Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
03-21-2014, 02:45 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
I'll give you a pass, just this once
,...............but if it were Purple Drank that said the same thing...............OH HELL!!
On an interesting note. There's an RFP, put out by NASA recently, to "investigate" the ability for Commercial airplane flights, coupled with part-time remote operation. It's a four year program, and the first year (first stage of program) is the "concept" year.
In the next ten years, we could easily see the advent of "reduced crew cockpits" on ocean crossing routes. Imagine this for a second. A (FEDEX)Captain/First Officer takeoff from Beijing. Flying their Boeing product to International waters, and establish the airplane on its ocean crossing track. At that time, they "hand the airplane over" to remote operation, are considered off-duty to rest in the back of the airplane, and once nearing the West coast of the United States, assume control of the airplane again, until landing it in either MEM/ONT or AFW.
Lastly, I've spoken with many General Atomics Engineers/R&D flight test engineers about the (RQ-11) Predator C. It hasn't yet proven the numbers they expected it to. (Think initial bunch of 787-8 a/c.) It's a fast, jet propelled Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), but that's about all it boasts. It doesn't have the fuel capacity, and/or burn rate to give it any amount of endurance, and when coupled with the desire to make it a strike platform (i.e. bomb dropping), you're basically stuck with an a/c only useable for TST's. Hence, the reason why the USAF hasn't purchased any yet. (Surprisingly, ironic as it may be.
)
Fly safe, see you all back on the line very soon.
GJ
,...............but if it were Purple Drank that said the same thing...............OH HELL!!On an interesting note. There's an RFP, put out by NASA recently, to "investigate" the ability for Commercial airplane flights, coupled with part-time remote operation. It's a four year program, and the first year (first stage of program) is the "concept" year.
In the next ten years, we could easily see the advent of "reduced crew cockpits" on ocean crossing routes. Imagine this for a second. A (FEDEX)Captain/First Officer takeoff from Beijing. Flying their Boeing product to International waters, and establish the airplane on its ocean crossing track. At that time, they "hand the airplane over" to remote operation, are considered off-duty to rest in the back of the airplane, and once nearing the West coast of the United States, assume control of the airplane again, until landing it in either MEM/ONT or AFW.
Lastly, I've spoken with many General Atomics Engineers/R&D flight test engineers about the (RQ-11) Predator C. It hasn't yet proven the numbers they expected it to. (Think initial bunch of 787-8 a/c.) It's a fast, jet propelled Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), but that's about all it boasts. It doesn't have the fuel capacity, and/or burn rate to give it any amount of endurance, and when coupled with the desire to make it a strike platform (i.e. bomb dropping), you're basically stuck with an a/c only useable for TST's. Hence, the reason why the USAF hasn't purchased any yet. (Surprisingly, ironic as it may be.
)Fly safe, see you all back on the line very soon.
GJ
03-21-2014, 02:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,238
You mean this won't be able to replace this?
03-21-2014, 03:05 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
NEVER!! The last day that an A-10 flies in the Air Force, will truly be a sad day.
No other manned or un-manned asset will ever be able to provide the Close Air Support (CAS) capabilities that has been provided by the A-10. It (Hawg) was on the chopping block after Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and got another 20 years of life with updated avionics. This time, with this Administration (aaaaahhhheeemmm, HAGEL), this beauty of an aircraft will see the graveyard.
GJ
(Prior Army "ground-pounder")
No other manned or un-manned asset will ever be able to provide the Close Air Support (CAS) capabilities that has been provided by the A-10. It (Hawg) was on the chopping block after Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and got another 20 years of life with updated avionics. This time, with this Administration (aaaaahhhheeemmm, HAGEL), this beauty of an aircraft will see the graveyard.
GJ
(Prior Army "ground-pounder")
Last edited by Elliot; 03-21-2014 at 03:19 PM.
03-21-2014, 03:25 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
03-21-2014, 03:28 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
03-21-2014, 03:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
03-21-2014, 03:37 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: C560XL/XLS/XLS+
Posts: 1,278
03-21-2014, 03:41 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Will it be sufficient to just wire an alarm clock to the rest quarters that goes off for just about anything? That plus some "hacker proof" (yeah right) remote control to the existing autopilot? If the auto throttles quit and the alarm got a sleeping pilot to the controls before anything bad happened, does that flight now have to divert because the crew will time out because their rest was interrupted?
It can technically be "done" quite easily, depending on your definition of do (or it). But it can't be done cheaply while still providing the same level of monitoring, intervention and crisis response times. And all for what, saving 2 pilots hourly costs? Even considering total compensation hourly costs, I can't see them being anywhere near 10 years from something like that with the same level of safety, reliability and cost.
Who knows, maybe Fred Smith hates pilots so much he's willing to fall on his sword to throw belly containers of thousand dollar bills at something like this long before its truly cost ready just to say he does it. But with increasing margin pressures that are challenging otherwise solid volumes and the era of dual subsidized meglomaniac foreign carriers about to capacity dump on them as fast as Boeing and Airbus can crank them out, I'm not seeing how that segment can afford to screw around with something like that in the next 10 years.
Sounds like NASA's wanna be Mars mission timelines. We choose to do it not because it is easy but because it is hard, nothing to fear but fear itself, rah rah rah whatever, but the budget can't even come close to handeling it because we're just not there yet.
03-21-2014, 03:51 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Position: On the hotel shuttle
Posts: 5,907
03-21-2014, 05:37 PM
The Brown Dot +1
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Position: 777B
Posts: 7,775
My pet peeve, Sailingfun. My bracket is busted and I won't be a billionaire. So here is a little grammar lesson just for you. Are you one of those WAL guys who got hired without a degree? Than vs. then
Then is mainly an adverb, often used to situate actions in time. For example, you wake up in the morning and then have breakfast. It’s also used in if … then constructions such as, “If you wake late, then you might have to skip breakfast.” It also works as a noun meaning that time (e.g., “I wanted breakfast, but then was not a good time”) and as an adjective meaning at that time (e.g., “My then boyfriend was not an early riser”).
Than is a conjunction used mainly in making comparisons—e.g., “My breakfast is better than yours”; “I make breakfast differently than you do.”
To help distinguish between the two words, remember that than has no one-word synonyms. It is a one-of-a-kind word. To illustrate, try thinking of a single word to replace than in “My breakfast is better than yours.” There isn’t one. Then, in contrast, has many synonyms and often bears replacement with an equivalent word or phrase. For instance, “I woke up and then had breakfast” can become “I woke up and subsequently had breakfast.” The exception is in if … then constructions, where the then is usually required. But for these situations, just remember that then, not than, is the correct spelling of the word often paired with if.
Then is mainly an adverb, often used to situate actions in time. For example, you wake up in the morning and then have breakfast. It’s also used in if … then constructions such as, “If you wake late, then you might have to skip breakfast.” It also works as a noun meaning that time (e.g., “I wanted breakfast, but then was not a good time”) and as an adjective meaning at that time (e.g., “My then boyfriend was not an early riser”).
Than is a conjunction used mainly in making comparisons—e.g., “My breakfast is better than yours”; “I make breakfast differently than you do.”
To help distinguish between the two words, remember that than has no one-word synonyms. It is a one-of-a-kind word. To illustrate, try thinking of a single word to replace than in “My breakfast is better than yours.” There isn’t one. Then, in contrast, has many synonyms and often bears replacement with an equivalent word or phrase. For instance, “I woke up and then had breakfast” can become “I woke up and subsequently had breakfast.” The exception is in if … then constructions, where the then is usually required. But for these situations, just remember that then, not than, is the correct spelling of the word often paired with if.
All I got out of that was your boyfriend was not an early riser. TMI
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
