James Carlson
| 注册时间： | |
| 最后在线时间 | |
| 飞行执照 | Private/IFR |
| 语言 | English (USA) |
Can you see IR or UV illumination? I'm pretty sure I can't, but I know a camera will. Do you know what the performance characteristics of that camera are compared with the naked eye? I'm pretty sure I don't know -- they didn't publish any specs here -- but I do know there are cameras that have far higher spacial and color resolution than any human eye. And what makes you think it would be returned to service *before* reviewing the data? Nothing in that video or article suggested in any way that you'd just fly the UAS, take some pictures, and then sign off without review. I'm sure you have experience in MX. I'm not doubting that for a moment. But I do think this complaint is ill-founded.
(Written on 2018年 04月 13日)(Permalink)
Neither the article nor the video explain the details of the equipment carried by that UAS. I think that with the right instrumentation and data processing, this could be a significant advancement over standard visual inspections. Given that they're apparently seeking certification for the system, I'd expect there's more to the picture here than a simple remote camera. I'd have no problem stepping on board an aircraft that was inspected by an automated system, especially if they can prove that it catches things that humans can't catch.
(Written on 2018年 04月 13日)(Permalink)
Article claims no transponder, but they clearly had both a squawk code (0027) and an altitude (FL370) from secondary, and those are different encodings. I think someone doesn't quite know how this works.
(Written on 2018年 02月 23日)(Permalink)
I was replying to the original poster, who asked if it was en-route. It seems like sort of an odd question, no? If I'd wanted to reply to your comment then ... wait for it ... I would have replied to your comment.
(Written on 2017年 12月 01日)(Permalink)
En-route at 3000 feet?
(Written on 2017年 12月 01日)(Permalink)
I think it'll be easier to get used to "airprox" in place of "NMAC" than it was to say "apron" instead of "ramp."
(Written on 2017年 11月 03日)(Permalink)
Numbers. There are almost 9 times as many 172s made as 170s, and 4 times as many 182s as 180s.
(Written on 2017年 10月 06日)(Permalink)
I know I would have. Even if the animal were removed, the allergy is to proteins in the saliva and dander ... and that gets all over everything and can't easily be removed. When I was young, I had an allergy like that to cats. Within minutes of entering a room where a cat had been -- or even a room where a cat owner covered in bits of fur had visited -- I would have an immediate reaction. If I didn't leave, I'd feel my throat constrict, and I'd have to be carried out. Well-meaning relatives would tell me that they confined a pet to another part of the house and vacuumed "really well." Ha. That does little to no good. To answer others, no, I never had an epi-pen or a doctor's note -- this is before that product was invented (it first went on the market in 1987). But I usually had Benadryl and a keen sense of staying away from those creatures. And, fortunately, many allergies tend to change over time. I hope there's more to the story, but I doubt we'll hear about it. N
(Written on 2017年 09月 29日)(Permalink)
Right, but rather than simply state the truth -- "we're aware that it's inefficient, but we do it for economic and marketing reasons" -- they apparently decided to go with a smokescreen answer. I'm with the CBC on this. Their answer was at best nonsense. The thing I find hilarious about the seating classes is that we're still all getting there at the same time, no matter which order we board. At egress time, sure, it might make marketing sense to provide some sort of reward to higher-paying fares. But how are you giving anyone an advantage by letting them board "early" just so they can sit there and wait until the last person in cattle-class can get on board? Is setting inside a plane at the gate really that exciting?
(Written on 2017年 09月 22日)(Permalink)
登录
