But at least it's thin! And shiny!
If you buy Apple you deserve everything you get. "Apple - for people who don't understand what's inside their computer."
How many Apple PC/laptop owners understand how a computer works, and what components are actually inside one? I bet it's far fewer than PC owners.
Charters are going to take pilots that have turbine time and are type rated. FEW charter companies will touch you under 3,000 hours, and none will foot the bill for type ratings or check rides until you actually are their employee. That's on you. You *might* get some time flying specialized cargo or short passenger runs, but that's not going to be a regular paying job. Being a CFI would be much better for that, but that means you have to find a bunch of students with money, and all those PIC hours will mostly be single engine non-complex.
Flying piston aircraft for charters or cargo is a low probability because there simply isn't enough of that kind of thing going on here in the states. Nobody flies piston aircraft for cargo or charter, not anymore. Turbine gigs for cargo are even more limited. Why? FedX requires an ATP rating, UPS is similar and they fly nearly ALL the freight out there now.
Flying banners is an option, but there are not that many hours available for that as there are few places where this happens much. Where I live, they fly banners about 2 months out of the year because of the weather. Competition for these hours is going to be fierce because there are a LOT of guys with 500 hours dying to get PIC hours for free.
All in all, it's *really* hard to get enough PIC time without significant amounts of debt.
Personally, I think Airlines would be advised to supplement such business activities to get pilots enough hours to get their ratings, say supplement cargo businesses for low volume and unusual routes. Maybe they could supplement flight training schools or individual students and build a feeder program designed to get pilots hours built up at less cost to the students. Maybe provide promising pilots other working positions with suitable hours and access to low cost flight schools to allow them to quickly build hours and move into meaningful flying work sooner and faster.
Multi-engine is double that. $100 is a small single engine non-complex aircraft, with fuel and oil. For your 1500 hours you need complex and multi engine time ($200/hour or so), preferably even turbine time ($1k/hour or more). Then there is the instructor cost, which I'm sure is over $80/hour these days.
My calculations on the back of the envelope tell me you will be out a quarter of a million paying for flight time, offset some if you get your CFI and can get some of that time paid for by your students and make $80/hour to eat off of.
It's going to take a LONG time to pay back a quarter of a million dollars on a pilot's pay.
why train when they can get an 100K student loan to cover it.
100K isn't going to get you enough flight time to fly charters and is only a drop in the bucket towards the 1500 minimum hours to be an ATP. Especially when a small twin engine is going to run you $150+/hour and a flight instructor another $80. It's going to take YEARS to accrue enough flight time and at least $300K in flying expenses.
By my rough calculations you will blow a quarter of a million dollars in flight time and at least 5 years of living time before you can manage to land a charter pilot gig at about 800 hours. Then, it will take you another 5 years of being a busy charter pilot to get you near 1,500 hours, but you will be destitute trying to service your debt on that salary. Once you get to 1,500, you have the option of taking a ATP job with a feeder airline, flying awful routes in shoddy old aircraft for another 5-10 years before you can land a job at one of the majors, with 15 years experience and about 3,000 hours of time.
The pilot gig is not a comfortable one. You got to really love what you do to live like a pauper working the night shift away from home until you are 35 or older.
Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.
I know, that's crazy talk.
Paying more would help, but not enough. It's nearly impossible to get trained and enough flight time when you have to borrow to pay for it. Even getting enough PIC time to fly small cargo routes is nearly impossible, and that is just the first step.
I know of a service that flies banners near where I live. They require you have nearly 500 hours and a commercial rating just to do that part time. Even flying charters takes more time than that, and YOU will be paying for your type rating and minimum hours.
To be an ATP you have to have 1,500 hours of experience, most in complex multi-engine aircraft to even THINK about getting an airline transport job with one of the tiny commuter/feeder airlines. It's really hard to get that many hours when you have to pay for fuel and aircraft maintenance and can amount to hundreds of thousands in debt, and/or have you flying for overseas carriers who still require 700-800 hours of experience and barely pay enough to be able to eat. After 5 years of dangerous jungle flying, you might have a chance to move in to a commuter aircraft, working hard flying garbage routes making peanuts.
Personally, I think the resourceful airline would put these young pilots who lack the necessary hours into some kind of program that allows them to gain flight time, have benefits and eat. Maybe let them be gate agents, or load baggage during the day and earning flight time on their days off. As they get flight experience and training at company expense, they commit to longer and longer employment contacts. They would then establish a path for aspiring pilots to get their training, obtain the necessary experience and start working without having to acquire huge amounts of debt.
Industrial machines wear out and need to be repaired or replaced on a regular basis. This kind of thing MUST be planned for when putting up other power generation systems, why wasn't it for windmills?
In the case of these windmills, they have a lot of hazardous materials inside them, lubrication oils and such that simply cannot be left. They also are huge structures that just cannot be left on their own, structures made of recoverable metal and a LOT of fiberglass. They SHOULD be recycled, but the problem is nobody saved up money for this and they are not worth enough in materials to cover the tear down costs. This is not some coal industry myth, this is fact.
So, how do you think you get rid of those blades and generator housings made of fiberglass? Just chuck them into landfills? Fiberglas is a serious problem as it's not recyclable.
How Al was wrong...Read it and weep. Oh I know what's coming next... But you cannot believe everything you read on the internet.... Careful, because I can say that too..;)
All conspiracy theories, worthy of scorn... The oil companies have sanctioned many studies w/o conditions, actual science was done. And it was mostly the automobile industry that was pushing back on CAFEE standards, not the oil industry...
Look, the "evidence" is not actually as one sided on this debate as you may think. There is a whole lot of obfuscation being done on BOTH sides of this for various political and economic reasons.
Just look at the dire predictions from 10 years ago. There is a pile of "We are sure X will happen in 10 years" statements which didn't pan out. Much of that was alarmist claptrap, or, as in the case of Al Gore, a way to make money, fist on the movie then on Carbon Offset Credits.
One must be careful not to put on the tin foil hat folded by either side in this. Why? Because the truth is someplace between Al Gore's Inconvenient truth and the 1970's fear of "global cooling".
A clear preponderance of scientific research refutes your opinion. No one will censor your for your opinion, but when your facts are clearly and undeniably bad, indeed you may get modded down.
Excellent point, not that I agree with your option of the evidence we have, there certainly are a lot of folks making the claim that it's clear and that does justify getting modded down.
The petrochemical/oil industry's clear mandate is to not be sued or cited as a decent part of the problem.
Then you make a absolutely stupid statement... So the Oil industry doesn't have any valid facts to add to this discussion? Of all the industries, they are obviously one of the few interested parties and have likely funded a LOT of science on this. They may have an agenda in this, but you really cannot just toss anything that has an agenda because if you have that right, so do I...
It's essentially a third world country, though a territory of the US. An interesting third world country, and I liked many of the people.
Their odd state of limbo is not really our fault, unless you want to fault us for not being more authoritarian with them, which I doubt.
There isn't even a Navy base there anymore, which was pretty much the only reason they are a US territory. It had to go, because we are such evil imperialists, ya know.
I've never been to PR but I HAVE been to third world countries. From what I can glean about PR, it isn't even *close* to third world. Haiti, now THAT'S third world.
ESpend part of the money saved on subsidizing clean energy, whether it be wind, solar, or (yes!) nuclear. Put all the out-of-work coalies to work building and repairing clean-energy infrastructure.
After reading the article... I'm wondering if you got the point. Taking down those obsolete windmills to clean up the mess is expensive...
There is no such thing as "clean energy". All of it has an environmental impact of some kind.
He keeps saying that... Again and Again... He said it LAST time he charged a pile of Russians.
Honest brokers of the facts *should* include this disclaimer any time they start talking about what these charges mean. If they don't, they are ignorant of all the facts, or purposely being misleading. In the first case, they need to check their sources and use better ones. I the second case, they need to be dismissed as the partisan hacks they are.
So the DNC has now given up the server(s) for inspection that they once refused to let the FBI have and the FBI declined to force?
From this side of the Muller investigation, it's pretty hard to draw conclusions on this question. We don't know if it was surrendered to inspection under duress or willingly or if it was even looked at by Muller's team or not.
All we have is the charges which indicates that the grand jury has seen enough evidence to, in their judgment, believe that a crime MAY have been committed by the persons/entities being charged. We have no idea what that evidence is.
They should be able to make this a 3D color X-ray by using two or more exposures at different power settings. There are applications that such a thing would be superior to MRI.
Except that MRI's do not relay in dangerous radiation like the X-Ray to produce their images and are much safer when used repeatedly as a result.
I'm all for new imaging technologies (CAT scans, X-Rays, MRI, Ultrasound, PET scans and more), each has it's proper use and place in medical diagnostic use, the more tool choices we have the better. However, I'm not looking to completely replace current MRI with something that depends on X-Ray's for imaging due to safety concerns..
We have ONE road that goes, north, south, east and west if you drive all of it in one direction (no U-Turns). It would take you hours. This road passes though nearly a dozen towns, each having their own block numbers. The road is named "Beltline" and it completely circles Dallas. So "101 North Beltline" is the address of multiple places.
Then, we have roads like I-35 East and I-35 West which are different roads that run north and south or the 190/George Bush Turnpike which runs north-south, then east-west before going north-south again.
We have some of the most confusing interchanges I've ever seen too, where five major highways converge just south west of down town. And the highest interchange I've seen that has 5 levels of roadways where one of the ramps takes you nearly 20 stories up from the nearly pancake flat ground.
All this in Texas where it seems the "speed limit" are but friendly suggestions for a minimum, and are set to 70 MPH for most major highways in town and 75 or more outside of population centers. And don't get me started on how we use service roads to put exits AFTER the bridge and merge into traffic BEFORE the bridge.
I got to say I agree, the media is quick to attach Trump, I'm defiantly right of center so I see this clearly... HOWEVER....
If you honestly review both sides of the spectrum here, neither has the corner of the market on factual reporting. At least SOME of the critique of the likes of Fox News is justified. This issue may be prevalent in the "liberal" media, but the "conservative" side isn't without it's similar practices...
Also, I think Trump invites this kind of thing with his incessant "fake news" tweets and I think it's on purpose. He drives the cycle and they willingly participate... It's like showing a red flag to a bull doing that kind of thing to the press. They charge him with something stupid or untrue, he tweets about it... Rinse lather and repeat. They both drive this cycle for their own reasons.
When a story breaks, it's often unclear what the facts are, and the reporting is subject to change. This is not unusual.
You are correct, it's not unusual. The problem though is it *should* be unusual, or at least rare if standard journalistic practices where being followed. Why is it customary to *verify* facts using multiple primary sources? Because if you do that, you won't get the actual facts wrong nearly as often.
So, let's all put on our big boy pants and call the media on this failure to do their jobs and chase the profits and prestige of being FIRST to print, to heck with verifying the fact cause we can just retract them with some corrections after we've driven our traffic numbers up. How do we hold them accountable? Stop reading their "breaking news" stories when they are getting it wrong regularly. Mark those sites that won't be responsible journalists and treat them as what they are, tabloids, gossip sites, (or dare I say it, "false news")
I said "blindly" following the diagnostic tree. Such trees MUST assume single faults or they would be impossible to write. Multiple faults can send the fault isolation down the wrong path and lead to ineffective repairs. In such cases I've seen multiple attempts to "fix" the issue multiple times using exactly the same repair as if doing the same thing twice in a row will fix it the second time. Forget looking at that connector you just removed, twice now...
Sometimes, the source of the issue is blatantly obvious if you step back and consider how the system works and what the problem report is saying and I've seen techs plodding down the diagnostic trees which obviously didn't matter. Oh hey, what's that black place on this connector mean? Or why did the breaker blow when that got plugged in? A bent pin maybe? No, I've got to walk down the whole diagnostic tree and only do that inspection when instructed.
In the military's case, at least for the aircraft I worked on, the goal was to get the aircraft to pass the BIT and address all the gripes that remain unchecked by the BIT... Or get that black box to pass the "GO" tests so we can throw it on the aircraft that's down waiting for that box...
I don't know much about commercial aircraft maintenance, but I imagine that the issue is following the procedures outlined by the manufacturer for determining if a part is serviceable and following the recommended replacement procedures. I don't see how fault isolation needs a "you have to diagnose the issue this way" process that's required by regulations (i.e. fault trees are not required to be followed). Fault trees are by nature error prone and full of holes in real life because they can only isolate faults assuming single failures. If failures only happened alone, that would be great, problem is faults often happen in groups, even unrelated faults.
You obviously are one of the ones who can think... I've run into flight line personnel who when though all the same schools you claim and came out not knowing how to measure current coming from a DC power supply on the test bench. I'm talking about folks who did the schools and completed their enlistments fixing airplanes. I've also been responsible for producing automated test equipment for squadrons to test avionics with. I can attest with assurance that if something requires a bit of thought and understanding by the flight line, they are unlikely to figure it out.
I've seen many cases where the fault trees clearly would have worked if followed and times where lacking understanding of what the callout was actually saying (say a short to ground fault) caused a pile of unnecessary stuff to get done when a bit of looking at the blackened traces and bent pins would have been in order. There truly are some idiots on the flight line who don't engage the brain and don't have enough experience to fix much of anything, though they've had all the necessary training to be qualified to throw black boxes at the aircraft until it happened to work.
I've also seen the good folks who actually understood what they where working on who could just about diagnose the problem by just standing next to the aircraft and watching the BIT run. I've seen these types tell me exactly what two connectors to pull off and which pins to check when specific failures happened.... Loved working with and training these guys/gals who had a clue and engaged their brains, but they where the exceptions.
Face it, military pay isn't all that competitive and the good technical folks out there are unlikely to accept the working conditions and risks that come with the job if industry is paying more for only 40 hours/week and little risk of not being home in your bed at night. It's not surprising that military maintenance people are not always top in their fields.
No offence to the military.. But they are not generally staffed with the cream of the crop down where things are getting fixed.
The standard joke for Military Aircraft goes like this.. They are designed by PHD's, Flown by college graduates, and maintained by high school dropouts.
I can tell you that the intelligence of your average flight line maintainer isn't going to be anything to write home about. Some of them can think, but most just blindly follow the diagnostic trees provided by the PHD's who built the system they are maintaining. And yes, I've dealt with this personally.
I worked at a company where the CFO insisted on having his own wireless access point in his office and refused to allow any kind of network encryption. He didn't even change the default SSID, just plugged the router into the wall, no keys, no passwords, nothing. His office was on the 5th floor and we where less than a block away from a MAJOR technical college's dorms so you can bet the students where more than able to connect any time.
The router was found by the network security folks and the port turned off at the switch, but the CFO pitched a fit when it stopped working and moving it to another drop didn't fix it. Had the network guys in his office being called on the carpet. Even after the risks where explained, he didn't care and demanded it be turned back on. So he got it back and the rest of us enjoyed free WiFi on our smart devices as it worked great from the coffee machine.
Slashdot Mirror
But at least it's thin! And shiny! If you buy Apple you deserve everything you get. "Apple - for people who don't understand what's inside their computer."
How many Apple PC/laptop owners understand how a computer works, and what components are actually inside one? I bet it's far fewer than PC owners.
It just works, albeit slower than it should..
Charters are going to take pilots that have turbine time and are type rated. FEW charter companies will touch you under 3,000 hours, and none will foot the bill for type ratings or check rides until you actually are their employee. That's on you. You *might* get some time flying specialized cargo or short passenger runs, but that's not going to be a regular paying job. Being a CFI would be much better for that, but that means you have to find a bunch of students with money, and all those PIC hours will mostly be single engine non-complex.
Flying piston aircraft for charters or cargo is a low probability because there simply isn't enough of that kind of thing going on here in the states. Nobody flies piston aircraft for cargo or charter, not anymore. Turbine gigs for cargo are even more limited. Why? FedX requires an ATP rating, UPS is similar and they fly nearly ALL the freight out there now.
Flying banners is an option, but there are not that many hours available for that as there are few places where this happens much. Where I live, they fly banners about 2 months out of the year because of the weather. Competition for these hours is going to be fierce because there are a LOT of guys with 500 hours dying to get PIC hours for free.
All in all, it's *really* hard to get enough PIC time without significant amounts of debt.
Personally, I think Airlines would be advised to supplement such business activities to get pilots enough hours to get their ratings, say supplement cargo businesses for low volume and unusual routes. Maybe they could supplement flight training schools or individual students and build a feeder program designed to get pilots hours built up at less cost to the students. Maybe provide promising pilots other working positions with suitable hours and access to low cost flight schools to allow them to quickly build hours and move into meaningful flying work sooner and faster.
Multi-engine is double that. $100 is a small single engine non-complex aircraft, with fuel and oil. For your 1500 hours you need complex and multi engine time ($200/hour or so), preferably even turbine time ($1k/hour or more). Then there is the instructor cost, which I'm sure is over $80/hour these days.
My calculations on the back of the envelope tell me you will be out a quarter of a million paying for flight time, offset some if you get your CFI and can get some of that time paid for by your students and make $80/hour to eat off of.
It's going to take a LONG time to pay back a quarter of a million dollars on a pilot's pay.
why train when they can get an 100K student loan to cover it.
100K isn't going to get you enough flight time to fly charters and is only a drop in the bucket towards the 1500 minimum hours to be an ATP. Especially when a small twin engine is going to run you $150+/hour and a flight instructor another $80. It's going to take YEARS to accrue enough flight time and at least $300K in flying expenses.
By my rough calculations you will blow a quarter of a million dollars in flight time and at least 5 years of living time before you can manage to land a charter pilot gig at about 800 hours. Then, it will take you another 5 years of being a busy charter pilot to get you near 1,500 hours, but you will be destitute trying to service your debt on that salary. Once you get to 1,500, you have the option of taking a ATP job with a feeder airline, flying awful routes in shoddy old aircraft for another 5-10 years before you can land a job at one of the majors, with 15 years experience and about 3,000 hours of time.
The pilot gig is not a comfortable one. You got to really love what you do to live like a pauper working the night shift away from home until you are 35 or older.
Here's a thought: they could try paying pilots decently, and giving them reasonable work schedules.
I know, that's crazy talk.
Paying more would help, but not enough. It's nearly impossible to get trained and enough flight time when you have to borrow to pay for it. Even getting enough PIC time to fly small cargo routes is nearly impossible, and that is just the first step.
I know of a service that flies banners near where I live. They require you have nearly 500 hours and a commercial rating just to do that part time. Even flying charters takes more time than that, and YOU will be paying for your type rating and minimum hours.
To be an ATP you have to have 1,500 hours of experience, most in complex multi-engine aircraft to even THINK about getting an airline transport job with one of the tiny commuter/feeder airlines. It's really hard to get that many hours when you have to pay for fuel and aircraft maintenance and can amount to hundreds of thousands in debt, and/or have you flying for overseas carriers who still require 700-800 hours of experience and barely pay enough to be able to eat. After 5 years of dangerous jungle flying, you might have a chance to move in to a commuter aircraft, working hard flying garbage routes making peanuts.
Personally, I think the resourceful airline would put these young pilots who lack the necessary hours into some kind of program that allows them to gain flight time, have benefits and eat. Maybe let them be gate agents, or load baggage during the day and earning flight time on their days off. As they get flight experience and training at company expense, they commit to longer and longer employment contacts. They would then establish a path for aspiring pilots to get their training, obtain the necessary experience and start working without having to acquire huge amounts of debt.
Really?
Industrial machines wear out and need to be repaired or replaced on a regular basis. This kind of thing MUST be planned for when putting up other power generation systems, why wasn't it for windmills?
In the case of these windmills, they have a lot of hazardous materials inside them, lubrication oils and such that simply cannot be left. They also are huge structures that just cannot be left on their own, structures made of recoverable metal and a LOT of fiberglass. They SHOULD be recycled, but the problem is nobody saved up money for this and they are not worth enough in materials to cover the tear down costs. This is not some coal industry myth, this is fact.
So, how do you think you get rid of those blades and generator housings made of fiberglass? Just chuck them into landfills? Fiberglas is a serious problem as it's not recyclable.
How Al was wrong...Read it and weep. Oh I know what's coming next... But you cannot believe everything you read on the internet.... Careful, because I can say that too.. ;)
All conspiracy theories, worthy of scorn... The oil companies have sanctioned many studies w/o conditions, actual science was done. And it was mostly the automobile industry that was pushing back on CAFEE standards, not the oil industry...
Look, the "evidence" is not actually as one sided on this debate as you may think. There is a whole lot of obfuscation being done on BOTH sides of this for various political and economic reasons.
Just look at the dire predictions from 10 years ago. There is a pile of "We are sure X will happen in 10 years" statements which didn't pan out. Much of that was alarmist claptrap, or, as in the case of Al Gore, a way to make money, fist on the movie then on Carbon Offset Credits.
One must be careful not to put on the tin foil hat folded by either side in this. Why? Because the truth is someplace between Al Gore's Inconvenient truth and the 1970's fear of "global cooling".
A clear preponderance of scientific research refutes your opinion. No one will censor your for your opinion, but when your facts are clearly and undeniably bad, indeed you may get modded down.
Excellent point, not that I agree with your option of the evidence we have, there certainly are a lot of folks making the claim that it's clear and that does justify getting modded down.
The petrochemical/oil industry's clear mandate is to not be sued or cited as a decent part of the problem.
Then you make a absolutely stupid statement... So the Oil industry doesn't have any valid facts to add to this discussion? Of all the industries, they are obviously one of the few interested parties and have likely funded a LOT of science on this. They may have an agenda in this, but you really cannot just toss anything that has an agenda because if you have that right, so do I...
Visited there many times.
It's essentially a third world country, though a territory of the US. An interesting third world country, and I liked many of the people.
Their odd state of limbo is not really our fault, unless you want to fault us for not being more authoritarian with them, which I doubt.
There isn't even a Navy base there anymore, which was pretty much the only reason they are a US territory. It had to go, because we are such evil imperialists, ya know.
I've never been to PR but I HAVE been to third world countries. From what I can glean about PR, it isn't even *close* to third world. Haiti, now THAT'S third world.
Money does not grow on trees.
But light poles do....
ESpend part of the money saved on subsidizing clean energy, whether it be wind, solar, or (yes!) nuclear. Put all the out-of-work coalies to work building and repairing clean-energy infrastructure.
After reading the article... I'm wondering if you got the point. Taking down those obsolete windmills to clean up the mess is expensive...
There is no such thing as "clean energy". All of it has an environmental impact of some kind.
He keeps saying that... Again and Again... He said it LAST time he charged a pile of Russians.
Honest brokers of the facts *should* include this disclaimer any time they start talking about what these charges mean. If they don't, they are ignorant of all the facts, or purposely being misleading. In the first case, they need to check their sources and use better ones. I the second case, they need to be dismissed as the partisan hacks they are.
So the DNC has now given up the server(s) for inspection that they once refused to let the FBI have and the FBI declined to force?
From this side of the Muller investigation, it's pretty hard to draw conclusions on this question. We don't know if it was surrendered to inspection under duress or willingly or if it was even looked at by Muller's team or not.
All we have is the charges which indicates that the grand jury has seen enough evidence to, in their judgment, believe that a crime MAY have been committed by the persons/entities being charged. We have no idea what that evidence is.
They should be able to make this a 3D color X-ray by using two or more exposures at different power settings. There are applications that such a thing would be superior to MRI.
Except that MRI's do not relay in dangerous radiation like the X-Ray to produce their images and are much safer when used repeatedly as a result.
I'm all for new imaging technologies (CAT scans, X-Rays, MRI, Ultrasound, PET scans and more), each has it's proper use and place in medical diagnostic use, the more tool choices we have the better. However, I'm not looking to completely replace current MRI with something that depends on X-Ray's for imaging due to safety concerns..
That's nothing.... You should see Dallas..
We have ONE road that goes, north, south, east and west if you drive all of it in one direction (no U-Turns). It would take you hours. This road passes though nearly a dozen towns, each having their own block numbers. The road is named "Beltline" and it completely circles Dallas. So "101 North Beltline" is the address of multiple places.
Then, we have roads like I-35 East and I-35 West which are different roads that run north and south or the 190/George Bush Turnpike which runs north-south, then east-west before going north-south again.
We have some of the most confusing interchanges I've ever seen too, where five major highways converge just south west of down town. And the highest interchange I've seen that has 5 levels of roadways where one of the ramps takes you nearly 20 stories up from the nearly pancake flat ground.
All this in Texas where it seems the "speed limit" are but friendly suggestions for a minimum, and are set to 70 MPH for most major highways in town and 75 or more outside of population centers. And don't get me started on how we use service roads to put exits AFTER the bridge and merge into traffic BEFORE the bridge.
Are soon parted. All you need is a good story and a slick prototype.
Ah.. Homophones.... Part of what makes English fun..
Your write! I new it two!
"Sow" they said "Wee new to. Wye waist thyme hear?
"For their's know weigh too sea awl en one seen.
This story was generated automatically, obviously. AI’s not perfect yet. Give it some time.
So we are using AI to find life now? Interesting...
I got to say I agree, the media is quick to attach Trump, I'm defiantly right of center so I see this clearly... HOWEVER....
If you honestly review both sides of the spectrum here, neither has the corner of the market on factual reporting. At least SOME of the critique of the likes of Fox News is justified. This issue may be prevalent in the "liberal" media, but the "conservative" side isn't without it's similar practices...
Also, I think Trump invites this kind of thing with his incessant "fake news" tweets and I think it's on purpose. He drives the cycle and they willingly participate... It's like showing a red flag to a bull doing that kind of thing to the press. They charge him with something stupid or untrue, he tweets about it... Rinse lather and repeat. They both drive this cycle for their own reasons.
When a story breaks, it's often unclear what the facts are, and the reporting is subject to change. This is not unusual.
You are correct, it's not unusual. The problem though is it *should* be unusual, or at least rare if standard journalistic practices where being followed. Why is it customary to *verify* facts using multiple primary sources? Because if you do that, you won't get the actual facts wrong nearly as often.
So, let's all put on our big boy pants and call the media on this failure to do their jobs and chase the profits and prestige of being FIRST to print, to heck with verifying the fact cause we can just retract them with some corrections after we've driven our traffic numbers up. How do we hold them accountable? Stop reading their "breaking news" stories when they are getting it wrong regularly. Mark those sites that won't be responsible journalists and treat them as what they are, tabloids, gossip sites, (or dare I say it, "false news")
I said "blindly" following the diagnostic tree. Such trees MUST assume single faults or they would be impossible to write. Multiple faults can send the fault isolation down the wrong path and lead to ineffective repairs. In such cases I've seen multiple attempts to "fix" the issue multiple times using exactly the same repair as if doing the same thing twice in a row will fix it the second time. Forget looking at that connector you just removed, twice now...
Sometimes, the source of the issue is blatantly obvious if you step back and consider how the system works and what the problem report is saying and I've seen techs plodding down the diagnostic trees which obviously didn't matter. Oh hey, what's that black place on this connector mean? Or why did the breaker blow when that got plugged in? A bent pin maybe? No, I've got to walk down the whole diagnostic tree and only do that inspection when instructed.
In the military's case, at least for the aircraft I worked on, the goal was to get the aircraft to pass the BIT and address all the gripes that remain unchecked by the BIT... Or get that black box to pass the "GO" tests so we can throw it on the aircraft that's down waiting for that box...
I don't know much about commercial aircraft maintenance, but I imagine that the issue is following the procedures outlined by the manufacturer for determining if a part is serviceable and following the recommended replacement procedures. I don't see how fault isolation needs a "you have to diagnose the issue this way" process that's required by regulations (i.e. fault trees are not required to be followed). Fault trees are by nature error prone and full of holes in real life because they can only isolate faults assuming single failures. If failures only happened alone, that would be great, problem is faults often happen in groups, even unrelated faults.
You obviously are one of the ones who can think... I've run into flight line personnel who when though all the same schools you claim and came out not knowing how to measure current coming from a DC power supply on the test bench. I'm talking about folks who did the schools and completed their enlistments fixing airplanes. I've also been responsible for producing automated test equipment for squadrons to test avionics with. I can attest with assurance that if something requires a bit of thought and understanding by the flight line, they are unlikely to figure it out.
I've seen many cases where the fault trees clearly would have worked if followed and times where lacking understanding of what the callout was actually saying (say a short to ground fault) caused a pile of unnecessary stuff to get done when a bit of looking at the blackened traces and bent pins would have been in order. There truly are some idiots on the flight line who don't engage the brain and don't have enough experience to fix much of anything, though they've had all the necessary training to be qualified to throw black boxes at the aircraft until it happened to work.
I've also seen the good folks who actually understood what they where working on who could just about diagnose the problem by just standing next to the aircraft and watching the BIT run. I've seen these types tell me exactly what two connectors to pull off and which pins to check when specific failures happened.... Loved working with and training these guys/gals who had a clue and engaged their brains, but they where the exceptions.
Face it, military pay isn't all that competitive and the good technical folks out there are unlikely to accept the working conditions and risks that come with the job if industry is paying more for only 40 hours/week and little risk of not being home in your bed at night. It's not surprising that military maintenance people are not always top in their fields.
No offence to the military.. But they are not generally staffed with the cream of the crop down where things are getting fixed.
The standard joke for Military Aircraft goes like this.. They are designed by PHD's, Flown by college graduates, and maintained by high school dropouts.
I can tell you that the intelligence of your average flight line maintainer isn't going to be anything to write home about. Some of them can think, but most just blindly follow the diagnostic trees provided by the PHD's who built the system they are maintaining. And yes, I've dealt with this personally.
NOT!
I worked at a company where the CFO insisted on having his own wireless access point in his office and refused to allow any kind of network encryption. He didn't even change the default SSID, just plugged the router into the wall, no keys, no passwords, nothing. His office was on the 5th floor and we where less than a block away from a MAJOR technical college's dorms so you can bet the students where more than able to connect any time.
The router was found by the network security folks and the port turned off at the switch, but the CFO pitched a fit when it stopped working and moving it to another drop didn't fix it. Had the network guys in his office being called on the carpet. Even after the risks where explained, he didn't care and demanded it be turned back on. So he got it back and the rest of us enjoyed free WiFi on our smart devices as it worked great from the coffee machine.
Stupid stuff happens everywhere.