|
My point wasn't that ISO 9001 is a time wasting exercise, but rather that certifications are purchased, not made.
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 04:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Commence imagedump! I did not take any of these (or even attend the event) but the Royal Australian Airforce has a bit of a gallery up from the Avalon international Airshow just outside of Melbourne, Australia which went from 1-6th of March. It looks like they had a pretty good array of old and new planes flying. All these images (and more) can be found at the gallery the airforce made of the event here: http://tinyurl.com/4aqx3pg F/A-18 & F/A-18F  F/A-18F  (top to bomttom) Navy Sea Fury, P40 Warhawk, A58 Spitfire & A64 Boomerang  A64 CAC Boomerang  F/A-18's  C-130J  A94 CAC (Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation) Avon Saber  Vampire (Formerly of the Rhodesian/Zimbabwe Air Force)  Lets play 'spot the plane!' B1-B, F22 Raptor, F-35, C17 Globemaster III, C-130, Gulfstream, DC9, Global Hawk... the list goes on.  Original gallery with much higher res photos here: http://tinyurl.com/4aqx3pg drunkill fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 06:24
|
|
|
grover posted:At least 1, in 2003 in Christchurch. I've heard slews of other anecdotes where pilots will have some sort of interference (nav device with erroneus data, static in the headphones, etc) and have that interference go away when cell phones or other electronics are turned off. Damned near impossible to prove, but happens every day. Something severe enough to cause a crash is a freak tiny-% chance, but the consequences are incredibly severe and the FAA has deemed NOT worth the risk. This is a silly argument. Let me requote a passage you bolded in your post: quote:The pilot had called home, and the call remained connected for the last three minutes of the flight. In the final report, the New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission stated, “The pilot’s own cellphone might have caused erroneous indications” on a navigational aid. Has no one taken into account that the pilot was TALKING ON THE PHONE instead of flying the airplane? Maybe he was phone-loving his wife, or his kid told him that one of his teachers diddled him, or he was finding out that his father just died. Who knows what he was talking about, and who cares. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the most important person on that plane, the one responsible for the safety of every single passenger aboard, split his attention between doing his job and chatting on the phone. And you're blaming the cell phone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:And you're blaming the cell phone? Pilots don't crash planes, cell phones do! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
If cell phones can gently caress with the ILS system, you'd think the easiest terrorist plot in the world would be an innocent looking van with an antenna inside that interferes with the beam and sends the plane too low. One of the reasons cell phones are banned is (as claimed) that they'd have to certify each type for use in aircraft and that's unrealistic given the price and the model turnover. Content: The astronautical insanitiest pic. One spaceship taking a picture of another one.  quote:Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera acquired this image of Phoenix hanging from its parachute as it descended to the Martian surface. Shown here is a 10 kilometer (6 mile) diameter crater informally called "Heimdall," and an improved full-resolution image of the parachute and lander. Although it appears that Phoenix is descending into the crater, it is actually about 20 kilometers (about 12 miles) in front of the crater. Given the position and pointing angle of MRO, Phoenix is at about 13 km above the surface, just a few seconds after the parachute opened. This image shows some details of the parachute, including the gap between upper and lower sections. At the time of this observation, MRO had an orbital altitude of 310 km, traveling at a ground velocity of 3.4 kilometers/second, and a distance of 760 km to the Phoenix lander. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_%28spacecraft%29
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Ola posted:
I remember when that was released. There was pretty much a collective  from every space/aero nerd on the planet.Afterwards JPL said they'd planned on trying to image it for months, but that there was an extremely good chance it wouldn't image so they didn't publicize in effort to not get hopes up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
Tupolev Superjet 100 FOR THE MOTHERLAND    effing imgur and breaking tables comrade commissar have him shot Trench_Rat fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Mar 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:Has no one taken into account that the pilot was TALKING ON THE PHONE instead of flying the airplane? Maybe he was phone-loving his wife, or his kid told him that one of his teachers diddled him, or he was finding out that his father just died.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Trench_Rat posted:Tupolev Superjet 100 FOR THE MOTHERLAND Did you mean Sukhoi? quote:effing imgur and breaking tables comrade commissar have him shot Ok! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
Finally the username/emoticon combo comes to spectacular use!
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
grover posted:Cockpit voice recorder says otherwise. He wasn't talking on the phone at the time; the ONLY thing out of the ordinary was that the cell phone was still on. He could have been reading a text message, or browsing the web, none of those would show up in the voice recorder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
Ola posted:If cell phones can gently caress with the ILS system, you'd think the easiest terrorist plot in the world would be an innocent looking van with an antenna inside that interferes with the beam and sends the plane too low. One of the reasons cell phones are banned is (as claimed) that they'd have to certify each type for use in aircraft and that's unrealistic given the price and the model turnover. Cell phones are banned because they'd gently caress up the system due to the speeds being traveled. It's an FCC regulation, not FAA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Cell phones are banned because they'd gently caress up the system due to the speeds being traveled. It's an FCC regulation, not FAA. Wait...what? You mostly likely won't get a signal above like 5-6k feet. They are very patterned to spread along the ground.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
Wibbleman posted:He could have been reading a text message, or browsing the web, none of those would show up in the voice recorder. Txting while flying a commercial airliner: officially worse than drunk driving. Plinkey posted:You mostly likely won't get a signal above like 5-6k feet. They are very patterned to spread along the ground. grover fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
grover posted:Yeah, they just don't work from aircraft, even at fairly low altitudes. I can't be the only person who's ever tried to pull up weather maps or make a phone call from a smartphone from a small plane. Has anyone ever had luck with this? Yes, not a small plane though. I've only been able to get email/texts/Voice mail notifications on a BAC 1-11 at like 750 feet. I actually managed to send one too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
And yet, people were making calls on United 93. Also, how did we get back to cellphones? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
grover posted:Perhaps, but the article said "The pilot had called home, and the call remained connected for the last three minutes of the flight." which is something entirely different. I've only tried once, and I had a signal. 30,000 ft is only 6 miles or so. Edit: drat, I was going to include some content (the Chinese Tu-4 AEW from the 60s) but waffleimages has died. Godholio fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 05:28
|
|
|
Re: F-16 bastard children Don't forget the F-16/79. An F-16 re-engined with a heavier, less powerful, thirstier engine (General Electric J-79) for export sales.   The J-79's long length (17 stage compressor) made for a comically extended tailpipe, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
grover posted:Perhaps, but the article said "The pilot had called home, and the call remained connected for the last three minutes of the flight." which is something entirely different. I've never made a call, but once when I forgot to turn my phone off I got a voicemail notification and a couple text messages at 30,000 feet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
That's probably all your can expect. voicemail notification and texts are single packet things. Cellphones stop making sense when they're talking to more than five or six cell sites. Just being on the observation deck of the john hancock building is enough to make the phone want to throw a fit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
Worth noting that the vast majority of calls made from Flight 93 (unless I'm mis-remembering) were from airphones, not cells.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
Your cell phone is affecting groundside communications on a massive scale. Consider experimental high altitude balloons. They typically choose a freq not being used by anything permanent and beacon at a very high rate, perhaps four times a minute. They typically output around 300mw or 0.3 watts. When one is aloft, it's data packets can be heard across the entirety of the US and Canada. If the balloon operator sets his radio to 144.39, it will wipe out the international APRS channel for hundreds of thousands of users. You can't have your telephone on because it makes the cell system go nuts, not because it'll crash the plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 16:26
|
|
|
Lord Commissar posted:And yet, people were making calls on United 93. Oh poo poo. That's why it crashed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
Skyssx posted:Your cell phone is affecting groundside communications on a massive scale.....You can't have your telephone on because it makes the cell system go nuts, not because it'll crash the plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:27
|
|
|
slidebite posted:It makes sense, but I'm a little skeptical of that. There has to be thousands of people that use, if only attempt to use, their cell phones from aircraft every day. If that was the case, how does the system cope? I'm not buying this either, I am in Comm/Nav for Heavy Aircraft in the Air Force, we can use our cell phones non stop during operation of all the avionics systems with no affect whatsoever. We can utilize UHF/VHF/VOR-ILS/GPS/TACAN/UHF-DF/etc. etc. while a cell phone is in use with absolutely no affect, the worse we will have is audio noise from the phones, thats it. And if the ability for a cell phone to gently caress up a flight that bad, all you'd have to do to crash planes was generate noise inside the frequency range that a cell phone broadcasts and you'd be knocking planes out of the air left and right. I'm calling bullshit 
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Mar 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Haven't seen this one in the wild yet. Southwest's normal colors combined with sunset in Tampa is pretty intense. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Haven't seen this one in the wild yet. See it every day down here in FLL. Looks great. It's been around for quite awhile now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
My dad flew MH-53's back in the day. He said on some long flight out west his copilot who was a ham, got on the radio and tuned it to one of the Ham bands and started making QSO's. Fun story, and I wish I could try it, or hear it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Haven't seen this one in the wild yet. I really wish they'd do more like this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 02:58
|
|
|
Courtesy of Gtab in TFR:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 03:48
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I really wish they'd do more like this. i've flown on that plane, it's pretty impressive in person
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I really wish they'd do more like this. Southwest is undoubtedly working on more; "Florida One" entered service in 2010. Mobius1B7R posted:See it every day down here in FLL. Looks great. It's been around for quite awhile now. "Up here" in FLL; I'm in Coconut Grove 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:My dad flew MH-53's back in the day. He said on some long flight out west his copilot who was a ham, got on the radio and tuned it to one of the Ham bands and started making QSO's. Fun story, and I wish I could try it, or hear it. We have 2 HF radios in our C-130Hs and yes, we pick up a lot of HAM users, in general just checking in, squawking their call signs and.....constantly talking about the weather
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 05:52
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Haven't seen this one in the wild yet. A "before" picture: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
BonzoESC posted:Southwest is undoubtedly working on more; "Florida One" entered service in 2010. They have a bunch of customized planes. I like the Orca one myself. http://www.flickr.com/photos/southerncalifornian/1736621861/
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 06:06
|
|
|
I fly light aircraft and find that upto about 3000ft you can usually get ok signal and make a call quite comfortably. I've never noticed or experienced any issues on the comms / nav. Saying that my calls tend to be pretty short, just letting someone know that I'm inbound or over their house etc. Anything much higher and I find signal is very iffy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 11:31
|
|
|
DJCobol posted:They have a bunch of customized planes. I like the Orca one myself. I've been on that one and "Maryland One."
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 15:40
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:I fly light aircraft and find that upto about 3000ft you can usually get ok signal and make a call quite comfortably. I've never noticed or experienced any issues on the comms / nav. Saying that my calls tend to be pretty short, just letting someone know that I'm inbound or over their house etc. Can we stop making GBS threads up the thread with cellphone bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
SwimNurd posted:Can we stop making GBS threads up the thread with cellphone bullshit. Aeronautical Insanity: Post hot radial engines and yap about jets and stuff
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
 This is the block assembly from a R4360. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R4360 1.1lb/hp. 3500hp. This is not quite my favorite radial, but it's close.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 16:27
|
|