|
hobbesmaster posted:And winds and temperature. Riding in a Super 80 with less than 2 dozen passengers from Dallas to OKC remains the absolute highlight of my life thus far
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Unstable approach is not good in a MU-2B Unstable approach was key factor in plane crash that killed Jean Lapierre and family, TSB report finds http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jean-lapierre-plane-crash-investigation-findings-1.4479817 Shared via the CBC News Android App
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Unstable approach bad in any airplane. Lack of recent practice bad in any airplane. Single pilot IFR into low IMC without a lot of experience, some of it recent, bad in any airplane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Ola posted:Machine learning will zoom and enhance. Blockchain for keeping track of everything. Maybe add some squeezable juice packets for operator morale. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
^^haha New Q400 gear failure https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/951203139134291974 But good news, the main gear problems have been fixed!
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
That looks like something must have somehow jammed the gear in the well, since the Q400 nose gear extends aft, and the alternate extension procedure is just pulling a cable that opens the nose gear door and releases the uplocks, with gravity and airflow then lowering the gear and locking it into place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Just boarded my Qantas domestic flight and I got bailed up about the size of my USB battery pack. They made me wait around and some discussion was had before it was handed back to me and told it’s fine. Just like it has been every other time I’ve flown with it. Are there any new regulations about LiPo or something? Also just got clocked on the head by the cabin crew moving baggage, there’s a child kicking my seat and I’m seated next to a :hambeast: Thank gently caress it’s only an hour flight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Just boarded my Qantas domestic flight and I got bailed up about the size of my USB battery pack. They made me wait around and some discussion was had before it was handed back to me and told it’s fine. Just like it has been every other time I’ve flown with it. :why_I_never_fly_anymore.txt:
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Just boarded my Qantas domestic flight and I got bailed up about the size of my USB battery pack. They made me wait around and some discussion was had before it was handed back to me and told it’s fine. Just like it has been every other time I’ve flown with it. Not sure about Australia but in the US there are two limits. Lithium ion batteries or battery packs up to 100 watt hours are mostly unregulated, you can do basically anything as long as you don't have bare cells floating freely around your luggage liable to short on something (e.g. so many vapers too cheap/lazy to buy/use battery cases). From 100 to 160 watt hours you can not check them but are allowed to have two in your carry-on as long as the airline approves. Above 160 is not allowed. Most newer battery banks are labeled in watt hours as well as the more common milliamp-hour rating, but if yours is not just know that for a standard lithium ion cell with a nominal voltage of 3.7 the limit is roughly 27,000 mAh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Just boarded my Qantas domestic flight and I got bailed up about the size of my USB battery pack. They made me wait around and some discussion was had before it was handed back to me and told it’s fine. Just like it has been every other time I’ve flown with it. It seems like every time you fly and every place you go there's a different/new set of regulations. I just got back from India and the rule there was that everything with a screen had to come out of your bags and be scanned separately. So my laptop, phone, kindle and camera all needed their own tray. But you don't have to take off your shoes or belt there. USB battery packs of any size were allowed in carry-ons but banned in checked luggage. It's all just theater and nothing but.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Not sure about Australia but in the US there are two limits. Lithium ion batteries or battery packs up to 100 watt hours are mostly unregulated, you can do basically anything as long as you don't have bare cells floating freely around your luggage liable to short on something (e.g. so many vapers too cheap/lazy to buy/use battery cases). From 100 to 160 watt hours you can not check them but are allowed to have two in your carry-on as long as the airline approves. Above 160 is not allowed. Ok, guess they’re bringing that in here too because reasons. Thanks for the info, mines an older 20,100 mAh pack so it shouldn’t be a problem for carry on. Why they couldn’t just stick with mAh I don’t know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Ok, guess they’re bringing that in here too because reasons. Thanks for the info, mines an older 20,100 mAh pack so it shouldn’t be a problem for carry on. Because a 24-volt 1000mAh battery has the same amount of energy as a 3.7-volt 6500mAh cell. Watt-hours are sometimes a little harder to figure but it's a consistent number to work with if what you're concerned about is the total energy content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
I want them to simply ban all electronics and destroy the passenger airline industry for good. They almost did it a couple of years ago; maybe they'll get it right next time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:It seems like every time you fly and every place you go there's a different/new set of regulations. I just got back from India and the rule there was that everything with a screen had to come out of your bags and be scanned separately. So my laptop, phone, kindle and camera all needed their own tray. But you don't have to take off your shoes or belt there. USB battery packs of any size were allowed in carry-ons but banned in checked luggage. Restricting lithium batteries to the cabin is one of the few policies that isn’t theater.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well sure, in the transmit mode, but the receiver/integrator doesn't have to be an airplane, does it? When discussing radars passing data to other sensors/command and control, what is generally passed is track data. Modern-ish radars pipe the raw data from the antenna into a receiver which, among other things, digitizes it. It then goes to a signal processor, which does math magic and converts the digitized signal to a set of detections - points in the feed that have passed some thresholding (envelope and CFAR being the two main ones) and will go on for further processing. Through this process, the amount of data the system needs to deal with gets cut dramatically - tens of MB/s* of raw IQ into the signal processor might become tens of KB/s of detection data out. Tens of MB/s of data might not seem like that much in an age where we have the cloud but massively exceeds what's generally available for secure jam-resistant military datalinks, especially anything satellite. The detection data is then further reduced by being turned into tracks - this prevents most spurious detections from being reported to higher levels. Radar track data is useless to a higher level system that is trying to discover objects the radar couldn't see itself. There are some neat things that can be done to allow you to take multiple returns from a given radar and over time develop detections that were not visible in any single pulse - coherent and non-coherent integration. However, to do this you need the raw data for every pulse. Also, any processing on the raw data tends to rely on having a lot of data very specific to that radar. Trying to do this off-board the actual radar system would be extremely difficult. Furthermore, these techniques are primarily for track and data collection. For the energy to build up, the radar needs to be picking the object up in the same place. This requires already having some idea of where the object is. If by integrate all you mean is taking the detection data from a bunch of radar drones and merging it to one picture, well, sure, that is trivial**, but then A) having multiple sensors (of the same type, assuming this is a drone-swarm scenario) covering a given area only helps in the sense that some are going to have better range-to-target than others B) if you want to do anything fancy with the raw signal you still need to have all the processing power and software smarts in the individual sensor platform, driving up SWAP and cost. Given how much cheaper processing power has gotten this isn't as big a factor as it used to be, but since each drone can only do direct signal processing on its own data, you're still limited by how good the antenna/receiver in each drone is. * Function of pulse scheduling frequency (more frequent = more data), range resolution (better resolution = more data), range window size (more coverage = more data), data type (bits per range cell), # of channels (main channel provides range information on targets, other channels perform a variety of functions - most common example of extra channels is having two monopulse channels, which allow the radar to determine angle information) ** not my problem fakeedit: I think in some applications receiving raw detections from multiple sensors could be useful if you posit an object that is just at the edge of being detectable, such that occasional hits are seen, and said object moves predictably enough that a pattern can eventually be recognized. When I try to picture this working I mostly imagine a system rapidly filling up with false tracks. I made light of it above but track-to-track association between multiple sensors (which each have their own position and orientation errors, measurement errors, may not be seeing all the same objects, etc) can be quite difficult, and detection association is even harder. There isn't much in the way of physics limitations working against using some sort of multi-sensor detection fusion algorithm to create new tracks, just high difficulty and [likely?] limited utility. BulletHole fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Not sure about Australia but in the US there are two limits. Lithium ion batteries or battery packs up to 100 watt hours are mostly unregulated, you can do basically anything as long as you don't have bare cells floating freely around your luggage liable to short on something (e.g. so many vapers too cheap/lazy to buy/use battery cases). From 100 to 160 watt hours you can not check them but are allowed to have two in your carry-on as long as the airline approves. Above 160 is not allowed. The 100Wh requirement sounds familiar. For a satellite we built, we had to keep the full charge capacity of its pack under 100Wh to keep it carry-onable. Everyone should just remember that most lithium-ion packs are protected by a cheap-rear end protection supervisor IC and two of the cheapest Chinese FETs in existence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
wolrah posted:Not sure about Australia but in the US there are two limits. Lithium ion batteries or battery packs up to 100 watt hours are mostly unregulated, you can do basically anything as long as you don't have bare cells floating freely around your luggage liable to short on something (e.g. so many vapers too cheap/lazy to buy/use battery cases). From 100 to 160 watt hours you can not check them but are allowed to have two in your carry-on as long as the airline approves. Above 160 is not allowed. Is this one of those things like the 3 oz liquid rule where it really matters is what the container says? Like, a 5 oz container that is down to the dregs still can’t fly. You and I both know that there’s no way that a pack that says “5000 mAh” contains more than 100 W‐hr of energy (= 360 kJ), but that’s just common sense. “5000 mAh” doesn’t technically prove that it’s under the limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Is this one of those things like the 3 oz liquid rule where it really matters is what the container says? Like, a 5 oz container that is down to the dregs still can’t fly. You are correct. They don't have any way to tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Unstable approach bad in any airplane. Triply so in an airplane known for being a goddamn handful to fly solo under ideal conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Is this one of those things like the 3 oz liquid rule where it really matters is what the container says? Like, a 5 oz container that is down to the dregs still can’t fly. There was a great article in the Atlantic Monthly a number of years ago that covered a lot of the major loopholes in airport security. One of the major ones, which I don't believe has been fixed, is that you're allowed to take more than 3 ounces of liquid if it's labeled as one of the protected categories, which are primarily medical fluids like saline for contact lenses or breast milk for infants. Note that it says "labeled as." That's the rubric they use. The reporter who wrote the article first tried filling a pair of empty 32-oz saline bottles with regular drinking water, and of course walked straight through. He then tried two bottles with no label, but told the TSA people that it was saline for his contact lenses, but was denied. So finally he took two unlabeled bottles full of water, wrote "saline for contacts" on a piece of masking tape, stuck that on, and suddenly the bottles are okay again. The general conclusion was that there were only two real security enhancements to come out of 9/11: 1) the cockpit doors are now reinforced and must remain closed during flight 2) passengers are now aware of what happened in 9/11 and with United 93, and may attempt to fight back -- where prior to 9/11, hijackings almost always just meant a free trip to Cuba or whatever, so passengers were pretty passive. Lithium batteries are kind of odd because they aren't banned for terroristic reasons -- just general safety, along with aerosols and fireworks and uranium and so on. I wonder when was the last time they added a whole new category of item to that list prior to batteries?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 03:56
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:
I love this one because the airplane might very well have hundreds of pounds of uranium on board in the form of control surface counterweights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
Couple of guys plot once to make some bombs out of liquid and they ban liquids... what about all the other bombs all made out of solids?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 04:02
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Note that it says "labeled as." That's the rubric they use. The reporter who wrote the article first tried filling a pair of empty 32-oz saline bottles with regular drinking water, and of course walked straight through. He then tried two bottles with no label, but told the TSA people that it was saline for his contact lenses, but was denied. So finally he took two unlabeled bottles full of water, wrote "saline for contacts" on a piece of masking tape, stuck that on, and suddenly the bottles are okay again. When the agent asked why two bottles, he replied “Two eyes.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Triply so in an airplane known for being a goddamn handful to fly solo under ideal conditions. Hmm, yeah, I went back to read what the goon MU-2 pilot had to say in the ask/tell thread, and I forgot some of the things he mentioned. I just remembered that engine-outs were different from most other planes, and particularly difficult to deal with, but apparently it's also a handful under normal conditions! For anyone interested: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3821398&userid=119890
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I just recently got it for XPlane and in 4 flights I've successfully landed once, though the once was after blowing out the flaps on approach. EDIT: Bonus screenshot of my entire first flight in it: 
Kilonum fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Couple of guys plot once to make some bombs out of liquid and they ban liquids... what about all the other bombs all made out of solids? Rearranging innocuous solids to form a functional explosive is a bit trickier to pull off mid-flight than mixing two reagents together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Rearranging innocuous solids to form a functional explosive is a bit trickier to pull off mid-flight than mixing two reagents together. My understanding of the "mix a bomb in the lavatory" plot was that it was only questionably plausible, since the explosives they planned to use required a production process that was very time consuming and produced enough heat that it probably would have set off a smoke detector before they had anything more dangerous than some hot acid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
Alls I'm saying is, is that if the units of delineation you're banning is phases of matter, perhaps a bigger-picture view of things is warranted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Alls I'm saying is, is that if the units of delineation you're banning is phases of matter, perhaps a bigger-picture view of things is warranted. A guy ahead of me in security had to hand over his ice packs because they were melted, but was told that if they were frozen he would be able to take them through.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Alls I'm saying is, is that if the units of delineation you're banning is phases of matter, perhaps a bigger-picture view of things is warranted. That plasma looks dangerous, but the rules say that the only banned phases of matter are solid and liquid, so enjoy your flight!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 08:34
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Alls I'm saying is, is that if the units of delineation you're banning is phases of matter, perhaps a bigger-picture view of things is warranted. They should ban gas instead. "Do you have gas? Yes? Then you can't board, sorry."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:They should ban gas instead. Nononono Flatus is lighter than air. Gassy passengers make aircraft burn slightly less fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 11:12
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Nononono This is why you have to pay £1 to fart on Ryan Air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 11:25
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Alls I'm saying is, is that if the units of delineation you're banning is phases of matter, perhaps a bigger-picture view of things is warranted. It says chlorine gas on the tin, so uhh welcome aboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 12:37
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:It says chlorine gas on the tin, so uhh welcome aboard. quote:The following items are completely banned from aircraft, and should not be brought to the airport:
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 14:32
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Just boarded my Qantas domestic flight and I got bailed up about the size of my USB battery pack. They made me wait around and some discussion was had before it was handed back to me and told it’s fine. Just like it has been every other time I’ve flown with it. Kids kicking seats are best dealt with by being friendly to them first. If the parents intervene either lay it down for them (deal with your kid or deal with attendants). Fatsos are just a part of life, buts mostly a US problem IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
"Organics"? So anything containing carbon in it? Huh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
BulletHole posted:When discussing radars passing data to other sensors/command and control, what is generally passed is track data. Modern-ish radars pipe the raw data from the antenna into a receiver which, among other things, digitizes it. It then goes to a signal processor, which does math magic and converts the digitized signal to a set of detections - points in the feed that have passed some thresholding (envelope and CFAR being the two main ones) and will go on for further processing. Through this process, the amount of data the system needs to deal with gets cut dramatically - tens of MB/s* of raw IQ into the signal processor might become tens of KB/s of detection data out. Tens of MB/s of data might not seem like that much in an age where we have the cloud but massively exceeds what's generally available for secure jam-resistant military datalinks, especially anything satellite. The detection data is then further reduced by being turned into tracks - this prevents most spurious detections from being reported to higher levels. Radar track data is useless to a higher level system that is trying to discover objects the radar couldn't see itself. One of these days I'll finish the effortpost about it I have sitting half-written on my computer at home, I promise... TheFluff fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Why is the MU-2 such a hand full? Is the Aero Commander worse or better?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Chlorine fits several of those... So does the human body.  They should just ban everything from aircraft. Good for security, good for the environment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2018 15:35
|
|