Re: To quote someone I know
Let's get a PDP to do it.
50 posts • joined 11 Sep 2009
Firts: MCAS is not about fuel burn. It's about correcting unwanted aerodynamic behaviour in very specific circumstances such as being in a banked turn with high angle of attack close to a potential stall.
Secondly, the "AoA Disagree" alert does NOT signal MCAS activation. It simply reports an excessively different AoA being reported by the left and right AoA sensors of the 737 Max.
Recommended reading: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/the-inside-story-of-mcas-how-boeings-737-max-system-gained-power-and-lost-safeguards and https://www.satcom.guru
The Qantas Flight 32 Airbus did not have an engine fire. The Qantas crew was correct not to evacuate because of the hot brakes (they landed fast because of degraded flap functionality), the fuel leaks and the inability to shut down engine 1.
In the SA scenario people were not evacuated of a plane with an engine and a wing on fire. That wing carries a lot of fuel on a 777 ER (extended range). My guess is that SIA crew will have a bit of explaining to do as to why they did not immediately evacuate via the left side exits. The crew and passengers were very lucky to escape as they did!
"There are two very good reasons to buy an F-Type, the first is how it evokes the spirit of Malcom Sayer’s original, and the second is that it’s not the Porsche Boxster."
Pretty cheap shot. I'll have the Cayman, preferably the new GT4. Would love to see a shoot-out between the Jagwire and the Cayman on the Nordschleife.
"the Turkish government led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan": wrong. Currently, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is Turkey's President. Turkey's current PM is Ahmet Davutoğlu who attended the pro free speech "marche Républicaine" in Paris on 11 January 2015, joining an impressive number of other political hypocrites.
Unfortunately the TETRA standard only covers the interface between the TETRA network and the TETRA handsets/devices. Internally (i.e. in between the TETRA switches) the TETRA network uses vendor-specific, proprietary interfaces. So you'll need to rip out all your TETRA switches and replace them with new gear supporting the required functionality. Nicely played by the TETRA vendors!
Remember the SIM (soft or hard) is pricipally used to store the IMSI(s) i.e. the handset's identity. Currently in the large majority of countries (ITU members) the only organisations allowed to manage and distribute IMSIs are MNOs owning an operational wireless GSM/LTE network. So even with softSIMs or handset vendor provided SIMs you would need to have an agreement with a MNO to get the IMSIs for your SIMs. Organisations thinking about rolling out M2M applications are also confronted with this problem and so far the MNOs are doing whatever they can to retain control over IMSI distribution. The critical part is not the SIM (hard/soft/reprogrammable), it's the IMSI.
This would require (1) existing M(V)NOs to abandon their SIM-based network approach - rather unlikely - or (2) new SIMless networks to be established - any takers? I'm afraid the GSMA/ETNO train has left the station quite some time ago and will be hard to stop. The whole operator-centric SIM/IMSI approach has been engineerded into the GSM standards with the complicity of the ETNO and ITU and they are not in the habit of listening to what the end user wants.
"...and Apple included a "soft SIM" option in its latest iPad. This allows the user to select from a list of operators (and switch between them) when activating the device, passing the control from the carrier to Apple."
Wrong - Apple's SIM is not a soft SIM, it's a simple physical multi-IMSI nanoSIM (with limitations e.g. AT&T swap restrictions) still requiring network and suscription support from a participating MNO. The Apple SIM can still be replaced by whatever SIM you prefer so control has not passed from the carrier(s) to Apple. Apple has other means to put the pressure on carriers such as 4G network certification and commercial terms for the promotion and sales of handsets. Or is Apple thinking about becoming an M(V)NO?
"Carriers and manufacturers would love to kill the SIM, which has made the consumer king for over 20 years."
You might want to talk to the GSMA about this. They actually fiercely object to the idea of a soft or virtual SIM according to them for security reasons: http://www.gsma.com/connectedliving/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Embedded-SIM-Toolkit-Oct-14-updated1.pdf
And as mentioned before: for mobile devices it's not about the hard, soft, virtual or embedded SIM (the vehicle). It's about the IMSI and the encryption keys (the contents of the vehicle) stored on the SIM. In the large majority of countries currently only mobile network operators and mobile virtual network operators are allowed to issue IMSIs which are preprogrammed into the SIMs and distributed to the network users. There is no particular good reason why IMSIs should be controlled by M(V)NOs. Only very recently the GSMA has released an architecture and standards for "Over The Air" reprogramming and switching of IMSIs on embedded SIMs because they were pressured to do so by the growing M2M community that does not like its devices to be tied to a specific M(V)NO during the typically long contract period. Mind you there currently are no wide-scale implementations available of this OTA embedded SIM nirvana.
By the way: in the past the GSMA also opposed the idea of the OTA SIM reprogramming!
One other thing: the currently launched Apple iPads still allow you to replace the Apple SIM with the SIM provided by an operator of your choice so make sure you target your arrows at the proper villain. It's a bit silly to condemn Apple for something they might be able to do in the future I think. Predictive crime analytics at work?
But there is hope: maybe in a number years from now babies will be born and will come with an embedded SIM and IMSI supplied by 'fill in whatever organisation or company you dislike and/or distrust' which can then be linked OTA or good old dipswitches with its preferred M(V)NO ;)
Two comments on this article:
1) a Porsche Cayenne doesn't need to descend a hill. The Cayenne has a magical characteristic called weight that flattens the hill when at the top so that it doesn't need to descend ;)
2) I'd prefer this over the FIAT and the Cayenne: http://youtu.be/wdy8CG09rSU Sit back and enjoy the Vorsprung durch Technik as presented by the mighty Walter Röhrl. Those were the days!
"Bird into engine results in a bit of a cough out the back, and the engine casing being lined with overcooked finely minced bird. A cleaning job for the apprentices...."
You are a bit optimistic. Bird ingestion can cause major damage to the compressor section of a jet engine eventually leading to compressor blades breaking away from the compressor disk.
I hope in that case the repair is not left to an apprentice...
BTW Jets have multiple pitots at different locations on the hull. The only single bird able to take out all of them in one go is the ... flying elephant. Wasn't he called Dumbo?
Why don't you read this first concerning the 'accuracy' of the Popular Mechanics article:
"You accuse people of posting nonsense with nothing whatsoever in your spew to demostrate that."
One example but there are many more: using GPS-derived ground speed in an analysis of the aerodynamical state of a stalled airplane descending in a tight right-hand turn!
"I think most intelligent readers can determine from the flight recorder cockpit transcript roughly what happened to those 228 people without being pilots.".
Of course they can (the plane crashed and the people died, didn't they?) but determining what the probable causes and contributing factors of the accident are, is an entirely different thing, isn't it?
"By the same logic, are you unable to grasp concepts that don't fall squarely within your area of expertise?"
I really think you need a bit more than grasping a few concepts about flying to be an accident investigator...
"If you ARE a qualified pilot, perhaps you could answer an earlier question: Why is it that the low altitude alarm doesn't sound until 2000 feet during midflight?"
A simple one to answer: it was not designed to measure heights larger than 2500 ft above sea/ ground level (the range of the radio altimeter). You do know the RADALT is part of the Groud Proximity Warning System, don't you? This system was designed to prevent CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) accidents. The chances of encountering terrain are rather slim at flight level 350 don't you think? The RADALT is only used by the GPWS and by autolanding systems. Pilots are not allowed to use it as a primary altitude measurement system. Your primary altitude measurement system is a barometric instrument with a selectable reference height/altitude/pressure.
On top of that: in IMC pilots are expected to scan a number of essential flight parameters including altitude and vertical speed. From the interim report released by the BEA (did you read it yet?) it is clear that all AF447pilots where perfectly aware of the plane's altitude and vertical speed during the decent. You do know that altimeters and VSIs use the static pneumatic ports which were not iced up, don't you? In others words: pilots should not be dependent upon altitude alerts to know what altitude the airplane is flying at! Scanning your instruments is one of the primary pilot tasks!
Better stick to simming...
After reading some of the comments I have to admit I was never aware the Register reader corps included so many qualified pilots type-rated on the Airbus A330 series aircraft!
For the arm chair pilots: back to your MS Flight Sims please before you embarras yourselves even more by posting additional non-sense. Perhaps you should start by reading the DGAC reports released so far. The final report is not out yet i.e. the Truth is still out there..
"Why did you send the file as a Word document? That may not sound too bad until you realise that every damned word you spelled wrong is underlined in red on my screen and your grammar is also ridiculed by a £70 bit of software that is apparently smarter than you."
I always send my CV in PDF format (stops the middlemen from messing it up). Strangely enough in most cases I am then asked to send it in ... Word format "because our doc mgmnt system/database does not support PDF"!
A tip for mister Connor: you can switch of the red underlining in Word. Perhaps you should stick to using a Word reader?
A few comments:
1) The 787 has a reduced number of rivets. It is certainly not without rivets.
2) Generalizing point-to-point flying would require a major redesign of the mechanisms and procedures used to route airplanes. This will not happen overnight since most of that routing is today done on basis over airways typically linking airports, VOR and NDB radio stations. Anyone that has dealt with organisations such as Eurocontrol (or the FAA across the pond) will understand it will take a lot of time to redesign this system. Remember the talks about a Single European Sky?
Talking as an ex-DECcie: thanks for allowing me to take part in that terrific adventure called "Digital". Looking back I can honestly say those were the best professional years of my life. I never found that original Digital spirit in any of the other companies I worked for. Too bad it did not last: I jumped ship just before the Texas cowboys took over but the downturn was already started by then ( what is mister Palmer doing these days?).
Thanks again, Ken.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021