Slashdot Mirror

Still writing some of the regulations on them actually, and in other cases the laws and regulations already cover things like drones(aerial or ground). Around 25 years ago they put in regulations where RC planes/boats can be used, they simply extended the rules to cover drones of various types. Makes it nice and easy.

I reuse to use my passport as ID for any national activity. International, sure. That's what it's for. But I do not, repeat, do not need a passport to travel within my own country, or from one location to another in the U.S.A.

I usually use my pilot's license as ID when I check in. Canadian ones look like passports and have many of the same security features. Fine. Or so I thought once when a glubeshnik at Oakland International Airport started blankly and called his supervisor. Rather than argue I showed him my driver's license instead.

...laura

According to these stats for Canada in 2009, car drivers suffered about 1173 deaths and 5393 serious injuries while among motorcyclists there were 194 deaths and 1271 serious injuries. If you add these up and look at the percentage chance of death if involved in a collision severe enough for serious injuries than you'll see an 18% chance of death for the car drivers and 13% for the motorcyclists.

Care to share your source for "guaranteed death"?

This is a known drawback of ABS -- longer stopping distances in snowy conditions. You actually stop faster if the wheels are allowed to lock up, because the tires effectively become plow blades and a wedge of snow accumulates in front of each, helping to slow you down. This doesn't happen if the tires never stop rotating. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/motorvehiclesafety/tp-tp13082-abs2_e-215.htm

(a) forced them to speak English well (because air traffic controllers speak English worldwide, apparently),

At civil airports, English is mandatory. It's an ICAO requirement, actually, that all communications take place in English using standard phraseology.

In fact, the requirement has gone up to require ALL pilots and controllers be tested for English proficiency - even if you're in an English-speaking country and speak it natively. Yes, you have to submit to a (relatively simple) English proficiency test as part of your license.

Apparently, native speakers who score the max (Expert) are exempt from future tests - those who score one below (Operational) must re-take the test yearly. Operational is the minimum required to pass.

Note this only applies to civil aviation. Military airports and airfields are completely different beasts.

And in Canada, Quebec likes to be different so all their controllers tend to greet initially in French and grudgingly speak English to Canadian aircraft. (International aircraft they'll happily speak English to).

An example set of questions and responses:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-personnel-test_taker_guide-2296.htm

Where did you hear that the Volt has two electric motors? That's one of the most bizarre claims I've heard yet. It has a single motor and a gasoline engine.

Don't like that site about the Volt? Here's some more. Good enough for you?

You act like there's a ton of Japanese manufacturers out there. Toyota is going induction. Nissan is going brushless. The other two, Mitsubishi and Subaru, are bit players in the EV field with really minimalist vehicles; I don't think Subaru even has anything that can go highway speeds. In the US, we have Tesla, GM, and Ford actually selling highway-speed EVs. Tesla: all induction. GM: induction on sale, with a prototype unveiled that uses a brushless. Ford: assuming it uses the same motor as their Focus FCV, the focus EV is induction (the EV transit connect definitely is). Others: Th!nk: induction. BMW: two "demonstration" EVs, one induction and one PM.

Yes, there were more permanent magnet ones out there than I realized. But the basic point is the same: the concept that rare earths are necessary to EVs is simply false.

If everyone wore their seatbelts the government admits that we wouldn't need airbags. The advice to move our hands on the steering wheel is an admission that airbags are dangerous. How about we make ourselves safer and save some money and give up on airbags.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp2436-rs200103-menu-125.htm

People will get up and defend themselves so unless would-be attackers come heavily armed there won't be a repeat.

The last few attempts have been bombs. When a terrorist gets up and goes into the lavatory, there is nobody else around him to notice that he's assembling and detonating a bomb. Yes, for aircraft takeover attempts, the passengers will use what few defensive and offensive weapons they can make to stop the takeover, but bombs are a different story. Had the shoe bomber been smart enough to go to the bathroom before trying to light his shoes off, he might have been successful.

What I want to know is why the TSA isn't installing anti-aircraft guns around airports to take care of the bird menace!

Because birds aren't aircraft?

But I understand what you are trying to say. Airports with bird problems do. Like this, or this. The problem is talked about here, for just one example.

Even so, the conservationists are often opposed to such things, saying the birds have the right to be there and yada yada yada and if a plane runs into one it's the planes fault.

Electronic Stability Control is actually required by law in Canada, now, and since essentially the same cars get sold in Canada as the US, that will lead to it becoming more common in the US.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp14651-vs200701-menu-738.htm

That means nothing for a 2007 MY car, but the 2011 Rav4 does have traction control, anti-lock brakes, slip control, skid control, and yaw control. That said, Transport Canada's website lists the 2007 Rav4 as having Traction Control as a standard option. It may be different in the US, but up here at least, it has it.

On average, a typical 80,000 pound GVW tractor-trailer truck pays $13,889 per year in truck highway taxes according to the above data. A hypothetical auto owner driving 20,000 miles per year at 25 mpg, and paying $100 in registration fees, ends up paying about $397 per year. So on average, looking at federal and state taxes, a tractor-trailer combination trucks pay about 35 times what a typical auto would pay based on national averages. [source]

Lastly, your wiki link is unclear. You have gone from "road wear" to "bridge damage". WTF? Please use references that study more than just one cost. I referenced cost multipliers of 2.5, 7, 31, and 409 and supplied a reference suggesting trucks pay 35 times as much (typically) in taxes/fees. You have nothing to complain about. Find some other bullshit excuse to bitch about SUVs (that are really closer to the "car" side in this debate as weight is concerned).

Taking into account that road wear is proportional to the fourth power of weight [no it isn't, fuckface], and one semi bringing groceries to the store causes as much wear and tear as 24,414 cars. Do you think that semi pay 24,000 times as much in taxes and fees on a per-mile basis as you do? If not, then business owners are getting a lot more out of their road and fuel taxes than you are.

FIRST, that is PER AXLE not PER VEHICLE.

SECOND, it is not the "4th power" so much as it is an estimate. This link says 3.8 is also a valid estimate.

THIRD, this is ONE FACTOR of road costs, specifically, it is road damage from load-bearing vehicles (ice and flooding would be non-vehicle causes or wear and damage). Another cost factor is peak capacity (cars). E.g., having one or two lanes trucks can't use just to haul your fat ass.

Support your opinion with some honest to goodness first-hand research and don't just parrot what you read.

Perhaps not, but it's required by law in Canada.... :)

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp14651-vs200701-menu-738.htm

Of course, given that there aren't any traction control/stability control programs out there that don't require anti-lock brakes, that means ABS is now required by law, too. That'll increase the weight of the car somewhat, too...

Canada, its not exactly mandatory as I understand it, but there's some link between your registration and recalls.

See the Riding on Air guide by the government of Canada (registration notice just before the next section).

Actually there's a legal Motor Vehicle Saftey Standard (MVSS) requirement from Transport Canada stating that they must meet crash requirements before they may be certified as road legal. Having pursued interest in Factory Five kit cars myself, they had to prove crash-worthiness (destroy 3 of them) before they could sell kits in Canada. These include things like airbags, disc brakes, braking distance, bumper size and momentum absorbed into the bumper....you get the picture. http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/menu.htm

Semantics,

France Seeks To Push 3-Strikes Law Across Europe ...pushing it as an amendment to the pan -European Telecoms Package. This amendment has the potential to impose 3-strikes across Europe, not just in France.

Across, doesn't mean all of Europe, it simply means it stretches across Europe, sorta like the Trans-Canada Highway... goes across Canada, however, it doesn't reach all the Provinces, and actually only covers a really small area of it land-wise.

If you're just after tax savings... don't forget alberta. They only have the 5% GST and no provincial tax at all.

And with the USD and CND at nearly par... Don't forget to buy a Nissan 350z when you're down in the states. In the US they start at $28,500 ( http://www.nissanusa.com/z/ ) and in Canada just under $50,000. http://nissan.ca/vehicles/cars/350z/en/

And yes... they are a fully authorized import from the US (no modifications required). Just a $195 Border inspection.

List of importable vehicles found here:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/importation/VAFUS/list/VAFUS.pdf

I should clarify that the roof of the bus didn't collapse directly from the jet wash. The 747 merely caused the bus to roll over. Upon rolling onto it's roof, the entire thing collapsed on itself. Admittedly it was a pretty violent and abrupt rollover, but not out of line of what the vehicle would experience in a high speed roll.

To the previous poster, after a 30 second Google I discovered that in the U.S. many states have seat belts mandated on their school buses as you say. I apologize as I was speaking from a Canadian perspective and we have never had seat belts on school buses (Transport Canada Regs). It is true though, that I have not been on a school bus in quite some time :-).

That's why it took the SMART almost 8 years to get into the USA. And after "Americanizing" it to make it "safe" (you Canadians and Europeans with your death traps!) it is no longer an affordable car but a expensive curiosity.

Yup, I've heard of people going south of the border to buy new cars and paying the fees to bring them back, saves thousands of the price of a new vehicle. Books are the same thing. $3 or $4 price difference on something less than $10!

The car angle is easy to understand. U.S. car dealers have much lower support and distribution costs, due to higher volume and higher population density. So they don't have to mark the cars up as much as a Canadian dealer would. You still have to pay GST and PST at the border, and may have to pay to bring the car up to Canadian specs (daytime running lights, metric speedometer, etc.). You can't generally bring in new cars, but can easily bring in used ones.

The other reason to import a car yourself is to get a model that was never sold in Canada in the first place. You can bring in just about anything, from anywhere, if it's over 15 years old. We have lots of Japanese imports in B.C., everything from Nissan Skylines to Mitsubishi Delicas. They're not cheap (my Delica is clearing Customs and getting its daytime running lights as I write this), but if that's what you want, there is no other way to get it.

...laura

If you are unable to provide a breath sample, the officer can (in certain situations) obtain a warrant to have a qualified medical practitioner take a blood sample for analysis. It is an offence for a driver to refuse, without a reasonable excuse, to provide a breath or blood sample.

The charge of Refusing to Provide a Breath Sample without a lawful excuse is a Criminal Charge against the Criminal Code of Canada. The charge of Refusing a Breath Test has the same penalty as if the driver blew into the breathalyzer and failed the test or blew over the legal limit of .08 milligrams.

Tiny cars don't sell well.

Here in Canada Smart Cars sell well, and are all over the place. In the last couple of years people have been importing grey-market Japanese Kei cars in sufficient numbers to make The Authorities nervous enough to mount a desperate FUD campaign on the subject.

They never actually say so, but their target is right-hand drive cars in a country that also drives on the right. I took a Mitsubishi Delica for a test drive, liked it, and bought one (due off the boat later in August). The driving position is so high, and the visibility is so good, that it makes very little difference where the steering wheel is. Though it's hardly a little vehicle...

...laura

That's the advice from the TSA, just after they tell you that they'll break your bag open if they want to. They're kind of biased in what their advice is based on.

The advice not to put your home address comes from a lot of sources, such as Transport Canada at http://www.tc.gc.ca/aboutus/travel/Air/brochure.ht m which says "Label your luggage. Do not use your home address or business title. Luggage tags with flaps that hide your name and address are a smart idea. These steps will help protect your anonymity and thwart would-be thieves.", Transport Ireland at http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=27&url= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.transport.ie%2Fupload%2Fgeneral%2 F6535-0.pdf&ei=YQJvRf_WA47oQNy2_ZQG&usg=__Haa72yev dWerxzm-Gah18HxNr14=&sig2=P18NtWDbgiu4n6zi_3QSVA or from a wide range of house insurance companies.

The Canadian government is as idiotically paranoid as their Southern neighbour.

Truly a sad day.

This is not quite correct - you are thinking of Part 91 ops, and the section you are grasping for is the following:

My bad, I mistakenly assumed the US regs were the same as Canada's. In Canada, the regulations are as I said. See the relevant section of the CARs, 605.31.

For one, (using Canadian flight legal code, aka the TC AIM, I quote: section reference

[523-VLA.1385 Position Light System Installation]

[Aeroplanes intended for VFR night or IFR operation shall meet the following requirements:

[...]a)[...]

(b) Left and right position lights. Left and right position lights shall consist of a red and a green light spaced laterally as far apart as practicable and installed on the aeroplane such that, with the aeroplane in the normal flying position, the red light is on the left side and the green light is on the right side;

(c) Rear position light. The rear position light shall be a white light mounted as far aft as practicable on the tail or on each wing tip; and

(d) [...]

This is the relevant excert from the Canadian code, and I'm fairly sure the US has a similar section. That being said, lightining meeting these requirements makes almost anything extremely visible at night. (the technical requirement for light intensity requires them to be visible from at least several miles away. Same brightness as for those jet's you can watch go overhead at 30'000 feet or more away...) On the same token, those lights do almost nothing during daytime (and in fact, don't need to be on during day time either).

So we end up with a situation where they are extremely visible during night time (so no covert surveillance at night when most crime and stuff happens anyway), and still remain invisible enough during daytime to pose a serious threat to air traffic.

It should also be noted that, while flying objects stand out really well against the sky, small flying objects (and I'm including things as big as large geese at more than 30' distance, or large aircraft at a mile or more) are quite hard to see against the ground.

Net summary: At night they are extremely visible to everyone. During daytime they are extremely visible to anyone on the ground, and well-nigh invisible to anyone in flight.

We have problems enough with recreational pilots flying those paragliders and small A/C, let alone unguided things that are even smaller. Thus we need the relevant aviation authorities to take a firm hand on these things and keep them where they belong: At very low altitudes. As in under 500', and preferably a very long way outside any aproach/departure path where a/c routinely fly below 500'.


Oh, and someone above called the people of /. luddiets due to the lack of support/enthousiasm for tech projects such as this. I disagree with that assessement. We're not luddites, we're advocates of the NIOBY (Not In Our Back Yard) theory. I like the technology, but I don't want to run into it (litterally or figuratively). Same probably applies to almost everything else surveillance related. I like the tech, but I hate the applications being made with it.

Oh, and many pilots consider auto-pilots to be the bane of the industry: Not only do they reduce the need for pilots, but they render the plane less safe, since the pilot is no longer actively involved in the flight of the a/c, thus more readily distracted by others in the plane, or whatnot. Ideally it would giving the pilot the chance to focus on his surrounding instead of on the mechanics of flight, but this rarely happens. And lastly, as has been mentioned, how many airports come equiped with the high-precision landing guidance systems required for those things? very, very few. Not even all the international caliber airports have them, although many do. And we *really* don't want those things taking up airspace there.

For one, (using Canadian flight legal code, aka the TC AIM, I quote: section reference

[523-VLA.1385 Position Light System Installation]

[Aeroplanes intended for VFR night or IFR operation shall meet the following requirements:

[...]a)[...]

(b) Left and right position lights. Left and right position lights shall consist of a red and a green light spaced laterally as far apart as practicable and installed on the aeroplane such that, with the aeroplane in the normal flying position, the red light is on the left side and the green light is on the right side;

(c) Rear position light. The rear position light shall be a white light mounted as far aft as practicable on the tail or on each wing tip; and

(d) [...]

This is the relevant excert from the Canadian code, and I'm fairly sure the US has a similar section. That being said, lightining meeting these requirements makes almost anything extremely visible at night. (the technical requirement for light intensity requires them to be visible from at least several miles away. Same brightness as for those jet's you can watch go overhead at 30'000 feet or more away...) On the same token, those lights do almost nothing during daytime (and in fact, don't need to be on during day time either).

So we end up with a situation where they are extremely visible during night time (so no covert surveillance at night when most crime and stuff happens anyway), and still remain invisible enough during daytime to pose a serious threat to air traffic.

It should also be noted that, while flying objects stand out really well against the sky, small flying objects (and I'm including things as big as large geese at more than 30' distance, or large aircraft at a mile or more) are quite hard to see against the ground.

Net summary: At night they are extremely visible to everyone. During daytime they are extremely visible to anyone on the ground, and well-nigh invisible to anyone in flight.

We have problems enough with recreational pilots flying those paragliders and small A/C, let alone unguided things that are even smaller. Thus we need the relevant aviation authorities to take a firm hand on these things and keep them where they belong: At very low altitudes. As in under 500', and preferably a very long way outside any aproach/departure path where a/c routinely fly below 500'.


Oh, and someone above called the people of /. luddiets due to the lack of support/enthousiasm for tech projects such as this. I disagree with that assessement. We're not luddites, we're advocates of the NIOBY (Not In Our Back Yard) theory. I like the technology, but I don't want to run into it (litterally or figuratively). Same probably applies to almost everything else surveillance related. I like the tech, but I hate the applications being made with it.

Oh, and many pilots consider auto-pilots to be the bane of the industry: Not only do they reduce the need for pilots, but they render the plane less safe, since the pilot is no longer actively involved in the flight of the a/c, thus more readily distracted by others in the plane, or whatnot. Ideally it would giving the pilot the chance to focus on his surrounding instead of on the mechanics of flight, but this rarely happens. And lastly, as has been mentioned, how many airports come equiped with the high-precision landing guidance systems required for those things? very, very few. Not even all the international caliber airports have them, although many do. And we *really* don't want those things taking up airspace there.

Actually, the number of traffic fatalities and injuries per capita have fallen in most countries since the 80's. Stats from Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp3322/2004/pag e1.htm) show that the ABSOLUTE number of both fatalities and injuries have fallen since 1985, even though the population has been growing.

Seatbelts have been shown to be the most effective automobile safety device. Not only do they help when you crash, but, as my driver training instructor told us when we were about to practice emergency maneuvers, some of the things you might have to do to avoid a collision will make you glad you have something holding you in your seat, in front of the steering wheel.

Paper (pdf warning).

It is possible that the giant flying reptiles used a phenomenon called winging ground effect, when a flying object experiences extra lift when skimming the surface of the sea or flat piece of ground.

Kahrytan, it appears that you've never fought a car fire. It also appears that you dunno wtf you're talking about, at all, and that you do not know how to use google, at all. We have a word for you in the fire service. We call you "NIOSH Food" (aka dead from arrogance, hopefully you don't take out your crew along with you).

a) Magnesium is hard to ignite. So are tires. Still, they burn. Hydrogen is quite easy to ignite by comparison.
b) Both magnesium and tires, as well as the upholstry inside the vehical and the plastics in the body, trunk and engine compartments are each more than hot enough to ignite hydrogen. So are electric sparks from downed powerlines and shorted battery cables.
c) True, you won't find many cars with magnesium any more, and hopefully it'll stay that way. You will continue to find tires and upholstry, however, along with a more and more other plastics.
d) Hindinberg pretty much calls into question every statement you've made regarding expansion rates and ignitability.
e) "Little Heat" - 2400 calories per gram per degree to convert from steam to liquid or vice-versa. That is an ASSLOAD of heat. And that's just a secondary reaction that happens to the byproduct later on, not the primary one that'll drive the car.
f) No heat means no pressure to drive a reciprocating engine. Bullshit. To force a piston down, you need pressure. Pressure is heat as far as that's concerned, clearly it is present. Period.

In the future, I'd suggest you do a little study of firematics and hazmat prior to making such statements. Here is a good starting point.

"Light-Sport airplanes will be limited in size and power: maximum weight 1,320 pounds, maximum two seats, maximum airspeed 120 knots, single non-turbine engine, fixed landing gear. If it's a Light-Sport, it should be one of the easiest planes to fly."

Sounds like the Canadian RPP (Recreational Pilot Permit)

In Canada http://www.tc.gc.ca/
* no night flying
* one passenger
* maximum four seats
* one engine
* fixed landing gear
* piston engine
* VFR only, no overflight-VFR
* driver's license medical
* no seaplane, floatplane
* no IFR training

Currently subscribe and read cover-to-cover:

• The Economist
• Harper's
• Flying
• Aviation Safety Letters
• SIGOPS Pubs

Read frequently:

• PHOTO (European Release (FRA)))
• Photo Techniques
• PDN (Photo District News)
• B&W
• View Camera
• AOPA Pilot

Sorry, it is you who hasn't looked into it hard enough. If you have a degree (or sufficient experience) and a job offer, you can get a temporary NAFTA work visa that does not require pre-approval by the government.

Specifically, "professionals ... may complete an application for an employment authorization upon arrival at a Canadian port of entry; or they may apply ... at a Canadian consulate or embassy in the United States or Mexico ... [for a] processing fee of $150.

More than $50, but still much less than $1500. But, as I said before, this is not an application for permanent residence; it is a temporary work permit that can be renewed.

See this publication.

That's nothing. What about the ads we get in Blow Me Down and Come by Chance.

Actually, in Canada the CAA would be the Canadian Automobile Association. :)

Transport Canada, a federal government branch, is in charge of regulating Canada's airspace and air travel. However, you weren't entirely off-track: the CAA is a common acronym for many countries' Civil Aviation Authority, including Britain, New Zealand, and South Africa.

Us Canadians, we just have to be different, eh? ;)

I can't be bothered to look up the US or British regulations on this, but the relevant section of the Canadian regulations can be found here (under "602.5 Compliance with Instructions"). Anyone who can potentially cause panic amongst other passengers is compromising the safety of the aircraft.

Apparently it hasnâ(TM)t been proven in Canada (Road Safety website):
Q: Is the stopping distance shorter with ABS?
A: Noâ¦
Not that I think that Canada should be your answer for all automotive questions, it was just the first to come up on Google.

Oh, how did you figure that braking and releasing would ever be better then constant braking. I mean if the wheel isnâ(TM)t moving wonâ(TM)t it have more friction then if the wheel is allowed to rotate, even a little?

Do you really want to put this in your car? I don't think so! The fact that it's similar to another chemical doesn't mean it has to have the same properties?! Just like you can say:
Toluene is not such a bad substance (it's found in ordinary petrol; as long as you don't drink or bathe in it), so toulene with three NO3 groups is just as safe. For the people who didn't get it: I'm talking 'bout trinitrotoluene(TNT)!

IMHO, The chance that this is going into production isn't that large.

Yawn... Old hat. Can't you slashdotters have a look at history? Otherwise, you'll be condemned at repeating it... badly.

First, a brief word about ekranoplanes (a.k.a. Wing-In-Ground effect). Here is an actual picture of such a beast in flight (Gerry Anderson fans will be delighted by this one). They have been around for almost 40 years, having been devellopped in the defunct Soviet Union . You may look at this page for historic information, as well as pictures of enormous ekranoplanes as well as the 400 ton Lun ICBM launcher . For those who worry about greenhouse gas emissions, there is also a pedal-powered WIG !!! Oh, yes, those craft are already covered by a Canadian regulation, proof that they've been around long enough to rouse the attention of regulators...

Now, about trains. Nothing really new, there either.

In the 1960's, french engineer Jean Bertin (1917-1975) pursued the développement of his ill-fated Aérotrain , which, 30 years before the recently-canned german Transrapid maglev, almost reached the realization stage (both in a commuter rail line betwen Paris and the western sububurb of Cergy, and a line between Lyon and Grenoble for the 1968 winter Olympic games). Bertin's Aérotrains ran on a single inverted T concrete rail, and used a cushion of air for sustentation. An early prototype, the Aérotrain expérimental 02 (which looks like it was inspired by this), reached the speed of 400 km/h in 1966 and 422 km/h in 1969 (not an impressive achievement, since at that time, the rail speed record was achieved in 1955, when an ordinary locomotive pulling four totally normal cars reached the speed of 331 km/h on a perfectly standard railroad line). More pictures are available here.

Despite that, Jean Bertin built more prototypes, and a 20 km long rail line (which still runs accross the countryside, completely abandoned) on which a much bigger "train", which ran not much faster than today's TGVs do (note that the record certificate is issued by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale , and not the Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer ...).

Bertin's Aérotrain technology almost got selected in place of the current TGV, but at the last minute, State support was withdrawn from the Société Bertin. The Aérotrain (and any other newfangled guided transportation system such as maglevs and monorails - we're in the real world, here, not in Disneyland) suffered most from gross incompatibility with existing rail lines (necessary to enter the core of cities) and an extremely heavy implementation of switches, which precludes their widespread use and thus reduces the flexibility of their rail networks.

Jean Bertin never recovered from the shock of losing State support; he died a few months later, despite having built a prosperous engineering company which still thrives in high-technologies.

Throughout the Aérotrain's history, the French National Railroads (SNCF)'s attitude was extremely interesting. Despite all the media hoopla that surrounded the Aérotrain and the political interest, it did not say anything at all. Not a single word either for or against the Aérotrain was uttered in official french railroad circles. But during that time, the SNCF worked hard at perfecting what is seen today as the epitome of high-speed travel technology, the TGV.

So, it is quite safe to say that this oldfangled flying "train" will certainly not fly very far, because the theorical speed limit of ground travel, the speed of sound, is within reach of conventionnal steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, which without much pain, ran at 515,3 km/h on May 18th 1990 (gee! Almost 10 years ago!!!).

(What is the speed of sound at 20C at sea level anyway???)

--