« first day (86 days earlier)      last day (3995 days later) » 
02:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

17:00
Granted, all of this speculation would be turned on it's head if, indeed, flight 370 did turn around at some point and head in another direction...which one report has said at least...
@shortstheory I think it's that one that mentions the AD... might not be... rewatching it myself now
it isn't.. it's the one about the comms systems... one sec, will try to find it
I don't know what systematically shutdown means here, but the fact that there is time between the two shutdowns does not indicate that it was done intentionally.
@ratchetfreak Flight 522 was kind of crazy. One of the passengers did actually make it to the cabin it would appear. And they did stay in contact with ground to some extent...
17:04
@JayCarr a flight attendant actually, if he had gone in earlier and had some experience in that plane he might have been able to save it
I just searched airworthiness directive 777 on Google ;)
from another point: how badly will the crash affect 777-8/9X production?
it won't
@ratchetfreak Yeah, the article mentioned an engine had flamed out just before he got to the controls. That would be...upsetting I would imagine.
do you think airlines might be reluctant to buy 777-8/9s after this?
17:05
There's only ever been one fatal 777 crash in 20 years
@shortstheory It's really going to depend on the reports. But it's unlikely.
I hope so, Boeing needs all the money they can get to make the next SST
(even though that will probably still not happen :* )
:(
@shortstheory don't hold your breath, there's no market for it...
what about Lockheed's SST?
The Green Machine or some nonesense name like that
lol, the more important question is, "will passengers pay twice as much to shorter a flight by half?' and "will they relax sonic boom regulations in the EU and USA?"
Neither seems likely.
17:07
Asiana Airlines Flight 214 On the morning of Saturday, July 6, 2013, the Boeing 777-200ER aircraft operating the flight crashed on final approach into San Francisco. It was the first crash of a Boeing 777 that resulted in fatalities since its entry to service in 1995.
@JayCarr
I want to make the next SST after I become an aerospace engineer
IMO if the airplane can fly enough....
Do it. Just make it efficient so it's cost effective or nobody will buy it.
@JayCarr NASA is investigating how to reduce sonic booms so that supersonic transport over populated areas might be acceptable
@DeltaLima now that is good news right there.
the effect of the sonic booms will be highly reduced
like flying FL 1000 or something
wikipedia has more on it:
A sonic boom is the sound associated with the shock waves created by an object traveling through the air faster than the speed of sound. Sonic booms generate enormous amounts of sound energy, sounding much like an explosion. The crack of a supersonic bullet passing overhead is an example of a sonic boom in miniature. Causes When an aircraft passes through the air it creates a series of pressure waves in front of it and behind it, similar to the bow and stern waves created by a boat. These waves travel at the speed of sound, and as the speed of the object increases, the waves are forc...
17:09
Well, if they can get the price down and get the sonic booms to be reasonable... I'm all in favor of a Mach 2 people transport, that would be coooool!
not just that!
flying at FL 1000 would you give you a helluva view
the curvature of earth
the darkness of space
:*
@shortstheory The real thing you want to work on is SpaceShip One.
why not SS2?
17:10
These people:
Virgin Galactic is an America-based, British-owned commercial spaceflight company within Richard Branson's Virgin Group which plans to provide suborbital spaceflights to space tourists, suborbital launches for space science missions, and orbital launches of small satellites. Further in the future, Virgin Galactic hopes to offer orbital human spaceflights as well. Virgin Galactic's spacecraft is launched from a large aeroplane, giving the spacecraft more initial speed and altitude than if it were launched from the ground. Mothership The White Knight Two is a special aeroplane that func...
@JayCarr:
Sorry, got the name wrong ;)
shameless plug here :P
15
Q: How are Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo's windows so large?

shortstheoryFrom Virgin Galactic on SpaceShipTwo: Windows in the passenger compartment will be 13 inches (33 centimeters) wide by 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. IMO that's enormous for an airplane, especially for a spaceplane! But, wouldn't such large windows cause problems? The Concorde had particu...

Right, I'm one of the answers on there.
I'm the money guy ;)
I think you'd probably prefer to work on a ship that's designed to be for sight see'ers and people who generally doing it because its' cool.
Not to get from A to B.
A to B planes are...not exciting.
Well, they can be.
17:11
But it's like comparing a city bus to a Ferrari, you know?
well I +1'd your answer anyway :)
what is the concorde then?
the city bus to ferrari is actually a p. good comparison
in under 4 hours
@ratchetfreak And I respect that, but it's still a big plane built to go from A to B.
I like manuevrability.
I'd like to work on fighter jets, given a chance.
17:13
concorde is almost a fighter jet
lol
I'd love to hear why you think so.
it could've actually been a great bomber aircraft if it didn't need shit tons of fuel
> it goes pretty fast
Which is kind of a big problem.
Right, but if you get ride of all those pesky passengers and attach bigger engines...
and this:
17:14
You get an SR-71, or maybe the Valkarye.
Valkyrie! :*
{| |} The North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie was the prototype version of the proposed B-70 nuclear-armed deep-penetration strategic bomber for the United States Air Force's (USAF) Strategic Air Command. Designed by North American Aviation in the late 1950s, the Valkyrie was a large six-engined aircraft able to fly Mach 3+ at an altitude of , which would have allowed it to avoid interceptors, the only effective anti-bomber weapon at the time. Improved high-altitude surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), the change to low-level penetration bombing, the program's high development costs, ...
Ah, you beat me to it.
what an airplane
@JayCarr passengers are never good for anything
absolutely brilliant
17:14
@ratchetfreak looooool
Sorry, I'm being silly aren't I?
the Concorde could barrel roll
really NICELY
All I'm saying is I would prefer to work on a highly manuevrable figher type aircraft rather than on a passenger liner.
But everyone has their own thing, and everyone finds different things interesting.
I just forget not everyone is me sometimes ;)
@JayCarr
I'm told the 707 could also barrel roll ;)
you'd fly upside down the entire way if you could
17:16
watch that video
can't all planes roll over?
@JayCarr @shortstheory "All modes of transportation have realized Debbie Hersman is leaving the NTSB, so it's OK to act up again."
@ratchetfreak "Once" :-)
3
:(
watched that before
17:17
Tis a classic, that one.
@JayCarr I like aircraft where, were I pressed to do so, I would be able to disassemble and rebuild it in a field in the middle of nowhere using a screw driver and some safety wire.
@voretaq7 Is that a plug for kit planes, or just you admitting that in real life you're MacGyver?
Actually, pull a little fasciciousness out of that last response. Are there planes like that?
Are there any planes that cannot do a barrel roll?
The RAF had no plane fast enough to keep up with the Concorde
how does that sound?
@JayCarr both :-) But there's very little that could go wrong on my Cherokee (that would be reasonably repairable) that I couldn't manage to patch into at least flyable condition with a multitool/screwdriver, a couple of appropriately-sized wrenches, and a socket set.
17:21
@DeltaLima the wright brother's plane I think
Mach 2.04 was cutting edge, even for fighter jets at the time
The Concorde could even do Mach 2.30, but that would be beating the crap out of the airfram
@JayCarr Most of the Piper & Cessna planes (PA28, Cessna 150/152 & 170/172) are pretty simple mechanically speaking
the airframe can only last at Mach 2.30 for about 10000 hours
@voretaq7 Mmm, you're a braver man than me. I don't trust myself to fix things like that. Things I fix tend to only stay fixed temporarily...
@DeltaLima properly executed, with minimum time inverted, not really
17:23
whereas it's lifetime is 40000 hours at Mach 2.04
@ratchetfreak Which Cherokee do you have?
I don't have a plane
@shortstheory Nifty
@ratchetfreak fair enough, but I can't think of any reason why any aircraft with ailerons would not be able to do it.
I don't even know how to fly
17:23
@ratchetfreak _sorry
I meant- @voretaq7 What kind of Cherokee?
(I'm in your boat personally @ratchetfreak, no license, no plane, lots of dreams...)
@JayCarr oh I'm not saying I'd want to - there's a reason I have the shop do all the putting-it-back-together bits - but I've worked on cars more complex than my plane
@JayCarr 180C
Huh, interesting.
@JayCarr no real dream TBH
@ratchetfreak Oh? No interest in getting a license?
17:24
@ratchetfreak get an A&P license, we need more mechanics :-)
sorry I'm more interested in programming
@voretaq7 Is it reasonable to take care of?
@ratchetfreak lol, me too, but only by default. It's my day job, so...
well I'm going to make the drive home now
@JayCarr "reasonable" is relative - I have no wife, no kids, and no car payment, so I adopted a 50 year old airplane. In my case I knew pretty much what I was getting in to when I bought it (needs paint, a bunch of upgrades I want to do, etc.).
@ratchetfreak This just makes me wonder either where you live or what kind of odd hours you keep for work or what.
@voretaq7 - I know how much the payments usually are on planes like that, but how much insurance and maintenance costs generally? (And I'm about the same boat, situation wise, just paying for a car still).
17:32
@JayCarr here in Europe the weekend already started :-)
Oh, I had thought England (and there abouts) was further forward than 4 hours.
It's 12:34 where I am./
@JayCarr with the tiedown ($170/mo here -- have I mentioned living in NY sucks) and the plane itself ($290) that's about what my car payment was, insurance is about $1k/yr, annuals are $1200/yr plus "fix all the shit that needs fixing"
paying off my car is what I used to rationalize going back on the hunt to buy a plane :-)
@voretaq7 Sounds rational to me!
@JayCarr that's what I said! :-)
So, roughly $700/month until something needs to be prepared.
repared
Jeez......
And then each flight costs...well, depends I would suppose.
Though it seems like an hour in that craft would be, what, $70 or so in fuel?
17:44
@JayCarr give or take, plus $25/hr that I chuck into an engine reserve
Not counting the paint job that's coming up owning and renting have roughly broken even for me
(and when I stop dicking around and doing stuff to the plane I'll probably be a little ahead by owning)
How often do you fly? It seems like you'd have to fly fairly often to break even on this.
there are also cheaper planes to own/operate than the 180
@JayCarr depending on weather there are some months in the summer where I'll be doing 2-3 hours saturdays & sundays
(and in the suck-time winter we've had this year there were some months where I was lucky to even get in the plane once.... which means what I was gonna spend flying went into "Hey I might as well buy all the new LED lighting now...")
Ah the problems of aircraft ownership, eh? Do you just fly around for fun, or are you going places?
a little of both - I like to travel regionally, and flying is often less sucky than driving without costing too much more
what would be a minimum 3 day trip up to Boston (and dealing with massholes) to visit friends I can do as a day trip or overnight with the plane
Sounds nice. That's why I've wanted a plane for a while. I have several friends that would be a couple days in a car, but 5 hours in a plane that does about 250kts (assuming I can afford one of those.)
Maybe when I pay off the car then... :)
17:51
and come summer if I want to go sit out on the rocks at Montauk I can take a <abuses flight planning software> ~45-50 minute flight rather than about 3 hours in the car dealing with Hamptons Traffic
@JayCarr 200kt-plus planes tend to be on the expensive side
Yeah... Pay off the car and get a raise then ;).
One of these days, when I'm really making money, I want a twin of some sort.
But that's going to take some time.
I can cruise the Cherokee somewhere between 120-130 indicated (in smooth air), and you get to travel in a mostly-straight-line
I don't know why I dread calling FBO's so much.
in reality I plan on about 110-115kts groundspeed and usually beat that number
@BretCopeland because talking to humans sucks :-)
perhaps phone calls are just terrible and frighten me.
17:54
@BretCopeland wait.... this thing can make voice calls? <stares at iPhone with a mixture of astonishment and horror>
@BretCopeland If only one could text an FBO...
I need to call the Scranton (AVP) FBO, and I've been putting it off all week.
@JayCarr something something ACARS something something :-)
@BretCopeland you're in need of ground transportation?
(this is why I usually call FBOs -- "Y'all got a rental car company you like who won't completely rape me?")
@BretCopeland Email them: [email protected]
no, transportation is covered, I just want to know ahead of time what the landing fee and parking situation is.
17:56
"I'd like for the car rental to cost less than the flight portion of my trip." -- Actual thing I said to Enterprise once.
@Lnafziger yeah, I was thinking about that.
I usually just call though. It's faster and more reliable. And they usually have that information very handy because they get asked for it all the time.
@Lnafziger yeah with the exception of the couple of FBOs I've visited that were literally run by the airport hound dog they've all been helpful on the phone.
Anyway, getting ready to fly (SKBO-SKCG). Talk to you all this evening.
yeah, and the worst is when you send an email, don't get a response, and then still have to call them
17:58
And I can't really hold it against the dog... what does a basset hound know from telephones?
@BretCopeland I hate when a company puts up an email address to contact them and then never gets back to you
@BretCopeland I'm not naming names :-)
18:18
I just bit the bullet and made a real-life phone call.
This a tragedy, to be sure.
I obtained all the information I wanted, but at great cost.
@JayCarr I just stayed a bit late that's all
@ratchetfreak Ah, for some reason I thought Europe was more like 7 or 8 hours ahead of me here. So either you were going home really quite late (like 9pm) or you were state side and leaveing at 1PM (at latest), which would have been a serious cause for jealousy in my book ;).
no it's 7:30 here now
18:34
Inmarsat statement on Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
14 March 2014: Inmarsat has issued the following statement regarding Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Routine, automated signals were registered on the Inmarsat network from Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 during its flight from Kuala Lumpur.

This information was provided to our partner SITA, which in turn has shared it with Malaysia Airlines.
well that's not superbly useful
@ratchetfreak What country are you in? If you don't mind my asking...
@Aaron That may well be the definition of useless.
@BretCopeland MY MANWICH MINUTES!
@voretaq7 I think I average < 5 minutes per month that actually count. If I have an extended conversation it's almost always during off-times.
@BretCopeland idunno, I have AT&T and enough rollover minutes to plan an invasion of Russia in the winter, so I'm really not particularly aware of these things :P
And I have unlimited data, but average something like 100MB/month. I'm a ridiculous under-utilizer.
18:42
@BretCopeland that's OK, I make up for you. BRB, downloading the latest chart cycle via cellular :-)
@voretaq7 I'm glad foreflight at least asks you "hey buddy, looks like you're trying to download these charts on your cell plan. I'm gonna go ahead and suggest you don't do that."
I guess it's not so much a question as it is a reminder that you should pay attention, and perform all the steps on the chart download checklist.
@BretCopeland "Heyyyyy it looks like you're trying to run up a giant cellular bill!"
unfortunately, ForeFlight is trying to download giant files because everything they do is raster :(
@egid raster? Why? Why not use vector?
I mean, this is aviation after all.... rimshot
zing
18:52
lol, that's my new favorite animation.
@JayCarr the FAA provides rasterized charts
probably because they hate us
19:14
@voretaq7 You know, that's the general impression I get from most of what I read from them? :p Though the NTSB seems nice enough.
I wish they would just make their crash reports a bit easier to search though...
@JayCarr they're easy to search if you know what you're looking for :)
19:34
but you'd need to know what to look for
@ratchetfreak well I suppose if you want to browse the entire NTSB accident database you could order it in book form or something :-)
I just wish you could get them arranged by accident type. But that might be a lot of work that not many would benefit from, so...
@JayCarr what's a "type"? :-)
All of my first-hand experiences with the FAA have been pleasant and professional
@voretaq7 Yeah, that could be confusing in context. I mean like "mechanical failure -> landing gear" or "pilot error -> high speed stall." etc.
19:48
@egid All of my first-hand experiences with the FAA have been disappointing. ("Sorry but we wouldn't approve a 337 for that")
@JayCarr Pilot Error vs Mechanical Failure would be a nice addition to the categories
@voretaq7 Yeah, those two and possibly "controller error" and "weather related", which are the main ones I seem to see (though perhaps weather related should just be a sub-set of pilot error?)
@egid e.g. I wanted to install one of these to replace my belly strobe when it died (brighter, less drag, less power draw, no strobe RF, and the LEDs will probably outlive me). Instead I had to put another fat ass self-contained strobe on the bottom
20:28
poor @voretaq7 didn't bribe the bureaucrat enough
@ratchetfreak If I were willing to fund the lighting study the would have signed off on it, but I'm not renting a freakin' lab to do a lighting study against the TSO. The LED was already going to be a little more expensive than the strobe - I wasn't gonna spring for "WAY more expensive" :-)
lol
crowd fund the study
then more pilots can pay for it and you don't have to deal with that again
There aren't any 1:1 replacements?
the whelen par36 landing lights are a drop in
@ratchetfreak Not a half bad idea actually. Kickstarter might be a good place to try something like that.
@egid for the stobe? not TSO'd ones
I could get a bunch of non-self-contained ones and change where I put the power supply, but there were no white LED strobes that were TSO'd (this was ~2 years ago - might have changed now, but the strobe is installed so I'm not replacing it again :P)
20:47
ah
they've got TSO'd wingtip strobes
@egid yeah - I was debating adding LED tip strobes when I paint but I decided to keep the belly strobe
visibility is about the same, it's a little more drag which I'm not happy about, and it's not like I would remove the tail beacon anyway so I'm not really winning much
@egid the Aveo nav/position/strobe lights are pretty awesome
21:02
the landing light we got is freaking fantastic
21:13
is it a freaking floodlight that'll light up the day
21:50
@egid Which one? I'm installing the Whelen "Taxi" version while everything is apart for painting.
(And along those lines -- Does anyone want a slightly-used PAR36 bulb? :P)
they really ARE a lot better.
(they also did a later video with more LED units: youtube.com/watch?v=-N1vvusQtOs)
22:14
@voretaq7 lemme see if i can figure it out.
the Parmetheus Par36 landing version
@egid yeah, I'm putting in the taxi version
It was that or the alphabeam, and they're pretty comparable with the Whelen having been out longer
the Whelen is just really, really nicely made
especially compared to the POS GE halogens we were using
I'd suggest you replace 'em both, honestly, even if your landing is currently fine
I mean i guess they're a bit spendy
but we were also going through halogens about every 20 hours
@egid this light has lasted.... I think about 30 hours
the 2 before it lasted <5 and just over 10
it knows there's a replacement in the box in the back of the plane JUST WAITING FOR IT TO DIE, so it absolutely refuses to do so.
22:31
and the one time you'll take the box out it'll die away from your hangar so you have buy a new one there
@ratchetfreak I'm not required to have a landing light (though I certainly wouldn't go flying around at night without one)
honestly if this one burns out I'd probably leave it until paint time :)
is this question about aviation or national defense practices?
I can't decide
both, but I'm not sure which wins
thats my struggle
though I'm leaning more toward the "how does military response to work" camp
same, but not enough to mod-hammer it closed
really the answer is "We don't scramble the entire air defense system just because something anomalous happened - do you have any idea how expensive those jets are to operate?!"
22:43
yea, my sense wasn't quite enough to VTC.
I think since the military is the one doing the actual acting in that question, it ought to be sent over to a military stack.
Because they can better answer to the decision making process as a result.
do we have one of those? (I'm not familair with 90% of the stack sites out there...)
No clue... But I did just tag it with that exact comment in there.
I'd think we'd have one...
Huh, apparently it's still in Area 51
66
Military

Proposed Q&A site for people who want to learn more about the various militaries around the world, their histories, weapons, tactics, logistics, funding, and lifestyles & cultures of their servicemembers. As well as the history and nature of warfare.

Currently in definition.

Hrm, I personally would want this question closed because there's little we can do to answer the question aside from idly speculate.
I wonder though is there primary radar coverage in that area?
Not sure... That would be an interesting (and on topic) question.
As that question stands though, it's going to only draw opinion based answers. I voted to close it personally...
Though I would understand if others saw it differently.
22:53
discounting military/portable radar in the area of course
oh dear I get to make so many primary-secondary puns now
Do it.
23:09
it's done
What? Where? I thought we were going to see puns, like, here.
I'm a greedy jerk, I know, my ex has told me several times in very clear terms :)
@ratchetfreak I think you're confusing secondary radar and some of the non-radar surveillance systems like ADS-B
Secondary radar only works when you've got a primary radar operating with it (the primary provides the azimuth (which gives you X/Y coordinates of the target), and the secondary provides the Z (altitude - mode C) and identification (mode A transponder code and mode S flight ID information)
@ratchetfreak one thing that my complicate your answer is civil vs defense radar coverage. For some countries they will be the same and others not, and you wont necessarily find the full capabilities of the milspec radars published
@casey I kinda expected that tbh
02:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

« first day (86 days earlier)      last day (3995 days later) »