I don't see the point of this post. The stated purpose of the Si2 project is to demonstrate the capability of solar power, not to promote solar powered airplanes. Any comparison of this aircraft to a conventionally powered aircraft is completely inapt.

(Written on 2016年 05月 13日)(Permalink)

Sorry 2-person fans, that scheme is not going to prevent the Germanwings event. The two person rule is there to protect the pilot in the cockpit, not prevent a bad act by the pilot in the cockpit. A lunatic intent on destroying the plane, who happens to be one of the pilots, is not going to be deterred by a flight attendant in the cockpit. The rule is useless in the present case. The entire subject of cockpit security will have to be reengineered to prevent a crazy pilot from crashing the plane. Parking a flight attendant in there is not going to do the job.

(Written on 2015年 03月 27日)(Permalink)

Basically a Bayes Theorem sort of process. Used in the Air France case ... which took around two years to bring up the bulk of the wreckage and the data recorders, if I remember correctly.

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)

Cell connection may exist, but that is not the same thing as "service." Service requires a stable connection. At high altitude, the connection has to be reestablished every few minutes from tower to tower, and this feature is pretty iffy, it's often unstable even in a car on the ground.

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)

It might be "seen" but not necessarily seen in a way that provides reliable identification. Radar is pretty imperfect, one of the reasons why transponders are used in the first place.

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)

An intercept is not the relevant possibility. Just a sighting would have been enough to inform us at this point. There were no such sightings.

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)

Uh, a journey of several thousand miles either over land, or over water bordered closely by the radar capabilities of China, Japan, and South Korea ... with not a single clue left behind that this route was taken? Brilliant deduction.

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)

There's no software crash scenario that supports the event timeline.

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)

I don't know of any evidence on the wires so far to support this rank speculation.

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)

Not going to happen. To buy the "total trackability" suggestion, one has to believe that (a) the entire worldwide aircraft/airline industry and the regulators in all the participating countries have just forgotten or overlooked this possible step, (b) that trackability contributes in any reasonable way to safety, (c) that making this change is without cost, complication, and unexamined possible new problems, (d) that the airlines will sit still for making a change that basically advertises to the world that their planes and crews are so unreliable and so vulnerable that a 24/7 electronic leash is necessary in order to make sure that the remains of murdered passengers can be found quickly when something like this happens, and (e) that the ultimate safety and proper operation of aircraft cannot rest in the hands of crews any more because the world is just too dangerous too trust the principles that have protected ships at sea and airplanes in flight since the beginning of mechanized tran

(Written on 2014年 03月 16日)(Permalink)