Do people still remember Telegram don't have E2E encryption on by default? and does not work across multiple platforms when E2E is on? I am annoyed because those are my favorite apps and they don't have what's important.
I am learning Japanese. Ever since d-addict took down their torrent section. It was almost to impossible to find quality content with Japanese subtitles. I now rely on Netflix Japan, but the content is still very limited.
Every airplane has a maximum weight it can fly. Different than cars, every airplanes also have an envelope where the center of gravity has to fall enter. If the center of gravity is behind the design envelope, airplane has a tendency to flip backward, stall on take off then crash, it has happened before. It could also means if the airplane enters a spin, the recover may not be possible. If the center of gravity is too forward, it will slow the cruising speed due to increased drag, much easier to stall during cruise and burning more fuel.
So for every single flight, pilot or dispatch has to calculate those 2 numbers, for every passenger and baggage, and decide how many fuel to take on each flight.
Of course, asking each passengers weight would be awkward at best, so airlines and FAA used an average body weight number to avoid this, it worked until 2003. An accident happened which killed 21 people on board a small transportation aircraft. It is found that the average body weight number FAA and airline used were outdated http://www.ntsb.gov/Investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR... FAA has since advised airlines that what FAA presumed average weight of its population has increased, and advised airlines to do the same.
Of course, this will only work on average cases, and will fail if the sample group is out of average. Resampling has to be done to remain operating in the envelope, and if standard deviation is still out of normal, each individual weight has to be taken.
Easier - add weight sensors to the landing gears. A set of piezo sensors between the mounts and the frames should suffice. Only three sensors to calibrate and maintain, they can give a real-time indication of the actual balance of the aircraft (including fuel), and don't impose on the airline's customers (or staff, other than to move a few people around to correct for a bad CG, something they do today).
I remember thinking this as the obvious answer as well, but then reading a few forum threads discussing that these already exist but were not reliable enough to rely on.
That was some time ago, I wonder if the situation has changed any.
That just shifts the cost to software, which is really complicated and expensive when you're talking about avionics software and airline ticketing systems.
If you do that, you need to synchronize the check-in scale with the aircraft, and the ticket-assigned seat with the weight. You also need to hope they're not gate checking much luggage (which could shift the CG resulting from their weight a lot) or crowding too much and putting two people on the scale.
But yes, the idea to minimize the number of sensors is a good one. I think the ideal place for this would be a pressure sensor within the oleo struts of the landing gear. High-resolution hydraulic pressure sensors are readily available. There would be some static friction errors (I've tried this with hydraulic cylinders, but it's reasonably close. And inducing a little dither in the hydraulics takes out most of the error.) Then you would know while waiting for take-off exactly where the CG was! And all that could be directly wired to and managed by the hard real-time avionics and electronics on the plane, and displayed to the instrument panels where it's actually needed.
...and running a Google search for 'oleo strut pressure sensor center of gravity', it appears there are already multiple patents for similar systems from 30 years ago and older.
> But yes, the idea to minimize the number of sensors is a good one. I think the ideal place for this would be a pressure sensor within the oleo struts of the landing gear.
Yup, this exists.
> In its final report on the Fine Airlines accident, the Safety Board discussed the Sum Total Aft and Nose (STAN) system, which is an electronic system installed on some cargo airplanes that allows flight crews to verify an airplane's weight and balance before departure. According to the report, the STAN system uses pressure transducers to convert main gear and nose gear shock strut air pressure to an electronic signal. The system then provides flight crews with a digital readout in the cockpit (on the flight engineer's instrument panel) of the airplane's gross weight and CG values.
Thanks for this context... I'm assuming based on the framing of the article that this particular case was based more on a concern for fuel cost than for safety. (Surely a commercial airliner can't be dangerously upset by shifting a few thousand pounds...)
Since the airlines and FAA have to operate averages most of the time and update them as the demographic of their flights changes, would it not be a simpler, more socially opaque solution to just charge slightly more for the flights that tend to carry heavier passengers? More fuel, yes, but now paid for. No one has to endure the indignity of weigh-ins, and the airline is made whole. Why is this not the solution that was presented?
In many half-empty flights, the crew allows passengers to freely change seats, after take off. Obviously only a few do, but wouldn't that be dangerous anyway, given your comment on balancing weigh?
It would seem that you would only have problems when the weight is unevenly distributed. I've only ever seen people spread out when allowed to take any seat, which would tend to make things more even if anything.
TFA references "an American airline". Since we Americans are misanthropes, when we freely choose our seats we have a balancing tendency. Your concern would be more valid for populations who would naturally choose to sit together.
Notice, after takeoff. Takeoff and landing are when centre of gravity is critical. You're supposed to return to your originally assigned seats for landing too.
Why is this a manual process? Is our technology not sufficient to build a plane that can detect when it has too much weight on board for a safe flight?
No, its just too expensive, and probably too heavy.
If OP is right (pretty sure he is), he said that by using something completely free (average weight), we were able to achieve like 50+ years of safe operation of largish commercial airliners. That's amazing.
Also, the problem isn't too much weight per se, it's weight distribution.
So I updated to iOS latest Anyconnect. Which claims now support ipv6. But after some testing, it seems like the iOS app will not tunnel ipv6 traffic when the server doesn't support ipv6 in the first place. But instead of dropping all ipv6 traffic, all ipv6 traffic will go through local connection if your local connection support ipv6.
Not sure if it is a intentional design choice or serious bug? While I haven't looked very deep into it but I doubt ipv6 connections got dumped to local is encrypted in anyway. Mac version doesn't seem to be have this problem and properly dumped ipv6 link when the vpn server doesn't support ipv6.
Maybe I shall starting offer 1m USD dollars for leaking this said software to me. O.k. I am just kidding, but just imagine how much some organizations are willing to offer to get hands on this. Will you ever trust Apple again if it known this software is leaked? What if such software is leaked to a competitor corporate? What is such software is leaked to an enemy spy agency? Apple will be very doomed.
As far as Microsoft office in Beijing, I think they VPN to their Tokyo office first. Their traffic is ensured by negotiating directly with the big telecom company. Disclaimer: I do not work for them.
This is interesting, I'd love to read/hear more about it. Is the negotiation an above-board thing? What are the conditions and costs to getting this kind of exception ensured?
