olofscience

Oh, but I wasn't talking about that. How about we discuss the paper? You posted it, after all.

Cute. Brent once again pretending he can read scientific papers.

Not remotely piloted ones (but not being physically present might change the social 'vibe' or rapport with passengers) but fully autonomous ones would have no interest in such manoeuvres.

Airlines are actually pushing hard for single-pilot ops in commercial aircraft. But aircraft like A320s and 737s can actually be flown by a single pilot, the co-pilot is there for redundancy. So single-pilot ops will actually be zero-pilot ops since the single pilot will be there for redundancy. And Airbus is heading down that route, by actually developing and demonstrating autonomous take-off and landing in an A350: https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/2020/01/airbus-demonstrates-first-fully-automatic-visionbased-takeoff.html

There have been a few crashes now attributed to pilots trying to make things more "exciting" for passengers, so here's the inevitable question that's already been brought up in the Electric Aircraft thread: Do you think zero-pilot ops for skydiving lifts is feasible? Meaning, remotely piloted from the ground or completely autonomous aircraft. There are a few things about skydiving ops that make it different: all passengers can have parachutes the aircraft only goes a few miles (a few dozen at most) from the takeoff/landing area so if it's radio controlled, there can be fewer issues with control signals DZ operators might jump at the potential cost reduction FAA/CAA will of course hold the legal stick, but they're mostly concerned with passengers going from point A to B rather than skydiving, and they're also pretty busy with UAVs and autonomous aircraft coming into the scene Completely autonomous flights have even been done by one of the most popular skydiving aircraft, the C208 Caravan: https://roboticsandautomationnews.com/2020/08/25/xwing-debuts-worlds-first-fully-autonomous-air-cargo-flight-using-classic-planes/35548/

I don't think that's going to fly at all (pun not intended) with the civil aviation authorities. The contingency power will probably have to be available ALL the time, what happens if you encounter an emergency situation and your contingency is still recharging?

...do you even know how to read graphs? The conclusion (the TITLE of the graphic...) is the complete opposite of what you just concluded. Geez.

Why does it sound like trumpettes have just learned the word "agenda" and think it makes them sound ominous? When two or more people have a common goal, also known as an agenda, they usually form what is called an organization. So when you say an organization like CNN has an agenda, then you better fucking specify what it is because that's the entire fucking point of having an organization in the first place.

And your house burning down could be a once in a several decades event, yet if it does you actually want the fire service to do its job. You don't care how many training competitions they win, you want them to perform when it really matters. So not including the pandemic in a policy evaluation is actually exactly what a fool would do. Does it matter no large western democracy did it well? Many countries still did it well. You're just laying the foundations of making exactly the same mistakes when the next pandemic arrives.

But if so they should already be on some turboprops, no? A C208 has the PT6 mounted on the fuselage, so what's stopping them from putting NOx scrubbers in? Also APUs for airliners, do any of them have NOx scrubbers? My searches have so far only turned up scrubbers for stationary gas turbine installations.

Is that illegal in the US?

Agreed. Agreed, eliminating the gearbox will save massively on MRO. The benefits of distributed electric propulsion are also very compelling. Wait, what? How would NOx be reduced by moving the location of the turbine? Genuinely curious.

We do, but the problem with power-to-weight ratio is it's a feedback cycle. Unlike cars, the engine(s), quite literally, have to lift their own weight. So if you make the engine heavier for the same amount of power, you'll need more power to climb, making it heavier, and so on. Sure, you can sacrifice some performance, but you can't go below legal and practical minimums on things like climb rate, runway length, etc. and the margin isn't very big. I'm very supportive of fully electric aircraft (C208 size and below) and turbine-electric hybrids above, but I just don't see any space in between them for piston-electric hybrids. The big efficiency win for automotive hybrids was stop-start traffic, and you don't really get that in aircraft (but regen is quite an intriguing possibility for skydiving ops). So I don't think there will be a big improvement in the metrics you've mentioned. I'd be happy to be wrong though, and it would be interesting to see a piston-electric hybrid for novelty's sake, but for now I don't think the numbers quite work out in its favour.

But still no answers the question why judging Trump's performance has to exclude the pandemic. That's like saying about a guy who murdered his family - "well he was a good husband and father if you don't count the murders". Well, no.

Here in the UK the furlough scheme actually prevented a lot of job losses, but at the expense of a lot of borrowing. But the fact that there's massive borrowing in the US, and a massive spike in unemployment just looks like the worst of both worlds. What was the point in borrowing then?

For a car, power at cruising speed might be around 20% of maximum engine power, but for aircraft this number is 70-80%. The most important number will be total power-to-weight ratio of the combined system (combustion + electric) and this is almost always lower for hybrids. So sorry Bill but I'll have to side with nwt here - power-to-weight ratio of piston engines are just too low to make hybrids practical. Turbines are probably OK and there are actually several studies being done now by the big aircraft manufacturers about turbine-electric hybrids. Not unrealistic - it just takes time to develop, certify, and sell, especially in this economic climate. All the ingredients are already here, but it takes time to put them all together. Kind of like baking - you can't assume you'll instantly have a full loaf of bread as soon as you obtain all the ingredients.

Why should the pandemic be excluded?

Whatever's trickling down, it ain't money, yet you're lapping it up carry on!

Dodging the question - the two options I laid out are mutually exclusive. Hand-waving magic forces isn't really going to work unless the person you're trying to fool is already scared and unable to understand how the world works. So, try again.

So do you think: The coroner changed his mind as more evidence came about, or He was politically or financially pressured to change his conclusion, therefore he has lied and provided false statements to a court of law?

And as I've pointed out, 11ng/ml is not a lethal amount of fentanyl. It's been associated with some deaths as much as heart disease is associated with some deaths - increases your risk, but not a death sentence. The knee on the neck was the death sentence.

I think there's some thread drift here, the original article isn't talking about residential rooftop solar, but rather larger solar installations where you can get economies of scale.

In the 4th wave thread - cases are rapidly rising in 30 states, led by Florida among others. Hopefully not related.

Setting up strawmen again. Of course I considered alternative possibilities, but I'll defer to the experts who already reported their conclusion. Unlike someone here who has no medical training whatsoever but thinks they know better. Now you're using Zoe's technique...unless you really don't know. Let me ask you, do you know what LD50 means?

And this is why you really need the experts instead of airdvr determining the cause of death... Luckily, it's not your doubt, because it's not reasonable. You're desperately seeking and trying to interpret scientific reports to fit your narrative, and failing badly at it. The jury will hopefully get better quality information and expert advice before coming to their conclusion.