In modern aircraft (that is to say from dawn of glass cockpits), pilots have been taught to reference FMAs (flight mode annunciators) as depicted on the PFD rather than switch positions. As to what mode is selected, a button push is a rumor, an FMA is a fact. Classic example: most Airbus have an electric switch that selects the parking brake and a triple gauge that shows brake pressure. There have been numerous occasions where pilots set the switch to "on" but failed to check the gauge resulting in unintended aircraft movement. Just as in this case, injuries or death can result.
I've worked with people who don't drink and have bad attitudes. I think you're concluding that alcohol use equate to "bad attitudes and also caused discord in the workplace". You'll have little success substantiating that opinion with real data.
I've lived under random drug testing requirements for 29 years. A positive result for any substance not explained by a doctors prescription has been grounds for immediate termination- no recourse. Only a positive test for alcohol could could be salvaged- if one admits to being an alcoholic and subsequently abstains for the rest of ones employment and successfully completes treatment. Guess I'll have to wait for retirement to lower my standards of sobriety.
For the record, I am an airline pilot (previously military), subject to DOT regulations governing safety sensitive public positions. I think truck drivers, rail, public transit, etc are subject to these regulations:
https://www.transportation.gov/odapc/
I can understand the policy to which I'm subject. As for other types of employers, they might be trying to "weed" out (sorry for the pun) candidates that actuarially could represent greater risk of health care or reliability issues, but I wouldn't really know. Might be justifiable for hiring, but not retention in my view.
This article has been up for over six hours and only 17 posts- half of which are poop jokes.:(
When c-diff infections become more widespread, I'm guessing this topic will get greater attention. With increasingly absurd amounts of antibiotics entering the food chain leading to epidemic levels of obesity, MRSA, and other resistant bacteria, it might be time to get to know better what microorganisms our bodies are hosting.
As an alternative one could read the statement prior to the date the payment is debited. If there are questions about charges clear it up right then and there. Not paying your bill just to be obstinate (as much as AT&T and Comcast deserve to be deprived of the revenue) is asking for a bigger headache.
TSA searches are totally and completely illegal and unconstitutional
Not sure I'm ready to believe that. You aren't required to consent to the search- you could decline but you would be denied entry.
As for "security is a joke," are you advocating that there be complete and unqualified access to gate area and aircraft? That doesn't sound like a good idea. But I'm willing to entertain any ideas you might have that might make security more effective as it is me- the guy flying the plane for you, whose neck they wish to slice open. Sixteen of my fellow employees paid with their lives for lax security. Could have been me as I flew the routes and indeed 2 of the very aircraft that were later converted to suicide bombs. Where do I sign up for improved security..?
I think the idea is to limit the ability to mix your own explosive. Presumably, someone bothered to figure out that limiting the amount of 3oz containers to not more than a quart would minimize the damage to a survivable detonation if they succeeded in getting it through.
The crash axe exists primarily to provide a means to access fires hidden behind paneling. It is not intended, nor is it capable of penetrating the cockpit door, which are constructed with Kevlar and will stop a bullet. Incidentally, next time you are next to the door note the sign on it that reads "Access prohibited inflight- Deadly force authorized...". Some pilots are armed and some flights carry armed air marshals.
While this may not have required "reinforced doors", it nonetheless makes complete sense to fortify the means of exclusion to the cockpit as that is precisely what the terrorists want to get access to in order to maximize the "terror" part.
I recall logging in first in 1999. Slashdot itself was founded in 1997. I'd say you also logged in first in 1999. While my UID dates from 1999, I'd been a reader for about a year or so before I ever wanted to post anything.
Anyone recall the Toyota driver whose accelerator got stuck (for whatever reason) and he reported he could not turn the engine off because it had a keyless ignition. Family of three lost their lives. Car makers need to avoid creating a paradigm that offers no benefit.
Drivers still depress the accelerator to the floor thinking they're stomping on the brakes. When it comes to designing automobiles for the masses, the consequences of every possible mistake should be anticipated. Then budget for the inevitable liability.
In fact you can firewall it. All modern (since about the '80s) engines are computer controlled. The firewall position produces thrust as a function of mode. TOGA for takeoff and climb for, well, climb and cruise. Even idle thrust is a function of configuration- if the flaps are out or not, on the ground or not, is anti-ice on, is there a high demand for bleed air.
I are a pilot. Nowadays, butts are just given an assumed weight. Not sure how much exactly, I think 250lbs per person and that includes luggage. A long history of weighing passengers and bags resulted in statistical averages plus a safety factor. If you got bumped with seats available, it was likely because performance, perhaps takeoff, but often landing limits resulted in weight restrictions.
I've flown both and I'm not aware of that feature. Not saying your wrong- just haven't heard of this. Wasn't on A320 either, flew them a lot. As for reduced thrust on takeoff, there are benefits to be gained. For example, the likelihood of turbine failure increases at higher thrust. Engine life is shortened by max thrust- has to do with sulfidation of the blades. Noise reduction (some airports levy fines like Orange County). Comfort. Also the fuel savings you mentioned, but not really such a big factor. That said, max thrust is required at least once every 30 days by certification, and sometimes the prudent pilot just wants the added performance for safety (wet runways, clutter, or just because;)
There are variables other than weight that factor into the performance calculation: runway, flaps, CG, desired thrust reduction, atmospheric conditions. These things are variables programmed into the FMC during preflight by the pilot. While they could be automated onboard (most already are but externally), it is not likely there is an adequate return on the effort required to make it work.
Incidentally, the company I fly for has made significant effort to lessen the likelihood of this kind of error. Our performance is done by a centralized loadplanner and SCAP (Standardised Computerised Aircraft Performance) http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgroups/pages/scaptf.aspx. QANTAS apparently aren't using this. One feature alerts the pilots if they have requested data for a weight that is unexpected, but it still gives us the data. It essentially says "is this really what you wanted because I don't agree that is what you weigh."
As a unionized airline pilot, I can assure you that your statement is completely false. I'd suggest that you visit here: http://alpa.org/ to get a better idea about the kinds of things that union has done to improve safety in the industry. Such as the following: science based duty limits, TCAS, Captains authority, security of the cockpit, hazardous cargo, safety reporting system, etc.
I suspect, sadly, that your bias against unions is an indicator that your mind is made up already.
Obtaining performance data requires knowing how many people and bags and where they are located, which runway is used, flap setting CG and weather data like pressure, winds and temperature. These factors, exclusive of the atmospheric conditions, are dictated by the humans operating the plane and while they could theoretically be automated, there likely isn't enough return on the invested effort to do so.
To add to this and in regard to the model flown here, The -800 and-900 versions are stretched and have higher MTOG. The end result is since the landing gear are just as short, there is even less margin for error with tail strikes. This is true both for takeoff and landing and results in higher rotation speeds as well as higher approach speeds. In some cases, this results in weight restrictions due solely to the needed increased speeds.
Also of note regarding Vmcg, if Vr (reject) is lower than Vmcg, you're overweight for takeoff. Virtually never a factor for a modern aircraft.
Once airborne, the FMC can do performance calculations. But not unless it has been given the variables that only the pilot or load planner can know. Among the variables inputted by the pilot are ZFW, CG, cost index, flap setting, thrust reduction, and takeoff profile.
ZFW and CG relate to how many people and bags and where they are located. Cost index and thrust reduction are mostly economic decisions. Flap setting is dictated by runway choice.
As long as the device and software (the iPad and app in this case) has been vetted by the regulating agency, it is acceptable to use and may actually be required. I'm unsure of the interface to which you are referring, but takeoff performance calculations are not integrated into any large transport aircraft that I have ever flown. The FMC can only calculate data accurately if its given the correct inputs- stuff like ZFW, CG, flap setting, reduced thrust setting, etc. GIGO
At my airline, takeoff data calculations are centralized (acquired through datalink) rather than carried onboard, but still require those variables.
Performance data normally has a safety buffer built in. However, a 10,000kg error is not a variable that would fall into the margin or error for performance. The primary goal of reduced thrust is to extend the life of the engine. A secondary goal is to reduce the likelihood of a turbine failure.
Slashdot Mirror
In modern aircraft (that is to say from dawn of glass cockpits), pilots have been taught to reference FMAs (flight mode annunciators) as depicted on the PFD rather than switch positions. As to what mode is selected, a button push is a rumor, an FMA is a fact. Classic example: most Airbus have an electric switch that selects the parking brake and a triple gauge that shows brake pressure. There have been numerous occasions where pilots set the switch to "on" but failed to check the gauge resulting in unintended aircraft movement. Just as in this case, injuries or death can result.
I've worked with people who don't drink and have bad attitudes. I think you're concluding that alcohol use equate to "bad attitudes and also caused discord in the workplace". You'll have little success substantiating that opinion with real data.
For the record, I am an airline pilot (previously military), subject to DOT regulations governing safety sensitive public positions. I think truck drivers, rail, public transit, etc are subject to these regulations: https://www.transportation.gov/odapc/
I can understand the policy to which I'm subject. As for other types of employers, they might be trying to "weed" out (sorry for the pun) candidates that actuarially could represent greater risk of health care or reliability issues, but I wouldn't really know. Might be justifiable for hiring, but not retention in my view.
When c-diff infections become more widespread, I'm guessing this topic will get greater attention. With increasingly absurd amounts of antibiotics entering the food chain leading to epidemic levels of obesity, MRSA, and other resistant bacteria, it might be time to get to know better what microorganisms our bodies are hosting.
As an alternative one could read the statement prior to the date the payment is debited. If there are questions about charges clear it up right then and there. Not paying your bill just to be obstinate (as much as AT&T and Comcast deserve to be deprived of the revenue) is asking for a bigger headache.
BTW, HSA is on the phone for you. They want more details on your plans and your current location.
TSA searches are totally and completely illegal and unconstitutional
Not sure I'm ready to believe that. You aren't required to consent to the search- you could decline but you would be denied entry.
As for "security is a joke," are you advocating that there be complete and unqualified access to gate area and aircraft? That doesn't sound like a good idea. But I'm willing to entertain any ideas you might have that might make security more effective as it is me- the guy flying the plane for you, whose neck they wish to slice open. Sixteen of my fellow employees paid with their lives for lax security. Could have been me as I flew the routes and indeed 2 of the very aircraft that were later converted to suicide bombs. Where do I sign up for improved security..?
I think the idea is to limit the ability to mix your own explosive. Presumably, someone bothered to figure out that limiting the amount of 3oz containers to not more than a quart would minimize the damage to a survivable detonation if they succeeded in getting it through.
The crash axe exists primarily to provide a means to access fires hidden behind paneling. It is not intended, nor is it capable of penetrating the cockpit door, which are constructed with Kevlar and will stop a bullet. Incidentally, next time you are next to the door note the sign on it that reads "Access prohibited inflight- Deadly force authorized...". Some pilots are armed and some flights carry armed air marshals.
While this may not have required "reinforced doors", it nonetheless makes complete sense to fortify the means of exclusion to the cockpit as that is precisely what the terrorists want to get access to in order to maximize the "terror" part.
I recall logging in first in 1999. Slashdot itself was founded in 1997. I'd say you also logged in first in 1999. While my UID dates from 1999, I'd been a reader for about a year or so before I ever wanted to post anything.
Anyone recall the Toyota driver whose accelerator got stuck (for whatever reason) and he reported he could not turn the engine off because it had a keyless ignition. Family of three lost their lives. Car makers need to avoid creating a paradigm that offers no benefit.
Drivers still depress the accelerator to the floor thinking they're stomping on the brakes. When it comes to designing automobiles for the masses, the consequences of every possible mistake should be anticipated. Then budget for the inevitable liability.
I too am a certificated airman. While I don't know about aircraft owner registrations, an airman can remove the address information from the publicly releasable airman database here: http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/airmen_certification/change_releasability/
In fact you can firewall it. All modern (since about the '80s) engines are computer controlled. The firewall position produces thrust as a function of mode. TOGA for takeoff and climb for, well, climb and cruise. Even idle thrust is a function of configuration- if the flaps are out or not, on the ground or not, is anti-ice on, is there a high demand for bleed air.
I are a pilot. Nowadays, butts are just given an assumed weight. Not sure how much exactly, I think 250lbs per person and that includes luggage. A long history of weighing passengers and bags resulted in statistical averages plus a safety factor. If you got bumped with seats available, it was likely because performance, perhaps takeoff, but often landing limits resulted in weight restrictions.
After that they put great big CFM turbofans on them. First a tail strike followed by a pod strike!
I've flown both and I'm not aware of that feature. Not saying your wrong- just haven't heard of this. Wasn't on A320 either, flew them a lot. As for reduced thrust on takeoff, there are benefits to be gained. For example, the likelihood of turbine failure increases at higher thrust. Engine life is shortened by max thrust- has to do with sulfidation of the blades. Noise reduction (some airports levy fines like Orange County). Comfort. Also the fuel savings you mentioned, but not really such a big factor. That said, max thrust is required at least once every 30 days by certification, and sometimes the prudent pilot just wants the added performance for safety (wet runways, clutter, or just because ;)
Incidentally, the company I fly for has made significant effort to lessen the likelihood of this kind of error. Our performance is done by a centralized loadplanner and SCAP (Standardised Computerised Aircraft Performance) http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/workgroups/pages/scaptf.aspx. QANTAS apparently aren't using this. One feature alerts the pilots if they have requested data for a weight that is unexpected, but it still gives us the data. It essentially says "is this really what you wanted because I don't agree that is what you weigh."
I suspect, sadly, that your bias against unions is an indicator that your mind is made up already.
Obtaining performance data requires knowing how many people and bags and where they are located, which runway is used, flap setting CG and weather data like pressure, winds and temperature. These factors, exclusive of the atmospheric conditions, are dictated by the humans operating the plane and while they could theoretically be automated, there likely isn't enough return on the invested effort to do so.
Also of note regarding Vmcg, if Vr (reject) is lower than Vmcg, you're overweight for takeoff. Virtually never a factor for a modern aircraft.
ZFW and CG relate to how many people and bags and where they are located. Cost index and thrust reduction are mostly economic decisions. Flap setting is dictated by runway choice.
At my airline, takeoff data calculations are centralized (acquired through datalink) rather than carried onboard, but still require those variables.
Performance data normally has a safety buffer built in. However, a 10,000kg error is not a variable that would fall into the margin or error for performance. The primary goal of reduced thrust is to extend the life of the engine. A secondary goal is to reduce the likelihood of a turbine failure.