Slashdot Mirror

the "gay agenda" (whatever *that* is)

Well, you're in luck; I just happen to have a copy: The Homosexual Agenda

Did anybody else notice that whois.sc is using IE (or IE libraries) to take the screenshots? I took a look at my flight school's web site, and the center pane was misaligned; this is due to a CSS bug in IE that I've not yet worked around. I also took a look at my homepage, and it rendered one of the transparent PNGs on a grey background (with the normally-invisible black text clearly visible--it should say "If you can read this text, click 'about this site' to find out why!" "About This Site" is a page that talks about IE bugs.). It should be noted that I'm looking at whois.sc with Moz, so the rendering issue isn't here; also, the screenshot image is a JPEG.

This is a neat laptop, and I'm sure it would make a great desktop replacement, or even a good gaming laptop. That said, though, I can't bring myself to buy another Dell machine until they re-earn my trust.

The short version of the story is that I bought a laptop from them and tried to get it fixed under warranty. They failed to fix all of the problems when I sent it back, and failed to note the problems as unfixed. When I got it back, outside of warranty, with the problems unfixed, I called Dell, and Dell refused to fix them, saying that it was out of warranty. They did, however, fix the problems they caused while it was being repaired. When I got it back from the second repair, there was an additional problem, a cracked access panel. It took a good half-hour of arguing to get them to replace the panel. I did finally get them to fix the original problem, but it took a sternly-worded letter to senior management to make it happen. That letter details several of the problems I've had with Dell over the years; it also contains the full version of this story.

Short answer is that I have lost my faith in Dell, and until they prove themselves to me again, I won't buy their products, and I advise other people to do the same, no matter now nifty-cool they may be.

I've seen this a few times, actually. My last three trips to Indianapolis (I live in Oklahoma City), I've seen meteors either while flying to or from Indy. The first trip was a year ago, and I saw them between St. Louis and Terre Haute; the second was in September, and I saw them between St. Louis and Springfield, MO; the third was last weekend, and I saw them just as I was leaving Springfield, MO. It's absolutely amazing to see; on two different occasions, I've seen meteors, pulsing green, pass through my altitude. Truly stunning. Matter of fact, it inspired me to write a column about meteors. I'm not going flying tonight, but I am going to go watch the showers; I encourage everybody else to do so as well.

Not all that well insulated? I dont remember seeing too many heaters in the last plane I flew in, and I am pretty sure the air outside at 30000 ft was damn cold.

Actually, you probably did see the heaters. They were hanging out there on the wings; they're called "engines." The air for the pressurization comes from the "bleed air" from the compressors in the engines. Bleed air is extremely hot; in the King Air I fly, the temperature is typically 700 degrees Celsius (redline on that airplane is 725, IIRC, but we run it at 700). Even passed through intercoolers, that air is still very hot. We have to run the air conditioning in that airplane nearly coonstantly to keep the temperature even remotely comfortable. So yes, the air is heated.

As to the insulation, well, usually the plastic overlay on the wall feels warm, but that's because that plastic always feels warm. If you feel the metal wall behind it, you'll notice that it is very cold at altitude, often producing frost; on the ground, it can get quite warm if the airplane is left in the sun, or cold, if the ambient temperature is low. Short answer is, little to no insulation. Considering that the environmental systems are very good, insulation is unnecessary, and adds weight, which is the bane of aircraft designers.

Penya asks: "Why the use of ANY electronic device is prohibited below a certain altitude, except when sitting still at the gate?"

The simple answer is "because the rules say so." To wit:

14 CFR 121.306 - 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 U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(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 part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.

(14 CFR is the Federal Aviation Regulations, part 121 (and part 135, in some circumstances; 14 CFR 135.144 has identical stipulations) governs airlines)

So the rule is actually a Federal Regulation, not the airline acting unilaterally.

The reason for the rule is to prevent possible interference with not just aircraft avionics, but any systems in the aircraft. In addition to the avionics (comm radios, nav radios (typically just below the AM broadcast band and just above the FM broadcast band), marker beacons, and other devices), there are also sensors and equipment in the airplane that don't respond well to induced signals. I've seen a number of cases of electronics handling RF signals badly: monitors that shut down when I key a ham transmitter (2m (144 MHz), one watt, into a ducky at a distance of a couple of yards from the monitor), cars that activate the brakes when you key the transmitter (damn computer control!), and others. RADAR, in particular, responds badly to induced RF, and every airliner has it, for detecting weather. Some also have Stormscopes, lightning detectors that look for electrostatic discharge. The aircraft's electrical system itself is designed to run at 400Hz (not the usual 60), and inducing RF has the capacity to cause some problems. Introducing RF into the computerized engine controllers (remember, computer = clock = RF oscillator) is a really bad idea.

The reason they allow the use of some devices at cruise is that cruise is a less critical phase of flight. In the terminal area, things happen quickly, with frequent heading changes, altitude changes, and such. Pilots must be in constant communication with controllers, and their navigation must be very accurate, to avoid hitting things that might hurt (which, when you're travelling at 250 knots, is pretty much anything). Approach is a particularly critical phase: the navigation equipment in most airliners is designed to bring the airplane down at about 750-1000 feet per minute (vertical speed) at around 150 knots (average; bigger airplanes are faster), down to 100 feet above the ground (Category II ILS; Cat I is 200 feet, Cat III can go all the way to the surface, with zero forward visibility for IIIc). If the navigation equipment should become unreliable during the approach, the result is usually a Bad Thing. In cruise flight, however, the precision required is much less, communication with Center happens relatively rarely, and there's a lot more time to see and correct a problem before running into something.

The prohibition on the use of cell phones is actually twofold: the FAA prohibits the use of them, for the aforementioned reasons, and the FCC prohibits the use of them because sticking an antenna on a 35,000 foot tower is a great way to expand your signal coverage. Put a cell phone up there, which was specifically designed to have a small footprint, and one phone can simultaneously jam several dozen cells, preventing other people from using the network. It also requires rapid cell-swapping, which further overburdens the network (and eats batteries besides).

The reason some, but not all, devices are approved above a given altitude (usually around 10,000 feet) is because they're generally considered safe, by the fact that they're not designed to radiate RF signals. Computers, CD players, Game Boys, etc., all have an oscillator (clock), but they're designed to keep it internal, and rarely radiate anything. Fine at cruise, but nobody wants to take chances in the critical phases, because there's less margin for error. Radios (receivers) are verboten because they use an internal oscillator (modern designs, anyway; most are superheterodyne, which requires mixing the received signal with a local oscillator), and they have an antenna connected. Even though they're not designed to radiate, they usually do so, to some degree. Transmitters are obvious, particularly aviation-band transmitters. Even if you just listen, you're still running the LO, and handheld radios have a way of getting put in places in such a way as to key the mic, jamming the frequency, which, presumably, had somebody talking on it, or it wouldn't be very interesting. See also: Bad Things.

An interesting trend I have observed is the willingness of people to put themselves at risk, when they don't have the authority (as pilot-in-command) to do so. Passengers who insist on taking off into bad weather (against the advice of the pilot), or who ignore rules (such as portable electronics) because they want to. For example, Penya relates: "Not that I followed the rules because I wanted to take some nice pictures on a flight that barely went above that altitude for long (BGR to BOS)." You're playing dumb games here. No, you obviously didn't cause the airplane to crash, but unless you designed both the camera and the avionics, you didn't know what you were doing. Avionics are remarkably robust (they have to be before they can be certificated), but how do you know that the airplane didn't strike a small bird (I've personally hit two, on a single flight) that knocked loose some shielding or something? Ice, perhaps? Maybe there was a power surge that fried one of the filter capacitors. It has been my experience that the less educated the passenger on the possible dangers, the more willing he is to risk his (and everybody else's) life. Would you have argued if the flight attendant (or the captain) had asked you to turn it off, or would you have complied? (BTW, if you like aerial photography (I love it, as do a lot of pilots), there's a simple solution: a mechanical camera. A lot of them take better pictures than modern electronic ones anyway.

Incidentally, this isn't news: I read about this system a couple of years ago. At the time, AirCell had a model that could be installed in the aircraft, and used only their network, and another model that was portable, and used both conventional (terrestrial) cell networks and the AirCell network, switching automatically between the two.

And yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm a flight instructor/instrument flight instructor, and I regularly fly King Airs, among others.