« first day (831 days earlier)      last day (2073 days later) » 

7:21 AM
I recently took an elevator in the top floors of a skyscraper in Japan and noticed that the elevator button to the very top floor was labeled "PH" intead of a number. I strongly suspect it is about helicopters hovering but I am not sure what PH stands for nor what it exactly means. Would that (including picture) make an on-topic question here? Or maybe it has nothing to do at all with helicopters at all?
 
 
1 hour later…
8:31 AM
'morning. this guy joined only to advertise his product in 3 different answers. to me qualifies as spam: aviation.stackexchange.com/users/14208/alexis-brooker
@NicolasRaoul maybe on travel.se, but as you describe it I do not see the link with aviation, I'm afraid.
 
OK, thanks!
 
 
5 hours later…
1:22 PM
0
Q: Do we have a homework policy?

SMSvonderTannI was going through some other SE sites and I came upon Economics' homework policy which lead me to wonder if we have any such policy here on Aviation. Do we have/need a homework policy or is it not necessary for this site?

 
 
1 hour later…
2:43 PM
@NicolasRaoul It would possibly be more of a Japanese language or culture question (depending on what PH stands for.) There's a stack for people learning Japanese, you might try it there first. If they tell you it's actually english English (instead of just romaji) ...well, if it actually is about helicopters then yeah, I'd say it's on topic.
 
@NicolasRaoul It probably stands for penthouse, i.e. an expensive top-floor luxury apartment
 
3:00 PM
@JayCarr it's not romaji, so it must be English
 
@DanHulme What makes you say that? (I'm honestly curious, I'm not that great at Japanese...)
 
Japanese doesn't use initialisms like English does, and PH isn't a syllable
I think "penthouse" is plausible
 
@DanHulme Ah, so you won't see initials of Japanese words in Romaji is what you're saying?
 
@JayCarr that's right
 
@DanHulme Well, I learned something new today :). I guess I just assumed it wasn't english and, therefore, might be some sort of romaji abbreviation. But, yeah, penthouse makes more sense...
 
 
2 hours later…
4:47 PM
@voretaq7 Any idea where the moderator questionnaire went to? When I click on it I get an error: meta.aviation.stackexchange.com/error?aspxerrorpath=/questions/…
Granted, now that I've posted that I'm sure it'll work fine now.
 
@JayCarr Idunno, that's a link to an error message. This link seems to work for me though :)
 
5:04 PM
@voretaq7 sigh yet again, technology conspire to make me look even dumber than I actually am. I like tech, I don't know why it doesn't like me...
 
 
2 hours later…
7:18 PM
@JayCarr That's the reason I would never let my doctor send me for a sleep study. I'm not a pilot but a commercial driver. For driving if you have sleep apnea and you're on CPAP you have to get a CPAP with a chip in it so the med examiner can verify you are using it at least 80% of the time.
d wouldn't let myself get diagnosed because what happens if I can't tolerate CPAP? My dad was on CPAP and hated it the whole time.
 
8:11 PM
Gonna have to be honest Tom, if you need a CPAP, you should go get yourself diagnosed and get one. I've fallen asleep *twice* while driving, and fortunately lived through both experiences thanks to some well placed rumble strips. If you're feeling sleepy as a result of sleep apnea I would *highly* recommend getting it treated.

That being said, if you're not getting super tired while driving then I wouldn't worry about it ;)
Anyway, I completely understand the FAAs perspective on this. Untreated severe OSA can easily cause an accident. So I don't mind them making sure I'm taking care of it so I don't, you know, fall asleep flying the plane and crash into a building or something.
 
8:44 PM
@JayCarr I never fall asleep during the day. I take ADHD meds so that isn't a problem. I definitely understand why the FAA doesn't want ppl to fly with untreated apnea. I just hope they make some kind of contingency for it like the DOT does. I've always been skeptical of their hard-line approach to things like medications. I see why they don't want you taking stuff that makes you drowsy or light-headed.
I just think having an all-out no-fly list is a bad approach. Human nature being what it is, I think, with the prospect of losing their livelihoods on the line more pilots than not probably choose to avoid diagnosis. I take 3 different meds that are on the no-fly list so I couldn't fly even if I had the money to learn. Been taking them for years with no side effects and none of it is for a dangerous condition, but it shoots down any idea I have of flying
 
0
Q: Is this question too broad?

LnafzigerThe question Is it ok to lift locked armrests on aisle or window seats? has attracted a large number of comments discussing the scope of the question (which I have purged as they are Meta comments). We have discussed this on Meta before (among others): How should we handle country specific que...

 
9:02 PM
Yeah, that's sensible, I'd agree. Sorry if I came across a bit harsh, allergies are kind of attacking me today and I think my ability to be nice is being inhibited or something (or something.)

But in general I agree with you. They do need contingencies, their all out ban on depression meds is misguided, at best (in my not terribly humble opinion). And I think you're right about the fact that their standards are just encouraging people to not seek the treatment they need (if the German Wings crash report is anything to go by.)
 
9:18 PM
anyone that would like to give me feedback on this?
13 hours ago, by Federico
'morning. this guy joined only to advertise his product in 3 different answers. to me qualifies as spam: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/users/14208/alexis-brooker
 
@Federico It looks like he's just a little confused about how to approach the site. To be fair, self advertising is considered somewhat okay on StackOverflow, so long as your product actually does help solve the problem. It's just not something we commonly see here (and may be worth a Meta post, if I'm honest.)
In this question though, he seems to be aware he's not quite acting within the rules of this particular stack. Perhaps he is actually well intentioned but needs a little guidance? aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3052/…
 
9:39 PM
@JayCarr ok, I admit I am not too familiar with this policy. I agree on the meta post.
@JayCarr for this I do not know, without the links his posts are basically empty, he has not added anything else.
 
 
2 hours later…
11:32 PM
@voretaq7 It's not my fault for once! Yay!
Personally I think the biggest difficulty with that answer is that it should be a comment on Bret's answer, not an answer on it's own. He's basically commenting that Bret's answer is difficult to do, because his team has done it, but since they have done it you could (theoretically) benefit from their work by using their service.

My only point is that this isn's spam (which to me, is senseless off topic advertising), but it's someone genuinely trying to answer the question by offering their service as a solution. I still am not sure that's a good thing to do, but to simply dismiss it as
 

« first day (831 days earlier)      last day (2073 days later) »