The Junk Drawer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
How Hard Could It Be?
Nearly half of men think they can safely land a plane in an emergency, survey finds
It’s the formula for a box office thriller: The airplane’s pilots become incapacitated, and flight attendants ask passengers if anyone can land the plane. It’s a dramatic scenario on the big screen. But what about in real life? Can the average person, with no previous flight training, land a plane?

Quite a few people, according to a poll by YouGov, think it’s doable. A survey published in January shows about one-third of adult Americans think they can safely land an airliner with the help of air traffic control. And the confidence rate climbed to nearly 50% among male respondents. But is this realistic? MayCay Beeler, a veteran pilot, FAA flight instructor, and the chief transportation correspondent for Nexstar’s WJZY, gives her thoughts.

“It depends. With the guidance of the right air traffic controller, the likelihood of landing safely enough is possible,” Beeler says. “It may not be pretty, and may result in some damage to the aircraft, but it can be done. But a lot of things have to go right.”

This uncommon scenario pops up in the news from time to time, usually in a small plane. Last year, a passenger landed a single-engine aircraft in Florida after his pilot passed out. He managed a successful landing with the help of a flight instructor/air traffic controller, who talked him down over the radio.

“But first, the passenger had to don a headset and locate the mic button in able to talk over the radio with ATC,” Beeler explains. “So being familiar with basic aircraft switches and gauges is key. Knowing where things are. Properly reading and monitoring airspeed, attitude, and altitude instrumentation can make the difference between life and death. The ability to stay calm and follow instructions from ATC is crucial. Having at-home flight simulator experience is a huge bonus since this provides familiarization with a cockpit,” Beeler adds.

How to land a plane from an expert
“It’s not rocket science. Assuming the engine is running when the pilot becomes incapacitated, and the throttle is set to maintain flight, a properly trimmed airplane will fly itself,” Beeler says. “It is inherently stable. It wants to fly.”

The plane should stay level, she adds, until the yoke is pulled or pushed, to make the aircraft ascend or descend.

“Turning is as simple as gently moving the wheel or stick left or right. But things get complicated setting up for the landing,” Beeler emphasizes. “It is imperative to know how to deploy the flaps. They help the plane come down while slowing down,” she says. The landing gear, too, must be deployed — and the pilot needs to know how to extend the landing gear with the proper handle.

Once over the runway, the pilot needs to maintain a “specified airspeed, flying the plane in a gentle descent to about garage-door height above the runway, letting the plane settle down a few more feet, then pulling the power off while leveling the plane. Allowing the main wheels to touch first, with the nose last, should get you safely on the ground.”

Pilots in training, Beeler says, usually practice hundreds of times just to become confident at getting it right.

“And it takes years to become a commercial pilot,” says Beeler. “For an untrained person to land an aircraft safely, it’s all about following instructions if ATC is available.”

Want to be better prepared for this unlikely scenario?

Beeler suggests heading to your local flight school to take a Discovery or Introductory Flight. And at-home flight simulator software is a great way to fly from the comfort of your living room.
The only reason I think I might have a shot is because I was trained in gliders. No once-around in one of those.
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
How Hard Could It Be?
Nearly half of men think they can safely land a plane in an emergency, survey finds
It’s the formula for a box office thriller: The airplane’s pilots become incapacitated, and flight attendants ask passengers if anyone can land the plane. It’s a dramatic scenario on the big screen. But what about in real life? Can the average person, with no previous flight training, land a plane?

Quite a few people, according to a poll by YouGov, think it’s doable. A survey published in January shows about one-third of adult Americans think they can safely land an airliner with the help of air traffic control. And the confidence rate climbed to nearly 50% among male respondents. But is this realistic? MayCay Beeler, a veteran pilot, FAA flight instructor, and the chief transportation correspondent for Nexstar’s WJZY, gives her thoughts.

“It depends. With the guidance of the right air traffic controller, the likelihood of landing safely enough is possible,” Beeler says. “It may not be pretty, and may result in some damage to the aircraft, but it can be done. But a lot of things have to go right.”

This uncommon scenario pops up in the news from time to time, usually in a small plane. Last year, a passenger landed a single-engine aircraft in Florida after his pilot passed out. He managed a successful landing with the help of a flight instructor/air traffic controller, who talked him down over the radio.

“But first, the passenger had to don a headset and locate the mic button in able to talk over the radio with ATC,” Beeler explains. “So being familiar with basic aircraft switches and gauges is key. Knowing where things are. Properly reading and monitoring airspeed, attitude, and altitude instrumentation can make the difference between life and death. The ability to stay calm and follow instructions from ATC is crucial. Having at-home flight simulator experience is a huge bonus since this provides familiarization with a cockpit,” Beeler adds.

How to land a plane from an expert
“It’s not rocket science. Assuming the engine is running when the pilot becomes incapacitated, and the throttle is set to maintain flight, a properly trimmed airplane will fly itself,” Beeler says. “It is inherently stable. It wants to fly.”

The plane should stay level, she adds, until the yoke is pulled or pushed, to make the aircraft ascend or descend.

“Turning is as simple as gently moving the wheel or stick left or right. But things get complicated setting up for the landing,” Beeler emphasizes. “It is imperative to know how to deploy the flaps. They help the plane come down while slowing down,” she says. The landing gear, too, must be deployed — and the pilot needs to know how to extend the landing gear with the proper handle.

Once over the runway, the pilot needs to maintain a “specified airspeed, flying the plane in a gentle descent to about garage-door height above the runway, letting the plane settle down a few more feet, then pulling the power off while leveling the plane. Allowing the main wheels to touch first, with the nose last, should get you safely on the ground.”

Pilots in training, Beeler says, usually practice hundreds of times just to become confident at getting it right.

“And it takes years to become a commercial pilot,” says Beeler. “For an untrained person to land an aircraft safely, it’s all about following instructions if ATC is available.”

Want to be better prepared for this unlikely scenario?

Beeler suggests heading to your local flight school to take a Discovery or Introductory Flight. And at-home flight simulator software is a great way to fly from the comfort of your living room.
Easy-peasy. I played flight simulators starting with Microsoft Flight Sim 1.0. It had a Red Baron vs Sopwith Camel part of the game that I loved playing for hours on my first computer. A Commodore PC 10-II IBM compatible with 640K ram, 2-5.25 floppy drives, no hard drive and a monochrome amber monitor. Pissed me off that future versions never had any dog-fighting parts. Took me about 20 tries in a stealth fighter sim to land on the aircraft carrier but I got good at it.

Dead pilot. Not a problem. ;)

:peace:
 

Bad Karma

Well-Known Member
Easy-peasy. I played flight simulators starting with Microsoft Flight Sim 1.0. It had a Red Baron vs Sopwith Camel part of the game that I loved playing for hours on my first computer. A Commodore PC 10-II IBM compatible with 640K ram, 2-5.25 floppy drives, no hard drive and a monochrome amber monitor. Pissed me off that future versions never had any dog-fighting parts. Took me about 20 tries in a stealth fighter sim to land on the aircraft carrier but I got good at it.

Dead pilot. Not a problem. ;)

:peace:
I remember my first flight simulator.
IMG_2239.jpeg
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member
I remember my first flight simulator.
View attachment 5349852
I don't think I ever even saw that game much less played it but I kind of stopped doing the arcade thing in the mid 80s. I was a Pong shark with my buddy Mike and we'd slay on the 4 player tabletop machines they had in pubs back in the day. Usually only had to buy one beer when we first got there but leave the bar pissed at the end of the night. :D

Just a digital continuation of my pinball wizard days.

Yeah I'm old as dirt so what. ;)

:peace:
 

topcat

Well-Known Member
I don't think I ever even saw that game much less played it but I kind of stopped doing the arcade thing in the mid 80s. I was a Pong shark with my buddy Mike and we'd slay on the 4 player tabletop machines they had in pubs back in the day. Usually only had to buy one beer when we first got there but leave the bar pissed at the end of the night. :D

Just a digital continuation of my pinball wizard days.

Yeah I'm old as dirt so what. ;)

:peace:
At a dance bar in '79 the toilets were jammed with people, so they would draw and snort their lines of cocaine off the glass top of the Pong game. Will be wild.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
AI-generated anchors to debut on news network in 2024
No, it’s not science fiction — digital news anchors could be on your TV screen starting next year.

Channel 1, which is set for “full launch” in 2024, says it will be the world’s first AI-powered news network. The goal is to give each viewer a personalized broadcast. However, the idea has many journalists worried about their future in the news industry.

The AI avatars will be created from a scan of a real person with a digitally generated voice. Then the AI-generated humans — made to look real — will report the news, though devoid of any real emotion.

The founder of the news channel said they are aiming to “get out in front and create a responsible use of technology.”

But plenty of people are already sounding off, raising concerns about journalistic integrity.

“I think I’m aging myself by saying I think all of this is so weird. You know the metaverse and artificial intelligence. The whole thing is weird, but it’s where we’re headed,” NewsNation media contributor Steve Krakauer said. “2024 is going to be a weird, chaotic, crazy year. No matter what you incorporate, artificial intelligence is only going to get more weird. But listen, weird or not, this is where we’re heading.”

So, the anchors are fake, but what about the actual news?

Information aired on Channel 1 will come from three sources, according to founder Adam Mosam. That includes partnerships with legacy news outlets, commissioned freelance journalists and AI-generated news reports from public records and government documents.

There are also plans for the network to launch free ad-supported streaming on various apps as early as February.

Been there, done that.

 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
AI-generated anchors to debut on news network in 2024
No, it’s not science fiction — digital news anchors could be on your TV screen starting next year.

Channel 1, which is set for “full launch” in 2024, says it will be the world’s first AI-powered news network. The goal is to give each viewer a personalized broadcast. However, the idea has many journalists worried about their future in the news industry.

The AI avatars will be created from a scan of a real person with a digitally generated voice. Then the AI-generated humans — made to look real — will report the news, though devoid of any real emotion.

The founder of the news channel said they are aiming to “get out in front and create a responsible use of technology.”

But plenty of people are already sounding off, raising concerns about journalistic integrity.

“I think I’m aging myself by saying I think all of this is so weird. You know the metaverse and artificial intelligence. The whole thing is weird, but it’s where we’re headed,” NewsNation media contributor Steve Krakauer said. “2024 is going to be a weird, chaotic, crazy year. No matter what you incorporate, artificial intelligence is only going to get more weird. But listen, weird or not, this is where we’re heading.”

So, the anchors are fake, but what about the actual news?

Information aired on Channel 1 will come from three sources, according to founder Adam Mosam. That includes partnerships with legacy news outlets, commissioned freelance journalists and AI-generated news reports from public records and government documents.

There are also plans for the network to launch free ad-supported streaming on various apps as early as February.

Been there, done that.

and his kid brother

1702588591970.gif
 

sunni

Administrator
Staff member

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Woops, covid particles in waste water NL
View attachment 5352301

No masks or even anything on the news. 82% is BA.2.86.
I never could figure out how an individual could use that metric. It tells us that the virus is prevalent but doesn't seem (to me) to be predictive of outcomes from the disease. As you say, no masks, nothing on the news, etc. Yet also , health care system seems to be operating as normal, no surge of sick people in hospital intensive care units, morgues aren't filling up, no refrigerated trailer trucks in hospital parking lots, none of the horrors that we experienced in 2020.

I'm not minimizing the effect this disease has on immune compromised people or claiming some kind of conspiracy. What happened in 2020 and 2021 was in fact due to a novel virus that caused a pandemic in the world's population that had never been exposed to it. It just seems that Covid no longer sickens as many people as it once did.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I never could figure out how an individual could use that metric. It tells us that the virus is prevalent but doesn't seem (to me) to be predictive of outcomes from the disease. As you say, no masks, nothing on the news, etc. Yet also , health care system seems to be operating as normal, no surge of sick people in hospital intensive care units, morgues aren't filling up, no refrigerated trailer trucks in hospital parking lots, none of the horrors that we experienced in 2020.

I'm not minimizing the effect this disease has on immune compromised people or claiming some kind of conspiracy. What happened in 2020 and 2021 was in fact due to a novel virus that caused a pandemic in the world's population that had never been exposed to it. It just seems that Covid no longer sickens as many people as it once did.
In the very best case this could be an infectious but not especially virulent mutant, and one that confers additional immunity to its sisters and descendants.
That would signal a switchover from the pandemic phase to the herd immunity phase.

Hope and fact tend not to correlate well, but I still hope.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
In the very best case this could be an infectious but not especially virulent mutant, and one that confers additional immunity to its sisters and descendants.
That would signal a switchover from the pandemic phase to the herd immunity phase.

Hope and fact tend not to correlate well, but I still hope.
I'm unsure that I understand the theory behind "herd immunity" in this case. The protein used by the virus that is linked to the SARS-COVID2 epidemic to cross the cell wall is essential to human cells and so we cannot be truly immune to infection or we'd all be dead. The production of "blocking proteins" like the one that is triggered by MRNA vaccines is only produced in large amounts for a few weeks or months after vaccination. Today, only about 30% of the US population are up to date in their vaccinations. Disease rates are higher in that group but not overwhelmingly so. Over time, everybody can and eventually will be infected by it. It would seem that the difference between now and a few years ago is that the virus no longer causes the severity of disease in infected people that wrecked so much havoc in 2020. In the case of this virus, it's not that it is less infective, it's that in most people, our immune system doesn't react in the same way that it did when the virus was first introduced to our species. Or maybe I don't understand and an explanation from somebody who does could set me straight. .

I've never experienced symptoms of the disease, nor has my wife or kids but I have zero confidence that we've never been infected. We've stayed current in vaccinations but vaccines have only been shown to protect from infection for maybe a couple of month. So, I can only conclude that the worst is over because people' response has changed, not the virus.
 
Last edited:

Sativied

Well-Known Member
I never could figure out how an individual could use that metric. It tells us that the virus is prevalent but doesn't seem (to me) to be predictive of outcomes from the disease. As you say, no masks, nothing on the news, etc. Yet also , health care system seems to be operating as normal, no surge of sick people in hospital intensive care units, morgues aren't filling up, no refrigerated trailer trucks in hospital parking lots, none of the horrors that we experienced in 2020.

I'm not minimizing the effect this disease has on immune compromised people or claiming some kind of conspiracy. What happened in 2020 and 2021 was in fact due to a novel virus that caused a pandemic in the world's population that had never been exposed to it. It just seems that Covid no longer sickens as many people as it once did.
Conspiracy would involve some sort of plan so won’t claim that either, but most if not all politicians and political parties and leaders are to at least some extend populists, and lockdowns, masks, social distancing are very impopular measures. I don’t have enough confidence in any of them anymore to do what needs to be done if more drastic measures are necessary/wise. I suspect that maybe there’s some wishful thinking and head burying involved. Got to keep the economy going, prevent more high inflation, else the other side wins. The fact there’s little to nothing about in the news or from politicians adds to that. I’d expect more from them about how it’s not necessarily something to worry about if that’s the case.

I had my last shot early October, available only because I‘m what they consider a risk group (just a lil asthma making me eligible for flu shot and then automatically covid vax too). Only my second booster, figured I might as well before the winter peak et voilá, here it is.

It’s the trend in that metric that is worrisome nonetheless. And while now it’s bad almost everywhere, I liked how it used to show the more batshit religious an area, the more covid in wastewater. Also pointed out other places to avoid but in hindsight that largely correlates with student density. University/college cities tend to be the worst. Stupid kids don’t care, heck, a large part of the gains our far-right party made in recent elections is due to stupid kids. All hope is lost, the next generations will be even dumber than the most recent.

Light blue are safer areas sort of speak but are also less densely populated.
A076F4C2-FA91-4D0B-9E1B-D0AE444E9811.jpeg

I've never experienced symptoms of the disease, nor has my wife or kids but I have zero confidence that we've never been infected.
Same here. My wife suggested we never had it, referencing all coworkers and friends who had it and felt really terrible, but from the start of testing it was clear that for more than half of the people who get infected it feels at worst like a bad cold and at best goes completely unnoticed.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Conspiracy would involve some sort of plan so won’t claim that either, but most if not all politicians and political parties and leaders are to at least some extend populists, and lockdowns, masks, social distancing are very impopular measures. I don’t have enough confidence in any of them anymore to do what needs to be done if more drastic measures are necessary/wise. I suspect that maybe there’s some wishful thinking and head burying involved. Got to keep the economy going, prevent more high inflation, else the other side wins. The fact there’s little to nothing about in the news or from politicians adds to that. I’d expect more from them about how it’s not necessarily something to worry about if that’s the case.

I had my last shot early October, available only because I‘m what they consider a risk group (just a lil asthma making me eligible for flu shot and then automatically covid vax too). Only my second booster, figured I might as well before the winter peak et voilá, here it is.

It’s the trend in that metric that is worrisome nonetheless. And while now it’s bad almost everywhere, I liked how it used to show the more batshit religious an area, the more covid in wastewater. Also pointed out other places to avoid but in hindsight that largely correlates with student density. University/college cities tend to be the worst. Stupid kids don’t care, heck, a large part of the gains our far-right party made in recent elections is due to stupid kids. All hope is lost, the next generations will be even dumber than the most recent.

Light blue are safer areas sort of speak but are also less densely populated.
View attachment 5352342


Same here. My wife suggested we never had it, referencing all coworkers and friends who had it and felt really terrible, but from the start of testing it was clear that for more than half of the people who get infected it feels at worst like a bad cold and at best goes completely unnoticed.
I don't have much faith in the wastewater metric as an indicator of disease. Perhaps it does measure rates of infection but the distribution shown in that map could have more to do with something else, such as population density or how many train stations are located in a district. Or racial differences. It's such a confusing metric that I can't take maps like that seriously.

IMO, the idea that lockdowns, mask requirements, restaurant and tavern closures and other actions were taken to protect individuals is right wing populist propaganda meant to discredit medical science and the politicians who listened to medical advisors. Those measures were explained as clearly as possible at that time by people like Dr. Fauci as being necessary to slow the spread of the infections so that our health care systems did not become overwhelmed.

When rigorously used, masks are effective but for many non-professionals the rigor is too difficult for them to follow. Masks below the nose, for example. Or re-using masks. Or not following the other precautions, such as frequently washing hands. So, the outcry that "it doesn't work" rings hollow to me. It "worked", just not in the way many wanted it to.

Today, people are not experiencing anywhere near the rates of chronic disease from Covid as we saw in 2020. The cost and economic harm of those measures are not justifiable in today's situation. If we valued people with compromised immune systems lives differently, we might be taking more precautions but from a simple economic standpoint, the cost is higher than our society is willing to bear.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
I don't have much faith in the wastewater metric as an indicator of disease. Perhaps it does measure rates of infection but the distribution shown in that map could have more to do with something else, such as population density or how many train stations are located in a district. Or racial differences. It's such a confusing metric that I can't take maps like that seriously.
Population density, on this 100x160miles piece of land, affects the rate at which it reaches the national average peaks far more than what that max is. Regardless, those factors remain rather steady over time and don’t make the trend any less meaningful. Reasonably, either the measuring mechanics changes (not the case), or an infected person holds and excretes more virus particles (not aware of that being the case), or, there are more infected individuals. Especially with the huge difference with previous ways it’s a clear indication far more people are infected now than during previous wave peakes. It says nothing about disease but that’s not implied either. It was always a more reliable and steady alternative to the now no longer tracked test results from test facilities and self-tests combined. I think assuming that despite the clear increase in infections the direct and indirect results are now less and will remain ’mild’ can turn out far more disastrous than telling people to mask up and keep a little distance again.

IMO, the idea that lockdowns, mask requirements, restaurant and tavern closures and other actions were taken to protect individuals is right wing populist propaganda meant to discredit medical science and the politicians who listened to medical advisors. Those measures were explained as clearly as possible at that time by people like Dr. Fauci as being necessary to slow the spread of the infections so that our health care systems did not become overwhelmed.
That makes it sound like they knew what they were doing and what they were dealing with. From what I remember, the fact the lockdowns happened to slow the spread and keep hospitals from overwhelming is something we had to figure out based on a pattern. Compliance (from getting vaxxed to lockdowns) was largely motivated by people who at least thought they were protecting themselves and individuals in their bubble, not cause they cared about hospital bed occupancy.
 
Top