Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2241 »

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

I don't know how the record attempt is judged but there are some weird route choices. What was the point of going to the British Virgin Islands versus, say, San Juan, PR on the way to Colombia?

It's a nice place, sure, but it just seems odd to see such an out-of-the-way stop for no real reason.

# ? Jan 25, 2022 23:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 08:46

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Mortabis posted:

On the other hand it is still very annoying, and more importantly utterly useless at controlling the spread of a disease that is approximately as infectious as measles. A disease which is already everywhere, which you can just as easily pick up at the airport bar where masks are not required, and which is also not dangerous anymore to anyone who is vaccinated. (Granted, probably many people losing their poo poo are not vaccinated, but that is their problem and you could require that instead.)

Take this whiny anti-science bullshit elsewhere.

Just because someone who chooses to go to bars maskless might catch a disease does not mean proper mask wear is �utterly useless.� This is just false. And to say the disease is �not dangerous� is making some wild assumptions.

# ? Jan 25, 2022 23:41

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Some jags might've been to meet minimum distance requirements? I found the FAI definition here, I assume the "speed" eastbound/westbound circumnavigation rules are the same as for setting any circumnavigation: https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/sc_section_2_2013.pdf

quote:

4.6.7 Speed Around the World, Westbound
4.6.7.1 The objective of this record task is to achieve the greatest speed around the world in a
westbound direction.
4.6.7.2 The course shall be a closed circuit course that crosses all meridians.
4.6.7.3 The course shall be approved or declared in writing prior to takeoff.
4.6.7.4 The course distance from the start point through each control point to the finish point
shall not be less than 36,770 km.
4.6.7.5 All control points shall lie at latitudes less than 66 degrees 33 minutes.
4.6.7.6 All control points shall be flown in a westerly succession.
4.6.7.7 One alternate course may be declared. If so, it shall be declared in writing prior to
takeoff.
4.6.7.8 The flight performance begins at takeoff and ends with a landing at the finish point.
4.6.7.9 Intermediate landings are permitted during the flight performance.
4.6.7.10 Time on the ground at intermediate landing places shall count as flying time.
4.6.7.11 Refueling on the ground is permitted.
4.6.7.12 Refueling in-flight is not permitted.
4.6.7.13 Repairs or replacements of aircraft components and engine(s) are permitted except
that wings and fuselage shall not be changed.
4.6.7.14 The flight crew shall not be changed during the flight performance. A crewmember
other than the PIC may leave during the flight performance, but shall not be replaced.
4.6.7.15 Passengers may be changed during the flight performance.
4.6.7.16 If the landing cannot be made at the departure aerodrome, the aeroplane can fly the
last leg of the course to an alternate aerodrome. The alternate aerodrome shall be
located further west than the departure aerodrome.
4.6.7.17 The achieved speed shall be determined by dividing the distance of the course by the
elapsed time.

Nome, Alaska is south of 66 degrees so that could be the criteria used. She was going for Guiness records though, idk if that differs from FAI?

# ? Jan 25, 2022 23:45

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Mortabis posted:

Regarding masks on planes, it is ridiculous as an adult to be unable to wear a mask for the duration of a typical flight other than when eating or drinking. That is true on the one hand.

On the other hand it is still very annoying, and more importantly utterly useless at controlling the spread of a disease that is approximately as infectious as measles. A disease which is already everywhere, which you can just as easily pick up at the airport bar where masks are not required, and which is also not dangerous anymore to anyone who is vaccinated. (Granted, probably many people losing their poo poo are not vaccinated, but that is their problem and you could require that instead.) Besides which most people wear masks that are almost entirely ineffective anyway. I have some amount of sympathy to people who are frustrated at the fact that the mask mandate has been repeatedly extended despite its clear pointlessness and massive public opposition to continuing costly and inconvenient non-pharmaceutical interventions.

I have been put on probation at least twice for bemoaning the low efficacy of cloth and surgical‐style masks, in two separate forums.

Even I will say that mask mandates are not useless. They�re not silver bullets, but they have saved tens of thousands of lives to date, even with the sorry excuses for masks that America tolerates, even without real enforcement.

We could just hand everyone N95s at the door to the airport. That would be great.

https://twitter.com/wsbgnl/status/1472465392442306562

# ? Jan 25, 2022 23:49

Mortabis: Jul 8, 2010; I am stupid

Yes of course masks (that is, N95s and equivalent) work, the mask mandate *on airplanes* in a world where we also don't have everybody's social lives locked down is, IMO, pissing into the ocean. I am not in favor of anyone making a scene about it but I would be happier if it ended.

# ? Jan 25, 2022 23:52

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Mortabis posted:

Yes of course masks work, the mask mandate *on airplanes* in a world where we also don't have everybody's social lives locked down is, IMO, pissing into the ocean. I am not in favor of anyone making a scene about it but I would be happier if it ended.

O.K., but, like, I sometimes have to get on an airplane.

I never have to go to the bar.

Do you not see the difference here?

# ? Jan 25, 2022 23:53

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

The mask mandates on airplanes are not protecting the maskless bar hopper from the at-risk person. They are protecting the already well-masked at-risk person from the dumbass barhopper who thinks the disease is �not dangerous.�

Putting everyone in masks is one more layer protecting conscientious and at-risk people wearing N95. And we are all at risk of some level of as-yet-not-fully-known long term effects.

# ? Jan 25, 2022 23:59

MrChips: Jun 10, 2005; FLIGHT SAFETY TIP: Fatties out first

Mortabis posted:

Regarding masks on planes, it is ridiculous as an adult to be unable to wear a mask for the duration of a typical flight other than when eating or drinking. That is true on the one hand.

On the other hand it is still very annoying, and more importantly utterly useless at controlling the spread of a disease that is approximately as infectious as measles. A disease which is already everywhere, which you can just as easily pick up at the airport bar where masks are not required, and which is also not dangerous anymore to anyone who is vaccinated. (Granted, probably many people losing their poo poo are not vaccinated, but that is their problem and you could require that instead.) Besides which most people wear masks that are almost entirely ineffective anyway. I have some amount of sympathy to people who are frustrated at the fact that the mask mandate has been repeatedly extended despite its clear pointlessness and massive public opposition to continuing costly and inconvenient non-pharmaceutical interventions.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

https://twitter.com/lisa_iannattone/status/1484303022104932352?s=21

A tweet thread for you to think about, while you're in the cooler.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 00:15

marumaru: May 20, 2013

Platystemon posted:

I have been put on probation at least twice for bemoaning the low efficacy of cloth and surgical‐style masks, in two separate forums.

drat dude i don't know, between having the amount of spit particles etc floating around very slightly reduced in a closed environment and them not being reduced at all i'm still for the former
i do have the mental fortitude to not go rabid when told to wear a slightly uncomfortable face mask for an hour or two though (i've ran for longer wearing a mask, and came out the other side without any lasting psychological scars), which the nutters in those videos clearly lack :shrug:

also you might be a researcher for all i know, but this article from 2013 (well before covid) saw a 3.4x reduction of RNA copies when surgical masks were worn. cloth masks most definitely won't be as effective, but that's one type of mask that does help a bit.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 00:26

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

The estimate used for modelling in the CDC�s July presentation on Delta, published by the Washington Post, were forty to sixty percent efficacy for source control (i.e. keeping sick people�s germs to themselves), twenty to thirty percent for personal protection.

Those numbers aren�t zero, but I�ve met an awful lot of people who believed that their personal protection was substantially higher than that.

Only recently have major publications broached the subject of N95 respiratory protection for the public, and that�s good, but they should have been doing it from the time that N95 FFRs made their way to hardware store shelves again, in spring of 2021.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 00:44

CAT INTERCEPTOR: Nov 9, 2004; Basically a male Margaret Thatcher

Mortabis posted:

and which is also not dangerous anymore to anyone who is vaccinated.

And yet people who are vacced and boosted are still dying, esp over 65 and with cormordities. Do not come back to AI with such statements that are clearly false.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:03

Loucks: May 21, 2007; It's incwedibwe easy to suck my own dick.

I have really strong, data-driven opinions on masks and will not spend time around people with whom I do not live unless I�m wearing an elastomeric respirator but I feel like this subject has the potential to derail an interesting thread for a long rear end time. Genuinely appreciate the moderation that leans on actual facts though.

Thanks for posting the details both from the pilot�s site and also the excerpt from The Rules, hobbesmaster. I was on mobile and didn�t see that there was such detail. Also had no idea that there is a rule book for planet circumnavigation. I have to wonder how much engine and airframe efficiency played into her aircraft selection. I�m an �aspiring pilot� (I.e., got a medical then sat on my hands due to Covid) and it seems like there�s a real efficiency gap between some of these slick airframes with small piston engines (especially experimental stuff) and most other light aircraft. I guess there�s a trade-off in terms of what conditions are flyable, but I haven�t even finished Stick & Rudder so there could well be more to it.

e: first part sounded like backseat moderation which is dumb so whatever. Never mind.

Loucks fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Jan 26, 2022

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:06

priznat: Jul 7, 2009; Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

You'd think posters in an aeronautical thread would be down with redundant safety systems! Vaccines, masks, distancing, enhanced air filtration.. It just makes sense, even still.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:06

vessbot: Jun 17, 2005; I don't like you because you're dangerous

Fun fact about the Rutan Voyager nonstop circumnavigation. They were originally planning to go East, as anyone coming up in flying in North America would do without a second thought. It wasn't until the project was well underway and they got a meteorologist, that he said "um, the wind is the other way at the equator!"

vessbot fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jan 26, 2022

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:14

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

One time I was on a backpacking trip and my friends and I were talking about any topic that came to mind to pass the time.

We somehow got on the subject of circumnavigation. We couldn�t just go on the web and look up what rules the relevant bodies had established, so we started to brainstorm our own rules.

My idea was that the journey had to be a closed circuit that divided the surface of the Earth in half, with some arbitrarily minor deviation allowed.

That is, the ratio of the two areas must be within some small distance of one to one.

A trip along the Equator or a meridian is a perfect split. Either one is a circumnavigation. You could make a sine wave centered on the Equator or a meridian if you wanted. You could go diagonally. There�s just no shortcut. The minimum circuit has a length of twenty‐one thousand six hundred nautical miles, or slightly less given the allowed imprecision of the split.

I think that this is an elegant solution and I�m miffed that no one has adopted it.

Loucks posted:

I feel like this subject has the potential to derail an interesting thread for a long rear end time.

I agree with this, but we have to give it credit for immediately ending a goons and food derail.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:25

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

vessbot posted:

Fun fact about the Rutan Voyager nonstop circumnavigation. They were originally planning to go East, as anyone coming up in flying in North America would do without a second thought. It wasn't until the project was well underway and they got a meteorologist, that he said "um, the wind is the other way at the equator!"

I made this mistake once in Sid Meier�s Pirates!.

I raided the Spanish Main from east to west. The return trip was considerably slower.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:29

dupersaurus: Aug 1, 2012; Futurism was an art movement where dudes were all 'CARS ARE COOL AND THE PAST IS FOR CHUMPS. LET'S DRAW SOME CARS.'

Platystemon posted:

I think that this is an elegant solution and I�m miffed that no one has adopted it.

I think a big problem is that you�re severely limiting the kinds of planes that can do it� the hemispheres aren�t symmetrical in land mass so at some point you�d have to do a real long leg over open ocean without refueling. There might a route over the poles for smaller planes, but that�s not usually what you think about with a circumnavigation

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:38

CarForumPoster: Jun 26, 2013; â¡POWERâ¡

Mortabis posted:

On the other hand it is still very annoying, and more importantly utterly useless at controlling the spread of a disease
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

This is some real Mortabis classic posting. A hot hot take from almost three brain cells of insight

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:46

vessbot: Jun 17, 2005; I don't like you because you're dangerous

Here are the current FAI requirements: (https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/sc_section_2_2013.pdf)

quote:

8.2.2 DESCRIPTION AND SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF EACH DIAMOND
8.2.2.1 Eastbound diamond
The eastbound diamond recognizes around the world flights travelling from west to
east.
The following requirements apply:
8.2.2.1.1 The course must be a minimum distance of 27,000 kilometers.
8.2.2.1.2 The course must cross all meridians.
FAI SPORTING CODE - SECTION 2 32
January 2013 Edition
8.2.2.1.3 All control points must be in an easterly succession.
8.2.2.2 Westbound diamond
The westbound diamond recognizes around the world flights travelling from east to
west.
The following requirements apply:
8.2.2.2.1 The course must be a minimum distance of 27,000 kilometers.
8.2.2.2.2 The course must cross all meridians.
8.2.2.2.3 All control points must be in a westerly succession.
8.2.2.3 Polar diamond
The polar diamond recognizes around the world flights travelling to both Polar
Regions.
The following requirements apply:
8.2.2.3.1 The course must be a minimum distance of 34,000 kilometers.
8.2.2.3.2 The flight must have been made to a control point north of 75 degrees North latitude
and a control point South of 75 degrees South latitude.
8.2.2.3.3 The crossing of the equator from North to South must be separated from the crossing
of the equator from South to North by 90-180 degrees of longitude.
8.2.2.4 Nonstop diamond
The nonstop diamond recognizes an eastbound, westbound, or polar around the world
flight that was made without any intermediate landing.
8.2.2.4.1 The following requirements apply:
8.2.2.4.2 The flight must meet the general and specific requirements listed above, as
appropriate.
8.2.2.4.3 The aircraft may not land during the flight. Refueling in flight may not occur.

For reference the circumference of the Earth is about 40,000 km, so it seems kinda weaksauce?

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:48

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

dupersaurus posted:

I think a big problem is that you�re severely limiting the kinds of planes that can do it� the hemispheres aren�t symmetrical in land mass so at some point you�d have to do a real long leg over open ocean without refueling. There might a route over the poles for smaller planes, but that�s not usually what you think about with a circumnavigation

You can zig and zag and take a longer route. If you can make the hop from Africa to Brazil, sixteen hundred nautical miles, it should be easy enough.

What you cannot do is stay far north in a plane or the old sailing trick of making a beeline for the Southern Ocean, taking the roaring forties around Antarctica, and slipping back up the Atlantic. You�d have to cover some ground in the tropics.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:53

vessbot: Jun 17, 2005; I don't like you because you're dangerous

For Voyager I remember something about having to cross the equator at least twice, at points separated by a certain amount of longitude, but it's not coming to me.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:56

~Coxy: Dec 9, 2003; R.I.P. Inter-OS Sass - b.2000AD d.2003AD

Does a battery/electric powered aircraft that has PV on the wings count as refueling in flight?

# ? Jan 26, 2022 01:58

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

~Coxy posted:

Does a battery/electric powered aircraft that has PV on the wings count as refueling in flight?

I would argue "no" as electricity generation from onboard systems has already been allowed, obviously, and there is no specific requirement that engines be powered by combustible fuel.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 02:29

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

vessbot posted:

Here are the current FAI requirements: (https://www.fai.org/sites/default/files/documents/sc_section_2_2013.pdf)

For reference the circumference of the Earth is about 40,000 km, so it seems kinda weaksauce?

A circumnavigation doesn�t necessarily say anything about the equator. A tropics circumnavigation could be an interesting category perhaps?

# ? Jan 26, 2022 03:26

vessbot: Jun 17, 2005; I don't like you because you're dangerous

hobbesmaster posted:

A circumnavigation doesn�t necessarily say anything about the equator. A tropics circumnavigation could be an interesting category perhaps?

Not necessarily the equator, but I think the spirit of a circumnavigation calls for something approximating a great circle route. If you only specify a distance, then the extreme gaming of it can be flying 40,000 km's worth of laps around your home field. Boring and unimpressive. But a great circle then forces a sampling of the challenges brought on by the different parts of the planet (And the choosing of which great circle to tailor those challenges to those your aircraft is best equipped to handle, itself being one of those challenges in the planning phase). And a set of rules that give some latitude (haha GET IT!?!) while forcing some approximation of this, is what I would do if setting it up.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 03:58

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

Well that�s what the cross all meridians rule is for.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 04:05

vessbot: Jun 17, 2005; I don't like you because you're dangerous

hobbesmaster posted:

Well that�s what the cross all meridians rule is for.

That one by itself means you can fly a circle around one of the poles. So it's not one rule, it's a system of them that works together.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 04:23

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

That should be legal for the North Pole.

For the south� I�m not sure you can do pattern work at NZSP

# ? Jan 26, 2022 04:27

EvenWorseOpinions: Jun 10, 2017

So a channel popped up on my feed recently called like 'Dan Gryder: probable cause'. His whole shtick is jumping to conclusions about accident causes and being angry at the NTSB for taking too long to release reports, but at the same time he appears to know his poo poo pretty decently and have a good safety attitude.

It's fairly entertaining, I think he makes some good points, but he's got some annoying ticks and I don't know that I agree with how much confidence he places in his assessments, anyone have opinions on him or watched his stuff?

# ? Jan 26, 2022 16:04

Aero737: Apr 30, 2006

In 2008, O'hare had a bit of a flooding issue.

EvenWorseOpinions posted:

So a channel popped up on my feed recently called like 'Dan Gryder: probable cause'. His whole shtick is jumping to conclusions about accident causes and being angry at the NTSB for taking too long to release reports, but at the same time he appears to know his poo poo pretty decently and have a good safety attitude.

It's fairly entertaining, I think he makes some good points, but he's got some annoying ticks and I don't know that I agree with how much confidence he places in his assessments, anyone have opinions on him or watched his stuff?

I don't watch him on Youtube, but I did watch him crash a plane in Rock Falls Illinois this summer so I guess that counts for something.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 16:36

FrozenVent: May 1, 2009; The Boeing 737-200QC is the undisputed workhorse of the skies.

EvenWorseOpinions posted:

So a channel popped up on my feed recently called like 'Dan Gryder: probable cause'. His whole shtick is jumping to conclusions about accident causes and being angry at the NTSB for taking too long to release reports, but at the same time he appears to know his poo poo pretty decently and have a good safety attitude.

It's fairly entertaining, I think he makes some good points, but he's got some annoying ticks and I don't know that I agree with how much confidence he places in his assessments, anyone have opinions on him or watched his stuff?

There�s a reason the NTSB takes so long to release a report. Fuckers are thorough.

I don�t know poo poo about aviation, but at least in my world when I see someone jump to conclusion, they�re wrong. Heck, I�m a pretty smart guy but my first guess as to the Ever Given�s root cause was wrong.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 16:52

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

I think, in general, criticizing the NTSB or similar agencies for being too slow to investigate is bullshit. Their job is to be right, not to be fast.

On the other hand, I tend to think that the attitude of "we must wait for the full NTSB report to discuss possible safety issues related to an accident or incident" is also pretty stupid. Both of these things are true at the same time. If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, it's most probably a duck, and indeed quite a few accidents are exactly what they appear to be at first glance. The NTSB needs to investigate on the off chance that it's not a duck, but we as pilots and laypeople don't need to pretend that "duck" and "not duck" are equally probable before discussing how we might improve aviation safety based on the possibilities.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 16:57

marumaru: May 20, 2013

Aero737 posted:

I don't watch him on Youtube, but I did watch him crash a plane in Rock Falls Illinois this summer so I guess that counts for something.

now that's commitment!

# ? Jan 26, 2022 17:03

EvenWorseOpinions: Jun 10, 2017

Aero737 posted:

I don't watch him on Youtube, but I did watch him crash a plane in Rock Falls Illinois this summer so I guess that counts for something.

Lol

PT6A posted:

I think, in general, criticizing the NTSB or similar agencies for being too slow to investigate is bullshit. Their job is to be right, not to be fast.

On the other hand, I tend to think that the attitude of "we must wait for the full NTSB report to discuss possible safety issues related to an accident or incident" is also pretty stupid. Both of these things are true at the same time. If it walks like duck, and quacks like a duck, it's most probably a duck, and indeed quite a few accidents are exactly what they appear to be at first glance. The NTSB needs to investigate on the off chance that it's not a duck, but we as pilots and laypeople don't need to pretend that "duck" and "not duck" are equally probable before discussing how we might improve aviation safety based on the possibilities.

I think this pretty much sums up my issues with his stuff. I don't take issue with his speculating about probably causes by itself, I think what fascinates me is that he otherwise gets angry about about cowboys and cowboy friendly FSDOs, while proclaiming the NTSB is wrong and he's right without necessarily having access to all the info that the NTSB does. It's the same cowboy arrogance, just in a different direction.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 17:27

Zero One: Dec 30, 2004; HAIL TO THE VICTORS!

In general pilots (and the public) want to know what happened asap so these kind of videos get popular even if they turn out wrong. Hear about a crash on the news, find the most popular YouTube about it, then forget about it all within a few days.

And It's very easy to speculate and be incredibly wrong. A non specific example could be assuming someone crashed because they flew into icing conditions based on looking at internet weather reports 50nm away from the crash site.

Meanwhile the NTSB looks at the physical evidence, does meticulous inspections of the remaining aircraft, interviews people who knew the pilots, who were at the airport, any other pilots in the area. And determine that the crash was caused by fuel starvation because the pilot misjudged their fuel burn and didn't refuel at their last stop.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 17:42

Kilonum: Sep 30, 2002; You know where you are? You're in the suburbs, baby. You're gonna drive.

They'll also go through the maintenance records with the finest of fine toothed combs and be like "oh and also this spark plug should have been changed 6 months ago and that might also have contributed to the crash."

# ? Jan 26, 2022 20:49

Kilonum: Sep 30, 2002; You know where you are? You're in the suburbs, baby. You're gonna drive.

It's me, I'm the guy who reads the GA crash reports for fun.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 20:50

Cojawfee: May 31, 2006; I think the US is dumb for not using Celsius

The pilot once heard the word "weed" while in the home deport gardening section. Illicit drug use is believed to be the cause of the crash.

# ? Jan 26, 2022 20:57

Zero One: Dec 30, 2004; HAIL TO THE VICTORS!

Pretend I posted NTSB.txt

# ? Jan 26, 2022 21:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 08:46

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

And the thing to remember is that transport-category aircraft are a whole different ball of wax. Nowadays, if an airliner crashes, speculation tends to be stupid because poo poo is so tightly controlled, and we know so much about how to aviate safely, that usually there's a bunch of causal factors, or something completely novel that happens to cause an accident.

This can also, occasionally, be the case with general aviation, but it's comparatively more likely that the answer is "pilot hosed around and found out, doing exactly the thing it looked like would lead to exactly that accident."

# ? Jan 26, 2022 22:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > Aeronautical Insanity: switching to secondary tolerances

«‹›2241 »