User Profile Header
Hogey74
,
MB
Comments
Displaying 6-10 of 87
Remote Control: Flying a Predator
from Hogey74
wrote 3 years 24 weeks ago
Thanks for the interesting article and I found myself thinking the same thing as Mark in Idaho - maybe well trained non-pilots could be better with this system,
Like shutterjockey I also wondered why X-plane and FSX can be so easy to pick up as consumer level products yet GA with all their resources failed to prioritise ergonomics. Surely you set ergonomic "hard points" early in the R&D process and proceed from there? And who accepted this equipment? NASA or Burt Rutan could have converted existing, manned airframes or built something from scratch that would have trounced this system for a fraction (in Rutan's case) of the cost. It sounds like the hurriedly cobbled together stuff we threw at the enemy in WW2 with short lead times and little prototyping - this is not of the standard of something that went through years of design, committees and vastly higher relative expense. This sounds like something General Motors or Chrysler would build - is GA similarly unwieldly? I guess they have swallowed up a lot of their smaller, hungrier and possibly more reality-based competition. I bet the power point presentations were slick! Anyway that's my rant I will now have a lie down.
It's Time for a Minimum Wage for Airline Pilots
from Hogey74
wrote 3 years 18 weeks ago
I agree. If the last few years have taught us anything its that the market is not always right. Well maybe it is, given that "the market" can't die in a plane crash. Here in Australia the minimum a cadet 1st officer will earn in a dash-8 is around $50k I believe. And the captains are on about $80k I think. Don't all rush down here though - the weather is terrible, the beer's worse and everything is venomous. After arduous and expensive training that's enough to live on down here while not being an enticement without the potential for more down the track - which seems about right. If your market is not doing its job (and ours fails us in plenty of other ways) then intervention would appear to be indicated. But I can just hear the "slippery slope to socialism!" howls of the market-obsessed chuckle-heads that I know you are also beset by.
NTSB Misses the Point
from Hogey74
wrote 3 years 14 weeks ago
I agree. Aside from simply ignoring important points, maybe the numbers are not big enough to get significant results when looking at subsets of information that Mac has (I think) correctly indicated as being needed.
In a somewhat related point, has anyone heard about a study done recently looking at a very different way of presenting information on flat panels? It was in New Scientist a few months ago and a mate described it to me over the phone. They set up an artificial horizon that did not move and arranged a number like speed or altitude or heading to roll and move upwards and downwards to show the attitude of the aircraft. So, if you were diving to the right, a numerical representation of your airspeed (say) would be canted over to the right and well down below the fixed horizon. It sounds dead wrong to me but in this study it was found that people correctly identified the "upset state" of the aircraft and commenced correct remedial action much more quickly than with normal presentation of attitude information. Interesting, huh? I would have to try it myself to believe it however. Cheers John
The Cost of Being New
from Hogey74
wrote 3 years 14 weeks ago
I have been sorry to hear about people getting burnt by this. As mentioned above, I can think of a few cars that got great reviews but came to be seen as dogs over time. I guess Diamond is not currently big enough to properly look after victims of the Thielert schmozzle but I reckon they should quietly offer some very generous help in future. I also think that for owners this was a matter of some risk sharing so I don't think Diamond is totally responsible for fixing things.
I saw a lonely Eclipse 500 quietly turn onto final here in Brisbane a few days ago. I bet the owners of that machine wish all they had was engine troubles!
The Mystery of the Two-Seat Abyss
from Hogey74
wrote 3 years 7 weeks ago
Interesting aircraft. I watched with interest as Zenith toyed with their 2 seat Gemini kit prototype a few years ago, running two Rotaxes or Jabirus. I thought it looked like a good concept although the Zenith has the type of fat wing more associated with low stall speeds than high cruising speeds. I thought that something like that, with a decent cruise and useful load would be a great twin trainer and personal aircraft. The new Tecnam 4-seat twin looks to be getting good numbers out of two Rotax motors with C172 fuel consumption. I guess insurance etc killed it. A pity.
- ‹‹
- 2 of 18
- ››
Newsletter Signup
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
