Slashdot Mirror

http://avherald.com/h?article=...

If I was forced into a situation where no analog audio outputs were available, I'd have to opt for some sort of external bluetooth+DAC combined with existing analog headphones, provided tolerable codecs could be had. Best of both worlds, imo. Easy interfacing to any existing home theater equipment, and broad support for audio sources. I'm also averse to stuffing LiPos into my earholes (mild sarcasm), but there's nothing requiring that here anyhow. I think too many people try to present the false dichotomy in which if one wants 3.5mm jacks, they automatically abhor Bluetooth.

Another alternative is software to stream the audio to another machine over WiFi, if audio quality is a problem but latency is not.

bird strike

The penalty for failure to yield suddenly went way up

While I don't know of any incidents within the US, I have seen at least one case where a drone collision actually occurred:
http://avherald.com/h?article=...

There has been no confirmation that it definitely was a drone.

It was initially reported by the flight crew as an "impact". But further examination has ruled that out and attributes the damage to structural failure of a used radome.

Aaaaand.... it was NOT a drone:

http://avherald.com/h?article=...

http://avherald.com/h?article=... - also in africa.
http://avherald.com/img/comair... - this damage was done by a red billed kite impact.
Broadly similar amount of buckling, though in a different place.
There are a lot of large birds in Africa, and aircraft frequently hit them.

http://avherald.com/h?article=... - also in africa.
http://avherald.com/img/comair... - this damage was done by a red billed kite impact.
Broadly similar amount of buckling, though in a different place.
There are a lot of large birds in Africa, and aircraft frequently hit them.

That site appears to have just copy / pasted the story from The Aviation Herald, and they didn't even bother to link to the images. Here's the original article with the radar images:
http://avherald.com/h?article=...

Does that radar indicate ground speed or airspeed? If ground speed then of course that will drop as the aircraft climbs, although the airspeed may stay the same.

In my world geek news sources it's information - "The Chinese photo" would be shown or linked to. GPS coordinates would be accurate not "almost" a vague coordinate.

Jup. Pretty much all reporting on this is abysmal, from painfully simplified to just plain wrong and misleading.

One thing I haven't seen correct in any non-aviation specific publication:
The aircraft didn't send pings to the Inmarsat satellite, it replied
to pings by the Inmarsat satellite. It's an important detail:
That's why we know the roundtrip times.


One of best sources - maybe even the best source - is The Aviation Herald:
Malaysia B772 over Gulf of Thailand on Mar 8th 2014, aircraft missing, high degree of certainty: deliberate action

All images (including the new one) are there, all known technical information (times, positions, etc.) is there.
Updated information is highlighted with a light yellow background.

The most amazing thing: As far as I know, avherald.com is a one-man operation.

Lasers not in the company of sharks appear to be OK.

Well duh. Sharks need more than 3 ounces of water. And if there's one thing I've learned from traveling, it's that more than 3 ounces of water is dangerous and only a terrorist would try to bring that though an airport checkpoint.

Lasers not in the company of sharks appear to be OK.

More professional points of view: http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

Emergency services refute the claim of casualties.
http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0

The aircraft burst into flames and burned out, all occupants were able to evacuate the aircraft in time and are alive. There are reports of a number of injuries, mainly burns, the majority of occupants escaped without injuries.

Emergency services reported all occupants have been accounted for and are alive.

Second Li-Poly battery total meltdown in as many weeks.

Boeing had to get the FAA to waive its rules regarding Lithium batteries on planes in order to get this plane certified in the first place, and build containment boxes for the batteries into the design.

For the most part the risk of Lithium batteries lies in the requirement for rigid control of recharging, being careful not to over charge and also of draining the battery completely, the annoying habit of catching fire when the rules are not followed, or when the battery is short-circuited make large Li batteries (8-gram equivalent lithium content or more) banned in luggage, and shipments.

I suspect that the FAA will rescind this waiver, and force the replacement of the battery packs with something less prone to burn..

That's because most people are sheep. They go along with it under the pretense that it makes them feel safe. Everybody knows that after 9/11 that the same kind of crap would never happen on an airline in the US. Why? Look at the dumbshit underwear bomber kid, look at the AA flight attendant who went nuts a couple of weeks ago. The passengers took matters into their own hands to help resolve the issue. People will get up and defend themselves so unless would-be attackers come heavily armed there won't be a repeat. What the TSA has done is create long lines and an illusion of security. I fly every week of the year and I can tell you that I have more of a chance of falling out of the sky from a flock of geese than I do a would-be terrorist on a plane. What I want to know is why the TSA isn't installing anti-aircraft guns around airports to take care of the bird menace!

ouch! Luckily they still have an old fashion gyro, airspeed indicator, and an altimeter on board, and were as close to the airport as they were. Dodged another bullet...

...Boeing itself says that Airbus airplanes are just as safe as their own.

Lawyers lawyers lawyers...