Based on reading the map and scale from FlightAware, looks like 200 MPH and 2.5mi radius turns, which I work out to be on the order of 0.01g turns...

(Written on 2019年 11月 08日)(Permalink)

Perhaps the quickest/shortest answer is that there must ALSO be a sensor failure for the "challenging situation" for the pilot to show up.

(Written on 2019年 04月 15日)(Permalink)

I taught my kids that you have to pay attention to all the adjectives in such a statement. The more qualifiers, the less "profound" the statement... Died -vs- Severely Injured Commercial -vs- All Passenger -vs- Cargo (or All) Jet -vs- Prop, Turboprop.... Crash -vs- any other mishap. Well you get the point... to get to their statistic you obviously needed ALL those words.

(Written on 2018年 01月 05日)(Permalink)

And what looks like a southwest airlines plane into a story about Pro Pilots LLC? If I was Southwest I'd be hopping mad...

(Written on 2017年 05月 26日)(Permalink)

Or on 26 Jan 1972, depending on what you mean by "this"

(Written on 2017年 02月 17日)(Permalink)

But I think the point here is that there is a "situational awareness" difference between a "known to be uncontrolled aerodrome that is uncontrolled" and a "supposed to be controlled aerodrome that seems to be uncontrolled for unknown reasons". The first is in it's normal state, and the second is clearly a "red flag" that could mean just about anything, as pointed out all over this thread. If I'm a passenger, I want to go land somewhere where everything appears normal, thank you very much!

(Written on 2016年 09月 30日)(Permalink)

You'd need a short USB extension cable. My dongle is currently running on a 10 foot extension so a 6" extension to get more room should be no problem.

(Written on 2015年 12月 25日)(Permalink)

MLAT has been active on my piaware feeder for over a month. I guess this announcement means that they are going to more officially use the data... it must have passed some quality control.

(Written on 2015年 11月 20日)(Permalink)

Don't have the statistics for all types of aircraft over the entire world, but even your revised 10-25 per week seems high for "major commercial carriers" given this report from GE Aviation (http://www.geaviation.com/press/ge90/ge90_20120119.html): As the Boeing 777 aircraft grew in size thus requiring higher thrust engines, customer demand for the GE90 soared. The GE90-115B engine, developed for the 777-300ER and 777-200LR, entered service in 2004 -- the best service entry for any large GE engine at that time. The engine has continued its stellar performance with an in-flight shutdown rate (IFSD) of 0.001, which means only one engine IFSD per one million engine flight-hours. (end quote) With the statistics on "more than 10 seats commercial flight hours" (http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/aviation) being about 17,500,000 hours/year, if they were all as good as the GE90-115B engine, that would be 17.5 per YEAR, not week. So unless the average engine is circa 50 times worse, then

(Written on 2015年 11月 13日)(Permalink)