Well... What really happened is they ran out of fuel and although it was noticed by some of the crew, nobody thought it was important enough to interrupt the captain in the left seat as he was trying to make sure the wheels where down.
You're thinking about United 173 that crashed outside Portland, OR. Different accident from the "lightbulb" Eastern Airlines flight.
Consider this scenario. You are a two dimensional creature. You are only able to experience your reality as a flat plane. Up and down have no meaning to you; these are concepts quite beyond your comprehension. You cannot imagine a 3 dimensional object any more than we, in our 3 dimensional world, can imagine what a 4 dimensional object would look like.
Now, in your 2 dimensional world, creature, I, as a 3 dimensional God-like character, am going to take a circle, anything round, and shove it down through your plane of existence. What would you experience? You would experience at the very first, a single point suddenly appearing as if out of nowhere. This single point splits into two points that diverge from each other at a steady rate. Yet if I stopped pushing the ring through your plane for a moment and let you examine one of those two points that you can see, you would find that if you shoved on one point, the other point moved exactly the same. From my God-like perspective, all you did was shove the ring a bit. You, on your flat plane, see spooky action at a distance, because you're shoving one point and the other one is moving, too.
Given enough time and experimentation with these points that keep appearing in your plane of experience as I keep shoving rings and perhaps even more complex objects through your plane, you might even be able to come up with some really complicated mathematics and physics that describe all this bizarre motion and behavior in your 2 dimensional world. To you, it all appears incredibly complex and horribly incomprehensible, even utter nonsense, but you can manage to describe it in such a way that is at least consistent with the weird behavior you keep seeing. To me, in my 3rd dimension, I'm just chuckling over all that hard work you're going to, because to me it's just a simple ring I'm shoving through your plane and watching you go batshit crazy trying to figure out what's going on.
The point is simply that quantum physics appears bizarre to us because we are limited to experiencing 3 spatial dimensions and are forced to constantly move in a single direction on an axis of time. All the weirdness of quantum physics really just means that there are almost certainly many more spatial dimensions and more complete freedom of motion through time than what we are limited to experiencing. What you're seeing a lot of times is just the weirdness of seeing something that almost certainly "completely" exists in several more higher dimensions intersecting limited reality you are able to witness.
It was a broad view of what humanity could accomplish once their petty differences of race were resolved and the race was looking forward through exploration. The series episodes nearly always involved a serious moral dilemma that the crew would solve through a combination of pragmatism and idealism. The action and comedy of the episodes were merely wrappers around the real message Roddenberry wanted to convey: that if we humans would only just stop fighting each other over trivial nonsense, we could make tremendous progress in exploring the universe around us, revel in the wonder of finding new things we couldn't possibly imagine at the moment, and discover that there are a lot bigger and more interesting things out there that worrying about whose skin happened to be a slightly different color.
The JJ Abrams movies especially simply ignored this basic concept and just went with the action aspect with a little extremely surface glossy history thrown in to make it look just a tiny little bit less like a completely 2 dimensional sci-fi flick of no substance worthy of consideration. As simple standalone sci-fi adventure movies with no tradition or history behind them, they were fairly decent - glossy, amusing, decent action, a reasonable stab at making a futuristic movie look "real" (except for that totally moronic throttle on Sulu's panel), fairly well-done and reasonably well-acted - in short, worth killing two hours of your time for - but they had virtually nothing to do with the original concept of Roddenberry's series beyond the names of the characters.
Who cares? You're missing the point of the whole punishment aspect of a law like this. If you're dumb enough to think you can safely text while driving, then I for one wouldn't have much sympathy for you bitching later on that you can't text while you're a passenger. You deserve what you got. This sort of law and punishment would be sort of like making it illegal to be stupid. I suppose the problem is that stupid people, by definition, are too stupid to understand that they're being punished for being stupid, but at least it would keep you from texting while you're driving and turning your stupidity into an active menace to society.
That reminds me of an old SF book called Dragon's Egg, about life that developed on the surface of a neutron star. The molecular structure of this life was based on particles interacting via the strong force rather than the electromagnetic force, and because of that their chemical processes ran about a million times faster than ours. The main bulk of the story took place over a couple of months of our time, in which a spacecraft of ours was orbiting this neutron star. In that two-month timeframe, the beings on the star evolved from primitive savages to a highly advanced civilization, far more technologically advanced than ours. We were able to communicate with them, but from their standpoint it would take nearly a whole lifetime for just a few messages to be exchanged back and forth. Interesting story.
Of course, the fact that he's being followed around by a film crew has nothing to do with his success at bartering his bacon. That's a pretty ridiculous stunt. He might as well just go up to all these people and say, "Hey, if you'll give me decent seats to this game, I'll let my film crew here get a clip of you handing me the tickets and you might wind up on national TV!"
And here I thought Parsec was a unit of distance...
Hmmm. When you get right down to it, what really is the difference between distance and time when either is expressed as a function of the speed of light?
That's because Airbus actually trained pilots to react this way since, according to them, stalling an Airbus was impossible. To recover from an "almost stall" (which they thought was the worst that could happen), you just pull back on the stick and slam the throttles forward, and the plane would automatically maintain the maximum angle of attack without stalling. Oops, Airbus got it wrong again.
That's only in normal law - you need to research your details before you start bashing something you have no experience with. Stall protections are lost in alternate law, and recovering from a stall in alternate law is part of standard Airbus training.
That's because it took you 30 minutes to descend. They descended in 4 minutes. The cabin altitude doesn't descend anywhere near the rate the airplane is descending. They would have noticed a small pressure change, but not much.
What's most interesting in this case is that the systems warned the pilots of an impending stall, but then once they were in a stall, there was no warning at all, as if they had recovered from the stall. That's really unfortunate.
That's because once the airspeed drops below 60 knots, the input from the angle of attack vane is ignored by the flight computer. The computed angle of attack is how the flight computer determines the airplane is approaching a stall, so without a valid input from the AOA vane, the computer can't sound the stall warning. The AOA vane is just a triangle-shaped piece of metal sticking off the side of the airplane on a little lever, so the airflow naturally positions it, just like a weather vane. As the angle of attack changes, the vane moves, providing an input to the computer. Below about 60 knots, though, there isn't enough airflow to move the AOA vane to a reliable, steady position, so the information is discarded by the computer.
In this case, you're right, it was unfortunate because it provided a confusing result to the crew. They had pulled the airplane's nose up into a stall, and when the airspeed dropped below 60 knots, the stall warning stopped. At one point, the crew did lower the nose of the airplane, which caused an increase of airspeed, which is of course precisely what they needed, but as the airspeed increased beyond 60 knots, the stall warning suddenly started back up. That made them think that what they were doing was making the situation worse, not better, when in fact they were doing the right thing. They pulled the nose back up and then never got it back down until they hit the water. Even when valid, the AOA vane never indicated an angle of attack of less than 35 degrees - generally speaking, almost any general or commercial aviation wing will be well into a stall by about 15 or 16 degrees AOA.
Color me ignorant (I don't know much about 'planes... just enough to avoid them), but wouldn't an independently powered GPS tell which way is up? Like, uh, constantly?
No. A GPS does not provide attitude information. It merely gives you your three-dimensional position (lat/long/altitude). In any case, on a commercial airplane such as the A330, the GPS data is not generally presented directly to the crew - you can find it, but it's buried in some menus on the computer. In fact, unless you look through the menus on those computers, you have no direct indication that GPS is even installed on the airplane or not.
Yes. These devices are made to withstand very high forces. You clearly have zero knowledge of anything related to aviation. There are very few aviation accidents, no matter how catastrophic, in which the FDR and CVR do not contain usable data.
From the article, it sounds like the flight data recorder has basically been smashed to pieces. This is usually what happens to them; they're really only useful in relatively low-speed accidents.
That's not the case at all. FDRs commonly survive catastrophic high speed accidents. For example, USAir 427 in 1994 crashed in a near vertical nose-down attitude, and pretty much all that was left of that accident was small bits and pieces. The FDR was recovered and was usable. They rolled and went nose down from 6,000 feet, and the last data on the recorder indicated an airspeed of 261 knots (300 mph, or about 135 meters per second), at a 80 nose-down attitude, virtually straight into the ground. If an FDR can survive that, it can survive damn near anything.
Whatever happened to sending the kids outside to play soccer or some make-believe game? No wonder this nation is so overweight and no one knows how to socialize when people whine about not having enough bandwidth to consume this level of TV watching. I let my kids watch about an hour of TV a day, tops. Then the damn thing gets turned off. If they complain about being bored I tell them I'll happily put a puzzle together with them or get the chess board out or put on the baseball glove. If anyone is consuming 250GB a month on a regular basis with gaming and media, you need to seriously take a hard look at your life and get out the door every now and then. The ISPs in this country would do the healthcare system a serious favor if they would all put a 10GB/month cap on everyone's internet usage. (This is hilarious: I'm turning into my dad!)
However, science encourages you to disagree, debate, and question things for yourself.
Well, that pretty much rules out anyone on Slashdot as being a true scientist, then. It also rules out the vast majority of scientists themselves. There are very few people, especially in science, who take well to disagreement and debate. In fact, the general public, being far removed from a deep, intricate understanding of science, is probably far more tolerant of scientific debate and disagreement than the scientists themselves. Science, in my experience, pays a lot of lip service to encouraging debate and disagreement; the reality is generally far removed from the theory. I see no practical difference between the modern scientist and the priest.
Painting results in a smooth surface, so long as it's kept clean. Thus, the fuel savings from the reduced drag offset the cost of hauling around that extra weight in paint. For airlines like American, which go with an unpainted fuselage, they have to polish that aluminum at frequent intervals to keep it smooth, which adds up to a lot of expense and wear on the skin. I've read studies in the past saying it's basically a toss-up as to which methodology costs/saves more.
Well, so what if the airlines do have to strip the paint? The point is that the paint will get stripped, so the airframe will get tested for cracks without the paint regardless of whether the airline in question decided they wanted to go with paint or without paint during commercial operations. If the airline wants to spend the money to paint, strip, paint, strip, etc., that's their business, so long as they conduct the testing without the paint.
Most airlines don't really care about this sort of thing since eddy current testing is normally performed during heavy maintenance when the airplane is pulled out of service for weeks for such minute inspections. These "heavy checks" happen after fairly lengthy intervals after which the paint on the airframe needs to be stripped and replaced anyway just because it looks awful after a while.
It's Greg Feith, actually, and he has worked as an accident investigator for the NTSB for a long time. The NTSB (which is his background) has nothing to do with the FAA and is often at loggerheads with the FAA over this or that issue. The NTSB plays an investigatory role during accidents, incidents, etc.; they have nothing to do with the ongoing regulation or inspection requirements of the airlines, which is where this paint thing would come into play. If paint seriously got in the way of performing a proper inspection, the FAA would long ago have regulated it out of existence. Since the kind of cracks we're talking about here are not going to be visible to the naked eye anyway, there's no problem with paint so long as your testing methodology is adequate to detect the metal weakness with the paint present; if it's not, the paint has to be stripped before testing.
First of all, you talked about heat from the ramp. An airliner's skin will vary from about -40 C in flight to whatever the ramp temperature is. That's a pretty wide temperature variation. Adding a few more degrees from the color of the paint isn't going to do anything to the skin. Of vastly more interest to aviation professionals is the expansion and contraction of the pressure hull during thousands of pressurization cycles. This, as well as corrosion, is what causes the fatigue-related cracks that lead to hull damage such as with the recent Southwest incident.
Airline skin tests on aluminum are done via eddy current testing. It has nothing to do with a visual inspection. The point is to find the cracks long before they become visible to the naked eye.
You were slandered because you made a statement showing your ignorance of how things operating in a particular industry, when spending two minutes doing a little online searching would have educated you. Then, you stated your willingness to judge your personal safety on your misconceptions without apparently putting even a moment's effort into educating yourself on the subject so as to make an informed decision. Thus, silly.
You know, I'd seriously question their (Southwest Airlines) paint-scheme.
That blue is quite dark and probably really heats up on those southwest American airport tarmacs.
I'd definitely feel safer in a non-painted airliner, knowing that they have to totally strip the plane to test for cracking.
Wow, I hope that was said TIC... If not, I think this post wins hands-down as the Most Stupid Aviation Commentary By Somone Who Knows Nothing About Aviation on this thread.
No they don't. They make junk. Compared to Boeing, their fly-by-wire (night) is completely flaky and has killed many people, and let's forget their flimsy carbon-fiber (plastic).. and the 380, right out of the box, after all that testing, and the engine still can't contain itself.... Read the damn accident reports yourself. I'm not doing your homework. Airbus should be grounded.
Because Boeing doesn't use carbon fiber on their airframes, right? (Hint, that Southwest Airlines 737 that just had its top peeled off didn't develop those cracks in carbon fiber.) Because Boeing doesn't use fly-by-wire systems, right? (Hint: only difference between Boeing and Airbus since the 1990s has been that Boeing kept a yoke in the cockpit and Airbus went with a sidestick, but it's all connected to wires these days, and can you provide even one example of an accident of either Boeing or Airbus that was directly tied to the fly-by-wire system failing on the airplane? Right, I thought not.) Because Boeing aircraft are never powered by Rolls Royce engines, right? (Hint: the A380 incident didn't have anything at all to do with Airbus, it was a problem with the engine that was manufactured by Rolls Royce.)
There are so many fools who think they know what they're talking about. When I read this comment I pictured Cliff Claven from Cheers.
Sigh. You really ought to RTFA, otherwise you just come across as a dumbshit. This story has nothing to do with preventing you from doing what you want with your i-Device. It has everything to do with an enterprise-provided and -owned device reporting itself to the enterprise-owner that you as the non-owner-user have jailbroken your i-Device, thus causing a security hole the size of the one in your backside in the enterprise's system. And yes, Virginia, the enterprise that owns said device does have the right to know if you're being said dumbshit and jailbreaking a device that you don't even own.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... What really happened is they ran out of fuel and although it was noticed by some of the crew, nobody thought it was important enough to interrupt the captain in the left seat as he was trying to make sure the wheels where down.
You're thinking about United 173 that crashed outside Portland, OR. Different accident from the "lightbulb" Eastern Airlines flight.
You must not have a lot of experience with the world. Being rich and being smart have very little to do with one another.
Consider this scenario. You are a two dimensional creature. You are only able to experience your reality as a flat plane. Up and down have no meaning to you; these are concepts quite beyond your comprehension. You cannot imagine a 3 dimensional object any more than we, in our 3 dimensional world, can imagine what a 4 dimensional object would look like.
Now, in your 2 dimensional world, creature, I, as a 3 dimensional God-like character, am going to take a circle, anything round, and shove it down through your plane of existence. What would you experience? You would experience at the very first, a single point suddenly appearing as if out of nowhere. This single point splits into two points that diverge from each other at a steady rate. Yet if I stopped pushing the ring through your plane for a moment and let you examine one of those two points that you can see, you would find that if you shoved on one point, the other point moved exactly the same. From my God-like perspective, all you did was shove the ring a bit. You, on your flat plane, see spooky action at a distance, because you're shoving one point and the other one is moving, too.
Given enough time and experimentation with these points that keep appearing in your plane of experience as I keep shoving rings and perhaps even more complex objects through your plane, you might even be able to come up with some really complicated mathematics and physics that describe all this bizarre motion and behavior in your 2 dimensional world. To you, it all appears incredibly complex and horribly incomprehensible, even utter nonsense, but you can manage to describe it in such a way that is at least consistent with the weird behavior you keep seeing. To me, in my 3rd dimension, I'm just chuckling over all that hard work you're going to, because to me it's just a simple ring I'm shoving through your plane and watching you go batshit crazy trying to figure out what's going on.
The point is simply that quantum physics appears bizarre to us because we are limited to experiencing 3 spatial dimensions and are forced to constantly move in a single direction on an axis of time. All the weirdness of quantum physics really just means that there are almost certainly many more spatial dimensions and more complete freedom of motion through time than what we are limited to experiencing. What you're seeing a lot of times is just the weirdness of seeing something that almost certainly "completely" exists in several more higher dimensions intersecting limited reality you are able to witness.
That's about like crowing "called it" on reading a headline that says "Rossi's E-Cat Proven A Hoax".
It was a broad view of what humanity could accomplish once their petty differences of race were resolved and the race was looking forward through exploration. The series episodes nearly always involved a serious moral dilemma that the crew would solve through a combination of pragmatism and idealism. The action and comedy of the episodes were merely wrappers around the real message Roddenberry wanted to convey: that if we humans would only just stop fighting each other over trivial nonsense, we could make tremendous progress in exploring the universe around us, revel in the wonder of finding new things we couldn't possibly imagine at the moment, and discover that there are a lot bigger and more interesting things out there that worrying about whose skin happened to be a slightly different color.
The JJ Abrams movies especially simply ignored this basic concept and just went with the action aspect with a little extremely surface glossy history thrown in to make it look just a tiny little bit less like a completely 2 dimensional sci-fi flick of no substance worthy of consideration. As simple standalone sci-fi adventure movies with no tradition or history behind them, they were fairly decent - glossy, amusing, decent action, a reasonable stab at making a futuristic movie look "real" (except for that totally moronic throttle on Sulu's panel), fairly well-done and reasonably well-acted - in short, worth killing two hours of your time for - but they had virtually nothing to do with the original concept of Roddenberry's series beyond the names of the characters.
If my wife is driving and I am riding then what?
Who cares? You're missing the point of the whole punishment aspect of a law like this. If you're dumb enough to think you can safely text while driving, then I for one wouldn't have much sympathy for you bitching later on that you can't text while you're a passenger. You deserve what you got. This sort of law and punishment would be sort of like making it illegal to be stupid. I suppose the problem is that stupid people, by definition, are too stupid to understand that they're being punished for being stupid, but at least it would keep you from texting while you're driving and turning your stupidity into an active menace to society.
That reminds me of an old SF book called Dragon's Egg, about life that developed on the surface of a neutron star. The molecular structure of this life was based on particles interacting via the strong force rather than the electromagnetic force, and because of that their chemical processes ran about a million times faster than ours. The main bulk of the story took place over a couple of months of our time, in which a spacecraft of ours was orbiting this neutron star. In that two-month timeframe, the beings on the star evolved from primitive savages to a highly advanced civilization, far more technologically advanced than ours. We were able to communicate with them, but from their standpoint it would take nearly a whole lifetime for just a few messages to be exchanged back and forth. Interesting story.
Of course, the fact that he's being followed around by a film crew has nothing to do with his success at bartering his bacon. That's a pretty ridiculous stunt. He might as well just go up to all these people and say, "Hey, if you'll give me decent seats to this game, I'll let my film crew here get a clip of you handing me the tickets and you might wind up on national TV!"
And here I thought Parsec was a unit of distance...
Hmmm. When you get right down to it, what really is the difference between distance and time when either is expressed as a function of the speed of light?
That's because Airbus actually trained pilots to react this way since, according to them, stalling an Airbus was impossible. To recover from an "almost stall" (which they thought was the worst that could happen), you just pull back on the stick and slam the throttles forward, and the plane would automatically maintain the maximum angle of attack without stalling. Oops, Airbus got it wrong again.
That's only in normal law - you need to research your details before you start bashing something you have no experience with. Stall protections are lost in alternate law, and recovering from a stall in alternate law is part of standard Airbus training.
That's because it took you 30 minutes to descend. They descended in 4 minutes. The cabin altitude doesn't descend anywhere near the rate the airplane is descending. They would have noticed a small pressure change, but not much.
What's most interesting in this case is that the systems warned the pilots of an impending stall, but then once they were in a stall, there was no warning at all, as if they had recovered from the stall. That's really unfortunate.
That's because once the airspeed drops below 60 knots, the input from the angle of attack vane is ignored by the flight computer. The computed angle of attack is how the flight computer determines the airplane is approaching a stall, so without a valid input from the AOA vane, the computer can't sound the stall warning. The AOA vane is just a triangle-shaped piece of metal sticking off the side of the airplane on a little lever, so the airflow naturally positions it, just like a weather vane. As the angle of attack changes, the vane moves, providing an input to the computer. Below about 60 knots, though, there isn't enough airflow to move the AOA vane to a reliable, steady position, so the information is discarded by the computer.
In this case, you're right, it was unfortunate because it provided a confusing result to the crew. They had pulled the airplane's nose up into a stall, and when the airspeed dropped below 60 knots, the stall warning stopped. At one point, the crew did lower the nose of the airplane, which caused an increase of airspeed, which is of course precisely what they needed, but as the airspeed increased beyond 60 knots, the stall warning suddenly started back up. That made them think that what they were doing was making the situation worse, not better, when in fact they were doing the right thing. They pulled the nose back up and then never got it back down until they hit the water. Even when valid, the AOA vane never indicated an angle of attack of less than 35 degrees - generally speaking, almost any general or commercial aviation wing will be well into a stall by about 15 or 16 degrees AOA.
Color me ignorant (I don't know much about 'planes... just enough to avoid them), but wouldn't an independently powered GPS tell which way is up? Like, uh, constantly?
No. A GPS does not provide attitude information. It merely gives you your three-dimensional position (lat/long/altitude). In any case, on a commercial airplane such as the A330, the GPS data is not generally presented directly to the crew - you can find it, but it's buried in some menus on the computer. In fact, unless you look through the menus on those computers, you have no direct indication that GPS is even installed on the airplane or not.
Yes. These devices are made to withstand very high forces. You clearly have zero knowledge of anything related to aviation. There are very few aviation accidents, no matter how catastrophic, in which the FDR and CVR do not contain usable data.
From the article, it sounds like the flight data recorder has basically been smashed to pieces. This is usually what happens to them; they're really only useful in relatively low-speed accidents.
That's not the case at all. FDRs commonly survive catastrophic high speed accidents. For example, USAir 427 in 1994 crashed in a near vertical nose-down attitude, and pretty much all that was left of that accident was small bits and pieces. The FDR was recovered and was usable. They rolled and went nose down from 6,000 feet, and the last data on the recorder indicated an airspeed of 261 knots (300 mph, or about 135 meters per second), at a 80 nose-down attitude, virtually straight into the ground. If an FDR can survive that, it can survive damn near anything.
Whatever happened to sending the kids outside to play soccer or some make-believe game? No wonder this nation is so overweight and no one knows how to socialize when people whine about not having enough bandwidth to consume this level of TV watching. I let my kids watch about an hour of TV a day, tops. Then the damn thing gets turned off. If they complain about being bored I tell them I'll happily put a puzzle together with them or get the chess board out or put on the baseball glove. If anyone is consuming 250GB a month on a regular basis with gaming and media, you need to seriously take a hard look at your life and get out the door every now and then. The ISPs in this country would do the healthcare system a serious favor if they would all put a 10GB/month cap on everyone's internet usage. (This is hilarious: I'm turning into my dad!)
I'm sorry, but the apostrophes in your post really got in the way of a successfully implemented attitude of intellectual superiority.
However, science encourages you to disagree, debate, and question things for yourself.
Well, that pretty much rules out anyone on Slashdot as being a true scientist, then. It also rules out the vast majority of scientists themselves. There are very few people, especially in science, who take well to disagreement and debate. In fact, the general public, being far removed from a deep, intricate understanding of science, is probably far more tolerant of scientific debate and disagreement than the scientists themselves. Science, in my experience, pays a lot of lip service to encouraging debate and disagreement; the reality is generally far removed from the theory. I see no practical difference between the modern scientist and the priest.
Which clearly didn't include any courses in statistical analysis or the basic ability to use a dictionary...
Painting results in a smooth surface, so long as it's kept clean. Thus, the fuel savings from the reduced drag offset the cost of hauling around that extra weight in paint. For airlines like American, which go with an unpainted fuselage, they have to polish that aluminum at frequent intervals to keep it smooth, which adds up to a lot of expense and wear on the skin. I've read studies in the past saying it's basically a toss-up as to which methodology costs/saves more.
Well, so what if the airlines do have to strip the paint? The point is that the paint will get stripped, so the airframe will get tested for cracks without the paint regardless of whether the airline in question decided they wanted to go with paint or without paint during commercial operations. If the airline wants to spend the money to paint, strip, paint, strip, etc., that's their business, so long as they conduct the testing without the paint.
Most airlines don't really care about this sort of thing since eddy current testing is normally performed during heavy maintenance when the airplane is pulled out of service for weeks for such minute inspections. These "heavy checks" happen after fairly lengthy intervals after which the paint on the airframe needs to be stripped and replaced anyway just because it looks awful after a while.
It's Greg Feith, actually, and he has worked as an accident investigator for the NTSB for a long time. The NTSB (which is his background) has nothing to do with the FAA and is often at loggerheads with the FAA over this or that issue. The NTSB plays an investigatory role during accidents, incidents, etc.; they have nothing to do with the ongoing regulation or inspection requirements of the airlines, which is where this paint thing would come into play. If paint seriously got in the way of performing a proper inspection, the FAA would long ago have regulated it out of existence. Since the kind of cracks we're talking about here are not going to be visible to the naked eye anyway, there's no problem with paint so long as your testing methodology is adequate to detect the metal weakness with the paint present; if it's not, the paint has to be stripped before testing.
Bottom line, paint is not an issue.
First of all, you talked about heat from the ramp. An airliner's skin will vary from about -40 C in flight to whatever the ramp temperature is. That's a pretty wide temperature variation. Adding a few more degrees from the color of the paint isn't going to do anything to the skin. Of vastly more interest to aviation professionals is the expansion and contraction of the pressure hull during thousands of pressurization cycles. This, as well as corrosion, is what causes the fatigue-related cracks that lead to hull damage such as with the recent Southwest incident.
Airline skin tests on aluminum are done via eddy current testing. It has nothing to do with a visual inspection. The point is to find the cracks long before they become visible to the naked eye.
You were slandered because you made a statement showing your ignorance of how things operating in a particular industry, when spending two minutes doing a little online searching would have educated you. Then, you stated your willingness to judge your personal safety on your misconceptions without apparently putting even a moment's effort into educating yourself on the subject so as to make an informed decision. Thus, silly.
You know, I'd seriously question their (Southwest Airlines) paint-scheme. That blue is quite dark and probably really heats up on those southwest American airport tarmacs.
I'd definitely feel safer in a non-painted airliner, knowing that they have to totally strip the plane to test for cracking.
Wow, I hope that was said TIC... If not, I think this post wins hands-down as the Most Stupid Aviation Commentary By Somone Who Knows Nothing About Aviation on this thread.
No they don't. They make junk. Compared to Boeing, their fly-by-wire (night) is completely flaky and has killed many people, and let's forget their flimsy carbon-fiber (plastic).. and the 380, right out of the box, after all that testing, and the engine still can't contain itself.... Read the damn accident reports yourself. I'm not doing your homework. Airbus should be grounded.
Because Boeing doesn't use carbon fiber on their airframes, right? (Hint, that Southwest Airlines 737 that just had its top peeled off didn't develop those cracks in carbon fiber.) Because Boeing doesn't use fly-by-wire systems, right? (Hint: only difference between Boeing and Airbus since the 1990s has been that Boeing kept a yoke in the cockpit and Airbus went with a sidestick, but it's all connected to wires these days, and can you provide even one example of an accident of either Boeing or Airbus that was directly tied to the fly-by-wire system failing on the airplane? Right, I thought not.) Because Boeing aircraft are never powered by Rolls Royce engines, right? (Hint: the A380 incident didn't have anything at all to do with Airbus, it was a problem with the engine that was manufactured by Rolls Royce.) There are so many fools who think they know what they're talking about. When I read this comment I pictured Cliff Claven from Cheers.
Sigh. You really ought to RTFA, otherwise you just come across as a dumbshit. This story has nothing to do with preventing you from doing what you want with your i-Device. It has everything to do with an enterprise-provided and -owned device reporting itself to the enterprise-owner that you as the non-owner-user have jailbroken your i-Device, thus causing a security hole the size of the one in your backside in the enterprise's system. And yes, Virginia, the enterprise that owns said device does have the right to know if you're being said dumbshit and jailbreaking a device that you don't even own.