At this point a new format should emerge as a replacement of pdf. It’s very useful and easy to publish, but working with pdf documents beyond reading and printing is way too complicated.
Google has been unusable for some years. Limited results, capped searches… such a difference with the original Google, it’s just a ghost of what it used to be.
I’m definitely going to give Kagi a try, I hope you are not restricting results by politics or so.
I’m paying for Chat gpt at the moment but I still need to just search and not to be spoon fed curated results all the time… the moment they include payed advertisement in gpt results is going to feel like
browsing in the Truman show.
I must add that one place where we are using touchscreens is in the fly documentation. Most airlines use somekind of tablet, ipad or surface with apps for performance calculation, navigation charts, pdf manuals, etc… they are working mostly ok now a days and I’dont think you can substitute the touch screen with buttons for that without loosing a lot of functions.
My experience after flying 737, MD80, A320, A330 and A340 is that nobody takes special care with cockpit buttons. They are work tools and treated as such.
The main ones (autopilot and flight controls), rarely fail if at all.
The only ones failing from time to time are small switches for radio channel volume or cockpit light adjustments and system buttons at the overhead panel that are easy to replace by maintenance.
Touchscreens are not a good option for main controls due to poor visibility(dirt from fingers and sun reflections), hidden submenus, turbulence making hard to press the correct button…
The A350 and 787 are using trackball controlls for submenus and the onboard computers, not a touchscreen.
I don’t know if this can be seen from space, but it is easy to see from an airplane 38000’ high. It’s some kind of ore or gas prospection. A giant grid in the middle of the Algerian Sahara. It goes across mainly of a large mesa, but also actoss the small dry creeks and hills around. There is some kind of industrial installation to the west of the grid.
I was going to post this video, it explains the differences and advantages of the original (and british copies) one vs the american. Also how most modern reproductions fall short of the original. I would say that it is better than the article.
The European rules for emergency medical kit (I guess FAA rules are very similar) also automatic defibrilators are increasingly being included in these kits:
CONTENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL KITS
(a) Emergency medical kits should be equipped with appropriate and sufficient medications and instrumentation. However, these kits should be supplemented by the operator according to the characteristics of the operation (scope of operation, flight duration, number and demographics of passengers, number of decks, etc.).
(b) The following should be included in the emergency medical kit:
(1) Equipment
(i) sphygmomanometer — electronic recommended;
(ii) stethoscope;
(iii) syringes and needles;
(iv) intravenous cannulae (a sufficient supply of intravenous cannulae should be available, subject to the amount of intravenous fluids carried on board);
(v) oropharyngeal airways (three sizes);
(v) tourniquet;
(vi) disposable gloves;
(vii) needle disposal box;
(viii) one or more urinary catheter(s), appropriate for either sex, and anaesthetic gel;
(ix) aspirator;
(x) blood glucose testing equipment;
(xi) scalpel.;
(xii) pulse oximeter; and
(xiii) pneumothorax set.
(2) Instructions: the instructions should contain a list of contents (medications in trade
names and generic names) in at least two languages (English and one other). This should
include information on the effects and side effects of medications carried. There should also be basic instructions for use of the medications in the kit and guidance for conversion
of units for the blood glucose test. The operator should make the instructions readily available. If an electronic format is available, then all instructions should be kept on the same device. If a paper format is used, then the instructions should be kept in the same
kit with the applicable equipment and medication.
(3) Medications
(i) coronary vasodilator e.g. glyceriltrinitrate-oral;
(ii) antispasmodic;
(iii) epinephrine/adrenaline 1:1 000;
(iv) adrenocorticoid;
(v) major analgesic;
(vi) diuretic — injectable;
(vii) antihistamine — oral and injectable (including paediatric form);
(viii) sedative/anticonvulsant — oral plus injectable and/or rectal sedative;
(ix) medication for hypoglycaemia (e.g. hypertonic glucose);
(x) antiemetic — injectable;
(xi) antibiotic — injectable form — Ceftriaxone or Cefotaxime;
Yes, modern PMR can be very good amd afordable, and I own 4 of them!. But for this trip I couldn’t take them with me and was looking for a mobile phone solution. I guess you are right and they simply don’t have the power..
For certain moments and limited groups the inmediate playing could be very useful, like a group of people skying or in a job site where you need inmediate communication at a distance when installing something, not office work, more contractor like situation: “please bring the box from the trunk” or something like that.
Last vacations I was looking for something like this while skiing in Andorra with friends, as each call is in roaming and extremely expensive (like 8-10€ per call) But what I needed was a network independent app, and I couldn’t find one. So I guess this app fails short for
Me anyway as it uses Facetime.
That, or also you get a shotgun effect with different damaged areas in a single target. Increasing the probability of destruction with less powerful lasers.
This is true, and I expect that. Some concepts take time to understand and even longer to master. What I mostly find lacking is the lack of a high level map. What pieces do what, how they interact, then dive in. But the lack of context makes very difficult to keep plowing.
You don’t really know where you are going while typing boilerplate that barely makes sense, or jumping through 3 ways of writing a function (depending on the version , not on the actual necessity) when you have never used a function in the first place.
This makes harder to understand the concepts and make them stick.
As someone learning right now this reflects perfectly my frustration with the teaching systems I’ve found.
The first part, let’s say the basic logic of programing is fine and relatively fast to learn. I have no problem with lessons starting there.
Where I find the problem is with the actual translation to real projects with the languaje, how to interface the code with the data, the server and the outside world.
The jump is huge! Of course you can overcome it with effort and stack overflow, but the feeling is like walking in a nice hill with clear views and path, and suddenly arriving to a vertical cliff with no clear routes up. You see others climbing easily, hanging out there, but you don’t even know where to set your first hand.
In my case, I’m starting with javascript in codecademy. The first lessons are more or less clear. Some concepts are harder to grasp or to express in code correctly, but with some exercises and effort you get them.
Then you start with real application stuff (promises, requests, Get, Post) , at first is easy enough, the concepts are not hard (the syntax is a bit harder, or at least the variety of syntax can be confussing). But suddenly you get thrown into AJAX, JSON, Frameworks, boilerplate. All at once, from 0. Copy this code, change this variable, lots of instructions but little learning or at leat a highlevel view of where you are.
I could choose another course, but I rather keep with the good parts in this one and look for the lacking lessons outside, than start hopping schools. Also I have some great friends that are experienced programers that can help me when I get too stuck.
Is interesting how different teachers explain differently. Some lessons are perfect for begginers, clear explanations, useful exercises. But in some lessons you can clearly feel how they are created by people used to teaching experienced programmers. Several concepts or tools thrown at you without further explanation, handwaving lots of steps, repeat this piece of code several times and that’s it.
I know that I can go through the material, google it, see youtube tutorials and classes and advance. I’m doing it, most of you have done it before. Not am impossible task by any means.
Maybe learning to code is easier than ever, but still… I find that it is way more complicated or with a steeper courve than necessary at the level I am currently.
There are lots of great resources to learn, but is difficult to find them structured in a coherent logical way for the learner! Is a bit frustrating TBH.
Yes Gulf carriers, but not all of them, Emirates and Qatar are the most important.
They really have high standard and try their best to have the best safety standars. Is not for lack of trying. Is that their system has gome far too much in one direction that is now backfiring.
Absolutely you may have an airline that allows too much manual flying and too low procedure standars (it is what happened at first in commercial aviation). There is a sweet spot between standart procedure and manual proficiency, and some airlines have been going way beyond that spot for some time.
Imagine having an intermediate system in your Tesla, one between fully manual and the autopilot. This system uses the navigation capabilities of the autopilot to draw in the big screen some squares that guide you to your destination without the need to look outside. Something you may find in a videogame. This system is helpfull and easy to use, and allows you to pay attention to more important matters.
Well, now imagine getting so used to this system that you forget how to drive without the squares telling you what to do every single moment. So used that if the squares guide you to drive straight to a wall at 100mph you do it without hesitation.
This is what supposedly happened in this case. The flight director is there to help you, but you are supposed to know how to fly without it.
When you rotate an airliner the initial pitch is around 15 degrees nose up, that way your rate of climb and the optimal climb speed is maintained.
They kept the nose almost horizontal, against any natural instinct for a pilot. They almost overrun the runway without rotating, and they barely rotated just enough to be able to keep the flight director centered in their screen.
It seems that the speed went beyond the structural limit of the tyres (around 200 kts) and if they didn’t retract the flaps, beyond their structural limit too. And then they proceeded to fly almost scratching the obstacles in their path.
Why does something like this happpens? Because in an airline like Emirates actual piloting skills are actively punished!. You are not allowed to fly the plane manually, nor disconect automatic systems if they are available.
They expect robot like precission applying procedures, modern airliners log dozens of instruments and have automatic reports when procedure limitation are exceeding (is a big brother like work environment). This may seem a good philosophy, but it actually creates an situation where pilots loose necessary skills, and when computers or procedures fail, as they often do in airplanes, pilots are not able to react properly anymore.
I’m sure Emirates will punish the pilots and will set new procedures over the current ones, to try to avoid this kind of situations in the future. They will solve nothing, they will only make it worse. Is a culture of fear and punishment. This also happens in other middle east airlines like Qatar. Airlines in Asia are making this mistake too.
In contrast airlines in the US and Europe (except Ryanair and some other British carriers) give pilots much more freedom regarding manual flight, which helps them to keep their skills honed.
Hope this gives a different perspective on the problem. The wrong altitude selection is the minor of the problems in this case IMHO.
I am an Airline captain with 22 years of experience (737, MD88, A320, A330 and A340) and more than 14k flight hours.
Edit, some typos and making a couple of sentences more clear.