Asserting your rights to remain silent or refuse to be searched are probable cause in and of themselves.
>
Not really. You just force them to obtain a search warrant if they really think you need to be searched. Probable cause means that they reasonably expect that there is evidence of a crime being committed based on what they already have observed. Refusal to consent to a search is not probable cause of anything, neither is refusing to answer questions.
If the police show up at your door and ask to come in, you always say "no." They want to search your car during a traffic stop, you say "no." Don't open your trunk or glove box if they ask. Never offer to show them anything or let them look around. Be polite, but the answer is "no." If they want to ask you questions, it's up to you but if you have *anything* to hide, I'd recommend you decline. Make them get the warrant if they insist and if they have a reason, a judge will grant the warrant.
It's pretty darn close. Although, I think your point should be that this only assumes there is ONE observation point and ONE observer. Often this is not true, because there may be multiple people. Also, a standard 3D representation using 2 x 2D images also will assume a fixed distance between the eyes, while actual distance may vary between people and the orientation of their head. Plenty of room for innovation here.
But you always have the "My screen resolution is better than yours" crowd that will fall for the device with the better specs in droves so you can bet device makers will be designing and building resolutions that you and I can't ever hope to see.
But one should be careful to note that the issue is pixels per inch and not overall resolution here. 720P might be overkill on a 2" screen, but it might be way too low for the latest movie theater screen. Even at the best PPI you can see, the next frontier will be refresh rates (Although, going much past 120 FPS is totally overkill.. )
Personally I really *hate* watching blue ray movies in full resolution. Usually the material just looks cheesy to me, where you can see the boundaries of the CGI sequences, makeup smudges on the actors, obvious short cuts on the set construction and all kinds of things that just are not right. It actually makes it more difficult for me to suspend reality long enough to enjoy the movie. Of course, being an old projectionist from years ago makes me sensitive to vestiges of bad editing, splices, reel changes and queue marks which also distract me.
Many of these carriers are mandating their pilots to use automation, so the ILS being turned off is a major issue, regardless of them having 250 hours in a SEP/MEP.
You do realize that *nobody* is going to be flying a 777 with 250 hours right? (Well, unless you actually own it and don't fly commercially, but you will still need a type rating and check ride for anything over 12,000 lbs). You need 1500 hours to get your ATP, plus if you are flying a 777 you will need to pass a check ride in type that demonstrates that you can safely operate the aircraft type. Check rides and training are recurring requirements for as long as you fly that type.
In order to get to fly a 777 on international routes you will also have to first get hired by an airline that has international routes, then have enough seniority to get assigned to the route. Being that international routes are strongly desired positions by pilots, only the most experienced will get hired, and only the best of them will get assigned the highly regarded international routes. Every body in that cockpit had a minimum of 2500 hours, most had many times that. Any ONE of these guys could and should have been able to land sans automation.
Besides, the fact that the ILS was out of service was well known. Likely there was a NOTAM that the crew would have seen during their flight planning, it was likely noted on ATIS and/or mentioned by approach control. ILS procedures require that you listen to and verify the station identifier, which is only sent when the ILS is in full service. I usually have the localizer audio in my headset during an ILS approach so I can hear the ID every few seconds. There are multiple layers of checks on this too. There was no way they expected to use ILS.
The lack of ILS service should have not been an issue or even a factor here.
Civic duty? Um... Are you suggesting that laws that govern Taxi/Limos in San Francisco are "unjust" ?
I think that civil disobedience is over practiced and under justified as a rule. My point is that if you disobey the law, you should be ready to accept the punishment that comes from disobeying the law. If it is worth it to you, and you think it helps you make your point, go ahead and get arrested. If the law is unjust, and you got arrested for violating it, you then have standing to appeal and get the law ruled unjust by the courts. But I would suggest that you petition your elected representatives to get the "unjust" law changed first. It might save you and the police a lot of trouble.
Out civic duty is to get unjust laws changed. Civil disobedience is at the bottom of the "things to try first" when trying to get a law changed, at the very bottom.
I don't agree, mainly because your line is not a clear one, where mine is. If you are making a profit, clearly it's a business, friends in the seats or not.
If you intend to protest a law by breaking it, you had better be ready for the fines and/or jail time that come your way. Remember, in a civil society we have the right to ask for the law to be changed, peacefully protest until they get changed and vote for those who will change them, but we don't have the right to break laws we don't agree with.
If somebody is getting paid to pickup and/or drop off folks at the airport, they are in business. If you are in business, you are subject to the rules and regulations that apply to the business. If you are dropping off or picking up a friend and not doing this for money but for your friend, you are NOT in business, even if your friend is covering your expenses.
The dividing line is if you are making a profit or being paid for your time.
SO... If you are trolling around the airport or online in hopes of finding somebody who will pay you more than what it costs you to haul them someplace, you are in business and should be in compliance with all laws for that business. If you are just offering to share an empty seat for a share of expenses, you are NOT running a business and don't need to worry about it.
Now how anybody would KNOW you where making a profit or not is the question. The issue at SFO is that some "operators" are trying to profit from the online crowd sourced ride share aps and have pushed far enough to make it way to obvious what they are doing. So obvious in fact that the Taxi driver waiting for his fares has started to complain about the same car showing up at the airport multiple times a day for days on end, picking up and dropping off passengers.
It seems that somebody was running a business, complete with having distinctive markings on their cars so folks could recognize them, but they where NOT complying with the rules that governed the Taxi/Limo business. Where I admire their capitalist efforts, the laws are what they are and you need to follow them even if you don't like them.
Now this citizen's arrest thing is just wacky, but You don't want to tick off the Taxi drivers you fools... If you'd just kept it low key and low volume it might have gone unnoticed, but you are no longer under the radar. Time to comply with the law or stop.
Not really. There are good reasons to encrypt, you just have to understand them.
The main thing you need to realize is that encrypting something only delays the disclosure of the data. It may take a LONG time to try all the available keys, but eventually a brute force attack will be successful. Of course, if it's going to average 100 years of effort, it may not be worth it to the attacker, or it may not matter what you bank account balance was by then.
Like I said... This is pilot error. The question is where there any contributing factors. Seems there was, but the ILS being disabled is unlikely to be in the list. I think the ATC procedure that leads to unstable approaches is an issue. That the approach is over water, is a contributing factor... I just don't get how the ILS being out of service is going to be a factor here. Your air mileage may vary so we will have to wait for the NTSB to issue their report.
You are technically correct. The runway was equipped with PAPI... However..
VASI and PAPI are there for the same purpose. PAPI offers a bit more visual information to the pilot than VASI. PAPI provides for multiple approach angles where VASI is only going to get you one. But my point remains the same. There are multiple layers of visual cues provided for the pilot to assist in flying visual approaches.
ILS approaches take time. You have to set up to intercept the final fix at a specified altitude with the aircraft flying the right direction on the localizer. This final fix is usually about 5 miles out and 3,000 AGL. Flying a full standard ILS approach is not normally done because it takes at least 5 min to establish on the localizer going outbound, Cross the outer marker, do the outbound leg and procedure turn to get yourself on the localizer and glide-slope before you cross the outer marker again. Even a "radar assisted" approach takes 3 or so min to get you on the localizer and glide-slope at a set altitude over the outer marker.
Why do I go though all this? To tell you that turning off the ILS on a clear day is not a factor here. They simply do NOT fly ILS approaches on clear days at busy airports. Nobody has the time. They fly visual approaches almost exclusively because it's faster and easier. They may have the ILS approach configured and may actually look at the needles during the approach, but if you are flying visual approaches, you spend more time looking out the window.
ATP pilots are usually quite capable of flying their aircraft in very difficult circumstances. The experience and training required to be rated in a large commercial aircraft are pretty high. The folks who meet these requirements are fully capable of flying with or without the automation and must demonstrate their abilities before they are allowed to sit in the cockpit. Flying visual approaches without automation (ILS or otherwise) is not a problem for these guys. Some are better than others at this, but everybody can. It's basically how everybody starts learning how to fly. Small single engine land aircraft fly these kinds of approaches nearly every time and most pilots learn to fly in single engine aircraft.
What is a problem is that ATC many times asks pilots to do really dangerous things. Flying short, steep and unstabilized approaches makes automation pretty much useless. Given this new revelation, it seem to me that ATC procedures contributed to this accident. I don't think that we have a case where dependance on automation is a problem. What we have is ATC asking pilots to do dangerous things when low and slow. This accident isn't about the ILS being turned off. The weather was clear, nobody would have used the ILS had it been on anyway.
This tells me that ATC was engaged in a "hurry up you guys" approach processing. Seems likely that the controller was pushing to maintain spacing and make the best use of the limited runway. This lead to controllers creating difficult flying conditions by not getting aircraft lined up well and entering final approaches far enough out, or not allowing for speed and altitude reductions far enough in advance. This makes it extremely difficult to get a large aircraft into landing configuration on a stabilized approach. As a pilot of a large commercial aircraft, there are a LOT of things to get done and checked before you put the wheels on the ground. This process takes time and space. Apparently ATC wasn't giving pilots enough time and space if there are multiple pilots having to conduct missed approaches for being too low.
ILS approaches take *TIME* to do, even with a radar assisted approach fix. They where NOT in a situation where they would or could do even a quick ILS approach. During the daytime in reasonable visibility, they simply don't do ILS approaches because they are time consuming. You have to find the In this case, nobody was looking at the ILS, ATC was apparently pushing everybody to shoot short visual approaches which where steep and not stabilized. Had they been doing even what I call a "Quickie" ILS (where ATC gives you radar vectors to the outer marker/approach fix) They would have entered their final approach nearly 5 miles out at 3,000 AGL at a minimum. Chances are good they could have reconfigured the aircraft and stabilized the approach given the time required to fly 5 miles at 140 Knots.
So, this accident was pilot error with multiple contributing factors. One of those factors will likely be that ATC was pushing pilots into approaches that where starting too high and fast. Another will be that the pilot didn't recognize the unstable approach, got too low and too slow to recover. He flew his aircraft into the ground. The only question I have is about any unexplained mechanical issues. There are cases where ice in the fuel has caused the failure to throttle up when commanded, leading to landing short. (See BA Flt 38 crash) My guess is that we won't find any mechanical issues, just pilot error with ATC contributing by shortening the approach profiles too much to be safe.
To be further in tune with the facts here.... There are more approach aids than the ILS. Safety in aviation is layered and in the case of approach aids there are at least three more ways a pilot should be able to use to judge his approach and correct. There are the VASI lights which tell you if you are too high or low. There are the markings on the runway, which are of standard sizes and locations which aid the pilot who is looking out the windows. Then there is the "visual picture" that the pilot will have seen many times before when landing, even if only in the simulator.
Any of these *should* have been enough to safely land.
My guess is that what really happened here is a combination of ATC directions and pilot errors. ATC likely directed a short approach which started pretty high making it difficult for the pilots to properly stabilize the approach. The inexperience of the pilot in command contributed to the issue because it took him longer to make all the complex adjustments, get the gear down, flaps down, get on the glide path at the proper airspeed and complete the landing checklists and he lacked experience to recognize what was happening. The PIC got behind the aircraft and by the time they realized the sink rate was way to high they where to low and slow to recover. They landed way short.
This is an old story, told time and time again. A flying aircraft does not wait for the pilot who doesn't keep ahead of the situation. Landing and take off phase of flight are fast paced (compared to other phases) and also the least forgiving of falling behind. The PIC fell way behind and failed to fly the aircraft properly. He failed to recognize the danger and deal with the problem and was lucky to survive. In this case I don't think ILS wold have mattered.
I wonder how many folks have actually driven a manual transmission if they only make up 7% of sales. My guess is that the younger the driver is, the less likely they are to have actually driven one.
If you intend to venture out beyond sight of land, you really should take some means of navigation along. My minimum navigation equipment would depend on how far I was planning to go, but it would start with a compass, a watch and maps of the local coast. If you are crossing the ocean, you need to take along more and a sextant is a good idea.
Personally, I think that it would be good practice to require that mariners crossing international waters be required to fix their positions using non-electronic means every few hours and then explain any differences between what the GPS says and what they observed. It's also a good idea to plot these positions on a paper map, just because you never know when the GPS is going to die and you will get left trying to find your way home.
But you can't fix stupid.... Folks are free to run out to international waters in a row boat without life jackets in the middle of a tropical storm. Just like they are free to depend on a battery operated electronic device as their sole means of navigation.
I'd call it something else. Reliance on GPS alone is more than just unsafe, it's foolish and stupid.
I thought that ships "captains" where licensed, and as part of that was a demonstration of basic navigation techniques using maps, a watch, sextant and some charts. Consider even your EYES as a navigation tool if you are following a series of markers out of port.
Hooking up the auto pilot to the GPS and hitting "go" while you head off to the aft deck for a party is just plain dumb.... Trusting your GPS to get you someplace and not having any other way to figure out where you are is going to get you shipwrecked eventually.
And then there are international waters where you can do such things anyway.
Um, if the ship was flagged in the US, I believe that the FCC still has a say about what goes on even in international waters. At the very least the ITU might think it has some jurisdiction over the jamming/changing of GPS frequencies. Nobody may care, but they could legally do something if they did.
True... One would assume then that the density of the data would be much higher (more bits in the same length as well as more tracks per disk), so if we are looking at the same physical limits on the spindle speeds, would not the data rates go up?
Also, be careful because SATA III maxes out at 6 GigaBITS per second (3.1) with 8 Gigabits in the pipeline. 300 Gigabytes would take something like 400 seconds (under 10 min) at the maximum sustained transfer rate.
I'm just guessing, but it seems likely that 300 Gigabytes would still take generally the same amount of time as any other optical media to fully write. Assuming the limit was the speed at which the media comes apart and not something else in the process.
time warner doesn't have a bandwidth cap, at least not in NYC for most plans
Perhaps there are no caps that you *know* about, but there are bandwidth limits that will "cap" the observed speed. I think what you are talking about (but not referring too correctly) is transfer caps. This is a limit on the amount you can download (or upload) in a month, or more accurately what you "transfer". They may be advertising "no limits on transfer" but you can bet there are bandwidth limits of some kind. If nothing else, the hardware will limit you.
All the above being said, I don't expect Time Warner would look to kindly on a customer who was utilizing their full available bandwidth for extended periods. You start transfering Gigabytes per hour and they will start taking a very close look at you. You can bet that they will find some reason to TOS you or throttle your access if you start to present a problem to their network. There may not be advertised limits, but there ARE limits, make no mistake about that.
This is even more true for modern "switching" supply designs which don't make use of a transformer to step down the voltage.
Actually they do. While you can design switchers without a transformer they provide basically no isolation at all and afaict are not used in mains power supply applications. Your typical switched mode mains power supply uses a high frequency transformer both as the reactive component in the switcher and an isolation device.
Still there are cetainly more components crossing the "safety boundary" than in a traditional transformer based power supply. If any of those components are skimped on you have a potentially dangerous device.
My point was that the mains isolation afforded by a step down transformer is no longer a given fact. In fact, it's unlikely. Large inductors are expensive, inefficient and heavy so they do not get used. Gone is the standard "wall wart" transformer and the safety it provided. I am aware of how some switchers work and know that there are high frequency transformers in some designs, but as you indicate, they no longer isolate the device from the power connections.
Go back and watch the video... The guy with the "device" is just trying doors until he finds one unlocked... At least that's what it looks like to me. No magical device..
Slashdot Mirror
Asserting your rights to remain silent or refuse to be searched are probable cause in and of themselves.
>
Not really. You just force them to obtain a search warrant if they really think you need to be searched. Probable cause means that they reasonably expect that there is evidence of a crime being committed based on what they already have observed. Refusal to consent to a search is not probable cause of anything, neither is refusing to answer questions.
If the police show up at your door and ask to come in, you always say "no." They want to search your car during a traffic stop, you say "no." Don't open your trunk or glove box if they ask. Never offer to show them anything or let them look around. Be polite, but the answer is "no." If they want to ask you questions, it's up to you but if you have *anything* to hide, I'd recommend you decline. Make them get the warrant if they insist and if they have a reason, a judge will grant the warrant.
After thinking about it, you are correct. There will be a minimum detectable angle.
Yea, but they will just start on refresh rates then.. Followed by 3D?
It is not close to the end.. ;)
It's pretty darn close. Although, I think your point should be that this only assumes there is ONE observation point and ONE observer. Often this is not true, because there may be multiple people. Also, a standard 3D representation using 2 x 2D images also will assume a fixed distance between the eyes, while actual distance may vary between people and the orientation of their head. Plenty of room for innovation here.
My point being, even if you can see it, having more resolution is not necessarily a good thing.
But you always have the "My screen resolution is better than yours" crowd that will fall for the device with the better specs in droves so you can bet device makers will be designing and building resolutions that you and I can't ever hope to see.
But one should be careful to note that the issue is pixels per inch and not overall resolution here. 720P might be overkill on a 2" screen, but it might be way too low for the latest movie theater screen. Even at the best PPI you can see, the next frontier will be refresh rates (Although, going much past 120 FPS is totally overkill.. )
Personally I really *hate* watching blue ray movies in full resolution. Usually the material just looks cheesy to me, where you can see the boundaries of the CGI sequences, makeup smudges on the actors, obvious short cuts on the set construction and all kinds of things that just are not right. It actually makes it more difficult for me to suspend reality long enough to enjoy the movie. Of course, being an old projectionist from years ago makes me sensitive to vestiges of bad editing, splices, reel changes and queue marks which also distract me.
Many of these carriers are mandating their pilots to use automation, so the ILS being turned off is a major issue, regardless of them having 250 hours in a SEP/MEP.
You do realize that *nobody* is going to be flying a 777 with 250 hours right? (Well, unless you actually own it and don't fly commercially, but you will still need a type rating and check ride for anything over 12,000 lbs). You need 1500 hours to get your ATP, plus if you are flying a 777 you will need to pass a check ride in type that demonstrates that you can safely operate the aircraft type. Check rides and training are recurring requirements for as long as you fly that type.
In order to get to fly a 777 on international routes you will also have to first get hired by an airline that has international routes, then have enough seniority to get assigned to the route. Being that international routes are strongly desired positions by pilots, only the most experienced will get hired, and only the best of them will get assigned the highly regarded international routes. Every body in that cockpit had a minimum of 2500 hours, most had many times that. Any ONE of these guys could and should have been able to land sans automation.
Besides, the fact that the ILS was out of service was well known. Likely there was a NOTAM that the crew would have seen during their flight planning, it was likely noted on ATIS and/or mentioned by approach control. ILS procedures require that you listen to and verify the station identifier, which is only sent when the ILS is in full service. I usually have the localizer audio in my headset during an ILS approach so I can hear the ID every few seconds. There are multiple layers of checks on this too. There was no way they expected to use ILS.
The lack of ILS service should have not been an issue or even a factor here.
Civic duty? Um... Are you suggesting that laws that govern Taxi/Limos in San Francisco are "unjust" ?
I think that civil disobedience is over practiced and under justified as a rule. My point is that if you disobey the law, you should be ready to accept the punishment that comes from disobeying the law. If it is worth it to you, and you think it helps you make your point, go ahead and get arrested. If the law is unjust, and you got arrested for violating it, you then have standing to appeal and get the law ruled unjust by the courts. But I would suggest that you petition your elected representatives to get the "unjust" law changed first. It might save you and the police a lot of trouble.
Out civic duty is to get unjust laws changed. Civil disobedience is at the bottom of the "things to try first" when trying to get a law changed, at the very bottom.
I don't agree, mainly because your line is not a clear one, where mine is. If you are making a profit, clearly it's a business, friends in the seats or not.
If you intend to protest a law by breaking it, you had better be ready for the fines and/or jail time that come your way. Remember, in a civil society we have the right to ask for the law to be changed, peacefully protest until they get changed and vote for those who will change them, but we don't have the right to break laws we don't agree with.
If somebody is getting paid to pickup and/or drop off folks at the airport, they are in business. If you are in business, you are subject to the rules and regulations that apply to the business. If you are dropping off or picking up a friend and not doing this for money but for your friend, you are NOT in business, even if your friend is covering your expenses.
The dividing line is if you are making a profit or being paid for your time.
SO... If you are trolling around the airport or online in hopes of finding somebody who will pay you more than what it costs you to haul them someplace, you are in business and should be in compliance with all laws for that business. If you are just offering to share an empty seat for a share of expenses, you are NOT running a business and don't need to worry about it.
Now how anybody would KNOW you where making a profit or not is the question. The issue at SFO is that some "operators" are trying to profit from the online crowd sourced ride share aps and have pushed far enough to make it way to obvious what they are doing. So obvious in fact that the Taxi driver waiting for his fares has started to complain about the same car showing up at the airport multiple times a day for days on end, picking up and dropping off passengers.
It seems that somebody was running a business, complete with having distinctive markings on their cars so folks could recognize them, but they where NOT complying with the rules that governed the Taxi/Limo business. Where I admire their capitalist efforts, the laws are what they are and you need to follow them even if you don't like them.
Now this citizen's arrest thing is just wacky, but You don't want to tick off the Taxi drivers you fools... If you'd just kept it low key and low volume it might have gone unnoticed, but you are no longer under the radar. Time to comply with the law or stop.
Not really. There are good reasons to encrypt, you just have to understand them.
The main thing you need to realize is that encrypting something only delays the disclosure of the data. It may take a LONG time to try all the available keys, but eventually a brute force attack will be successful. Of course, if it's going to average 100 years of effort, it may not be worth it to the attacker, or it may not matter what you bank account balance was by then.
Like I said... This is pilot error. The question is where there any contributing factors. Seems there was, but the ILS being disabled is unlikely to be in the list. I think the ATC procedure that leads to unstable approaches is an issue. That the approach is over water, is a contributing factor... I just don't get how the ILS being out of service is going to be a factor here. Your air mileage may vary so we will have to wait for the NTSB to issue their report.
You are technically correct. The runway was equipped with PAPI... However..
VASI and PAPI are there for the same purpose. PAPI offers a bit more visual information to the pilot than VASI. PAPI provides for multiple approach angles where VASI is only going to get you one. But my point remains the same. There are multiple layers of visual cues provided for the pilot to assist in flying visual approaches.
ILS approaches take time. You have to set up to intercept the final fix at a specified altitude with the aircraft flying the right direction on the localizer. This final fix is usually about 5 miles out and 3,000 AGL. Flying a full standard ILS approach is not normally done because it takes at least 5 min to establish on the localizer going outbound, Cross the outer marker, do the outbound leg and procedure turn to get yourself on the localizer and glide-slope before you cross the outer marker again. Even a "radar assisted" approach takes 3 or so min to get you on the localizer and glide-slope at a set altitude over the outer marker.
Why do I go though all this? To tell you that turning off the ILS on a clear day is not a factor here. They simply do NOT fly ILS approaches on clear days at busy airports. Nobody has the time. They fly visual approaches almost exclusively because it's faster and easier. They may have the ILS approach configured and may actually look at the needles during the approach, but if you are flying visual approaches, you spend more time looking out the window.
ATP pilots are usually quite capable of flying their aircraft in very difficult circumstances. The experience and training required to be rated in a large commercial aircraft are pretty high. The folks who meet these requirements are fully capable of flying with or without the automation and must demonstrate their abilities before they are allowed to sit in the cockpit. Flying visual approaches without automation (ILS or otherwise) is not a problem for these guys. Some are better than others at this, but everybody can. It's basically how everybody starts learning how to fly. Small single engine land aircraft fly these kinds of approaches nearly every time and most pilots learn to fly in single engine aircraft.
What is a problem is that ATC many times asks pilots to do really dangerous things. Flying short, steep and unstabilized approaches makes automation pretty much useless. Given this new revelation, it seem to me that ATC procedures contributed to this accident. I don't think that we have a case where dependance on automation is a problem. What we have is ATC asking pilots to do dangerous things when low and slow. This accident isn't about the ILS being turned off. The weather was clear, nobody would have used the ILS had it been on anyway.
This tells me that ATC was engaged in a "hurry up you guys" approach processing. Seems likely that the controller was pushing to maintain spacing and make the best use of the limited runway. This lead to controllers creating difficult flying conditions by not getting aircraft lined up well and entering final approaches far enough out, or not allowing for speed and altitude reductions far enough in advance. This makes it extremely difficult to get a large aircraft into landing configuration on a stabilized approach. As a pilot of a large commercial aircraft, there are a LOT of things to get done and checked before you put the wheels on the ground. This process takes time and space. Apparently ATC wasn't giving pilots enough time and space if there are multiple pilots having to conduct missed approaches for being too low.
ILS approaches take *TIME* to do, even with a radar assisted approach fix. They where NOT in a situation where they would or could do even a quick ILS approach. During the daytime in reasonable visibility, they simply don't do ILS approaches because they are time consuming. You have to find the In this case, nobody was looking at the ILS, ATC was apparently pushing everybody to shoot short visual approaches which where steep and not stabilized. Had they been doing even what I call a "Quickie" ILS (where ATC gives you radar vectors to the outer marker/approach fix) They would have entered their final approach nearly 5 miles out at 3,000 AGL at a minimum. Chances are good they could have reconfigured the aircraft and stabilized the approach given the time required to fly 5 miles at 140 Knots.
So, this accident was pilot error with multiple contributing factors. One of those factors will likely be that ATC was pushing pilots into approaches that where starting too high and fast. Another will be that the pilot didn't recognize the unstable approach, got too low and too slow to recover. He flew his aircraft into the ground. The only question I have is about any unexplained mechanical issues. There are cases where ice in the fuel has caused the failure to throttle up when commanded, leading to landing short. (See BA Flt 38 crash) My guess is that we won't find any mechanical issues, just pilot error with ATC contributing by shortening the approach profiles too much to be safe.
To be further in tune with the facts here.... There are more approach aids than the ILS. Safety in aviation is layered and in the case of approach aids there are at least three more ways a pilot should be able to use to judge his approach and correct. There are the VASI lights which tell you if you are too high or low. There are the markings on the runway, which are of standard sizes and locations which aid the pilot who is looking out the windows. Then there is the "visual picture" that the pilot will have seen many times before when landing, even if only in the simulator.
Any of these *should* have been enough to safely land.
My guess is that what really happened here is a combination of ATC directions and pilot errors. ATC likely directed a short approach which started pretty high making it difficult for the pilots to properly stabilize the approach. The inexperience of the pilot in command contributed to the issue because it took him longer to make all the complex adjustments, get the gear down, flaps down, get on the glide path at the proper airspeed and complete the landing checklists and he lacked experience to recognize what was happening. The PIC got behind the aircraft and by the time they realized the sink rate was way to high they where to low and slow to recover. They landed way short.
This is an old story, told time and time again. A flying aircraft does not wait for the pilot who doesn't keep ahead of the situation. Landing and take off phase of flight are fast paced (compared to other phases) and also the least forgiving of falling behind. The PIC fell way behind and failed to fly the aircraft properly. He failed to recognize the danger and deal with the problem and was lucky to survive. In this case I don't think ILS wold have mattered.
I wonder how many folks have actually driven a manual transmission if they only make up 7% of sales. My guess is that the younger the driver is, the less likely they are to have actually driven one.
If you intend to venture out beyond sight of land, you really should take some means of navigation along. My minimum navigation equipment would depend on how far I was planning to go, but it would start with a compass, a watch and maps of the local coast. If you are crossing the ocean, you need to take along more and a sextant is a good idea.
Personally, I think that it would be good practice to require that mariners crossing international waters be required to fix their positions using non-electronic means every few hours and then explain any differences between what the GPS says and what they observed. It's also a good idea to plot these positions on a paper map, just because you never know when the GPS is going to die and you will get left trying to find your way home.
But you can't fix stupid.... Folks are free to run out to international waters in a row boat without life jackets in the middle of a tropical storm. Just like they are free to depend on a battery operated electronic device as their sole means of navigation.
I tease my kids that their kids will not know how to drive a car. .
Yep, bet they have never seen a manual transmission too.
You know the best theft protection these days is a clutch..
I'd call it something else. Reliance on GPS alone is more than just unsafe, it's foolish and stupid.
I thought that ships "captains" where licensed, and as part of that was a demonstration of basic navigation techniques using maps, a watch, sextant and some charts. Consider even your EYES as a navigation tool if you are following a series of markers out of port.
Hooking up the auto pilot to the GPS and hitting "go" while you head off to the aft deck for a party is just plain dumb.... Trusting your GPS to get you someplace and not having any other way to figure out where you are is going to get you shipwrecked eventually.
And then there are international waters where you can do such things anyway.
Um, if the ship was flagged in the US, I believe that the FCC still has a say about what goes on even in international waters. At the very least the ITU might think it has some jurisdiction over the jamming/changing of GPS frequencies. Nobody may care, but they could legally do something if they did.
True... One would assume then that the density of the data would be much higher (more bits in the same length as well as more tracks per disk), so if we are looking at the same physical limits on the spindle speeds, would not the data rates go up?
Also, be careful because SATA III maxes out at 6 GigaBITS per second (3.1) with 8 Gigabits in the pipeline. 300 Gigabytes would take something like 400 seconds (under 10 min) at the maximum sustained transfer rate.
I'm just guessing, but it seems likely that 300 Gigabytes would still take generally the same amount of time as any other optical media to fully write. Assuming the limit was the speed at which the media comes apart and not something else in the process.
time warner doesn't have a bandwidth cap, at least not in NYC for most plans
Perhaps there are no caps that you *know* about, but there are bandwidth limits that will "cap" the observed speed. I think what you are talking about (but not referring too correctly) is transfer caps. This is a limit on the amount you can download (or upload) in a month, or more accurately what you "transfer". They may be advertising "no limits on transfer" but you can bet there are bandwidth limits of some kind. If nothing else, the hardware will limit you.
All the above being said, I don't expect Time Warner would look to kindly on a customer who was utilizing their full available bandwidth for extended periods. You start transfering Gigabytes per hour and they will start taking a very close look at you. You can bet that they will find some reason to TOS you or throttle your access if you start to present a problem to their network. There may not be advertised limits, but there ARE limits, make no mistake about that.
This is even more true for modern "switching" supply designs which don't make use of a transformer to step down the voltage.
Actually they do. While you can design switchers without a transformer they provide basically no isolation at all and afaict are not used in mains power supply applications. Your typical switched mode mains power supply uses a high frequency transformer both as the reactive component in the switcher and an isolation device.
Still there are cetainly more components crossing the "safety boundary" than in a traditional transformer based power supply. If any of those components are skimped on you have a potentially dangerous device.
My point was that the mains isolation afforded by a step down transformer is no longer a given fact. In fact, it's unlikely. Large inductors are expensive, inefficient and heavy so they do not get used. Gone is the standard "wall wart" transformer and the safety it provided. I am aware of how some switchers work and know that there are high frequency transformers in some designs, but as you indicate, they no longer isolate the device from the power connections.
Go back and watch the video... The guy with the "device" is just trying doors until he finds one unlocked... At least that's what it looks like to me. No magical device..