(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless--... [An ELT is installed and maintained as described]... (f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--... (9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person;...
If your aircraft has a second seat installed, you need an ELT. Occupancy of the seat is irrelevant.
The ELT is on the aircraft's MEL (Minimum equipment list), a set of equipment required for lawful operation of the aircraft. If an item on that list breaks, say, a radio, you're required by law to fix it before you fly again.
If your driver's seat belt in your car tore, it's illegal for you to operate it until you fix it. That said, there's nothing that keeps you from doing so, until you get pulled over and a cop notices. Much the same in the aircraft, except 'ramp checks' as they're called, are very uncommon, typically only administered as added pain after you already got caught for screwing up for other reasons.
ELTs are maintained yearly as part of the required annual inspection. If it fails, you might be tempted to fly for a while without it until you get it sorted, and then just forget and let it go. Stupid, but sometimes things get missed. Bravado might have had something to do with it too.
Yes, the existing ELT (Emergency Location Transmitter) beacons are no longer monitored by satellite. That does not mean they become useless. They broacast an audio tone on a radio frequency all civil and military aircraft can tune to.
Many pilots fly with their second radio continually tuned to this frequency, and I have been on flights in a general aviation flight where we have picked up beacons and reported them to ATC. More often than not, it's a hard landing that trips the beacon and the aircraft is parked on the ramp.
Finally, when your aircraft does go missing, these beacons are deliberately tuned by authorities doing search and rescue work, such as the Civil Air Patrol. Aircraft listen for and locate the general location of the beacon, and ground personnel locate the beacon with good directional antennas.
The (relatively) recent Fossett crash is a prime example of this -- His aircraft was not equipped with a ELT beacon at all (in violation of law) and had he been ELT equipped, he would have been found within a day.
The big thing that changes here is that, with the sattelites no longer monitoring, ATC will not get an automatic alert when a beacon turns on. This tech is spotty at best, however, and of course, 90% of ELT activations are false alarms anyways.
The new 406 Mhz beacons include a GPS reciever and actively transmit their location, such that rescue units simply get a waypoint on their GPS where the transmitter is downed. They are a far better technology, but the existing system does work well.
Nonsense. The air is thin but not THAT thin. B-29 Superfortresses routinely flew at that height, via human piloting. You don't "need" an autopilot.
Firstly, the B-29 had the wings of a glider and cruised at 220 knots. The Airbus by contrast has swept wings optimized for cruise at.82 mach. What makes you think your intuition about the B29 is worth anything given the differences between those aircraft?
Secondly, the B29 was flown by autopilot in cruise. Preview "Bringing the Thunder" on Google books, page 155, for the memoirs of a B-29 pilot.
That said, this is not even an autopilot issue. The true source of this problem is the flight control system of the Airbus, which features a "self protection" system that intends to prevent the aircraft from stalling at any expense, and in this case, actively threatens the safety of the aircraft itself.
The truly frightening thing about this is that the air data computer clearly resumed normal operation at some point during the dive, and the aircraft was recoverable. Had this been a permanent failure of the air data computer, an airbus pilot has no way to override the aircraft's intentions and recover from the dive. An airbus pilot can only watch, as the airplane says, "No, really, I'm stalling, I have to hold the nose down and pick up airspeed!". With a failed ADC computer constantly and erroneously telling flight controls that the aircraft is in stall, an Airbus would dive, trying to recover, until it impacts the ground.
By contrast, A pilot of a Boeing aircraft can tell his aircraft that it's worldview is wrong and fly it by hand in any circumstance.
This represents a fundamental difference in philosophy. Airbus trusts the computer and the system more than it trusts the pilot -- It says that the probability of a systems failure causing incorrect control commands and threatening the aircraft is less than the probability of a confused, tired, or impaired pilot losing control of the aircraft. Boeing, by contrast, trusts the pilot more than it trusts the system.
There have been aircraft accidents where an Airbus aircraft has crashed in situations where a Boeing aircraft would have been flyable by a human pilot.
There have also been aircraft accidents where a Boeing aircraft has crashed due to incorrect pilot procedures which could have been overridden by an Airbus aircraft's flight control system.
Your math is wrong. 269 votes switched is not the same as not counted, because a switched vote would have both lowered the vote for the Republicans and raised the vote for the Democrats. If it was truly votes not counted, you need to double that number to get the same effect.
Re:Mathematics not universal?
on
The Golden Ratio
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The arguement made by the original poster regarding blue is an argument that has been around for some time, and is not one that is directly related to postmodernism. Further, while it is my personal believe that postmodernism is in fact based on pure stupidity, that is tangential, as the question of blue is a legitimate and viable philosophical question.
Your answer to that question is a nearly canonical definition of physicalism -- This is the belief that everything there is to know about the world is contained in the physical description of the world.
This specific claim is answered by Nagel in his paper titled, "What is it like to be a bat?" and by Jackson in his paper, "What Mary Didn't Know."
Nagel argues that if you knew everything there was to know about neurology and biochemistry and every other part of how a bat works, you would still not know what it was like to be a bat. This lack of knowledge is not explained in physicalism.
Jackson tells the thought experiment of a girl named Mary who is born in a black and white room, is educated through black and white books and TV and film, and learns everything there is to know about physics, optics, the structure and workings of the eye, the optic nerve, the brain, etc. (Including of course that 'blue' has a wavelength of 475nm.) She is then let out of this room, and sees a blue light, and a wavelength meter that indicates the light is 475nm. Does she recognize the color blue as such, before she reads the indication on the meter? Does she respond by saying, "This is just as I have been taught, this is blue?" Then, knowing from her color-blind education that a sunset is considered by most people to be an intrinsically beautiful thing, she sees a sunset for the first time, the whole sky aglow in red and orange. Does she learn anything when she sees this? Does it surprise her? Specifically, before she leaves the room, she has an idea of what people experience when tey see a sunset. Do these ideas change after she has seen it? The key thing that mary learns in this experiment is non-physical information, called qualia. Defined loosely, qualia is the "What it's like" knowledge you have. And if you tell a colorblind person that blue is 475nm and red is 650nm, you haven't given them a shred of this qualia. They have no way to relate to your ideas, and have gained nothing from your descriptions but a few numbers to toss about in their heads. Their perceptions of the world will be fundamentally different. Their understanding of beauty will be based on things like proportion, or form, or contrast. What would a field of tulips look like to a colorblind person?
To quote: If you are colorblind, it doesn't change the fact that the sky is, indeed, blue.
No. If you are colorblind, it doesn't change the fact that the sky is, indeed, illuminated with a light with a wavelength of 475nm. That is a wholly different thing from "Blue." We, as humans, use words to describe experiences and sensations, not physical facts. You mistakenly equate the two.
Hmmmm. Fog. So it's pretty when you shine colored lights in it... and it's cold. So we've seen cases bathing the entire mobo in chilled mineral water, and ice-mods for mice. How long before we combine the end goals, and see smoke-machine-chilled casemods?:)
And gosh, come to think of it, who'd ever have thought that smoke coming out of your case was an indication of a successful mod?
Next step : Move out of your parent's house. I mean, how are you going to use that newfound fame as a hot shit game designer to get chicks if you still live in your 'rents basement?
Chicks dig computer game programmers? And to think I've been wasting all this time studying electrical engineering, when there are much more sexually appealing fields open to me!
Slashdot Mirror
14 CFR 91.207 - Emergency locator transmitters.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil airplane unless-- ... ... ... ...
[An ELT is installed and maintained as described]
(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person;
If your aircraft has a second seat installed, you need an ELT. Occupancy of the seat is irrelevant.
The ELT is on the aircraft's MEL (Minimum equipment list), a set of equipment required for lawful operation of the aircraft. If an item on that list breaks, say, a radio, you're required by law to fix it before you fly again.
If your driver's seat belt in your car tore, it's illegal for you to operate it until you fix it. That said, there's nothing that keeps you from doing so, until you get pulled over and a cop notices. Much the same in the aircraft, except 'ramp checks' as they're called, are very uncommon, typically only administered as added pain after you already got caught for screwing up for other reasons.
ELTs are maintained yearly as part of the required annual inspection. If it fails, you might be tempted to fly for a while without it until you get it sorted, and then just forget and let it go. Stupid, but sometimes things get missed. Bravado might have had something to do with it too.
Yes, the existing ELT (Emergency Location Transmitter) beacons are no longer monitored by satellite. That does not mean they become useless. They broacast an audio tone on a radio frequency all civil and military aircraft can tune to.
Many pilots fly with their second radio continually tuned to this frequency, and I have been on flights in a general aviation flight where we have picked up beacons and reported them to ATC. More often than not, it's a hard landing that trips the beacon and the aircraft is parked on the ramp.
Finally, when your aircraft does go missing, these beacons are deliberately tuned by authorities doing search and rescue work, such as the Civil Air Patrol. Aircraft listen for and locate the general location of the beacon, and ground personnel locate the beacon with good directional antennas.
The (relatively) recent Fossett crash is a prime example of this -- His aircraft was not equipped with a ELT beacon at all (in violation of law) and had he been ELT equipped, he would have been found within a day.
The big thing that changes here is that, with the sattelites no longer monitoring, ATC will not get an automatic alert when a beacon turns on. This tech is spotty at best, however, and of course, 90% of ELT activations are false alarms anyways.
The new 406 Mhz beacons include a GPS reciever and actively transmit their location, such that rescue units simply get a waypoint on their GPS where the transmitter is downed. They are a far better technology, but the existing system does work well.
Overall, more hype than needed.
Nonsense. The air is thin but not THAT thin. B-29 Superfortresses routinely flew at that height, via human piloting. You don't "need" an autopilot.
Firstly, the B-29 had the wings of a glider and cruised at 220 knots. The Airbus by contrast has swept wings optimized for cruise at .82 mach. What makes you think your intuition about the B29 is worth anything given the differences between those aircraft?
Secondly, the B29 was flown by autopilot in cruise. Preview "Bringing the Thunder" on Google books, page 155, for the memoirs of a B-29 pilot.
That said, this is not even an autopilot issue. The true source of this problem is the flight control system of the Airbus, which features a "self protection" system that intends to prevent the aircraft from stalling at any expense, and in this case, actively threatens the safety of the aircraft itself.
The truly frightening thing about this is that the air data computer clearly resumed normal operation at some point during the dive, and the aircraft was recoverable. Had this been a permanent failure of the air data computer, an airbus pilot has no way to override the aircraft's intentions and recover from the dive. An airbus pilot can only watch, as the airplane says, "No, really, I'm stalling, I have to hold the nose down and pick up airspeed!". With a failed ADC computer constantly and erroneously telling flight controls that the aircraft is in stall, an Airbus would dive, trying to recover, until it impacts the ground.
By contrast, A pilot of a Boeing aircraft can tell his aircraft that it's worldview is wrong and fly it by hand in any circumstance.
This represents a fundamental difference in philosophy. Airbus trusts the computer and the system more than it trusts the pilot -- It says that the probability of a systems failure causing incorrect control commands and threatening the aircraft is less than the probability of a confused, tired, or impaired pilot losing control of the aircraft. Boeing, by contrast, trusts the pilot more than it trusts the system.
There have been aircraft accidents where an Airbus aircraft has crashed in situations where a Boeing aircraft would have been flyable by a human pilot.
There have also been aircraft accidents where a Boeing aircraft has crashed due to incorrect pilot procedures which could have been overridden by an Airbus aircraft's flight control system.
Each philosophy has its risks and rewards.
Your math is wrong. 269 votes switched is not the same as not counted, because a switched vote would have both lowered the vote for the Republicans and raised the vote for the Democrats. If it was truly votes not counted, you need to double that number to get the same effect.
Your answer to that question is a nearly canonical definition of physicalism -- This is the belief that everything there is to know about the world is contained in the physical description of the world.
This specific claim is answered by Nagel in his paper titled, "What is it like to be a bat?" and by Jackson in his paper, "What Mary Didn't Know."
Nagel argues that if you knew everything there was to know about neurology and biochemistry and every other part of how a bat works, you would still not know what it was like to be a bat. This lack of knowledge is not explained in physicalism.
Jackson tells the thought experiment of a girl named Mary who is born in a black and white room, is educated through black and white books and TV and film, and learns everything there is to know about physics, optics, the structure and workings of the eye, the optic nerve, the brain, etc. (Including of course that 'blue' has a wavelength of 475nm.) She is then let out of this room, and sees a blue light, and a wavelength meter that indicates the light is 475nm. Does she recognize the color blue as such, before she reads the indication on the meter? Does she respond by saying, "This is just as I have been taught, this is blue?" Then, knowing from her color-blind education that a sunset is considered by most people to be an intrinsically beautiful thing, she sees a sunset for the first time, the whole sky aglow in red and orange. Does she learn anything when she sees this? Does it surprise her? Specifically, before she leaves the room, she has an idea of what people experience when tey see a sunset. Do these ideas change after she has seen it? The key thing that mary learns in this experiment is non-physical information, called qualia. Defined loosely, qualia is the "What it's like" knowledge you have. And if you tell a colorblind person that blue is 475nm and red is 650nm, you haven't given them a shred of this qualia. They have no way to relate to your ideas, and have gained nothing from your descriptions but a few numbers to toss about in their heads. Their perceptions of the world will be fundamentally different. Their understanding of beauty will be based on things like proportion, or form, or contrast. What would a field of tulips look like to a colorblind person?
To quote: If you are colorblind, it doesn't change the fact that the sky is, indeed, blue.
No. If you are colorblind, it doesn't change the fact that the sky is, indeed, illuminated with a light with a wavelength of 475nm. That is a wholly different thing from "Blue." We, as humans, use words to describe experiences and sensations, not physical facts. You mistakenly equate the two.
God only knows how they updated the list of stolen VIDs so quickly, though...
Actually, consider - Washington=$1 Jefferson=$2 Nixon=$3 Lincoln=$5 Hamilton=$10 Jackson=$20 Grant=$50 Franklin=$100 McKinley=$500 (Discontinued) Cleveland=$1000 (disc) Madison=$5000 (disc) Chase=$10,000 (disc) Wilson=$100,000 (used only for Federal Reserve and Treasury transactions)
Thus, a scientist would say, in active currency, that he's being paid 250 kiloFranklins.
And gosh, come to think of it, who'd ever have thought that smoke coming out of your case was an indication of a successful mod?
Chicks dig computer game programmers? And to think I've been wasting all this time studying electrical engineering, when there are much more sexually appealing fields open to me!
Yes... But can they use the radios to crush nuts like the IBM Global Uplink Modems?
We had BIG VAXen, as in *large*-double-door-fridge size.
So big VAXen fix stock market disasters? If only we'd had them around in 1929!