politics and religion

[Asmodean]

Speaking from experience, I think you will find that while some people here may find some less-than-live-and-let-prosper ideas distasteful, if anyone does do the rabid wolverine routine here, it's as often as not me on the "controversial" side of the issue in question, and I can actually be reasoned with using... Reason, cold and unyielding, among other things.

When it comes to gun control, I'm for it being strict. However, I'm not a resident of the United States and in Norway, where gun control is indeed relatively strict, if you DO want 20-or-so guns, you can still legally have them. There are just memberships that must be held and hoops that must be jumped through for that. Carrying guns in public areas though, I am against. Same goes for stabbing weapons. Of course it will not stop a murderous psychopath from doing his thing, but nothing will and it will make it a little harder. In fact, it does take quite some effort to obtain a functioning illegal firearm in Oslo, unless you already know who to talk to, and then some more to get it loaded. Our system works for us. If yours works for you, then who are we to say otherwise?

[Asmodean]

Not sure what you're getting at with the second part

Facebook-style indented replies following immediately after the answered post, I suspect.

[image removed due to potential third party privacy/copyright issues. -Asmodean] Just look at facebook for an example if unclear. 

No, we have the quotation system for that.

EDIT: Also, apparently, the Asmo just slapped The Asmo with a dose of mod-red. In my biased opinion, it says relatively good things about the fairness of moderating around here. 

[Dave]

No probs, IF, I do not find you objectionable at all. Crazy to want to live in a gun culture? Well, if you was brung up that way . . .

I enjoyed target shooting in the RAF and, though I had to ride shotgun (literally sometimes, US made "riot guns" IIRC, most often old WW2 "Sten guns", neither accurate or terribly safe) and stand guard during the Greeks versus Turks versus UN fracas in 1960s Cyprus.Luckily I never had to do more than "stand ready". 

The local militia were more likely to shoot each other, mostly teenagers with two weeks training. A nervous kid with a gun is very dangerous to everyone. Oh, forgot, I was only 18-19 at the time, but I had a tad more training and discipline from true professionals in tbe trade.

Since then I have only owned a .410 shotgun msde from an old Lee-Enfiekd .303. Over choked it was a great pigeon and rat gun! Earned its keep in ammo from local fsrmers so I got free soort! Long gone, sold it to my boss.

[imaginaryfriendless]

Still, if one reads up on the subject of commersial piloting in layman's terms and layman's tabloids, one is inevitably led to believe that pilots are more or less there just to keep an eye on the flight computer and take control if and when needed. That not being entirely the case is.... Well, good, really.



First, sorry for the delay- I'm on satellite internet in rural Texas and the storm we just had knocked me back to 1985 for a few minutes. Internet has returned 

Thank you, Recusant, that was exactly the info I needed!

Now, Asmodean- airplanes and autonomy.
Basically, setting the aircraft up is simple. Depending on the system, most navigation systems/flight directors these days are designed to use legs, say from the departure point to a nav beacon or airway intersection, called waypoints. From this point to the next, to the next, etc. Only very short flights are usually cleared from departure to destination, direct- or possibly flights in low traffic areas. Even though GPS gives us the ability to nav from one airport directly to another, aircraft are given routings on establish airways. Several reasons exist- to control the flow of traffic converging onto an airport, for instance, and also to give the pilot options in case of equipment failure. If you're flying cross country via gps and the gps fails, you have no idea where you are. If using the gps to navigate airways- well, airways are navigated by several means, from loran to VOR beacons to the now just-about-defunct NDB beacons, outer markers, DME fixes, etc...in other words, ground-based navigation beacons independent of the gps. so if it fails, you are still on the highway and now can navigate by street signs.
     This also allows procedures to be in place in case aircraft lose the power to communicate in bad weather.

   So, pilots must have complete control of the systems and must be able to modify the parameters pretty much at will. While the system can fly from one waypoint to the next and onto the next, etc, and even ultimately autoland, if so equipped, there are many limitations. One common one is turbulence- in extreme weather, turbulence will cause the autopilot to disengage. The system needs a fail safe- the pilot must be able to wrestle control of the aircraft from the autopilot in case of malfunction, so it is designed to relinquish command. It basically can't tell the difference between turbulence and a pilot attempting to take over.

We aren't quite to pilotless aircraft yet...and my bank account is certainly pleased by that, lol

[xSilverPhinx]

Hello and welcome to HAF, imaginaryfriendless!

[imaginaryfriendless]

Thank you, xSilverPhinx!  Very nice folks so far...I'm looking forward to some glorious arguments, 

[Magdalena]

Welcome, imaginaryfriendless.  

[Asmodean]

We aren't quite to pilotless aircraft yet...and my bank account is certainly pleased by that, lol

While I find technology fascinating, I think most airline passengers, myself among them, are also pretty pleased by that.

I suppose it makes sense that the autopilot is designed to relinquish control. I'm just thinking that the opposite would be good in some cases, such as mass unconsciousness due to oxygen deprivation or the like. I can see how that could be very difficult to design well though, and let's face it; air travel is one of the safest modes of transportation around as it is.

On an additional note , if you want to put a piece of text you copy into your post in a quotation frame, it's the speech bubble button that does that. You can also put the quoted text between the quotation tags manually, like this:

Code Select Expand


[quote]Insert quoted text here[/quote]
[quote author=Name Nameson]This version attributes the quote to Name Nameson[/quote]


Then your post would look something like this:

Insert quoted text here

(Your answer here)

This version attributes the quote to Name Nameson

(Answer to the next point, and so on)

[imaginaryfriendless]

Thank you, Magdalena!

[imaginaryfriendless]

On an additional note , if you want to put a piece of text you copy into your post in a quotation frame, it's the speech bubble button that does that. You can also put the quoted text between the quotation tags manually, like this:

Thank you Asmo, I just kind of liked the glow, unless it has connotations I'm unaware of?

The redundancy built into the system in case of LOC or illness is supposed to be the fellow in the right hand seat, known as the first officer. Except under very strict circumstances, an F.O. is always required. Some business jets have an "SP" or single pilot, rating...they have to have specific equipment onboard- basically a much more capable autopilot- and any pilot wishing to fly sans FO must take specific training to do so.

[Magdalena]

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.

Ahem. Now that we've got that out of the way, hello and welcome to HAF, imaginaryfriendless. 

Question:
What does this mean? 

[imaginaryfriendless]

I haven't the foggiest idea!

[Asmodean]

Thank you Asmo, I just kind of liked the glow, unless it has connotations I'm unaware of?

Not at all. We try to reserve bright red text for moderator comments, but except for that, your style is your own. 

The redundancy built into the system in case of LOC or illness is supposed to be the fellow in the right hand seat, known as the first officer. Except under very strict circumstances, an F.O. is always required. Some business jets have an "SP" or single pilot, rating...they have to have specific equipment onboard- basically a much more capable autopilot- and any pilot wishing to fly sans FO must take specific training to do so.

Something tells me it may be uncommon among commercial pilots to even want to fly long haul solo though..? There are advantages to copilots beyond the operational ones, such as bathroom and/or food breaks and friendly conversation. Underestimated, those things should not be.

[imaginaryfriendless]

Something tells me it may be uncommon among commercial pilots to even want to fly long haul solo though..? There are advantages to copilots beyond the operational ones, such as bathroom and/or food breaks and friendly conversation. Underestimated, those things should not be.


Well, after 22 years in the tiny office with the great view, I can tell you that some FO's are worse than being alone, lol. I have made lifelong friends in that right seat as well, though.

As a fighter pilot, we despised the idea of a second pilot or nav/bombardier aboard- at least publicly. It's an image thing. That's why that second fellow in 2 seat tactical birds generally received a less-than-flattering designation, like GIB (guy in back)

As a young pilot, in college, I had a job delivering (ferrying) large turboprop aircraft (primarily King Airs) from south Texas to Bangor, Maine for ferry tanks- additional fuel tanks- and then over the northern route (Reykjavik, Shannon, Istanbul) to Turkey, and occasionally south Africa. The company was too cheap to pay for two pilots, and many is the rough weather approach to Reykjavik that I wished for an FO.

So from a pilot's point of view, it's not black and white. But from a safety standpoint it's inarguable, which makes it even more puzzling when cargo or delivery companies won't spring for that right seater.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

(I'm even a theist, and still here!)

Seriously, I didn't know that.