poisednoise

About

Username
poisednoise
Joined
Visits
37
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
138
Badges
0
Posts
73
  • Boeing 737 Max pilots didn't have flight simulators, and trained on iPads instead

    kingofsomewherehot said:
    Software is not required to ensure it remains in the air. (That statement would be valid for an Airbus.... you should avoid flying on them.) 
    Would you care to provide citation? Stating that all Airbus aircraft will crash without computer control is quite a sweeping statement. If you’re referring to fly by wire, my understanding is that the 320 has mechanical backup, all others have electrical (not electronic) backups in the case of multiple computer failures. If you’re suggesting that no Airbus aircraft would have the potential to survive a “Gimli glider”-like incident, I’d be interested to see your source.

    [edit] Guess what I just found: an Air Transat A330 landed safely after travelling 75 miles without any power  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/can-a-plane-fly-with-no-one-engines/

    And of course the “Miracle on the Hudson” was an A320, so I’m really not sure what you’re on about. 
    cgWerks
  • Boeing 737 Max pilots didn't have flight simulators, and trained on iPads instead

    An excellent explanation of the potential problems with this design here: https://youtu.be/8h5hniSM7LQ.


    I'm currently booked on a return flight on a 737-8 in July, and I really hope by that point the decision's been made that they all need to be scrapped and start again.
    You hope that a plane is "scrapped" rather than "fixed"?
    Obviously I’d prefer it to be fixed, however I dont want to fly on a plane that is inherently unstable by design, as this one is, and requires software to ensure it remains in the air. Given the fundamental issues with the design, short of putting new smaller engines on the plane (basically turning it into one of the earliers generations of 737) I’m not sure what can be done, and even that fix might not be feasible.

    MCAS is a system that’s common on fighter aircraft where unstable designs can lead to greater manoeuvrability: I believe however that it doesn’t have any place on a passenger aircraft, where safety should surely come before any other consideration. If you’re needing to design software just to keep your plane in the air, then hiding its existence from the pilots (it wasn’t mentioned in the original manual apparently) and additonally changing its specs radically after FAA approval, without telling the FAA (they approved a system which could move the tail fin by 0.6 degres maximum, whereas the system as installed can move it by 2.5 degrees) something is seriously wrong. 
    dysamoriacgWerks
  • Next-generation 'budget' iPad rumored to retain Touch ID, headphone jack

    To all those asking about the 3.5mm jack:
    Anything aimed at the education market needs to retain the audio jack, as the alternatives are far too costly for a school.
    • Lightning headphones: still so much more expensive than their 3.5mm counterparts, and students are unlikely to have their own, whereas they will have their own 3.5mm headphones. 
    • Lightning adaptors: not cheap, breakable, and prone to disappear into student’s pockets. 
    • Wireless headphones: again, expensive, and more prone to breaking than 3.5mm alternatives. 
    I’m a classroom music teacher in the UK, and have been doing the job for 26 years. The iPad is something many schools in the UK are beginning to provide to students: if the headphone jack disappears, so will that market for Apple. 

    MisterKitdedgeckoBenCbaconstangbb-15muthuk_vanalingam
  • Siri heckles UK defense secretary in parliamentary debate

    The problem here is that he was talking about Syria. There only needs to be an "a" in front of it (such as "A Syrian solution" etc) to almost certainly trigger Siri...
    StrangeDaysAlex1N
  • Inside Consumer Reports: How iPhone, iPad, Mac, and HomePod testing is performed

    The article implies that an anechoic chamber and a soundproof room are the same thing - they're not. There's often overlap: anechoic chambers have to be soundproof, but not the other way around.

    An anechoic chamber has zero reverberation - that is, any sound is absorbed completely by the walls. A soundproof room can be highly resonant, soundproof just means no sound gets out. Recording studios tend not to be anechoic (although the vocal booth frequently gets close) but they are always soundproof.

    To all intents and purposes a wide open space at altitude is anechoic - the sound has nothing to bounce off, so there's no return - but it's definitely not soundproof!
    dewmeIreneWbestkeptsecret