Slashdot Mirror

Interesting. Lithium non-rechargeable sound like the ones I see in the grocery stores that are made as alkaline substitutes. The batteries I work with are Lithium-Ion rechargeable. I'd like to know how they expect to put out the rechargeable ones. So far as I know, they can't be put out. I would really like to know what they think could be used to extinguish them.

According to what I could find they recommend Halon extinguishers are effective, followed by cooling of the battery.

Relevant links I found are:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2009/SAFO09013.pdf

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/batteries.shtm

Hmmm, looks like I was partly wrong. Here's a Commercial Space Transportation paper that claims the US had almost $100 billion in economic activity from space-related stuff in 2004. The Space Report 2008 claimed that there was roughly $250 billion in space industry revenue in 2008 of which 25% came from US government spending and 50% from commercial satellite products and services.

It still remains that 25% of the global market is US government spending. I don't know the profit margin for government contracts versus a pretty competitive commercial launch market, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there's a lot more profit for launch providers in US government contracts than in purely commercial launches.

Something I don't get, and is unanswered in general. When the ISS was first assembled back in 1998, it was asserted at the time that this was going to be the first permanent outpost of humanity in space. One of the reasons for making that statement, besides the fact that the ISS was designed to be modular so sections could be replaced if they started to fail, was that it was so incredibly huge that it simply couldn't be safely deorbited. The first ISS crew (aka Expedition 1) was asserted to be the first people in a future succession of a permanent occupation of space. At the time (I swear it was on /. as well, but I could be mistaken.... it would take digging into the archives to find this) it was suggested that eventually the ISS would have to be moved to one of the Lagrangian points. It was a NASA spokesman at the time that asserted it was going to be permanent, and most of the popular press at the time.

It may be true that NASA never really intended this to be kept up, but it does seem like something that shouldn't be shut down a couple of years after construction is completed as well. It just seems so incongruous the current attitude about how the ISS is going to be used now compared to when it was first launched.

Perhaps I'm getting senile in my old age and not remembering things very clearly.

BTW, in regards to liability, the U.S. Federal Government directly takes liability on the impact of anything sent up by the USA. By international law and treaty, this is also true of all space faring nations. If somebody's house is damaged in say, Australia, they can make a claim for it in their own court system and by treaty the U.S. government has to pay up. For a private individual to go into space, they are required by the FAA-AST (the U.S. agency that governs private space flight) to have these liability policies in place just to get approval for launch. BTW, Skylab did fall uncontrollably from the sky, and it is even possible that some unlucky freighter could be in the middle of the Pacific Ocean when something falls in there as well, even if it is a target zone. It is international waters, which implies that anybody has access to it. The government will issue a "notice to mariners" warning about possible dangers, and it is up to a ship captain to decide if they will be there or not. Yeah, I get the idea of the policy you mention, but it is already covered by the law and treaty regardless.

Not necessarily all international, mind you, but "approximately 600 airports certified for large commercial aircraft" according to the article. Somebody more familiar with FAA terminology might be able to glean the information from their site.

ADS-B, the next generation of ATC tracking/radar systems was brought online recently over Louisville, KY and has been in testing in several other areas as well.

They are also phasing in more GPS approaches (nav systems specifically designed for landing) and phasing out the NDBs (non-directional beacon) and taking failing VORs out of service that are often used at fields which have (ILS) instrument approach runways.

That said, it is a very slow process. If your car's speedo goes out, who cares. If the airspeed indicator in your plane fails, you could be in deep shit. (GPS only measures your speed across the ground, not your airspeed - which includes factors for wind. Too slow and you stall, crash. Too fast you rip the wings off, crash.) Upgrading the avionics in even the most inexpensive aircraft is not cheap.

They're scraping free data from the FAA web site and FlightStats, then pumping it out into an iPhone app feed.

But they're not using a really good data source. The high quality system is PASSUR RightETA. This system uses hundreds of radar receivers near airports to pick up the transponder signals from aircraft. It doesn't transmit. Any radar in the area that triggers an aircraft transponder causes the transponder to emit, and the PASSUR receivers pick that up. Using multiple receivers and time of flight calculations, the aircraft can be located very precisely. In fact, this is more accurate than single-point radar. You can buy a feed of this data, but it's not free.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/publications/oep/version1/reference/eram/ Host Computer System is a G3 mainframe running code from the 1960's/70's, although the FAA is on-schedule to replace it by 2012 with non-mainframe computers.

Now, *that's* a "business critical" application!

Even the coolest UAV/UAS run by GNU/Linux probably are not legal for you to fly most places, at least in the US. See:

"Subcommittee on Aviation Hearing on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and the National Airspace System"

from March 29 2006, which now has turned in to this, on Feb 24th 2009:

"Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs)" .

I'm holding out for a good Counterbary based system myself...

I had intended to build one, but my working budget went from a little something to less than nothing due to job changes. I still keep my eyes open to what can be done though. Right now, it's a mental exercise.

The most important thing to remember is, as a hobby toy, unless you want to get in serious trouble with the FAA, you must follow a few rules. This is probably not all inclusive. It's just what I can think of off the top of my head from my own research. Find a local R/C group, and reference the FAA pages for more information.

The FAA has a notice on UAV's here.

1) It can not go over 400 feet.

2) You must stay out of any airspace that an aircraft may be flying in. That is, stay out of the approach and departure areas of any airport. Someone just got in trouble for this, where they had an R/C airplane with a camera that filmed a commercial airliner flying by. It was several seconds between the time the aircraft passed, and the wake turbulence knocked his R/C plane out of the air, which would imply a decent separation, but still, stay away from aircraft.

If you haven't gone through private pilot flight school, you may not be aware of the airspace restrictions. Stop by a local small airport and ask. There will always be someone with time on their hands that will love to talk to a newbie.

3) It can never leave your sight,

4) You must have control of it at all times. That is, your remote control must be able to override anything it wants to do.

6) Watch the frequencies that you're using. If you're on R/C frequencies and TX power, you're safe, but play nice with other people who may be flying. Don't hog a bunch of frequencies because you need them for additional controls. If you're working with other frequencies, check the licensing on those. You don't want to piss off the FCC too.

Now I'll go into the territory of ignoring FAA and FCC rules. Don't do it. Don't get caught doing it. Don't tell random strangers that you're doing it. Sure as hell don't post youtube videos of it, because you'll have feds in your livingroom with a no-knock warrant and a one way ticket for you to Southeastern Cuba.

For mine, I looked at a variety of options. If you search around enough, you'll find people mid-sized R/C airplanes (say about a 3' wingspan) with embedded PC's to do their dirty work. I didn't find this totally practical both from the OS standpoint and the interfaces. I want lots and lots of standard interfaces, and I want flexability to use anything I can. I intended to use a small x86 platform machine, running from a flash card (SD/MMC/CF). Delicate parts will get broken quick. Embedded or x86, you'll probably want several onboard to handle different functions. They'd need to be networked together so you can exchange data. For example, one reading your sensors, one to control the servos, one for comms, etc, etc.

I wanted to have the ability to carry at least a couple camcorders, and USB webcams. Every ounce of weight you add means you need the aircraft to support it. That means it needs a good amount of lift and thrust.

I'm assuming you've flown before. If you haven't, go to a local small airport and go for your private pilots license. That will include both ground school (the book work on how things work), and flight (actually working an aircraft). To program an aircraft for perfect conditions is one thing. Making it takeoff, fly, and land in less than ideal conditions is another. What happens if the wind picks up, and you have to slip during your landing? If you haven't programmed for it, either you'll end up way off course if tracking to a GPS coordinate, or you'll get blown way off of the field, probably into something less tha

The FAA has a page for the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office. I also found an article from December 2, 2007 about regulations on UAVs. It mentions Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations & Policies which would probably be useful to review.

The FAA has a page for the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office. I also found an article from December 2, 2007 about regulations on UAVs. It mentions Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Regulations & Policies which would probably be useful to review.

I forgot to mention that the operator must be a certified pilot as well. BTW: Yes people do make and operate these devices, that doesn't make it legal, just as speeding doesn't change the speed limit. Here is the rule making body: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/

if your in the US your getting into a legal shit storm, look here:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

and here

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1ACFC3F689769A56862569E70077C9CC?OpenDocument&Highlight=91

other than that, it is an interesting controls project, most interesting part will be getting accurate sensor information without spending a ton on a decent gyro...

build a simulator or you will wreck a lot of airplanes before you get it working 100%

use the cell phone network for comms if your going outside ~5 miles, 900mhz radios should reach that far line of sight with a decent antenna.

if your in the US your getting into a legal shit storm, look here:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf

and here

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1ACFC3F689769A56862569E70077C9CC?OpenDocument&Highlight=91

other than that, it is an interesting controls project, most interesting part will be getting accurate sensor information without spending a ton on a decent gyro...

build a simulator or you will wreck a lot of airplanes before you get it working 100%

use the cell phone network for comms if your going outside ~5 miles, 900mhz radios should reach that far line of sight with a decent antenna.

Why electronics are banned on planes:

Unlike the conspiracy theory that "they want you to pay for Airphone services", electronics are banned for two reasons:

(1) For cell phones, a cell phone in a plane is "seen" by far too many cells and generally confuses the cell network. This is the same reason that they were relatively useless for locating the missing hikers, in recent history, on Mount Hood, which has the same altitude-based issue.

(2) For all electronics, the (now very old, but not yet replaced in all US airports/aircraft) ILS/LOC systems are oversensitive to electronic interference, which is why you are required to shut portable electronics off on takeoff and landing, when an emergency might require their use(*).

[*] ILS/LOC was supposed to be replaced by MLS, but with the advent of GPS and the hopes that it could be used instead, few MLS systems were deployed in the US, and most that were have been shut down. Instead, the GPS-based WAAS is being deployed instead, which broadcasts differential corrections for the intentional GPS "wobble" that was intended to prevent GPS being used by an adversary for targeting purposes (meaning it's still usable for that, if you include WAAS). Fears about the ability of the US to "turn off" GPS signals on a theatre-basis have led to continued deployment of MLS in Europe.

See also:

        http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html
        http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6275
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Landing_System
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System

-- Terry

Or, look at the published NOTAMs for "Presidential Movement" TFRs.

http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html

The FAA's job is not to make the airlines profitable. It's to make them safe.

Actually, that's not true. For years, the FAA was tasked with both promoting aviation and keeping it safe. Congress eventually determined that the conflict of interest was one of the reasons the agency is such a piece of crap and tried to soft-peddle the "promote" part, but you can see how far they got by reading the FAA's own mission statement:

Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

The tip-off is "efficient." You and I might think that means "with minimum waste," but in Washington that means "with maximum profit."

What will the media call them? Comercianauts? Touranauts? (damn I hate touranauts...)

Well, if they want to get technical, it will be Spaceflight Participant. It's a term already established by AST (the space launch license portion of the FAA) to refer to people on board spacecraft who are not part of the crew, but unlike commercial airline passengers, have gone through some training and have given informed consent (sorry, that's a Word doc).

Does it really matter if it doesn't get fired until Q3 2009 or even a little bit later?

That is certainly much closer to going up into space than the Ares is right now.

I think SpaceX would optimistically like to get to fire the thing this year, and it seems as though this is an overall goal. Still, since SpaceX is its own customer on this launch, there aren't external pressures to get it going before it is ready. SpaceX has also showed (thankfully) a tendency to be cautious on actually launching.

I would put more weight on this manifest as this implies that the paperwork is being processed by the FAA to make it happen. The next Falcon 1 flight is certainly going to happen fairly soon.

Flying actual hardware certainly makes SpaceX much more credible.

My main point is that there are alternatives, and the Falcon 9 is but one of them.

I have no idea, it was just a guess. I agree with you that having Hep-C does not seem like a reason to have your medical yanked. This link provides some insight as to the why. It talks about treatments and so forth.

I had a Kidney stone once and I had to go through all kinds of tests and this that and the other, before I could get it re-issued. If you have ever had to deal with a Kidney Stone you would understand why. The pain came on within an hour and it put me on the ground it was so bad. Relief only came in the form of morphine at my local hospital.

So the autopilot is an ATC system requirement, not an aircraft requirement. A plane without autopilot would require special handling if they did not meet the RVSM requirements. More of a "supposed to have" than a "need", you might say.

UM, sorry but you are wrong on that one. From www.FAA.gov: * The FCC and FAA ban cell phones for airborne use because its signals could interfere with critical aircraft instruments. Radios and televisions are also prohibited. * Laptops and other personal electronic devices (PEDs) such as hand-held computer games and tape or CD players are also restricted to use above 10,000 feet owing to concerns they could interfere with aircraft instrumentation (from http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_safe/information/)

Right, based on the NOTAM the center of the no-fly zone is at 37.658889N,119.125556W.

The NOTAM for the temporary flight restriction (no fly zone) just established.

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_8_1954.html

Can't speak for other jurisdictions, but in terminal airspace, the FAA mandates 6, 8, or 10 miles behind the A380. (Sorry about the pdf.) It's gonna be a real pain at busy airports, but they'll probably adjust by always running a heavy jet behind it (thereby only losing a mile versus current restrictions).

5.1 million dollars if I remember right, according to the US government.

It Depends.

If you're being poisoned by air pollution, it's $6.1 million dollars (down from $8 million in 2000) but if a company is dumping poison in your water supply, it's $8.8 million dollars. If you need to know how much more to pay for little rubber caps to make your Pinto not explode, the DoT suggests $5.8 million, but starting this year wants everyone to analyze their work at $3.2 and $8.4 million, just to be sure. $5.8 million is also used by the FAA.

Laura Taylor of North Carolina State University, said her figure was lower because it emphasized differences in pay for various risky jobs, not just risky industries as a whole.[emphasis mine]

Anyone have a link to the actual study? I've found all sorts of people pontificating on whether it's done right or even the right thing to do, but not the study itself. I'm interested in knowing whether these "various" risky jobs included illegal immigrants in jobs like meatpacking or whether certain very dangerous and well-paying jobs were left out (surely an accidental oversight), similar to how energy and food costs are too "volatile" (read: embarrassing) to consider in inflation.

A December 21, 2005, Federal Register has Mr. Ruwaldt's email address listed as: paul.ruwaldt@dhs.gov, or, alternately, paul.s.ruwaldt@tc.faa.gov. Maybe he needs to hear how taxpayers feel about his interest in fitting us with shock-collars while we're on business trips, or going on vacation?

I fly every week, sometimes multiple trips per week and I mostly agree with you.

However ...
1. Flight delays are horrendous

So, the airlines are to blame, but only because the FAA isn't enforcing a reasonable policy on slots.

As for delayed baggage, that's frequently the fault of the airport more than the airline, as well as being something that's out of their control. I live in Atlanta, and Hartfield-Jackson is one of the longs waits for baggage after deplaning (~30-45 mins, usually). The problem is not enough baggage personnel vs. the amount of baggage. The solution? Hire more baggage handlers. The reason they're not doing it? Because that would cost more, which would increase fees to passengers, which are already griping about costs. You get what you pay for.

I fly every week, sometimes multiple trips per week and I mostly agree with you.

However ...
1. Flight delays are horrendous
2. Charging for checked baggage makes the already abused carry-on baggage situation worse
3. Lack of coordination and insufficient staff at the gates make boarding disorganized
4. Airlines are always slow to update flight times. http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp gives you a good idea of what may happen to you, but then you need to find out whether your plane is coming from (or through) a troubled airport.
5. Congestion at LGA, ORD, EWR, JFK and I'm sure many others is constant and should be dealt with.
6. Policies that encourage planes to "push back" only to have you wait for an hour+ on the tarmac are detrimental.

I wanted to point you to our FAA website showing the near-realtime performance of the WAAS/GPS system. WAAS already provides error corrections for ionospheric interference as well as satellite clock and ephemeris corrections to any user tracking the WAAS geosynchronous satellite. GPS III and the corresponding L5 civil frequency will remedy this issue for users with capable receivers, but a GPS III constellation is decades away. Almost all of today's commercial receivers are WAAS capable. We have been studying GPS and WAAS performance including ionospheric activity effects for over 14 years in this office, through a solar cycle maximum and minimum. Our quarterly reports have entire sections dedicated to ionospheric study. I look forward to the increased accuracy, etc GPS III will provide 20 years form now, but I feel you neglected to mention that WAAS (and other SBAS) provides a lot of this functionality in the present to the majority of users in the world. http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/ Space Based Augmentation System (Include WAAS, GAGAN, EGNOS, MSAS) A WAAS capable receiver will work with any of the SBAS's and vice versa.

Well I can't beat the LEOs, but if you disqualify them for using emulation I may have a winner.

I recently started working at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, which is an FAA Research and Development campus. I work in the Target Generation Facility, where we simulate air traffic control scenarios to test new approaches, recreate problems with existing systems, or try out new software/hardware for air traffic control centers. Not too long after I started, a coworker took me on a quick tour of the labs and showed me "something amazing".

What he showed me were a row of about a dozen UNIVAC machines in the back of one of the lab areas. What's even more amazing was that they're still plugging away. After doing some research, turns out they're running one of the old versions of ARTS (Automated Radar Tracking System) so that we can simulate older ATCs. Depending on which version, that means the code is from anywhere between the late 60s and around '74 (which is when, I believe, ARTS III was rolled out).

Seeing a visual representation of the register values on a machine (and having them change slow enough that you can actually get some idea of the values) really makes you appreciate how far we've come. Coworker and I laughed that the Razr I was taking a picture of them with probably had 10000X the processing power as those boxes... And it's a piece of crap... :P

Well I can't beat the LEOs, but if you disqualify them for using emulation I may have a winner.

I recently started working at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, which is an FAA Research and Development campus. I work in the Target Generation Facility, where we simulate air traffic control scenarios to test new approaches, recreate problems with existing systems, or try out new software/hardware for air traffic control centers. Not too long after I started, a coworker took me on a quick tour of the labs and showed me "something amazing".

What he showed me were a row of about a dozen UNIVAC machines in the back of one of the lab areas. What's even more amazing was that they're still plugging away. After doing some research, turns out they're running one of the old versions of ARTS (Automated Radar Tracking System) so that we can simulate older ATCs. Depending on which version, that means the code is from anywhere between the late 60s and around '74 (which is when, I believe, ARTS III was rolled out).

Seeing a visual representation of the register values on a machine (and having them change slow enough that you can actually get some idea of the values) really makes you appreciate how far we've come. Coworker and I laughed that the Razr I was taking a picture of them with probably had 10000X the processing power as those boxes... And it's a piece of crap... :P

And if you stall it because your engine died on takeoff then you are incompetent, plain and simple. First thing they drill into your head for these things: airspeed, airspeed, airspeed. Keep your speed up. Push that nose down. Keep flying the airplane. An engine failure on takeoff will not cause a low-altitude stall unless you are truly asleep at the wheel.

Ah yes because we're only talking about competent pilots that never make mistakes here.

It's as automatic as steering away from an oncoming concrete abutment. Yes, people screw up and don't recover properly, just like people screw up and run into bridge supports.

And if you stall that 172 you will first have a very loud warning buzzer in your ear, then it will shudder and shake, and then it will stall. And even at this point, a power-on stall properly attended to will not result in much, if any, loss of altitude prior to recovery. This does not take exceptional skill either. It takes no more skill or fast reaction than pushing on your brakes when you see the car ahead of you push on his brakes.

Why then do they teach stall recovery and unusual attitudes in a specialized aerobatic course?

Before you spout off about what's reserved for a "specialized aerobatic course", give a read through the FAA Private Pilot Practical Test Standards. This is the defining document which says what every American private pilot must be capable of, and what maneuvers he is required to be proficient in and demonstrate to an examiner before he can pass his checkride.

On page 1-27 under the heading TASK: POWER-OFF STALLS you will notice that it talks about going through a stall and proper recovery to a stall, "with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate for the airplane". Page 1-28 goes through the same thing for power-on stalls. In other words, nobody in the US becomes a private pilot without knowing how to recover from power-on and power-off stalls in a competent manner and without demonstrating this to an FAA designated examiner.

On page 2-27 you will see a similar section discussing recovery from unusual attitudes, which also must be taught and demonstrated.

All this, and yet somehow you have the gall to call me clueless. Astounding!

So you know some facts about flying, but you don't know about flying. Do you know what it feels like when you accidentally stall an airplane? Have you recovered one after losing a minimum amount of altitude? No, you have not. You may be full of the facts but you don't have the experience to interpret them.

I prove you wrong on some very basic statements you made - these are things that any good pilot should not get wrong, and you come back to "I'm a pilot. I have experience. I know best.".

Please give me a list of very basic statements I made which you have proven wrong. I have not noticed any so far. Perhaps my attention has wandered, and I simply forgot about them.

I'll start out by providing a list in the other directions, of very basic statements you have made which are wrong:

- Stall recovery is only taught in specialized aerobatic courses
- Unusual attitude recovery is only taught in specialized aerobatic courses
- Light aircraft land at the same speed as the maximum speed limit on a typical highway
- Typical takeoff angle of attack causes the nose of the aircraft to completely obscure the flight path
- Avoiding terrain, avoiding restricted airspace, and maintaining altitude requires constant, twitchy attention similar to avoiding maniac drivers on a highway
- "Anything occurring just below your line of sight is a danger" Well, it baffles me that an experienced pilot would insist that flying an aircraft does not require more care and skill than driving a car. More care? Yes. More skill? No. Flying is mostly mental. The physical skills involved are unrema

Smiths [Aerospace] also proposed language that would specifically prohibit the use of magnetic tape recorders, since it was the agency's stated intent in the NPRM.

While an interesting technical consideration, the FAA did not propose a change to the TSO standard (which is based on ED-56) in the NPRM, and the process for changing TSOs is separate and complex. We also believe that a requirement for two hours of recording time is enough to eliminate the use of magnetic tape recorders for those aircraft subject to the requirement...No change to the 2-hour recording duration has been made in the final rule based on these comments.

Although the article talks about "automated" unmanned vehicles, the only way that any of the vehicles mentioned in this article are fully automated is in systems responsible for gathering data, *not* navigation or maneuvering. In fact, an FAR clarification notice posted a few years ago http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf states that the only way that an unmanned vehicle is allowed to fly in the United States is if it is in control (albeit remotely) by a human pilot-in-command, and under constant watch by a human observer, "either through line-of-sight on the ground or in the air by means of a chase aircraft". In controlled airspace, there must also be "communication between the PIC and Air Traffic Control (ATC)".

On further research it seems the FAA has increased these limits : http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2007/info07004.pdf

Other countries may still be working on their own revisions to these rules though.

This[PDF] seems to be a document developed in order to address software/hardware partition requirements AMONG flight critical components. It is interesting to see how much is able to be shared, even on a single processor.

[[WARNING!!! PDF!!]] :)

I wonder if they even informed the FAA, as required:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/hq/engineering/uapo/
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2007/E7-2402.htm

[...] the applicant must state the intended use for the UAS and provide sufficient information to satisfy the FAA that the aircraft can be operated safely. The time or number of flights must be specified along with a description of the areas over which the aircraft would operate. The application must also include drawings or detailed photographs of the aircraft. An on-site review of the system and demonstration of the area of operation may be required.

I think you're talking about the 1965 crash of United Flight 266 in Salt Lake City:

http://lessons.air.mmac.faa.gov/l2/UAL266/sum/

"The captain failed to take timely action to arrest an excessive descent rate during final approach. After touching down 335 feet short of the runway, the main landing gear sheared off and the airplane caught fire. The airplane then slid 2,800 feet on the nose gear and the bottom of the fuselage, stopping 150 feet off the right side of the runway."

Ask the FAA-AST. See http://ast.faa.gov/ for details.

More to the point, I highly doubt they would let somebody without even a conventional aviation license fly a spacecraft. So far, every single "spacecraft pilot", Chinese, Russian, and American (both NASA and private spaceflight) has held an aviation license prior to "going up there". In fact, every American astronaut... even if a passenger... has held one as well. That may change.

I have no doubt that if commercial manned spaceflight becomes something significant that you may end up having the conventional aeronautical license be waved similar to how the Morse Code requirements are no longer being used for Ham Radio licenses. But at the moment you you have to meet the minimum requirements for a general commercial aviation license if you ever want to fly a commercial spacecraft.

Here's a copy of the flight plan form. Explain to me how it would be completed that would help in the search.

http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa7233-1.pdf

With an ADS-B transceiver and airplane not only transmits it's location and vector information but receives the information transmitted by other ADS-B equipped planes so it's able to tell independently of Air Traffic Control where the others are and could potentially operate independently of ATC. It's kind of like a big wireless network where any node within range of your transmitter is able to collect your information.

In the full blown version of ADS-B there is a display in the cockpit that shows the current situation. It's color coded to show the other airplane's altitude in relation to you (airplanes at the same altitude are shown in bright red) with a vector arrow showing the direction of travel and the length denoting the speed. I believe the cheap versions without the display and other bells & whistles can be had for less than $5000. It also has the potential to reduce ground incursions on the airport since it works regardless of your altitude so fuel trucks and other airport vehicles can be on the display as well. The information that can be transmitted through the datalink is only limited by your imagination.

Coupled with safety studies moving with the alacrity and paranoia of government. The impertinent child part of my personality says: "Gimme now!" However, the rest of me is grateful that the same kind of people that won't let the engine manufacturers lower the number of kevlar layers in their passenger-facing engine walls are involved. BTW: the frozen turkey engine safety tests are awesome. I wish someone at the FAA would put video clips up. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_ Library/rgFinalRule.nsf/0/97ba0ed6b1d5d18986256968 0047f07e?OpenDocument

I'd estimate about 4000 planes from the 20 largest domestic carriers service over 90% of the flights within the continental US. as far as identification is concerned, look for a string of letters/numbers starting with an "N" painted on the fuselage, usually just in front of the tail.

you can then use this page to look up basic info about the plane in question:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_inqui ry.asp

Here is the source of the "1 in 5051" figure cited by the GP.
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
The methodology is also explained on that page. (Note, the NSC has many other interesting statistics and reports on this and related topics.)

Basically, the number of airplane crash deaths in the US was divided by the entire population of the US in the year of the study (2003). The data was presented in two forms, annual odds of dying a particular way and lifetime odds of dying a particular way. This means that all of the following discussion is directly relevant only to someone living (and/or dying!) in the US.

The airplane crash numbers were 1 in 391,981 (annual odds) and 1 in 5051 (lifetime odds). This means that the "1 in 5051" figure is the odds of a given person that died having died in a plane crash.

The odds of a person who died in a given year having died in a plane crash are 1 in 391,981. These numbers are NOT directly translatable into an individual's odds of dying each time they get onto an airplane. For that, you would have to know how many flights over US territory there are in a given year and how many plane crashes occur in that same time (since the odds of dying are roughly equal to the odds of a plane crash).

For an exact calculation, you'd need to know how many people flew on those flights (the aggregate would be ok), and how many people died in crashes (again, the aggregate is ok). From that, you could determine the odds of dying on any given plane flight.

The FAA also has some interesting data. The target safety rate for the U.S. is 0.010 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures (appears to include all flights, commercial and private, even though the statistic is called the "Commercial Airline Fatal Accident Rate"), though the current rate in 2007 is 0.023 fatal accidents per 100,000 departures.

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incide nt/

See the "Airline Fatal Accident Rate" PDF on the linked page.

For the below data, FAA/NTSB reports were used. Much more data is available at these sites for anyone who wants to do more analysis. For example, the commercial data below is a summary of Part 121, Part 135, and On-demand Part 135. The accident rates were much higher for the "On-demand Part 135" which not what we typically fly as commercial passengers.

Also: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/A_Stat.htm has annual summarized reports.

The data for 2003 is:

Commercial Air Carriers:
Background data in 2003 (rounded to nearest whole million/billion):
639 million passengers boarded commercial airplanes
8 billion miles were flown
11 million departures
23 million flight hours
Accidents:
Total: 130
Fatal: 21
Deaths: 66
Fatal accidents per departure: 1.9091x10^(-6) (1 in 523,810)
Fatal accidents per hour: 9.130x1-^(-7) (1 in 1,095,239)

General Aviation:
Total Accidents: 1739
Fatal Accidents: 352
Injuries:
Fatal: 632
Serious: 324
Minor: 523
Involved but Not Injured: 1697

BTW - not surprising that the article keeps running into the "proprietary data" wall. This is typical of dealing with Boeing (and other avition firms for that matter).

However, check this out:

http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_story.cfm?ne wsId=8257

The FAA has been showing interest recently in reducing the environmental impact of the aviation industry.

Personally, I'd love to see bio-fuels take off (no pun intended). Turn Death Valley into a big algae farm (although watch that impact global weather patterns somehow).

Federal regulations also require that rate of load application be considered as well, so your instincts are correct. These days, a power-spectral-density model is used to access turbulence response for "Part 25" (commercial) aircraft. You can also introduce a periodic driving force on a wing for purposes of testing using devices known as "thumpers".

I know I'm only scratching the surface here, but I just wanted to let you know that you accessment is correct, and those test are done.

Follow this link: http://rgl.faa.gov/ Click on Federal Aviation Regulations and hunt for 25.341, from there, you should be able to find more data on the PSD model currently in use.