frequency which just happened to be commensurate with a piece of [navigation] equipment.
[Another case involved] the Flight Guidance Computer/Air Data Computer [which was] radiating unwanted signals, the 15th, 20th & 22nd harmonics of 6 & 8 MHz clock frequencies, [which are] right on the 120MHz & 132MHz VHF band! [But] each piece of [this] equipment met all the required RTCA DO-160 level testing [requirements].
...my experience with the FCC has taught me [to wonder] how many [PED] devices transmit with a clean, zero-spur signal, especially after being dropped, banged, klunked, fondled and sat upon. [In] my former FCC investigative days, [I saw] a number of devices (computers, stereos, TV's, etc., etc.) which purportedly met FCC Part 15 requirements as indicated by their label, [but] were either bogus marked, illegally imported or were just outside the manufacturing quality bell curve. [My personal view is] that every carry-on electronic device is suspect -- until it has been individually tested, which, of course, is impossible.
[My experience suggests to me that] it is nearly impossible to predict/replicate an EMI event on an aircraft when the event involves a portable carry-on device (PED). Location, orientation, power output, modulation, inconjunction with ALL the other PED's/electronics/electrics/avionics active at that time all play a role in the EMI event. And we must not exclude the terrestial based emitters (radars, etc). ...
(Dim97),
ARSR Summary of Reports, 1986 - June 1994
The following summary prepared by the ASRS was forwarded by Peter Mchugh of the FAA's Office of Aviation Safety, taken from Quick Response No. 271 dated November 30, 1994 (Mch97).
The following synoptic analysis of passenger electronic devices incidents was accomplished by the ASRS staff [at the request of the FAA]:
There were a total of 46 passenger electronic devices related incidents in the ASRS data base covering the period Jan 1, 86 thru June 30, 94. This number is in contrast to the 51,337 full form reports covering all types of incidents reported to the ASRS during the same period.
Passenger electronic devices incidents comprise .08 percent of the total full form reports in the ASRS database. Full form reports receive full analysis processing and include the reporter's narrative as part of the database record.
45 incidents involved passenger carrying operations. 33 of the incidents involved aircraft in the 60,000-300,000 lbs. weight classifications.
33 of the incidents referenced alleged aircraft systems interference from an onboard passenger electronic device. 10 of the incidents referenced alleged interference from an unknown onboard source. The remaining 3 reports make reference to FAA policy about the use of passenger electronic devices.
The breakdown of aircraft systems {reported} affected by passenger electronics devices interference included: nav equipment (37 incidents), aircraft communications equipment (9 incidents), radar altimeter equipment (1 incident) and fly-by-wire throttle controls (1 incident).
21 passenger electronic devices were specifically identified to be the sources of the aircraft systems interference. The reporters noted the interference ceased after the devices were turned off. The identified passenger electronic devices included:
Laptop computers (4)
Portable AM/FM Radio Cassette Players (4)
Portable CD Players (3)
HF Radio (1)
Heart Monitor (1)
One report cited interference from 23 passengers using AM/FM radio cassette players.
One report cited unknown onboard interference causing ILS signal interference resulting in two missed approaches.
Two reports cited passenger use of cell phone as a cause of dual VOR nav failure.
None of the passenger electronic devices incidents had a critical impact on the safety of the flight.
Mchugh urges caution in interpreting the data. It has limited statistical significance because
reporting is voluntary and there is no statistical understanding of the total reporting population or any way of estimating what the actual number of events might be;
reporting is subjective and influenced by biases, including that reporters gain protection from FAA regulation-enforcement procedures and it is undoubtedly the case that some reports are generated mainly for that reason, and this may affect the quality of the report.
(Mch97).
(Indeed, many private pilots I know, including myself, carry ASRS reporting forms with us in our flight bags on every trip!) Accepting these caveats, however, the ASRS assembles many more anecdotes than other systems, and Mchugh notes that it is in many cases the "only game in town". And the personal, subjective nature of the reports can provide insight into the human factors issues resident in some events (Mch97).
Social and Administrative Pressures
The physical phenomenon of EMI interference seems to be relatively emphemeral. It is hard to determine if specific incidents are examples of the phenomenon, partly for the reasons Dimtroff remarks. In this respect, as McCormick points out, it distinguishes itself from other recurring problems such as icing, controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), and cargo-hold fire prevention and detection. These latter problems have clear, undisputed instances, and the question is what to do to prevent them. The question with EMI is what kind of a problem it is, and how to obtain clear instances.
There may be social and legislative pressures on participants which may color their response to this situation. Consider the following circumstance. US airlines may only allow use of PEDs if they are known to the airline not to cause interference (FAR 91.21). As we have noted, it is largely impractical to submit devices to stringent test, considering the number of devices on the market, and the varying condition of individual devices. Suppose a US airline reports and investigates an incident, suspected to be EMI. Ipso facto, that airline cannot therefore be deemed to have `determined ... non-interference', as required by FAR 91.21. Just the opposite, in fact -- they have suspected interference! Therefore, FAR 91.21 prohibits use of such a device on board that aircraft. A strict reading of the legislation thus leads directly from suspected-incident report to prohibition on that airline.
However, other airlines permitting use of such devices could legally continue to do so until they themselves were subject to an incident. A US airline fastidious about reporting and pursuing alleged EMI incidents could therefore find itself at a competitive disadvantage as it must prohibit PED use, and laptop and Gameboy users and cellphone owners with a penchant for not turning their devices off might well move their custom to rival airlines. Thus may airlines find themselves in a situation in which they must downplay reports or risk losing business, as a consequence of requirement FAR 91.21.
In Europe, many aircraft and crews are certified for the demanding automated approach procedures known as Category III (CAT III), in which the autopilot, following navigation signals, flies the aircraft on landing all the way to main gear touchdown on the runway. A reported incident of suspected EMI with PEDs on board such an airplane could seriously bring into question the aircraft's CAT III certification, since the aircraft electronic systems must be demonstrably highly reliable in order to exercise CAT III authority. An airline reporting such incidents officially could suffer the loss of CAT III certification on the incident airplane until the problem is discovered and rectified. Since EMI incidents, as we have remarked, appear to be very difficult to reproduce on the ground, one could imagine a scenario in which an airline reporting a suspected EMI incident is unable to trace the source, and therefore cannot exercise the CAT III capability on that airplane again. This would be a serious service limitation in the European environment. Again, this situation reveals a potential competitive disadvantage to airlines which take suspected EMI incident reports seriously.
If social pressures exist for airlines to downplay potential EMI incidents, one could also foresee the possibility of pressure from airline management on line pilots also to downplay observed avionics anomalies in service. It is easy to see that both of these social pressures could result in general underreporting and underinvestigating of suspected EMI incidents.
Finally, the pilot in command is directly responsible for the safety of those on board the aircraft. As André Berger has remarked, this responsibility includes avoiding all potential safety degradations, no matter how minimal. Thus, if EMI from a passenger PED is suspected, the only appropriate recourse, according to this legislative responsibility, is for the pilot to require the device immediately be turned off completely. This precludes any kind of correlation testing, benign or otherwise. However, recycling the device and trying to reobserve the interference is the most obvious simple test one can perform, and could be deemed benign in many circumstances. A fastidious interpretation of regulations concerning pilot responsibilities will, however, preclude it.
Since the current regulatory situation may thus unwittingly discourage reporting and investigation of suspected EMI incidents, there is a significant role for regulators to play in encouraging both reporting and investigation of such phenomena. I see five proactive ways for regulators to help:
in limiting the regulatory pressures towards underreporting and underinvestigating noted above;
in establishing reporting standards for such incidents;
in providing guidelines for, and allowing, if not encouraging, in-flight impromptu tests by the flight crew if certain sorts of benign influence from passenger electronics is suspected;
in providing guidelines for ground-based testing procedures in the wake of such incidents, possibly involving also the suspect PED equipment and its owner/user;
based on a classification of reports of the incidents, in clarifying which kinds of incidents would be considered to constitute a maintenance problem, and of which sort, and how those kinds would be considered to alter the certification status of the aircraft (particularly with regard to no-go and CAT III status).
The last of these measures, of course, could only be taken in a regulatory environment in which an absolute ban such as that in FAR 91.21 did not apply. The question of just what such an environment could look like is the topic of the first measure.
There are plentiful anecdotes of possible electromagnetic interference with aircraft systems. While the systems are subjected to thorough bench-tests under conditions of electromagnetic interference to demonstrate adherence to certification standards, there appears to be no systematic process for investigating and attempting to reproduce in-flight incidents, although the British Airways BASIS system, ASRS and EUCARE provide systematic logging of such reports, as one presumes do individual airlines for internal use.
Possible explanations of the lack of reproducibility of such incidents center on the environmental differences between the `bench tests' for certification, in which individual subsystems are tested independently, and the integrated aircraft environment. While entire aircraft are also subjected to some testing during certification, there may be individual differences between aircraft: if wiring connections are susceptible to interference, for example, then aircraft with a longer maintenance record may be more prone to interference incidents than brand-new ones.
While there is considerable disagreement amongst experts as to whether the phenomenon -- or phenomena -- are indeed cases of electromagnetic interference from passenger electronic devices, the call for more systematic testing appears to be unanimous. I have argued that some change in the regulatory environment will help. Nevertheless it appears clear that, whatever one's view on the reality of the phenomenon, an increasing number of reports on correlation will continue to appear at ASRS, BASIS and EUCARE.
My grateful thanks to those with whom I have engaged in correspondence on these issues, and who gave permission for me to quote them and summarise their arguments in this article: André Berger, Tony Broderick, Klaus Brunnstein, John Dimtroff, Jim Irving, Frank McCormick, Peter Mchugh, Peter Mellor, Werner Uhrig. May all our comments bear fruit. Thanks in particular to John Sheehan, Chairman of RTCA SC-177, for providing and giving us permission to reproduce the Executive Summary of RTCA DO-233.
Peter Ladkin
(1): The Blackhawk problems were discussed in a series of articles in the RISKS-Digest volumes 5-7, namely in sequence (Woo87), (New87), (Coo87), (Nor87), (Lad87), (Bro87), (Hor88), (Wol88). There is also a RISKS report of possible electronic interference with F-111 systems during the 1986 US intervention in Libya (Dav89).
(2): Very-high-frequency Omni-Range (VOR) beacons are still the standard mode of en-route navigation in developed countries. Some non-precision approach-to-landing procedures are also based on VOR. A VOR beacon is a ground transmitter, which sends radio signals which enable an aircraft to determine which magnetic radial it is on in relation to the transmitter. A magnetic radial of, say, 137° is a straight line emanating from the transmitter in a direction of 137° from magnetic north. Simple trigonometry tells us that two VOR signals from different transmitters are therefore sufficient for an aircraft to determine its exact 2-dimensional position over the ground (modulo the inevitable local and systematic errors, which are usually minor). Back
(Ber97.1): André Berger, personal communication, 4 March 1997. Back
(Ber97.2): André Berger, personal communication, 4 July 1997. Back
(Boe96): Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Aircraft Accidents: worldwide operations 1959-95, 1996. Back
(Bro87): Mike L. Brown Blackhawks and Seahawks, in RISKS-5.60, 18 November 1987. Back
(Bro97): Anthony Broderick, personal communication, July 8, 1997. Back
(Bru97): Klaus Brunnstein, personal communication, March 2, 1997. Back
(Coo87): Brint Cooper, Jamming the Chopper, in RISKS-5.58, 15 November 1987. Back
(Dav89): Gordon Davisson, F-111 downed by EMI?, in RISKS-8.16. 26 January 1989 Back
(Dim97): John Dimtroff, personal communication, July 8, 1997. Back
(Hel96): Albert Helfrick, Avionics and Portable Electronics: Trouble in the Air?, ( Acrobat PDF, 452K). Paper presented at the Aircraft Electronics Association Annual Convention, Nashville, TN, 1996. Avionics News Magazine, September 1996. Available from http://bluecoat.eurocontrol.fr, Public Reports. Back
(Hor88): Dave Horsfall, More on Blackhawk helicopter, in RISKS-7.08, 16 June 1988. Back
(Irv97): Jim Irving, personal communication, March 2, 1997. Back
(Lad87): Peter Ladkin UH-60 problems, in RISKS-5.59, 16 November 1987. Back
(McC97): Frank McCormick, personal communication, 5 July 1997. Back
(Mch97): Peter Mchugh, personal communication, 9-10 July 1997. Back
(Mel97): Peter Mellor, personal communication, 5 July 1997. Back
(New87): Dave Newkirk, Follow-up to Black Hawk Failures article, in RISKS-5.58, 15 November 1987. Back
(Nor96): Bruce D. Nordwall, Concerns Grow About Passengers' Electronics, Aviation Week and Space Technology 145(11):82-83, September 9, 1996. Back
(Nor87): Lt. Scott A. Norton, Navy Seahawk helicopters, in RISKS-5.59, 16 November 1987. Back
(RTCA96): RTCA Portable Electronic Devices Carried on Board Aircraft, report of RTCA Special Committee 177, RTCA Report DO-233, author, 20 August 1996. Back
(Uhr97): Werner Uhrig, personal communication, March 2, 1997. Back
(Wol88): Jan Wolitzky Yet more on the Blackhawk helicopter, in RISKS-7.09, 22 June 1988. Back
(Woo87): John Woods, News article on EMI affecting Black Hawk helicopter, in RISKS-5.56, 9 November 1987. Back
Appendix A: RTCA DO-233 Executive Summary
Back to text
Portable Electronic Devices Carried on Board Aircraft
RTCA Report DO-233 Executive Summary
In response to a FAA request, RTCA Special Committee 177 was formed in 1992 to investigate and determine the causes of the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from portable electronic devices (PED) carried aboard aircraft by passengers. While a small list of suspected incidents of such interference from PEDs had been generated over time, interference from a PED could not be duplicated under controlled conditions.
Government and industry personnel contributed their efforts to defining the potential interference phenomena, devising test procedures for both PED and aircraft and attempting to assess the risk potential from such interference events. A variety of common consumer PEDs were tested for various of spectral emissions in all modes of operation. This test procedure was specially devised to reflect the unique PED/aircraft interface, borrowing test methods from FCC, MIL Standard and RTCA DO-160C test procedures. Similarly, test methods were devised to determine the path loss factors of low level signals radiated within aircraft cabins. These procedures were then used in determining the potentially interfering signal's path loss in a variety of transport category aircraft. Finally, the susceptibility to interference of installed avionics systems was tested and threshold levels determined. After analysis, the above activity yielded the information necessary to determine the probability of interference to aircraft systems from PEDs.
The intent of these activities was to provide government agencies and aircraft operators with the test methods needed to determine whether a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof.
This work of the special committee was not to exhaustively test combinations of PEDs and aircraft systems for interference, however, sufficient data was obtained to make provisional inferences regarding the probability of interference from PEDs not designed to intentionally radiate electromagnetic energy. Insufficient resources were available to investigate the effects of intentional radiators.
Those findings indicated that the probability of interference to installed aircraft systems from PED, singly or in multiples, is extremely slight. However, the slight possibility of interference to aircraft navigation and information systems during critical phases of flight, e.g., takeoff and landing, should be viewed as potentially hazardous and an unacceptable risk for aircraft involved in passenger carrying operations. Therefore, the committee recommends that the use of PEDs be restricted during certain critical phases of flight.
The rapid advance of personal communications technology has created the potential for the inadvertent or surreptitious use of PEDs capable of producing significant levels of electromagnetic radiation. Since SC-177 was unable to test devices designed to be intentional radiators, these devices remain an unknown quantity regarding interference potential. However, since the proliferation of these devices may cause a new dimension in interference potential for aircraft, recommendations are made to largely prohibit their use and continue research into their characteristics. The use of detection devices within the aircraft cabin designed to receive potentially harmful interference from PEDs should be pursued as an additional means of minimizing the possibility of interference from these devices.
The committee made the following recommendations:
1. The FAA should modify Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, Portable Electronic Devices, so that:
a. The use of any PED is prohibited in aircraft during any critical phase of flight.
b. The use of any PED designed to transmit electromagnetic energy is prohibited in aircraft at all times until testing has been conducted to ascertain its safe use.
2. PED testing efforts should be continued by the FAA, airline industry, and consumer electronics and aircraft manufacturers to expand the investigation of those devices for their potential to interfere with aircraft systems. This effort should include existing and new technology devices, such as satellite communications, embedded communciations devices and two-way pagers.
3. A public awareness campaign should be initiated by the FAA, airline industry and aircraft and consumer electronics manufacturers to educate the flying public regarding the potential interference hazards from PED, especially those designed as intentional radiators.
4. Government and industry should pursue research into the design and feasibility of using devices designed to detect emissions that produce electromagnetic interference from PEDs within aircraft cabins.
Back to `Incidents and Accidents' Compendium.
People & Info
Why-Because Analysis
Compendium CRICA
System Safety Society
Bieleschweig Workshops
RVS Blog
Last modification on May 24, 2002
Author(s): Peter Bernard Ladkin

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Seabourn cruises will put you on the shores of far-off, exotic locales throughout Europe, the Caribbean, and beyond. And thanks to outstanding cruise deals from Cruise411.com, you can enjoy the pinnacle of luxury at sea for less than ever before. Turn your next cruise adventure into an experience that you'll be talking about for years to come.


Fit Small Business: Get Your Business Into Shape! › Forums › Ask a Question › Mailing checks ?
What is the safest way to mail a large value personal check ?
If I were mailing a check to an employee, I would use a registered service, like USPS 2-day priority mail. I would pay the small extra fee to make sure it's signed for. That way you can track to see that the payment arrived. Then call to see if the person got it.
If not, you can contact the bank and cancel the check (so you're in control in case the funds don't arrive).
Some banks allow you to do wire fund transfers from your account to another's bank account, and that's probably the safest of all.
Best of luck to you. Perhaps other readers will chime in with their suggestion.
p.s. Years ago, I was put on a private plane by my employer to hand deliver a $40,000 check. That was a very costly delivery service, before online banking. My employer wanted to make sure the check got there, same day. It's a memory I'll never forget.


text:
Lara Dutta – Sexy Babe from Bollywood
Lara Dutta born on April 16, 1978 in Ghaziabad, India. She is one of the hottest Indian actress. Apart from that, she is also UNFPA Goodwill Ambassador and the 2000 Miss Universe.
Bollywood Sexy Babe – Lara Dutta Pretty Photo 1
First Name: Lara
Last Name: Dutta
Birth Date: April 16, 1978
Star Sign: Aries
Eye Color: Light Brown
Occupation: bollywood actress/model
Titles Won: Miss Universe 2000, Femina Miss India
Country: Omdoa
Mother: Jennifer Dutta
Father: L.K. Dutta
Spouse: briefly dated Derek Jeter
Education: graduated in economics with a minor in communications from the Bombay University
Likes: read autobiographies and travel
Other facts: she participated in various AIDS related events and worked along with the UNFPA
Hobbies: sport enthusiast with rock climbing and bungee jumping
Languages: Hindi, English
Lara Dutta moved to Bangalore with her family in 1981. She completed high school education from Frank Anthony Public School, Bangalor and graduated in economics with a minor in communications from Bombay University.
Lara become known after winning the annual Gladsrags modelling competition,India and 1997 Miss Intercontinental pageant. Later, she was crowned Femina Miss India Universe and Miss Universe in 2000.
She start her film debut in 2003, where the film Andaaz was a box office success. She won Filmfare Best Female Debut Award. She appeared in a number of films and some of her box office hits include Masti (2004), Kaal (2005),No Entry (2005) and Dosti: Friends Forever (2005).
Bollywood Sexy Babe – Lara Dutta In Bikini Photo 1
Bollywood Sexy Babe – Lara Dutta Pretty Photo 10
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 24th, 2007 at 8:04 am	and is filed under Sexy Babes. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One Response to "Lara Dutta – Sexy Babe from Bollywood"
hi. ur so sweet. im mad foru. ur so sexy


text:
Private House, Surrey Hills – Rear View January 26, 2023
New build two storey house on an extremely sloped site. Cedar cladding at the first floor adds a contemporary feel capped by a low-pitched butterfly roof. The South elevation features large format glazing and high floor to ceiling levels which generate a lofty feel to the rooms, overlooking an external lap swimming pool (heated using…
Private House, Surrey Hills – Approach January 20, 2023
The proposal replaces the existing 1960s house with a new dwelling to modern living standards, using sustainable and energy efficient materials. The house features an air source heat pump, MVHR, lots of PV and a great SAP rating of 107. Not just Zero Carbon, we are 30% beyond Zero Carbon. High floor to ceiling levels…
Internal shot of contemporary dwelling in Guildford November 28, 2022
Internal shot of our recently completed contemporary dwelling in Guildford. High floor to ceiling levels generate a lofty feel to the rooms and large areas of glazing at the two storey southern elevation provide unbeatable views of the Surrey Hills and the South Downs. Photograph by Jon Mcrae Photography. https://www.jonmcrae.co.uk/
Project overview: Clapham Village Nursery September 7, 2022
This flagship building next to Clapham Common involved a complete remodelling and redevelopment of a derelict warehouse building to create a nursery and family centre for children from 6 months to 5 years old. Designed to BREEAM 'excellent' environmental standards, including sustainable natural ventilation with roof top wind catchers. The refurbished building provides playrooms for…
Planning Permission for four, new build dwellings in Haslemere September 2, 2022
Working in conjunction with ME Developments, planning consent has been achieved for four, new build, detached residential dwellings as part of a phased development, located in an attractive and sustainable location in Haslemere, Surrey. The design concept reflects the fragmented layout of the existing buildings on the development site, where the architectural language has been…
Details – Residential project in Epsom August 16, 2022
Brickwork details with chamfered window reveals reinforcing a contemporary style at a recently completed residential project in Epsom.
Planning Permission for private house in Guildford July 5, 2022
We have successfully obtained planning consent for the design of a contemporary, first floor rear extension and internal re-configuration of an existing two-storey house in Guildford. The client's brief was to reconfigure their living space so that it catered for additional living and home working requirements. The design seeks to generate a more open-plan living…
Completion photos of new build residential development – Epsom June 8, 2022
Completion photographs of the second phase of new build residential development in Epsom, adding another 13 apartments for a total of 23 across the site. Located adjacent to a park, it was a priority to create large openings to provide views across the public open space and naturally lit internal spaces. Primary living spaces are…
Memorial Hall May 11, 2022
Lytle Associates Architects worked closely with Waverley Borough Council and the Brightwells Gostrey Centre to deliver an extension and refurbishment to Farnham Memorial Hall. The existing 1920's building received a contemporary new wing, incorporating day care and shared community facilities: – Kitchen facilities for 'meals on wheels' and on-site cafeteria – Hair Salon – Health…
Office visits to new contemporary dwelling in Guildford March 23, 2022
Over the last few weeks members of the Office have been taking visits to our site for a new two storey contemporary dwelling in Guildford. The project is currently in the final stages of construction and replaces an 1960s bungalow on an extremely sloped site. The ground floor of the new dwelling is partially built…


Sometimes you run into unexpected delays or out-of-the-blue issues that make keeping specific promises you've made to stakeholders impossible. While it's inevitable that people will be upset (and rightfully so), there is one thing you absolutely must do if you want the people who believed in you to keep the faith: COMMUNICATE!
The folks who make WiFi hotspot Karma presold a new version of their product last September with promises it would be ready by Christmas, but as of today the kinks are still being ironed out. Customers have been told repeatedly it was about ready, only for the manufacturer to fall silent once again.
First off, I want to apologize for not communicating to you sooner. We wanted to give you something concrete, and now we have something concrete to share. And to everyone who has pre-ordered a Karma Go: Thank you for sticking with us this long.
We planned to ship Karma Go this month, but we can't ship Karma Go until it's perfect. We hit a snag about a month ago that threw our timeline up in the air, and now that snag is finally resolved.
For a while now we've been testing Go with about 20 people at our office. One thing that really puzzled us is that it would somehow lose its connection a few times a day. You'd go into an office, or walk out on the street, and the internet would drop.
We traced this to a problem with the handoff between 4G (high speed LTE) and 3G (medium speed CDMA) networks. Karma Go would connect fine to 4G, and then when it tried to transition from 4G to 3G in a lower coverage area it would say it was connected, but it wasn't. Then, even if it found 4G again, it couldn't jump back online.
We knew what was wrong, but we couldn't figure out the why, and so for the past month we've been heads down, trying to figure out the cause.
And now here's the good news: it's fixed!
While the tone of the message is great, and the content should buy them a little more time from stakeholders, the lack of compassion – demonstrating the Karma team understands and commiserates with the frustration created by their actions – leaves this post feeling less effective than it could have been.
If they're able to live up to their most recent timeline, and if they keep up the promise to communicate more frequently and openly, Karma can recover from its failure to deliver. If not, well, let's just say their company name may gain an unpleasant double meaning.


The JSO will be embarking on a concert tour in Estonia and Riga in May 2019, and in preparation of the tour we will be hosting conductor Andres Mustonen and pianist Tom Borrow for this special concert. The programme includes Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 3, Brahm's Symphony No. 4 and a short Israeli work (TBA).


text:
Dalvin Cook feeling better than ever fresh off ACL tear recovery
EAGAN, Minn. (KMSP) - In his first year in the NFL, Dalvin Cook had the game he loves cruelly taken away from him.
It was a devastating knee injury in week four that cost him the rest of his rookie season, but after a long rehab stint, Cook feels like a new man.
"It's a brand new knee," he said Thursday. "It's my knee. I put the work in, put the time in, so I fully trust it, man. It's full go."
While some may worry that he'll lose some burst after suffering a torn ACL, Cook feels the exact opposite. He says he feels even stronger than before and he's fully confident that he can be the same player he was before getting hurt.
"This process is all about milestones and stacking up the days and just putting it all together so you know you can lead up to week one. But once you put pads on, that's going to be another milestone for me, so I can't wait until we put them on."
He added, "To go out there and get a chance at the game again is just God and I thank him for that and I'm going to give it all I got."
Vikings Tight-end Tyler Conklin said, "Hell of a running back. I watched him play last year and just what he did in the short amount of time that he had was unreal. He's going to be one of the top running backs in the NFL so to do that in his rookie year with half a season, whatever he played, was unreal and I know the whole organization is super excited to have him back."
Conklin went on to applaud his teammates' ability to block, which is a key, but often underappreciated skill for running backs.
"When you see a young player that understands protections the way he does at an early age, I think that's really unique and obviously he has the pass-catching ability and the running ability that we've all seen but obviously a lot of times, when you play that position, the running back protection I think sometimes gets overlooked."
Gophers star Destiny Pitts announces she will enter NCAA Transfer Portal
Snow totals: 10 inches in Grand Marais, 5 in Minneapolis


text:
Q: Redirection 301 with a url like http://www.mywebsite.com/?RT Google has indexed pages duplicating my homepage.
I end up with URLs like mywebsite.com /? RT I want redirected to mywebsite.com / history to show that Google is not to duplicate.
From what I understand, you need to use RewriteCond to do this but I can not redirect this seems not to be a URL to the server, but just my homepage ... without variable without way ...
A huge thank you for any contribution answer!

A: Put this code in your DOCUMENT_ROOT/.htaccess file:
RewriteEngine On

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} \s/+s\?RT[&\s] [NC]
RewriteRule ^ /history? [R=301,L]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Concert Review and Photos: DEVILDRIVER in Dallas, TX
Gas Monkey Live! | Dallas, Texas | 25 October 2018
Cherri Bird October 30, 2018
Photo © Thomas Woroniak Photography
DevilDriver headlines the "Outlaws Til The End" Tour with Jinjer and Raven Black
Wow! This show as a special one, that's for sure. Not only was DEVILDRIVER back in the saddle supporting their newest record Outlaws Til The End but they brought two killer bands with them; RAVEN BLACK and JINJER.
Dallas just happened to be the second stop for DEVILDRIVER'S month-long US "Outlaws Til The End" Tour which brought everyone out of the woodwork and to Gas Monkey Live!. DEVILDRIVER has some ties to Dallas as NEAL TIEMANN, (guitars) for is from Dallas and it's kinda like their home away from home, as Dallas is for a lot of metal bands. Not to mention, the band has played here a ton of times. Dallas has always had a tight-knit metal community partly due to the late Abbott Brothers and their hospitality to bands that came through Dallas and the other part because fans just love metal music!
I must say this, if DEZ had anything to do with picking bands to tour with, I'll say he slayed this line-up like a BOSS!! The two locals DIVINE RETRIBUTION and DISPOSITIONS kept the momentum of the evening rolling. (PS Dallas hardcore fans keep your eye on DISPOSITIONS – they're playing this month with SPITE – check their page!) The tour package is RAVEN BLACK and JINJER with DEVILDRIVER and these two bands make this bill a pretty diverse show! Now RAVEN BLACK and JINJER are both fronted by women. But that isn't the diversity I'm talking about, I mean that'd be a pretty obvious observation, but gender isn't a marker for being diverse in this situation, Lovelies. It's their sound these two have that creates that melange, if you will. Both RAVEN BLACK and JINJER set up the narrative perfectly for DEVILDRIVER to finish off the night – but I'm way ahead of myself. Let's jump back a bit, shall we?
The first time I saw RAVEN BLACK was in Deep Ellum in a tiny club/bar that was hardly big enough for RAVEN'S tutu let alone the whole band! I was impressed with the comic-esque costuming and their horror-metal punk style of rock and roll. The band is from Los Angeles and since their inception in 2012, they've built their brand with a full costumed stage show with parasols, hula-hoops, teddy bears and even a morning star! RAVEN BLACK primes up the crowd to rock with all of the fun songs from their catalog of records! When and I say when and not "if" because they'll be touring more later this year or early 2019, you gotta see them!
Now the other reason this night was killer was HRH (His Royal Hero) Thomas Woroniak, the editor of ANTIHERO MAGAZINE, came down from Missouri to specifically see the show and shoot JINJER (pronounced GIN-jer), the massively epic, full-on, full-throttle metal band from Ukraine. Since the tour wasn't making a stop in his neck of the woods, he came down to see for himself what the buzz was about JINJER. Before the show, Thomas and I had a chance to meet TATIANA and EUGENE (singer and bassist, respectively) and it was such a privledge to be able to chat a little with these musicians that despite the miles between Ukraine and Texas and the cultural differences, love metal music! Let me say this, TATIANA is a tiny creature and for the life of me I cannot understand – it doesn't compute – how some of the most guttural growls and shrieking screams can come out of her! It's amazing! So while we spoke, I kept thinking "how in the blue blazes do those screams and growls come out of this sweet, yet stoic creature?" I couldn't wait until they performed and as we got off their bus couldn't wait to get to the little girls room before I had to settle myself in like a sardine in the photo pit when the show started. I was pretty sure JINJER was going to drop kick me like an NFL kicker!
And holy hellballz- they did just that. JINJER punted my musically emotionally-bound football right through the goal posts. I'm going to fan-girl out here for a minute – so just bear with me, alright? As a four-piece, there's a risk that there won't be that full feeling a song can have with two guitars, ya follow? Now that's not evident on the songs I heard of JINJER but translating that on stage is another story. JINJER does not have that issue in the slightest. From the first song this band literally blew me away. TATIANA'S voice tasers you no matter where you are in the audience, from the pit to the back of the house, this girl's voice is going to find you, put it's tentacles into your clothing or skin whilst zapping the sickest music through the taser's wires. You are brought to life with this insane electricity, like lightening brought Frankenstein to life – ya, that is what this music will do to you.
JINJER'S punchy bass lines and full-on soul jiggling low hums that fill your chest cavity if you're close to the subs…OMG. The guitars and drums melt together and just about the time when you remember to suck in some oxygen and breathe BAM!! what only can be described as a tempestuous burst of an unclean vocal or growl hits you right in the face. And if you didn't know better, you'd swear someone else was creating this vocal chaos that TATIANA throws with her growling screams. Just imagine what you see on stage, visually in front of you – and what you'll hear is the exact opposite come out of her mouth for the unclean vocals. She is BRU-tal!! I loved the entire set from start to finish. The whole band worked nicely on stage and all four of the artists are extremely killer musicians. I haven't seen a bassist play like that since JOHN TAYLOR on RIO!
JINJER BAND MEMBERS: Tatiana Shmailyuk – vocals | Roman Ibramkhalilov – guitars | Eugene Kostyuk – bass | Vladislav Ulasevish – drums
Dude, when DEVILDRIVER took the stage, there was zero time wasted on picking up where JINJER left off. This band has always grabbed an audience by the good ole gonads and just pummeled the hell out of them at their live shows. The force that builds from the contagious mix of these players, especially now, is straight up Cali-Metal with a dollop of gristly American rock that is synonymous with DEVILDRIVER.
Now, let's give 'em all a horns up and a fist-bump up high for their latest release entitled "Outlaws Til The End Vol. 2″ . This record includes a collaborative effort of DEVILDRIVER with an assortment of musicians like HANK 3, WEDNESDAY 13, RANDY BLYTHE, AND JOHN CARTER CASH who have successfully created their own space in music with an affinity for the roots in American music. These musicians also share the outlaw spirit found in DEVILDRIVER all of which have made their mark creating and performing the music they love.
What shines through with DEVILDRIVER is the way DEZ commands a stage. He has the experience of performing on pretty much every kind of stage all over the world and it shows with the way he engages the band's fans. If you weren't familiar with DEVILDRIVER before seeing them live, you will be a F4L (fan for life) leaving one of their shows. #truth
Where DEVILDRIVER excels collectively is their ability to sell a song to the crowd as they work the stage and make a connection with the audience just like a Klingon tracker beam pulls in any one of the Starship Enterprise. And for those fans that thought that this tour was going to be the majority of songs off "Outlaws Til The End Vol. 1", well don't you feel silly now? Jokes – but for real, DEVILDRIVER played a litany of tracks off all their past releases and even dusted off a few that haven't been played live in a while like "Grinfucked" and "End of the Line".
They did play "Whiskey River" the WILLIE NELSON cover that is off of "Outlaws Til The End" which is a pretty sick track if you ask me. I kinda kept thinking that MR. NELSON would come around the curtain and saunter on stage, but I think he was busy that night or something…but the song was killer without him, too. I'm so glad they also played "Sail" – I dig this song – especially DEVILDRIVER'S version! The heaviness in the recording is apparent live and even more so. I think it's a brilliant version of such a haunting song. I'm glad they played it!
DEZ, being the original and only founding member of the band, has had the mad skills and talent in keeping DEVILDRIVER relevant and in the game since 2002. As one of the true "rock shows" that's on the road right now, I would recommend getting your tickets now – if at all possible. These tours have a tendency to gain momentum as the days tick by! You have until the 18th of November to complete this mission or you can hold out for their appearance on New Year's Eve in Los Angeles a the world-famous Forum with OZZY, MANSON, WEDNESDAY 13, ROB ZOMBIE and more! But, I urge you to get tickets because JINJER won't be here again until next year – at least we hope. I mean, it is pretty far from Ukraine, right?
If you haven't picked up the new 'Outlaws Til The End Vol. 1′ you should go listen to it on Spotify and then download it or pick it up at your favorite music outlet! Check DEVILDRIVER'S Facebook page for all of the tour dates and of course, VIP seating and Meet and Greet Packages!
DEVILDRIVER BAND MEMBERS: – Dez Fafara – Vocals | Mike Spreitzer – Guitar | Neal Tiemann – Guitar | Diego Ibarra – Bass | Austin D'Amond – Drums
TIl Next Time – MLMR – Cherri 
All photos © Thomas Woroniak Photography
Gas Monkey Live! - Dallas, TX - 25 October 2018
DEVILDRIVER Dez Fafara JINJER John Carter Cash Napalm Records OUTLAWS TIL THE END Randy Blythe Raven Black Wednesday 13
Concert Review and Photos: Philip H. Anselmo and the Illegals in London
Concert Review and Photos: STATIC-X at The Firmament
Concert Review and Photos: RIVERSIDE in San Francisco
Concert Review and Photos: ELDER at Slaktkyrkan – Stockholm
Concert Review and Photos: EVANESCENCE at Sands Bethlehem Event Center
Concert Review and Photos: OM in Stockholm
Concert Review and Photos: AVANTASIA in Stockholm
Concert Review and Photos: DROPKICK MURPHYS in London, UK
Concert Review and Photos: METAL ALLEGIANCE in San Francisco, CA
Cherri Bird
Independent and selective rock journalist & wordsmith, focused on strengthening the connections between a fan and the bands they follow through the words she writes. Specializing in interviews, music & show reviews, and candid photography; Cherri takes what she discovers and pounds the social media pavement to fuse the energy that music brings us with the bands that create it.
Concert Review and Photos: DEEP PURPLE and JUDAS PRIEST in Charlotte, NC
Concert Review and Photos: STEEL PANTHER with CITIZEN ZERO at The Fillmore Charlotte
Festival Review: HELLFEST OPEN AIR 2017
Concert Review: PAUL RODGERS at the O2 Apollo Manchester
Concert Review and Photos: IN FLAMES with ALL THAT REMAINS and ALL HAIL THE YETI in Charlotte, NC
Concert Review: STEEL PANTHER with Bowling for Soup and Buckcherry at Manchester Arena


Douglas Roy Nickel, of Flushing, age 69, passed away peacefully at his residence on Sunday, May 6, 2012, after a long and courageous battle with cancer and diabetes.
A memorial service will be celebrated at 11 a.m. Wednesday, May 9, at Swartz Funeral Home, 1225 W. Hill Road in Flint. Family will receive friends from 10 a.m. until the time of the service. Additional visitation hours are 3-8 p.m. Tuesday, May 8, at the funeral home.
In lieu of flowers (due to allergies), contributions may be made to Whaley Children's Center, Flint Institute of Arts or a charity of your choice.
Doug was born in Flint on June 18, 1942, the son of Roy and Ruth (Hunt) Nickel. A beloved husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, great-uncle, cousin and friend, and a lifelong loyal resident of Flushing, Douglas was educated at Flushing High School, graduating with the class of 1961.
He served in the U.S. Air Force Security Division as staff sergeant, 1961-1965, stationed in Okinawa, Japan, and Crete, Greece. Following his return, he was self-employed as a real estate broker, residential/commercial builder and developer, and entrepreneur for 46 years, including a six-year building partnership with loyal brother, Gary Nickel. He was also the proud founder and owner of Safety Lock Storage.
Doug was an involved member and supporter of many local associations and causes, including DeMolay, Degree of Chevalier; Michigan Jaycees as secretary, treasurer, president and national senator; Genesee County Home Builders Association, board of directors; NIPP (Flint Neighborhood Improvement and Preservation), board of directors; Whaley Children's Center, active volunteer for almost 20 years; member of Snow Shoe Hunt Club, Hubbard Lake; beloved clown in the Flushing parade with brother, Gary, and sister, Debi, for 10 years.
His sense of humor and rare ability to light up the room allowed Doug to touch the hearts of many. He will be dearly missed by his wife of 16 years, Colleen (Holmes). They shared an amazing life filled with family, friends, Northern Michigan boating and exotic international travels. He is survived by his four children who adore him, Michele (Chris) Frasz, Julie (Shawn) Murphy, Angie (Guy) Busch and Greg (Leanna) Nickel, and their mother Sue (Malcolm) MacLean; eight grandchildren, Lydia and Norah Frasz, Cole and Cameron Murphy, Sydney and Aidan Busch, Scarlet and Lylah Nickel. Sister Debi (Gary) Sanborn; sister-in-law, Annette Nickel; aunt, Mary Feller, aunt, Judy (Ron) Frazier, and several cousins; special nieces and nephews, Chris Nickel, Sara (Chris) Anderson, Ashley and Todd Davison, Julia Boss, and great-niece, Emma Kate Anderson; wife Colleen's parents, Robert (Kathy) Holmes and Jackie Holmes.
Doug was preceded in death by mother, Ruth Nickel, father, Roy Nickel, and brother, Gary Nickel.


Nektar made their name with hi-tech keyboards that focused on integration with Propellerhead's Reason. Their current top-of-the-range Panorama master controllers are highly regarded and extend their advanced DAW integration to many other packages. In the last year or so Nektar have widened their reach with the more budget-conscious Impact GX and LX ranges. The latest addition is the LX88+, an 88-key USB keyboard with drum pads, knobs, and faders that's surprisingly affordable, yet still has much of the advanced DAW magic of the luxury models.
I was a bit concerned about accommodating a full-size 88-key controller in my rather cosy studio, but the LX88+ is light and trim; narrow enough to slide under my desk on a keyboard stand when not in use. It's also bus powered (!) which made it easy to move about, all of which must be music to the ears of laptop-based keyboard players. The LXs can't help but look utilitarian next to the gorgeous Panoramas, but the build feels solid. I like the gunmetal grey finish, although I did find the dark colour and sparse lights meant that in low light I struggled to see the labels on the controls.
While you could simply plug in the LX88+ and get generic MIDI keyboard functionality, you'd be breaking the hearts of the crew at Nektar. The Nektar keyboards are all about advanced DAW integration. This means downloading the files for your DAWs of choice, and following the setup instructions. Luckily the installation side is taken care of by proper grown-up installers, without any manual poking around in your system.
Installers are provided for (take a breath): Logic and GarageBand, Cubase and Nuendo, Reason, Bitwig, Digital Performer, Studio One, Reaper and Sonar. FL Studio supports the LX with no installation necessary. Once set up, each of these DAWs will enjoy many of the advanced control features which we'll explore shortly. There are also configuration instruction for Pro Tools, where the Impact appears to use the M-Audio Hypercontrol protocol for a limited subset of functionality.
While it's not unusual to see Pro Tools missing out on functionality with a controller (its eggs are mostly in the Eucon basket and it has limited MIDI controller support in comparison), it's more surprising that Ableton Live is missing from the top-tier of supported software. There's no mention of it in the product information or main DAW setup areas of Nektar's web site. If you look in the Knowledgebase you'll find a setup guide with a Live Remote Script that you have to install manually. This gives you a single mode with functionality along the lines of MIDI controllers that use simple Mackie Control emulation. I asked Nektar why Live doesn't enjoy their deeper feature set, and they said, "we would love to write custom integration for Live to the same level as other DAWs, but in order to do so we require Ableton to license an API to us." I think the key thing here is that it takes a lot of time and work to develop a controller script, and you need to be confident that this will continue to be supported from one version to the next.
Preset which gives you five layers of user-programmable assignments.
For example, in Logic, if you press the LX+'s Mixer mode button, the mixer view will appear in Logic, and the physical faders will map to it. The buttons map to mutes, and the eight knobs map to pans. There are variations available within the mode, so Shift switches the buttons to solos, and pressing the User button by the knobs will open Logic's Smart Control view and give you access to these macros from the knobs.
Bitwig 8 Track is included with the LX88+ and takes full advantage of the controller integration features.Staying with Logic, pressing the Instrument Mode button will open any virtual instrument that's on the currently selected track, and the keyboard's controls will map to it. The knobs have a set of common pre-mapped parameters (Filter Cutoff, Resonance, etc), which are printed in blue on the surface. In Instrument mode the faders typically become envelope controls: four for Amp Env and another four for Filter Env. A second User page of controls is provided for creating custom controls. In Logic this is done with Logic's own control map feature (which can then be made the default), but in some DAWs like Cubase and Reason there's a 'Grab' mode built into the hardware in which you just wiggle the software control followed by the knob you wish to assign. Some hosts can remember these assignments and recall them automatically for specific instruments.
There is also a set of Global controls which do not change with the mode, such as the Transport and Locate functions. Among these are the Track Selectors, which are easily my favourite and most used buttons, letting you quickly move between the instruments present in your project's mixer or (in the case of Reason) device rack. Alongside these are Patch Select buttons which step through presets within the currently selected instrument. These controls are supremely handy, yet are often overlooked on other controllers.
The four-colour LED illumination indicates which pad map is currently loaded and can even tell you which type of MIDI message each pad sends. By default the eight trigger pads play MIDI Notes, and typically park themselves in the right place to play any of the drum instruments supplied with the DAWs Nektar supports. Having only eight does mean banking on most instruments to get to all sounds, but this is mitigated by an excellent feature called Pad Learn, which lets you re-assign pads to specific sounds very quickly. To use this you simply flip on Pad Learn mode, tap the pad you want to change, then use the keyboard to find the drum sound to assign. The last sound you play from the keyboard is remembered by the pad. You can quickly assemble a pool of sounds on the pads and avoid too much banking. Clever!
Next to the pads are buttons for selecting the Clips or Scenes pad modes. In Bitwig (which is the only DAW to use the Clips mode) these tie in directly to the Clips and Scenes features of the software. Clips lets you trigger playback and recording of clips. The pads light up to show status: yellow to show where clips exist, green for clips that are playing, and red for recording. In Scenes mode you can trigger Bitwig's scenes, and set custom colours.
In Logic, the Scene buttons can be used to create and locate to Markers, but it's Reason that gets the biggest productivity boost. Nektar have set up the Scenes buttons to recall up to 64 loop points in the Reason timeline. By defaults these are four bars long, so tapping the first pad will trigger looped playback from bar one to five; pad 2 triggers bars five to nine, etc. Reason waits until the end of its current bar before skipping to the new position and playback is seamless. This provides a real-time scene-based workflow for Reason that is more fluid than the built-in Blocks feature! You can even change the loop length and where the first loop starts, and as a final flourish the pads are colour coded to show which section is playing, and whether it's recording.
The key differentiator with MIDI controllers now is intelligent software integration; there is a world of difference between a generic MIDI keyboard and a device that can map dynamically to your software, with little or no setup required. In this regard the LX88+ is powerful, yet disarmingly simple. It provides a nice balance of consistent, preset functions without trying to overstretch itself and become complicated. It's an interesting contrast to the direction taken by some other manufacturers. NI, Akai, and Novation have all created unified hardware interfaces using software intermediaries (Komplete Kontrol, VIP, and Automap) while Nektar have taken a 'brute force' approach and squeezed as much as they can from the hardware APIs available with most of today's DAWs. This leaves you to work directly in your DAW's native environment.
The Nektar Impact LX88+ confounded my expectations. I'd imagined it wasn't going to be a 'real' Nektar keyboard, and instead be a standard USB controller following the template of many others on the market. In fact, despite the lower budget, it's still quite stylish, and more importantly retains the powerful DAW integration that Nektar are known for. It has a lot going for it.
There's not really anything directly comparable to the LX88+ and its close DAW integration. Other 88-key controllers tend to be purely keys at the budget end, or high-spec, fully weighted models like Akai's MPK88, Arturia's KeyLab 88 or NI's S88 at two or three times the price. If you take a step down to 61 keys then more choices come into play, such as Novation's Impulse.
While the LX88+ lacks the rotary encoders you get on the flagship Panorama keyboards, Nektar have built in a couple of ways to avoid the sudden parameter jumps you'd normally get with fixed knobs and faders. The keyboard maintains two-way communication with the software it's controlling and reads the settings of any parameters it's mapped to. It will only begin updating a target when the physical control passes through the current setting point.
As soon as you start moving a control that's not in sync yet, the display reads Up or Down (well, Dn) to show you which way you need to go to catch up. This scheme works for stopping parameter jumps, although I sometimes wished I could just grab immediate control. For one-way MIDI situations, the LX88+ has a 'Null' mode which works in a similar way, but remembers where controls were in previous bank or mode positions instead of actively sensing the target.
Deep functionality with many DAWs.
A simple yet powerful master keyboard with a deep and consistent feature set across many of today's leading DAWs.


WTB NA Hardtop Local near OKC - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.
I have $800 dollars cash for someone local to OKC area within 2 hours drive.
Help needed today or tomorrow near St.Louis MO. Is there a local BMW club?


text:
Q: Retrieve a record with fromdate and todate by passing single date in MySQL Here I have a Database Table with fromDate and toDate field. My requirement is to retrieve all records with a specific date(it can be either fromDate or toDate or in between fromDate and toDate).
TableName: MyTable

I need to find a record with date 13/2/2015 (it can be either fromDate or toDate or in between fromDate and toDate). What will be the query to find such record?

A: You can use the BETWEEN clause. Assuming from and to dates are inclusive, you would write:
SELECT ...
WHERE '2015-02-13' BETWEEN fromDate AND toDate


gravy boat and underplate yesterday, unexpected surprise. I have several pieces put away and I think they may come out to live on my Welsh Dresser some day soon.
The mark reads "Yuan" Woods and Sons England (plus the registration number).
January Blocks (ran out of H's so had to remove "HUG"), have to find some more blocks.
An addition to the Hydrangea grouping.
I am just about over being sick, thank goodness.
and drinking lots of water has obviously helped.
Thanks for the very kind comments and emails.
Glad you are feeling better...that gravy boat is enough to lift your spirits!
The gravy boat is beautiful! I love your creative use with the old blocks! The dried hydrangeas look great with the gravy boat - perfect color match! Thank you for sharing with Home and Garden Thursday!
Glad to hear you're about over the bug. Love that gravy boat with the hydrangea, great combo!
What a sweet husband surprising you with a lovely piece like this. It's not a pattern I've come across before but it really is pretty.
Hi Joy ... love the hydrangeas and of course the gravy is lovely.
Blessings. Audrey Z. at Timeless Treasures.