Thats not to mention the one that decided not to give climb-power on demand and went into the trees (neatly blamed on the pilot but now back under investigation).
It's my understanding that turbines can't give power on demand, they have a spool up time so you have to pre-empt demand. I believe this was the "pilot error" attributed in that incident. I remember reading a cool report I think about Mannhein. The flight data recorder showed that as control surfaces were torn off the aircraft the computers used remaining control surfaces to attempt to control attitude.I believe the aircraft landed upright and all souls on-board were evacuated safely.
If you are ever aft of the wing on a landing 747 (preferably in the cabin) watch the movable surfaces on the wing during the approach you will see that the ailerons are deployed as flaps and the spolers are used as ailerons. It's pretty fly-by-wire too.
OTOH, I have a friend who is a recently retired 747-400 captain. He told me he wouldn't fly an Airbus because it has no wing spar. I also remember an anecdote about an Air France 727 pilot that refused to train on the side-stick equipped A-320 because he "didn't play computer games".
Coincidentally I was talking to a ATP/Instructor friend about GPS approaches on Friday. As I understood what he told me there are no approaches in the US that are approved for GPS guided landing. There are lots for GPS approach to a visual landing. The only zero visibility approaches in the US are, apparently, ILS Cat IIIc equipped runways with suitably certified aircraft. He told me that zero visibility GPS approach and landing is coming but isn't here yet. I'm not sure that this means the use of the GPS system or augmented GPS or even GPS + Galileo.
The Wireless Zero Configuration service was far from Zero effort on my laptop. If the zero applied to useful functionality then it was 100% effective. It doesn't support my NetGear 802.11a PC-Card. It does support the on-board 802.11b. If it's enabled then WEP doesn't work on the NetGear (even if the NetGear config software is running). If it's disabled then the on-board wireless NIC doesn't work. In the end I had to disable the service and use the NetGear XP driver and config S/W then go get Windows 2000 drivers and config S/W for the on-board NIC so that I could run both at the same time. I burned hours "fixing" SP2. I saw the posts about Joe-average and agree but if it breaks big-time when it doesn't work then that's nasty for Joe-average and irritating for me. Joe-average would never have figured out why their shiny new wireless network stopped working.
The city I live in, Spanish Fork Uah, has its own cable service. I get 1.5MBps downstream (I've measured it) and 768 kbps upstream IIRC, a routable, static IP address (more if I wanted them), no questions about what I do or how much I use. I run my own domain, mail, web and more with no questions. I've downloaded huge numbers of megabytes of Linux distros in short periods of time with no question of limits. They are upping the service to 3Mbps soon at no additional cost. They have a shared 150Mbps uplink (private 75Mbps circuit). Best of all they have no use for profit (legally our city can't make a profit as I understand it) so any "excess" that they make goes back into the service. $35 ($28 if I bought cable TV as well). Comcast is also in the neighbourhood and can match it in price but not in service performance or quality. The lack of profit motivation means that the city has about half the connections per physical node that ComCast has. QWest is our local loop. They wouldn't give me DSL a couple of years ago (before the city had cabled up) saying I was on a Multiplexer (MUX) and gave the impression everyone in my neighbourhood was sharing pairs. So, they never got my money (though they stung me nearly $100 a month for IDSN-2 and service - that's for only 128kbps). It turns out that when I finally got to speak to a real Qwest engineer a few weeks ago they actually had a MUX on one of my pairs only (previous home owner had two lines on one pair). I could have had DSL all this time. Well Qwest, way to throw the money away by letting the blind (salesmen) lead the blind (me since they wouldn't let me argue the point)! Going back to the static IP address with the city. They let me use 802.11b for a few months before they cabled my street. The day I setup the modem the network manager called me and asked ME how many IP addresses I wanted! No extra charge! He even said OK to hosting a secondary DNS server for my domain at no cost.
OK, I admit this is written in utter naivity but aren't both the earth and atomic clocks effectively pendulums in this case. Wouldn't some physical behaviour that influenced one pendulum influence all co-located pendulums (all the atomic clocks of significance are on or very near to the other pendulum, earth). So if one measurably varies (rotation of the earth) and the other doesn't then shouldn't we expect there to be no external influence and, therefore, inductively reason that the atomic clocks are, for all intents and purposes, correct. I'll bet even atomic clocks on the remotest vehicles we have launched into space would still be too close to avoid the effect of something along the lines of what you describe. I see now that at least two other responses say the same thing better than I have (more scientifically) so I'll leave it there.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats not to mention the one that decided not to give climb-power on demand and went into the trees (neatly blamed on the pilot but now back under investigation).
It's my understanding that turbines can't give power on demand, they have a spool up time so you have to pre-empt demand. I believe this was the "pilot error" attributed in that incident. I remember reading a cool report I think about Mannhein. The flight data recorder showed that as control surfaces were torn off the aircraft the computers used remaining control surfaces to attempt to control attitude.I believe the aircraft landed upright and all souls on-board were evacuated safely.
If you are ever aft of the wing on a landing 747 (preferably in the cabin) watch the movable surfaces on the wing during the approach you will see that the ailerons are deployed as flaps and the spolers are used as ailerons. It's pretty fly-by-wire too.
OTOH, I have a friend who is a recently retired 747-400 captain. He told me he wouldn't fly an Airbus because it has no wing spar. I also remember an anecdote about an Air France 727 pilot that refused to train on the side-stick equipped A-320 because he "didn't play computer games".
Coincidentally I was talking to a ATP/Instructor friend about GPS approaches on Friday. As I understood what he told me there are no approaches in the US that are approved for GPS guided landing. There are lots for GPS approach to a visual landing. The only zero visibility approaches in the US are, apparently, ILS Cat IIIc equipped runways with suitably certified aircraft. He told me that zero visibility GPS approach and landing is coming but isn't here yet. I'm not sure that this means the use of the GPS system or augmented GPS or even GPS + Galileo.
The Wireless Zero Configuration service was far from Zero effort on my laptop. If the zero applied to useful functionality then it was 100% effective. It doesn't support my NetGear 802.11a PC-Card. It does support the on-board 802.11b. If it's enabled then WEP doesn't work on the NetGear (even if the NetGear config software is running). If it's disabled then the on-board wireless NIC doesn't work. In the end I had to disable the service and use the NetGear XP driver and config S/W then go get Windows 2000 drivers and config S/W for the on-board NIC so that I could run both at the same time. I burned hours "fixing" SP2. I saw the posts about Joe-average and agree but if it breaks big-time when it doesn't work then that's nasty for Joe-average and irritating for me. Joe-average would never have figured out why their shiny new wireless network stopped working.
Hey, that's on my subnet and you don't respond to ping and port-scan shows no response on any port. You hackers are really clever.
The city I live in, Spanish Fork Uah, has its own cable service. I get 1.5MBps downstream (I've measured it) and 768 kbps upstream IIRC, a routable, static IP address (more if I wanted them), no questions about what I do or how much I use. I run my own domain, mail, web and more with no questions. I've downloaded huge numbers of megabytes of Linux distros in short periods of time with no question of limits. They are upping the service to 3Mbps soon at no additional cost. They have a shared 150Mbps uplink (private 75Mbps circuit). Best of all they have no use for profit (legally our city can't make a profit as I understand it) so any "excess" that they make goes back into the service. $35 ($28 if I bought cable TV as well). Comcast is also in the neighbourhood and can match it in price but not in service performance or quality. The lack of profit motivation means that the city has about half the connections per physical node that ComCast has. QWest is our local loop. They wouldn't give me DSL a couple of years ago (before the city had cabled up) saying I was on a Multiplexer (MUX) and gave the impression everyone in my neighbourhood was sharing pairs. So, they never got my money (though they stung me nearly $100 a month for IDSN-2 and service - that's for only 128kbps). It turns out that when I finally got to speak to a real Qwest engineer a few weeks ago they actually had a MUX on one of my pairs only (previous home owner had two lines on one pair). I could have had DSL all this time. Well Qwest, way to throw the money away by letting the blind (salesmen) lead the blind (me since they wouldn't let me argue the point)! Going back to the static IP address with the city. They let me use 802.11b for a few months before they cabled my street. The day I setup the modem the network manager called me and asked ME how many IP addresses I wanted! No extra charge! He even said OK to hosting a secondary DNS server for my domain at no cost.
OK, I admit this is written in utter naivity but aren't both the earth and atomic clocks effectively pendulums in this case. Wouldn't some physical behaviour that influenced one pendulum influence all co-located pendulums (all the atomic clocks of significance are on or very near to the other pendulum, earth). So if one measurably varies (rotation of the earth) and the other doesn't then shouldn't we expect there to be no external influence and, therefore, inductively reason that the atomic clocks are, for all intents and purposes, correct. I'll bet even atomic clocks on the remotest vehicles we have launched into space would still be too close to avoid the effect of something along the lines of what you describe. I see now that at least two other responses say the same thing better than I have (more scientifically) so I'll leave it there.