Windows 2000 is not out of support. It is, in fact, still supported under the "Extended Support" model, where security fixes are still produced. It has left the mainstream support model where tech support was free. The difference between mainstream and extended is that you must pay for tech support calls instead of them being free.
According to this, Extended support doesn't end until July 13, 2010.
Alan Alda did a show several years ago on Scientific American Frontiers called "Cybersenses" where he featured a guy who also had an "artificial eye" implanted. It used 64 electrodes (if I remember correctly) and they were working on one that used 1024.
He was able to actually get enough information out of his that he could read letters printed on the wall of the building they were in. He also saw a "bright spot" when they went outside that turned out to be Alan's forehead.
Experimental craft and IFR don't really mix here though, can you fly IFR in experimental aircraft in the US?
Yes, we sure can. As long as the aircraft (and pilot) is properly equipped and checked out, then IFR operations are allowed.
However, with this type of vehicle, you don't need IFR... if the weather gets bad, just land and drive through it. (Heck, it would even be good for avoiding strong head winds.)
The Altair BASIC package WAS written by Microsoft, there is no evidence the suggests otherwise. If you have some, please post it. I'm not going to get in an argrument where you try to say I'm wrong and then show me no proof. There is no proof otherwise, in fact, all the evidence I've seen, including the source code, says otherwise. Line 560 - 600 list he authors and what routines they worked on, there are no other credits anywhere.
It is true that the BASIC language itself was published, there were even other versions that existed for the Altair even. But, that is not what is relavant. What is relavant and what I said all along is that Microsoft wrote 100% of that code for Altair BASIC, period. They also wrote the follow on versions of it was well. Nothing existed prior to that, so it HAD to be written by them. (Actually, they ran it on an emulator, which they also wrote, because they didn't even have the real hardware.)
My argument is not "disingenuous," it is fact and you haven't proven me wrong, period.
The exact statement that I responded to was "Microsoft was started with code purchased from others"
Just because someone copied the "functionality" of the program doesn't mean someone copied the "code" of the program. Lotus 123 and Excel are both spreadsheets, but how many lines of code do they share?
Microsoft's first product was Altair BASIC and they wrote 100% of the source. No code was purchased from somewhere else like the GP stated.
although he should have mentioned Microsoft was started with code purchased from others, not from code they created
Perhaps YOU should do your own research. Microsoft's first product was ALTAIR BASIC!!! It was written by Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Monte Davidoff (most of the work was actually done by Bill and Paul.) Not a single line of code was "purchased" from other companies or individuals.
Excuse me? I know very well what it means. Perhaps you missed it or are using your own definition as to what "Progress of Science" or "useful Arts" actually means. I don't use my own definition, I use the definition that was defined by the courts, which means any work that I've created (both literal and physical.)
A patent must be workable in order for it to be valid. You must clearly demonstrate in your patent application that the invention works, either by detailed explanation/drawings or optionally (at the request of the patent office) by a working model. Don't confuse what I did for what you think I did. I've personally worked my ass off for the last three years developing my idea into an actual product and building a company to produce and distribute it, thank you.
Your assertion that copyright is only doing two things, wellfare for authors and brick walls for free/almost free distribution models are simply modern side effects of the working system. Authors SHOULD have protection for their unique works, and just because YOU think it is wellfare, doesn't make it any less so. Secondly, free/almost free distribution models work perfectly as long as they do not step on the rights of those authors who don't want a free distribution model. If you don't like the fact that you can't take someone else's work and distribute it for free, that's just too bad, the system is designed to protect the author, not the consumer. You always have the option of coming up with your own unique works and distributing them for free, don't you?
You point about inventions that should fail just because you can't bring it to market is a fallacy as well, especially in this age. My invention happens to be a very high tech invention. In today's market conditions, it's next to impossible to get an idea like it funded so that development can occur to actually get it to market. I was lucky in my case, because I was able to fund it myself, however, most people are not in that case and WILL NEED external help to do it.
Licensing is a perfectly viable model so that these individuals can realize their dream of getting their invention into the market without their own (major) capital investments. What is so wrong with that? They still deserve their rewards for coming up with the unique idea. Normally, in this type of scenario the licensing fee is roughly about 5% gross for patents, which is not a problem to most companies who wish to utilize the invention, especially if it is a worthwhile invention. Just because someone doesn't have the money to bring the product to market doesn't make it a worthless invention.
I also think you're wrong about patents not allowing for innovation. In our case, we have a strong product pipeline simply because we see a point when competitors will figure out ways around our current patents. Any company who doesn't plan for that is just plain foolish. Our business plan has a product pipeline that is designed just so that we have a product launch available at a moment's notice when a competitor does pop up. In order to stay in business, we must stay two or three products ahead of our possible competition, it's that simple. I know some people are against corporations, like Microsoft, for example, for having huge patent portfolios, but that is the exact opposite of your argument. That large patent portfolio is proof that there are lots of new ideas. I know someone's response to that comment is going to be that they're not new ideas, but even if that were true for 95%, it still leaves a large number of new patent applications as valid new ideas. (I'm not saying that they are actually only 5% valid, I was just using it to make the point.)
I personally believe you are wrong. What difference is there between a software patent and a hardwware patent? An "invention" is simply a new way of doing something, regardless of the technology. Software patents seem to me to be new ways (read 'idea') of doing something. In addition, they are also "works" written by someone. So, it would seem that they are actually covered TWICE by the Constitution. As an invention and a work of art. (You might not consider some software art, but I have definetly seen some nice code over the years.)
BTW, my patent is not a software patent, it is a utility patent covering a new type of heads up display for small aircraft.
I'm not sure I understand you, my "Inspirational Moment" was when I came up with my idea, I'm certaintly not discounting it, as it is what led to everything else that followed.
In fact, that moment was truly great for me, and I will always cherish it as it was one of those moments that I shared with my late Father.
The story is simple, Dad and I were just admiring our handy work because we just completed his new media room and were watching the new plasma tv we had installed on the wall, when the idea hit me. I described it to him (he and I are both electrical engineers and airplane fanatics) and we bounced a couple of ideas around it. That was Thanksgiving day... the following day, I contacted an attorney and we started the process.
Today, I have a small company set up to manufacture and sell my invention and it is now begining to really take off.
It is such a shame to me that so many people don't even know the rights and freedoms granted in the United States Constitution.
The "exclusivity" that people get from the discovery of a new idea is guaranteed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's that simple. It simply boggles my mind to see so many people who try to discount that. It's there for a reason. Inventors discoveries rightfully should be controlled by the inventor (for a period of time, which is usually 20 years.) There are checks in place that allow others to use those discoveries if the primary inventor does not maintain his "rights" by notifiying the USPTO they wish to do so via maintetance fees. There are also avenues in place to allow the inventor to gain from that discovery via various licensing models.
And, yes, I am an inventor. I spent several years perfecting the technology I now have the patent on after my "inspirational moment" when I put two and two together. I also spent countless hours working on it trying to figure out all the ways in which my idea worked. I then filed the patent, disclosing all the vairous "embodiments" of my invention. If some of you got your ways, all that work and effort would not allow me to even recapture some of my investment.
Someone said it, if that work was allowed to be copied by others without compensation, I in effect, would have done their work for them providing them countless hours of free labor. THAT IS WHY THE CONSTITUTION HAS ARTICLE I SECTION 8!!!
Hanger space varies by location. I have one in Richmond, Indiana, that is $145 per month, with electric and an automatic door. In Cincy, they're about $350 per month without the electric.
Mechanics run about $65 per hour. By the way, ADs do not mean a forced maintentance schedule. Mandatory schedules are only for commercially used aircraft. Private planes only have the yearly anual "inspection" which does not require the work to be done. It's just an inspection to find problems or ones that may be developing. Now, some of those problems can be big and will require fixing to be airworthly, but the owner can "elect" not to perform some maintenance. Usually AD searches are done during the annual inspection process as well. Some are required and some simply add another item to check during the inspection process. Most small planes rarely have ADs to deal with, and even less have expensive ones.
Like I said in another message, I only budget $200 per month for expenses on my plane. The insurance costs me about $750 per year and I set back an additional $20 per hour for maintenance. But that is used mostly to fund a new (or rebuilt) engine every 15 years or so.
I do my own routine maintenance, like oil changes, etc.
Actually, it's what you make of it. You CAN leave your plane in the garage if you choose. There are several "trailerable" light aircraft on the market. You can also leave the plane at the airport for a monthly tiedown fee. My fee is currently $35 per month. My light plane (a Beechcraft Skipper) has to have an anual inspection every year at roughly $1000. Fuel is currently very high, in the ~$3.50 to $4.00 range. (Some places are higher due to taxes, etc.) But my plane gets better mileage than my pickup truck does.
If I budget about $200 per month, I can enjoy flying all year long. I don't consider that too expensive for a fun hobby.
Really? Crowded skys? When I'm flying, I only see other aircraft at or near airports. Most of the time, it's me and the wild blue yonder. As for the cost, I fly a Beechcraft Skipper. The plane cost less than my pickup truck, and my truck is a basic GMC model, not a fancy one. My plane get's better fuel mileage than my truck and can get me any place faster. You need to really look into general aviation to understand that it isn't a rich persons hobby, it's everybody's hobby. You can easily buy a plane for under $20,000. In fact, my last plane was a Cessna 150 which I bought for $14,000. Flying is only expensive if you make it expensive.
Those "false positives" are triggered because detection equipment is simply listening for anything broadcasting on 121.5mhz. If you actually listen to the signal, you can quite easily tell if it is a real signal or not becuase aircraft ELTs make a unique repeating tone, microwaves or other electronic devices do not.
Accidental triggers do happen, for example, from "aggressive" landings by student pilots, but they are not all that common. If one is triggered, they don't "run around trying to find the crashed plane" unless they actually can hear the correct signal. If they do, they will usually figure it out pretty quickly and turn if off. In all my years of flying, I've only seen two situations where CAP came looking for a triggered ELT, and both were at the local airport where someone accidently set their unit off. These occurance of these types of incidents would not change if they switched to the new units, because they'd still get set off and someone would still have to come check it out. It's would just make identification easier.
BTW, In our planes, we check our ELTs once a month to determine if they are in working order. We do this by triggering the ELT at the top of the hour (first five minutes) for no more than 3 tone cycles. We listen on our radio for the alert signal. If we hear it, we immediatly turn off the ELT test and set it back to it's normal "colision detection mode" which is triggered by a rapid deceleration event (aka crash.)
Actually, it is a big deal. How would you like to go buy your new car and after you get home find out that you needed to spend an additional 5-10% for no reason. The ELTs that we currently have on our aircraft work just fine. Having the satellites stop listening is the problem. The question is why? It's a software issue, nothing more, so why change it? Those satellites are sophisticated enough to listen to both frequencies and alert the appropraite personell when they detect the signal. It makes absolutely no sense why they would discontinue monitoring this important safety device. So what if it is not as accurate as the newer technology, that's a choice we make as owners. I don't fly in remote areas... in fact, most of my flights are withing 200 miles of Cincinnati, so if I go down, I'm within a few miles of a population center. CAP can use their ELT Locators to find me.
We don't need an additional "TAX." In the aviation world, we already pay through the nose for regulations and adding more is just complicating the burden. Once the price of the 406mhz units gets down to around the price of the 121.5mhz units, then the problem goes away. Right now, they cost 12x as much!
We were told never to do that, because it made starting a bitch - particularly when you'd burnt a big bite out of the exhaust valve.
Have you ever read the engine shut down procedure for an airplane?
Here is the Engine Shut Down procedure from my POH:
1. Parking Break - SET
2. Fuel Boost Pump - OFF
3. Electrical and Avionics Equipment - OFF
4. Throttle - 1000 RPM
5. Mixture - IDLE CUT-OFF
6. Magneto/Start Switch - OFF, after engine stops
7. Battery and Alternator Switches - OFF
8. Control Lock - INSTALL
9. Wheel Chocks - INSTALL
10. Parking Break - RELEASE
I've never burnt a piston or valve.
And that's why you leave it with the mags off and the prop bra on.
If you have fuel remaining in a cylinder, it can still ignite in a hot engine if the prop is turned, even with the Mags off! Doing both is a double check to prevent injury.
I've been flying for 24 years, and I know you were taught wrong.
Actually, the reason for the Light Sport Aircraft designation is the reduced certification of the aircraft, not the pilot. FAR Part 23 certified aircraft are a lot more expensive because of all the required paperwork and checks on the aircraft. Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) are much simpler aircraft and also have relaxed rules. They are just as airworthy, but the FAA doesn't certify them, they are certified by the manufacturer to a consensus standard (ASTM.) That allows companies like Terrafugia to produce aircraft that cost consideribly less, however, it does limit the performance and weight limits of the aircraft.
BTW, the Sport Plane certificate is not that limiting... it is far less restrictive than a recreational pilots license. It is basically the equivalent of a Day VFR pilots license with no distance restrictions. You can even enter controlled airspace if you have been endorsed for it. If you are already a private pilot, you can fly with those privelages as long as your not out of medical. If you decide, you can "downgrade" to the LSA simply by not renewing your medical... as long as you have a valid drivers license.
This is a great option for those pilots who think that they might not pass the medical, but are still able to fly.
The real question I have is, how can this thing meet LSA weight requirements and still meet highway safety standards. And assuming they can do that, what is normal road rash going to do for airworthiness?
Actually, it's quite easy to do with modern technology as long as you don't mind the higher cost. This "roadable aircraft" is actually designed with a carbon fiber monocoque structure like an Indy Race car. They can easily survive impacts of 150mph or more. This plane, by LSA Rules, is limited to 138mph.
Also, as for the "road rash" you speak of, their design incorporates several patented ideas that prevent that type of damage. For example, the forward and rear flight control surfaces are also the front and rear bumpers and can survive 2.5mph impacts like a regular car. They are deformable and will return to their designed shape within seconds... similar to the way memory foam matresses work. They also have clever "rub strips" along the top of the wing that will prevent door ding impacts from occuring.
The insurance companies for both auto and airplane are on board and have reviewed their design for just such occasions.
Slashdot Mirror
[FIXED]the cost of an hour's business at a Windmill is insignificant... next to the power of the force!
I hate it when someone doesn't finish a good quote!!! :-)
Bill
what John Wayne Bobbitt would do with this technology!!!
Bill
Windows 2000 is not out of support. It is, in fact, still supported under the "Extended Support" model, where security fixes are still produced. It has left the mainstream support model where tech support was free. The difference between mainstream and extended is that you must pay for tech support calls instead of them being free.
According to this, Extended support doesn't end until July 13, 2010.
Bill
"your app wouldn't be able to communicate delays and other issues."
Really... I'd think that the app would be the FIRST to communiate those issues if there is a rider on that particular train.
Bill
Alan Alda did a show several years ago on Scientific American Frontiers called "Cybersenses" where he featured a guy who also had an "artificial eye" implanted. It used 64 electrodes (if I remember correctly) and they were working on one that used 1024.
He was able to actually get enough information out of his that he could read letters printed on the wall of the building they were in. He also saw a "bright spot" when they went outside that turned out to be Alan's forehead.
Bill
Yep, it confused me too. Perhaps changing the title from "Jobs" to "jobs" would be appropriate here.
Bill
Experimental craft and IFR don't really mix here though, can you fly IFR in experimental aircraft in the US?
Yes, we sure can. As long as the aircraft (and pilot) is properly equipped and checked out, then IFR operations are allowed.
However, with this type of vehicle, you don't need IFR... if the weather gets bad, just land and drive through it. (Heck, it would even be good for avoiding strong head winds.)
Bill
The Altair BASIC package WAS written by Microsoft, there is no evidence the suggests otherwise. If you have some, please post it. I'm not going to get in an argrument where you try to say I'm wrong and then show me no proof. There is no proof otherwise, in fact, all the evidence I've seen, including the source code, says otherwise. Line 560 - 600 list he authors and what routines they worked on, there are no other credits anywhere.
It is true that the BASIC language itself was published, there were even other versions that existed for the Altair even. But, that is not what is relavant. What is relavant and what I said all along is that Microsoft wrote 100% of that code for Altair BASIC, period. They also wrote the follow on versions of it was well. Nothing existed prior to that, so it HAD to be written by them. (Actually, they ran it on an emulator, which they also wrote, because they didn't even have the real hardware.)
My argument is not "disingenuous," it is fact and you haven't proven me wrong, period.
Bill
The exact statement that I responded to was "Microsoft was started with code purchased from others"
Just because someone copied the "functionality" of the program doesn't mean someone copied the "code" of the program. Lotus 123 and Excel are both spreadsheets, but how many lines of code do they share?
Microsoft's first product was Altair BASIC and they wrote 100% of the source. No code was purchased from somewhere else like the GP stated.
Bill
although he should have mentioned Microsoft was started with code purchased from others, not from code they created
Perhaps YOU should do your own research. Microsoft's first product was ALTAIR BASIC!!! It was written by Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Monte Davidoff (most of the work was actually done by Bill and Paul.) Not a single line of code was "purchased" from other companies or individuals.
Bill
I clicked on the demo link, but all I saw was a big blue Q with a question mark in it. I'm not sure how that proves that it is not bullshit. ;-)
Bill
Excuse me? I know very well what it means. Perhaps you missed it or are using your own definition as to what "Progress of Science" or "useful Arts" actually means. I don't use my own definition, I use the definition that was defined by the courts, which means any work that I've created (both literal and physical.) A patent must be workable in order for it to be valid. You must clearly demonstrate in your patent application that the invention works, either by detailed explanation/drawings or optionally (at the request of the patent office) by a working model. Don't confuse what I did for what you think I did. I've personally worked my ass off for the last three years developing my idea into an actual product and building a company to produce and distribute it, thank you.
Your assertion that copyright is only doing two things, wellfare for authors and brick walls for free/almost free distribution models are simply modern side effects of the working system. Authors SHOULD have protection for their unique works, and just because YOU think it is wellfare, doesn't make it any less so. Secondly, free/almost free distribution models work perfectly as long as they do not step on the rights of those authors who don't want a free distribution model. If you don't like the fact that you can't take someone else's work and distribute it for free, that's just too bad, the system is designed to protect the author, not the consumer. You always have the option of coming up with your own unique works and distributing them for free, don't you?
You point about inventions that should fail just because you can't bring it to market is a fallacy as well, especially in this age. My invention happens to be a very high tech invention. In today's market conditions, it's next to impossible to get an idea like it funded so that development can occur to actually get it to market. I was lucky in my case, because I was able to fund it myself, however, most people are not in that case and WILL NEED external help to do it.
Licensing is a perfectly viable model so that these individuals can realize their dream of getting their invention into the market without their own (major) capital investments. What is so wrong with that? They still deserve their rewards for coming up with the unique idea. Normally, in this type of scenario the licensing fee is roughly about 5% gross for patents, which is not a problem to most companies who wish to utilize the invention, especially if it is a worthwhile invention. Just because someone doesn't have the money to bring the product to market doesn't make it a worthless invention.
I also think you're wrong about patents not allowing for innovation. In our case, we have a strong product pipeline simply because we see a point when competitors will figure out ways around our current patents. Any company who doesn't plan for that is just plain foolish. Our business plan has a product pipeline that is designed just so that we have a product launch available at a moment's notice when a competitor does pop up. In order to stay in business, we must stay two or three products ahead of our possible competition, it's that simple. I know some people are against corporations, like Microsoft, for example, for having huge patent portfolios, but that is the exact opposite of your argument. That large patent portfolio is proof that there are lots of new ideas. I know someone's response to that comment is going to be that they're not new ideas, but even if that were true for 95%, it still leaves a large number of new patent applications as valid new ideas. (I'm not saying that they are actually only 5% valid, I was just using it to make the point.)
Bill
Fantastic... not many of today's kids would understand that reference! Thanks for the memory!
Makes me wish modern cereal boxes had good toys like back then!!!
Bill
I personally believe you are wrong. What difference is there between a software patent and a hardwware patent? An "invention" is simply a new way of doing something, regardless of the technology. Software patents seem to me to be new ways (read 'idea') of doing something. In addition, they are also "works" written by someone. So, it would seem that they are actually covered TWICE by the Constitution. As an invention and a work of art. (You might not consider some software art, but I have definetly seen some nice code over the years.)
BTW, my patent is not a software patent, it is a utility patent covering a new type of heads up display for small aircraft.
Bill
I'm not sure I understand you, my "Inspirational Moment" was when I came up with my idea, I'm certaintly not discounting it, as it is what led to everything else that followed.
In fact, that moment was truly great for me, and I will always cherish it as it was one of those moments that I shared with my late Father.
The story is simple, Dad and I were just admiring our handy work because we just completed his new media room and were watching the new plasma tv we had installed on the wall, when the idea hit me. I described it to him (he and I are both electrical engineers and airplane fanatics) and we bounced a couple of ideas around it. That was Thanksgiving day... the following day, I contacted an attorney and we started the process.
Today, I have a small company set up to manufacture and sell my invention and it is now begining to really take off.
Bill
It is such a shame to me that so many people don't even know the rights and freedoms granted in the United States Constitution.
The "exclusivity" that people get from the discovery of a new idea is guaranteed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It's that simple. It simply boggles my mind to see so many people who try to discount that. It's there for a reason. Inventors discoveries rightfully should be controlled by the inventor (for a period of time, which is usually 20 years.) There are checks in place that allow others to use those discoveries if the primary inventor does not maintain his "rights" by notifiying the USPTO they wish to do so via maintetance fees. There are also avenues in place to allow the inventor to gain from that discovery via various licensing models.
And, yes, I am an inventor. I spent several years perfecting the technology I now have the patent on after my "inspirational moment" when I put two and two together. I also spent countless hours working on it trying to figure out all the ways in which my idea worked. I then filed the patent, disclosing all the vairous "embodiments" of my invention. If some of you got your ways, all that work and effort would not allow me to even recapture some of my investment.
Someone said it, if that work was allowed to be copied by others without compensation, I in effect, would have done their work for them providing them countless hours of free labor. THAT IS WHY THE CONSTITUTION HAS ARTICLE I SECTION 8!!!
Bill
Hanger space varies by location. I have one in Richmond, Indiana, that is $145 per month, with electric and an automatic door. In Cincy, they're about $350 per month without the electric.
Mechanics run about $65 per hour. By the way, ADs do not mean a forced maintentance schedule. Mandatory schedules are only for commercially used aircraft. Private planes only have the yearly anual "inspection" which does not require the work to be done. It's just an inspection to find problems or ones that may be developing. Now, some of those problems can be big and will require fixing to be airworthly, but the owner can "elect" not to perform some maintenance. Usually AD searches are done during the annual inspection process as well. Some are required and some simply add another item to check during the inspection process. Most small planes rarely have ADs to deal with, and even less have expensive ones.
Like I said in another message, I only budget $200 per month for expenses on my plane. The insurance costs me about $750 per year and I set back an additional $20 per hour for maintenance. But that is used mostly to fund a new (or rebuilt) engine every 15 years or so.
I do my own routine maintenance, like oil changes, etc.
Bill
Actually, it's what you make of it. You CAN leave your plane in the garage if you choose. There are several "trailerable" light aircraft on the market. You can also leave the plane at the airport for a monthly tiedown fee. My fee is currently $35 per month. My light plane (a Beechcraft Skipper) has to have an anual inspection every year at roughly $1000. Fuel is currently very high, in the ~$3.50 to $4.00 range. (Some places are higher due to taxes, etc.) But my plane gets better mileage than my pickup truck does.
If I budget about $200 per month, I can enjoy flying all year long. I don't consider that too expensive for a fun hobby.
Bill
Really? Crowded skys? When I'm flying, I only see other aircraft at or near airports. Most of the time, it's me and the wild blue yonder. As for the cost, I fly a Beechcraft Skipper. The plane cost less than my pickup truck, and my truck is a basic GMC model, not a fancy one. My plane get's better fuel mileage than my truck and can get me any place faster. You need to really look into general aviation to understand that it isn't a rich persons hobby, it's everybody's hobby. You can easily buy a plane for under $20,000. In fact, my last plane was a Cessna 150 which I bought for $14,000. Flying is only expensive if you make it expensive.
Bill
Those "false positives" are triggered because detection equipment is simply listening for anything broadcasting on 121.5mhz. If you actually listen to the signal, you can quite easily tell if it is a real signal or not becuase aircraft ELTs make a unique repeating tone, microwaves or other electronic devices do not.
Accidental triggers do happen, for example, from "aggressive" landings by student pilots, but they are not all that common. If one is triggered, they don't "run around trying to find the crashed plane" unless they actually can hear the correct signal. If they do, they will usually figure it out pretty quickly and turn if off. In all my years of flying, I've only seen two situations where CAP came looking for a triggered ELT, and both were at the local airport where someone accidently set their unit off. These occurance of these types of incidents would not change if they switched to the new units, because they'd still get set off and someone would still have to come check it out. It's would just make identification easier.
BTW, In our planes, we check our ELTs once a month to determine if they are in working order. We do this by triggering the ELT at the top of the hour (first five minutes) for no more than 3 tone cycles. We listen on our radio for the alert signal. If we hear it, we immediatly turn off the ELT test and set it back to it's normal "colision detection mode" which is triggered by a rapid deceleration event (aka crash.)
Bill
You can check out www.barnstormers.com or www.global-air.com for inexpensive planes.
Bill
Actually, it is a big deal. How would you like to go buy your new car and after you get home find out that you needed to spend an additional 5-10% for no reason. The ELTs that we currently have on our aircraft work just fine. Having the satellites stop listening is the problem. The question is why? It's a software issue, nothing more, so why change it? Those satellites are sophisticated enough to listen to both frequencies and alert the appropraite personell when they detect the signal. It makes absolutely no sense why they would discontinue monitoring this important safety device. So what if it is not as accurate as the newer technology, that's a choice we make as owners. I don't fly in remote areas... in fact, most of my flights are withing 200 miles of Cincinnati, so if I go down, I'm within a few miles of a population center. CAP can use their ELT Locators to find me.
We don't need an additional "TAX." In the aviation world, we already pay through the nose for regulations and adding more is just complicating the burden. Once the price of the 406mhz units gets down to around the price of the 121.5mhz units, then the problem goes away. Right now, they cost 12x as much!
Bill
We were told never to do that, because it made starting a bitch - particularly when you'd burnt a big bite out of the exhaust valve.
Have you ever read the engine shut down procedure for an airplane?
Here is the Engine Shut Down procedure from my POH:
1. Parking Break - SET
2. Fuel Boost Pump - OFF
3. Electrical and Avionics Equipment - OFF
4. Throttle - 1000 RPM
5. Mixture - IDLE CUT-OFF
6. Magneto/Start Switch - OFF, after engine stops
7. Battery and Alternator Switches - OFF
8. Control Lock - INSTALL
9. Wheel Chocks - INSTALL
10. Parking Break - RELEASE
I've never burnt a piston or valve.
And that's why you leave it with the mags off and the prop bra on.
If you have fuel remaining in a cylinder, it can still ignite in a hot engine if the prop is turned, even with the Mags off! Doing both is a double check to prevent injury.
I've been flying for 24 years, and I know you were taught wrong.
Bill
Actually, the reason for the Light Sport Aircraft designation is the reduced certification of the aircraft, not the pilot. FAR Part 23 certified aircraft are a lot more expensive because of all the required paperwork and checks on the aircraft. Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) are much simpler aircraft and also have relaxed rules. They are just as airworthy, but the FAA doesn't certify them, they are certified by the manufacturer to a consensus standard (ASTM.) That allows companies like Terrafugia to produce aircraft that cost consideribly less, however, it does limit the performance and weight limits of the aircraft.
BTW, the Sport Plane certificate is not that limiting... it is far less restrictive than a recreational pilots license. It is basically the equivalent of a Day VFR pilots license with no distance restrictions. You can even enter controlled airspace if you have been endorsed for it. If you are already a private pilot, you can fly with those privelages as long as your not out of medical. If you decide, you can "downgrade" to the LSA simply by not renewing your medical... as long as you have a valid drivers license.
This is a great option for those pilots who think that they might not pass the medical, but are still able to fly.
Bill
The real question I have is, how can this thing meet LSA weight requirements and still meet highway safety standards. And assuming they can do that, what is normal road rash going to do for airworthiness?
Actually, it's quite easy to do with modern technology as long as you don't mind the higher cost. This "roadable aircraft" is actually designed with a carbon fiber monocoque structure like an Indy Race car. They can easily survive impacts of 150mph or more. This plane, by LSA Rules, is limited to 138mph.
Also, as for the "road rash" you speak of, their design incorporates several patented ideas that prevent that type of damage. For example, the forward and rear flight control surfaces are also the front and rear bumpers and can survive 2.5mph impacts like a regular car. They are deformable and will return to their designed shape within seconds... similar to the way memory foam matresses work. They also have clever "rub strips" along the top of the wing that will prevent door ding impacts from occuring.
The insurance companies for both auto and airplane are on board and have reviewed their design for just such occasions.
Bill