"Your IP address 104.28.103.15 has been used for unauthorized accesses and is therefore blocked! Your IP address belongs to Cloudflare and is being used by many users, some of which are hackers and hide behind the cloud/proxy to avoid being tracked down. Hence the automatic defense closed access from that IP address.

"Make sure to not use a proxy/cloud service for visiting AVH (e.g. Apple Users turn off your private relay) but your native IP address, then access should be possible without a problem again."

No thank you, AV Herald.

That's a pretty nice message. Most sites that filter VPNs and proxies just kill the connection, give a generic error, or subject you to endless captchas.

They could've blocked just the comments, allowing at least read-only access to the site, instead of blocking it off entirely

So could everyone that blocks network traffic for various reasons, but usually they don't because they're not doing it in the primary application layer, but using a WAF or reverse proxy or something else in front of their application... and also most DGAF to cater specifically to the users they block.

Again, you're usually lucky to even get a return packet.

I block all traffic from Cloudflare outright on my servers.

Every so often they sneak in new blocks of IP addresses though so you're playing whack-a-mole with a particularly scummy opponent.

They're pretty upfront about their ranges:

https://www.cloudflare.com/en-au/ips/

Or if you prefer:

https://www.cloudflare.com/ips-v4/#

> On the aft lug, on both the inboard and outboard fracture surfaces, a fatigue crack was observed where the aft lug bore met the aft lug forward face. For the forward lug's inboard fracture surface, fatigue cracks were observed along the lug bore. For the forward lug's outboard fracture surface, the fracture consisted entirely of overstress with no indications of fatigue cracking

If I'm parsing this correctly, they're saying that fatigue cracks should have been visible in the aft pylon mount, and that the forward mount was similarly fatigued but showed no damage on the outside?

> If I'm parsing this correctly, they're saying that fatigue cracks should have been visible in the aft pylon mount, and that the forward mount was similarly fatigued but showed no damage on the outside?

If you can get to the report, Figure 7 shows the left pylon, with the forward and aft lug enlarged in the inset. Both lugs cracked on two sides. They're saying both cracks on the aft lug as well as the inboard crack on the forward lug were observed to be fatigue cracks, but the forward lug outboard fracture was observed to be entirely a stress crack.

Outboard and inboard are just away from and towards the center of the plane. On the left pylon, that's left and right, respectively. So, it looks like the left side crack in the forward lug developed from overstress, but the other three cracks were from fatigue. My expectation is that fatigue should be apparent upon the right kind of inspection, if timely, even if the metal has yet to fracture.

It sounds like the aft lug failed first, and then the not quite as compromised forward lug failed in overload.