Lots of those speaker systems now include Bluetooth, which works with any phone made in the last few years. In fact, where I work (Large warehouse chain), we carry some 10 or 12 models of speakers like that. Every single one has Bluetooth. I can't think of one that has a Lightning connector that is used for anything but power and can't be swapped out for a different connector.
Unless the Galaxy S4 comes with an ADS-B transciever, I think these flights should be OK.
When the pilots start seeing multiple odd contacts on their ADS-B display, they'll call down to Center and ask what's going on. When they do, Center will tell them that there are no contacts in their area, and the flight will continue using more traditional navigation/avoidance procedures. This isn't a "shoot down an airliner free" card.
Usually I bounce people over to StraightTalk (Tracfone/Walmart), because they can bounce off just about any network if you've got a phone keyed for that network.
Down here in the states, at least in Kansas, Sprint. $80USD gets you unlimited texting, unlimited data, and 700 min/month, with unlimited calling nights, weekends, and to any cell phone on any American carrier.
I replaced the stock foam earpieces on mine with a nice gel set- sits way more comfortably, doesn't heat up, and blocks sound even better. Plus they don't keep their squish like the foam set did. I've worn them for hours and never had an issue. I think the set cost me $120 or so and the earpieces another $30.
Might not even need noise cancellation- a good pair of aviation headphones work great. They're designed to cut down 100db+ of aircraft engine noise into a low, dull roar. They work wonders, and you can get a decent pair for ~$100. Plus, the headset part operates on a standard 1/4in connector that's easily converted to 3.5mm, so you can listen to music, white noise, or an audiobook through them if you need to.
Three Falcon 9 launches, three Dragons delivered to station, two (so far) recovered intact. I'd say they're doing pretty good. Despite the engine failure on the CRS-1, and despite the four thruster pods failing, Dragon still made it to orbit, and is on track for a docking. Saturn lost engines during the ascent a couple times, and as I recall, Apollo wasn't exactly seamless either- one explosion, misconfiguration of landing computers, toxic gases pumped into the cabin... The fact that Falcon 9 and Dragon can experience these failures and recover from them says a lot about the system.
The FAA quite clearly wanted this plane in the air
What does this mean? They clearly wanted it in the air? The FAA wants every aircraft in the air, as long as they can be sure that they're safe. They're not so sure about the Dreamliner anymore, so they're going back and making sure it's safe. That's what the FAA does.
I suspect the carbon composite build of the plane did not give them the fuel savings that would make the plane anywhere near compelling.
And now we've dove headfirst into rampant speculation. These airliners bought the 787, whose main remarkable feature was the composite interior that reduced weight and increased efficiency. If it didn't do that, why would they have bought it?
This times a million. This is a brand-new aircraft, with fresh new avionics never flown before (hell, the Orion spacecraft is supposed to fly with a panel setup derived from the 787) and a whole new paradigm as far as materials are concerned. Teething pains are to be expected. Hopefully not "ground the fleet" teething pains, but this likely won't affect the future success of the 787.
For having a serious fire inside the container, yeah, it looks pretty good. Consider that the fire filled the cabin with smoke. If the worst damage outside the box was some soot and a bit of charring, they're doing pretty good.
Yet? The aircraft are grounded, and they will be until they're certain the problem won't reappear.
And why, exactly, is the plane "fundamentally flawed"? The experimental nature of the aircraft mainly involves the composite nature of the materials and the new avionics- nothing related to why these planes were grounded. I've heard some talk of delamination of the composites, but if that were a serious issue, then the aircraft would have been grounded for that reason instead of battery fires.
The difference is, there's no fatalities here. Plus, this is a pretty fast "recall", as these things go, and you can bet we're going to see revised designs in future.
That's a bit different. Even then, the DC-10 was very, very popular, and the method of grounding was very different. For the DC-10, they yanked the type certificate- it effectively became illegal to fly that aircraft. For the 787, it's a new aircraft, fairly experimental, and as for the grounding, it's an AD temporarily halting operations. Not quite as severe as revoking the type cert.
All airliners have a legal requirement to land automatically at least once a month or they lose their certification.
Hold on a sec... Can you cite your source for that? Southwest Airlines hand-flies all of their approaches, even under instrument conditions (Legal, because they have a HUD). Plus, not all airports have the instrumentation required for automatic landing. ILS cat 3 is pretty uncommon, and Cat 3C isn't in operation anywhere. I could see them having to shoot an automatic instrument approach once a month per aircraft just to make sure the system is working right, but otherwise, I've heard nothing about that specific requirement.
If Country A and Country B both have nukes, and the ability to detect each other's nukes when they're launched, then both countries know that a pre-emptive strike would be pointless, because they would suffer just as much damage as they would inflict. That's mutually assured destruction. Now, imagine Country A manages to build a system to destroy all (or most) of Country B's nukes before they arrive at their targets. Suddenly, that disincentive to a pre-emptive strike no longer exists for Country A, because they can destroy Country B without being destroyed themselves. This missile defense unbalances MAD. Who knows? Maybe in 10 years we won't be so chummy with Russia.
I'm going for my Professional Pilot bachelor's. Unless you're in daddy's money, there is no way you're paying for all that up front. Getting your private pilot's license, less tuition, costs six grand- and that's the first semester. It goes up drastically from there. I'm going to rely on these loans. Are they way too high? Absolutely. Is it a bubble? Very probably. Is the amount of student loan debt in this country absolutely insane? A thousand times, yes. But don't fuck over the kids going through college for their dreams to make the point.
Their missiles are less than effective, as of right now. Their anti-aircraft defenses, on the other hand, are all too effective against the most modern fighter aircraft we've bothered to send. What makes you think a 747 could penetrate deep enough to destroy a missile during launch?
It just bugs the hell out of me that Congress can't get their shit together and pass a bill about keeping student loans low (when both parties agree that needs to happen), but they're cool with re-instituting a bloated failure of a missile defense program in the meantime.
How are you going to get a 747 within 30,000 feet- even 10 miles- of a North Korean missile site?
I'll remind you, YAL-1 was built to destroy missiles during the boost phase. It can't reach them once they're at altitude, and it doesn't have the power or tracking ability to destroy them on the way down. If you can't get a YAL-1 within range of a North Korean missile site, then there's no point- and those SAMs have a lot longer reach than the YAL-1's laser.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of those speaker systems now include Bluetooth, which works with any phone made in the last few years. In fact, where I work (Large warehouse chain), we carry some 10 or 12 models of speakers like that. Every single one has Bluetooth. I can't think of one that has a Lightning connector that is used for anything but power and can't be swapped out for a different connector.
Unless the Galaxy S4 comes with an ADS-B transciever, I think these flights should be OK.
When the pilots start seeing multiple odd contacts on their ADS-B display, they'll call down to Center and ask what's going on. When they do, Center will tell them that there are no contacts in their area, and the flight will continue using more traditional navigation/avoidance procedures. This isn't a "shoot down an airliner free" card.
Well, Sprint does make an effort in advertising to say that it's truly unlimited. They do require you to pay extra for tethering.
Usually I bounce people over to StraightTalk (Tracfone/Walmart), because they can bounce off just about any network if you've got a phone keyed for that network.
Down here in the states, at least in Kansas, Sprint. $80USD gets you unlimited texting, unlimited data, and 700 min/month, with unlimited calling nights, weekends, and to any cell phone on any American carrier.
Beats the hell out of Verizon, anyway.
I replaced the stock foam earpieces on mine with a nice gel set- sits way more comfortably, doesn't heat up, and blocks sound even better. Plus they don't keep their squish like the foam set did. I've worn them for hours and never had an issue. I think the set cost me $120 or so and the earpieces another $30.
Might not even need noise cancellation- a good pair of aviation headphones work great. They're designed to cut down 100db+ of aircraft engine noise into a low, dull roar. They work wonders, and you can get a decent pair for ~$100. Plus, the headset part operates on a standard 1/4in connector that's easily converted to 3.5mm, so you can listen to music, white noise, or an audiobook through them if you need to.
Three Falcon 9 launches, three Dragons delivered to station, two (so far) recovered intact. I'd say they're doing pretty good. Despite the engine failure on the CRS-1, and despite the four thruster pods failing, Dragon still made it to orbit, and is on track for a docking. Saturn lost engines during the ascent a couple times, and as I recall, Apollo wasn't exactly seamless either- one explosion, misconfiguration of landing computers, toxic gases pumped into the cabin... The fact that Falcon 9 and Dragon can experience these failures and recover from them says a lot about the system.
The FAA quite clearly wanted this plane in the air
What does this mean? They clearly wanted it in the air? The FAA wants every aircraft in the air, as long as they can be sure that they're safe. They're not so sure about the Dreamliner anymore, so they're going back and making sure it's safe. That's what the FAA does.
I suspect the carbon composite build of the plane did not give them the fuel savings that would make the plane anywhere near compelling.
And now we've dove headfirst into rampant speculation. These airliners bought the 787, whose main remarkable feature was the composite interior that reduced weight and increased efficiency. If it didn't do that, why would they have bought it?
This times a million. This is a brand-new aircraft, with fresh new avionics never flown before (hell, the Orion spacecraft is supposed to fly with a panel setup derived from the 787) and a whole new paradigm as far as materials are concerned. Teething pains are to be expected. Hopefully not "ground the fleet" teething pains, but this likely won't affect the future success of the 787.
For having a serious fire inside the container, yeah, it looks pretty good. Consider that the fire filled the cabin with smoke. If the worst damage outside the box was some soot and a bit of charring, they're doing pretty good.
Yet? The aircraft are grounded, and they will be until they're certain the problem won't reappear.
And why, exactly, is the plane "fundamentally flawed"? The experimental nature of the aircraft mainly involves the composite nature of the materials and the new avionics- nothing related to why these planes were grounded. I've heard some talk of delamination of the composites, but if that were a serious issue, then the aircraft would have been grounded for that reason instead of battery fires.
Yes, they poured tens of millions of dollars into R&D for composites and advanced avionics systems in order to produce the cheapest aircraft possible.
If they're going for cheap, they could just make more 777s. Those bad boys are cheap and super safe.
The difference is, there's no fatalities here. Plus, this is a pretty fast "recall", as these things go, and you can bet we're going to see revised designs in future.
That's a bit different. Even then, the DC-10 was very, very popular, and the method of grounding was very different. For the DC-10, they yanked the type certificate- it effectively became illegal to fly that aircraft. For the 787, it's a new aircraft, fairly experimental, and as for the grounding, it's an AD temporarily halting operations. Not quite as severe as revoking the type cert.
All airliners have a legal requirement to land automatically at least once a month or they lose their certification.
Hold on a sec... Can you cite your source for that? Southwest Airlines hand-flies all of their approaches, even under instrument conditions (Legal, because they have a HUD). Plus, not all airports have the instrumentation required for automatic landing. ILS cat 3 is pretty uncommon, and Cat 3C isn't in operation anywhere. I could see them having to shoot an automatic instrument approach once a month per aircraft just to make sure the system is working right, but otherwise, I've heard nothing about that specific requirement.
If Country A and Country B both have nukes, and the ability to detect each other's nukes when they're launched, then both countries know that a pre-emptive strike would be pointless, because they would suffer just as much damage as they would inflict. That's mutually assured destruction. Now, imagine Country A manages to build a system to destroy all (or most) of Country B's nukes before they arrive at their targets. Suddenly, that disincentive to a pre-emptive strike no longer exists for Country A, because they can destroy Country B without being destroyed themselves. This missile defense unbalances MAD. Who knows? Maybe in 10 years we won't be so chummy with Russia.
Well... The skins on those boosters are very thin... If you could smuggle a paper airplane with a titanium tip to the launch site...
TO THE DRAWING BOARD, EVERYONE
I'm going for my Professional Pilot bachelor's. Unless you're in daddy's money, there is no way you're paying for all that up front. Getting your private pilot's license, less tuition, costs six grand- and that's the first semester. It goes up drastically from there. I'm going to rely on these loans. Are they way too high? Absolutely. Is it a bubble? Very probably. Is the amount of student loan debt in this country absolutely insane? A thousand times, yes. But don't fuck over the kids going through college for their dreams to make the point.
Their missiles are less than effective, as of right now. Their anti-aircraft defenses, on the other hand, are all too effective against the most modern fighter aircraft we've bothered to send. What makes you think a 747 could penetrate deep enough to destroy a missile during launch?
It just bugs the hell out of me that Congress can't get their shit together and pass a bill about keeping student loans low (when both parties agree that needs to happen), but they're cool with re-instituting a bloated failure of a missile defense program in the meantime.
How are you going to get a 747 within 30,000 feet- even 10 miles- of a North Korean missile site?
I'll remind you, YAL-1 was built to destroy missiles during the boost phase. It can't reach them once they're at altitude, and it doesn't have the power or tracking ability to destroy them on the way down. If you can't get a YAL-1 within range of a North Korean missile site, then there's no point- and those SAMs have a lot longer reach than the YAL-1's laser.
Well aren't you just a treasure.
New?
Give that he's got a show running right now, and it's been renewed for another season since this dropped, maybe not so much.