Non-IT News Thread
-
I wonder how much more stress in on the plane because it's circular?
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Circular runways???
I read about that before. I think it's a really cool idea and would love to see it in use.
I just was texting my friend who is a JetBlue pilot. She doesn't think it's a good idea LOL
I wonder why not, other then having to land, and take off, at a slight angle, I don't see many issues with it. Cross traffic may be the biggest issue but that would just take some logistics and training to get around.
Her contention was that it would take up a lot more space, materials, etc, and wouldn't be very economically viable.
Training...oh yeah!! Plus you would have to reconfigure the plane's landing gear for starters. Sounds really expensive.
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Circular runways???
I read about that before. I think it's a really cool idea and would love to see it in use.
I just was texting my friend who is a JetBlue pilot. She doesn't think it's a good idea LOL
I wonder why not, other then having to land, and take off, at a slight angle, I don't see many issues with it. Cross traffic may be the biggest issue but that would just take some logistics and training to get around.
Her contention was that it would take up a lot more space, materials, etc, and wouldn't be very economically viable.
Training...oh yeah!! Plus you would have to reconfigure the plane's landing gear for starters. Sounds really expensive.
Right, they covered that in the video for the most part. The circle uses the same number of materials as three runways and, in simulations, can do the work of 4. Not saying I trust it of course he is a salesmen... but seems logical that it wouldn't need more material then what large airports currently demand... it wouldn't be attractive that's for sure.
-
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Circular runways???
I read about that before. I think it's a really cool idea and would love to see it in use.
I just was texting my friend who is a JetBlue pilot. She doesn't think it's a good idea LOL
I wonder why not, other then having to land, and take off, at a slight angle, I don't see many issues with it. Cross traffic may be the biggest issue but that would just take some logistics and training to get around.
Her contention was that it would take up a lot more space, materials, etc, and wouldn't be very economically viable.
Training...oh yeah!! Plus you would have to reconfigure the plane's landing gear for starters. Sounds really expensive.
So, if you have to have a different set of landing gear for the type of airport that you are departing from/arriving to, then you are going to have a different network of airports as planes with circular gear can't utilize airports with straight runways, etc.
In IT-speak, this is an OSI layer 1 problem.
Or do you need different landing gear that can be configured for both types of airports?
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
-
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Circular runways???
I read about that before. I think it's a really cool idea and would love to see it in use.
I just was texting my friend who is a JetBlue pilot. She doesn't think it's a good idea LOL
I wonder why not, other then having to land, and take off, at a slight angle, I don't see many issues with it. Cross traffic may be the biggest issue but that would just take some logistics and training to get around.
Her contention was that it would take up a lot more space, materials, etc, and wouldn't be very economically viable.
Training...oh yeah!! Plus you would have to reconfigure the plane's landing gear for starters. Sounds really expensive.
So, if you have to have a different set of landing gear for the type of airport that you are departing from/arriving to, then you are going to have a different network of airports as planes with circular gear can't utilize airports with straight runways, etc.
In IT-speak, this is an OSI layer 1 problem.
Or do you need different landing gear that can be configured for both types of airports?
See, I'm not sure about the landing gear issue. If you have an adequate slope and diameter of the runway the gear, other then the force pulling the gear toward the center, might not have to be different.
-
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Circular runways???
I read about that before. I think it's a really cool idea and would love to see it in use.
I just was texting my friend who is a JetBlue pilot. She doesn't think it's a good idea LOL
I wonder why not, other then having to land, and take off, at a slight angle, I don't see many issues with it. Cross traffic may be the biggest issue but that would just take some logistics and training to get around.
Her contention was that it would take up a lot more space, materials, etc, and wouldn't be very economically viable.
Training...oh yeah!! Plus you would have to reconfigure the plane's landing gear for starters. Sounds really expensive.
So, if you have to have a different set of landing gear for the type of airport that you are departing from/arriving to, then you are going to have a different network of airports as planes with circular gear can't utilize airports with straight runways, etc.
In IT-speak, this is an OSI layer 1 problem.
Or do you need different landing gear that can be configured for both types of airports?
When I hear it, I start thinking of tires and suspensions for an F1 car as opposed to a NASCAR. I'm sure people smarter than me have thought all this up already LOL
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
Pretty much how I understand it as well. Pilots are just there for emergencies and due to regulations.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
That's a rumor. More hand flying has been done for a couple of years now.
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
Pretty much how I understand it as well. Pilots are just there for emergencies and due to regulations.
And to make the flying public feel safe. Honestly I think that's why the cockpit door is open during boarding. It's little more than a placebo.
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
That's a rumor. More hand flying has been done for a couple of years now.
Why is that?
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
That's a rumor. More hand flying has been done for a couple of years now.
Why is that?
I believe it was in response to a crash in San Francisco where the pilot lacked the critical skills to correct what was going on and everyone died in the crash.
The FAA recommended it. I think this article touches on it.
-
That article has a PDF of the actual FAA document.
-
The FAA is recommending humans fly more often, than say a computer, which has a very limited chance of a royal cluster f..... yeah I'm not listening to the FAA any more..
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
The FAA is recommending humans fly more often, than say a computer, which has a very limited chance of a royal cluster f..... yeah I'm not listening to the FAA any more..
Ask the people on the flight from Rio to Paris where the PITOT tubes froze and there was no autopilot? You can't, they all died because the co-pilot could figure out the plane was in a stall even though the alarm went off over 200 times.
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
That's a rumor. More hand flying has been done for a couple of years now.
Why is that?
I believe it was in response to a crash in San Francisco where the pilot lacked the critical skills to correct what was going on and everyone died in the crash.
The FAA recommended it. I think this article touches on it.
The funny thing is that they are telling pilots to only be at the stick when it is least likely to screw up, at least that's how I'm reading it. "We want you to be better... but only when it matters the least."
-
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
That's a rumor. More hand flying has been done for a couple of years now.
Why is that?
I believe it was in response to a crash in San Francisco where the pilot lacked the critical skills to correct what was going on and everyone died in the crash.
The FAA recommended it. I think this article touches on it.
So because pilots can't fly well enough, we'll use them more often? Great idea.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
That's a rumor. More hand flying has been done for a couple of years now.
Why is that?
I believe it was in response to a crash in San Francisco where the pilot lacked the critical skills to correct what was going on and everyone died in the crash.
The FAA recommended it. I think this article touches on it.
So because pilots can't fly well enough, we'll use them more often? Great idea.
Eh, I think that's a stretch. It's a skill that involves muscle memory. If you don't practice you lose some of your skill
-
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El said in Non-IT News Thread:
Could you imagine being a passenger on that plane? I already hate to fly.
I actually don't have a problem with the general idea.
and if the rumor I've heard is true,
that most commercial flights today are auto pilot take off and land - oh and fly the course
then no, I don't really have a problem with this.
That's a rumor. More hand flying has been done for a couple of years now.
Why is that?
I believe it was in response to a crash in San Francisco where the pilot lacked the critical skills to correct what was going on and everyone died in the crash.
The FAA recommended it. I think this article touches on it.
The funny thing is that they are telling pilots to only be at the stick when it is least likely to screw up, at least that's how I'm reading it. "We want you to be better... but only when it matters the least."
Yeah, that's how I read it too.
My friend tells me she use to throw it on autopilot at 500ft after takeoff and off at 50ft, but now she's hand flying it almost all the way down from cruising altitude.
