Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile

gavron

About Ehud GavronTechdirt Insider




Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 7:31pm

    Re: Re: Cars kill more people than "guns"

    LOL
    > The same cannot be said for guns

    Still refusing to use a specific word. First guns then weapons but never firearms. Whatever.

    > Cars are safe

    No, cars cause most deaths. Period.

    Now go make up more sophistry while the facts and data are clearly showing cars to be the #1 safety hazzard and the #1 killer in the US.

    Best and all that.

    E

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 6:45pm

    Re: Re: Encryption control is essentially the digital equivalent of gun control.

    "The difference being" is that is your perceptual filter. Good for you.

    Cars kill more people than "guns" (you meant firearms, you anti-gun nazi, right, but you couldn't be bothered to use your words).

    > Tool have constructive uses
    Just like cars.

    >weapons
    Wait now it's weapons. First you said "guns". You probably meant firearms. Now it's weapons. No worries, anti-gun nazi, cars are weapons.

    >Weapons are purely destructive
    Like a scythe?

    LOL

    Stop mixing metaphors. You don't make sense.

    E

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 11:50am

    Politics

    How about we compare the candidates in terms of how they will address the topic (war on encryption)... rather than what scumbag criminal a-holes they are?

    Not that I mind politics. I'm fine with discussing it. Just I once was told not to mix it with sex or religion or techdirt.

    *goes to have religious sex*

    E

  • Jun 28th, 2016 @ 8:20am

    Irony

    When you turn off all security on your private FOIA-defying server and don't use encryption and Russian and Chinese state-sponsored players browse through your data...

    ...and you are against encryption because security.

  • Jun 25th, 2016 @ 7:21pm

    Re: ummm

    Because self-censorship and prior restraint is better than a court-ordered one?

    Because an organization that disseminates topical information SHOULD engage in censorship and prior restraint?

    Would you feelz the same way if it HURT Trump?

    I disagree with your thesis and hope that news and analysis experts continue to do news and analysis.

    Ehud

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 8:59am

    Re: Insightful? Not so much.

    Brother,

    > Writing as a pilot who lost his ticket for taking out a few harmless runway lights.

    NTSB case linkie please? I'm curious as to the circumstances and would like to learn more to avoid doing the same.

    Thank you!

    Ehud

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 7:43am

    Descent fatal accidents 35%. Takeoff 20%. Cruise 13%.

    Yeah - you're right. I took a cursory look at it before but now that you've pointed out the page I looked at the total numbers.

    Descent+initial approach+final approach=35%. That's more than landing (24%), cruise (13%), or takeoff+initial climb+climb (20%).

    And it's PDF p.21 internal doc p.20 :)

    Ehud
    P.S. I don't think it's an ad hominem unless I was attacking you... which I wasn't. However, in the spirit of peace I apologize for any offense I gave :)

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 5:47am

    Re: Re: Stuck in Traffic

    I think autogyros are cool! My friends in San Manuel AZ fly them :)

    - they require a pilot's certificate -

    Nothing magical there...

    E

  • Jun 20th, 2016 @ 5:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Altitude + Airspeed = Safety

    The link I provided shows data from unbiased sources. Yours is a training link for pilots with training wheels.

    Stick to verified facts. It's safer.

    E

  • Jun 18th, 2016 @ 6:23pm

    Re: Americans want flying cars

    I'm sorry, I'm sure you meant to say something meaningful. Unfortunately in the process it became meaningless.

    > because

    What's the phrase before the "because"... you know, the one you're explaining. "Because" is used to explain something given a question. What was the question?

    > their legislature
    Whose legislature?

    > is yet
    Has yet

    > to become aware of
    "to become aware" is to gain consciousness.
    I think you mean "to be aware."

    > of the invention of the railroad
    The railroad was not an invention. It was a series of upgrades from the carriage, to the horseless carriage, to a horseless carriage with special "roadways" to the railroad.

    Please do add detail. This may prove to be fascinating.

    E

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 2:25pm

    Re:

    ^5!

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 2:24pm

    The Judge called it...

    Now THAT is an Awsumb Ruling!

    E

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 10:10am

    Stuck in Traffic

    We all have been stuck in traffic, wished we could turn on our antigrav/wings/rotors/magic and fly above the crowd. If there were flying cars that leaves the simple question of why the people ahead of you didn't do just that, which leads to the question I addressed in my original post:

    "Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?"

    ...meaning if that if your car can fly, why the heck would you drive somewhere far enough to possibly be in a traffic jam? You wouldn't. Instead you'd PLAN to fly there and then land and drive to where you want to go... which is why I ended with:

    "Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway."

    Still... I'm a fan of science fiction because we can ignore the physics and ignore the regulatory world and the law-enforcement and insurance constraints and focus on a better world.

    I'm with everyone on this thread who said Jetsons, Rosie, or Rastro!

    E

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 10:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Missing the hard part

    ...thus creating a violation of 14 CFR 91.15.

    If you live you'll lose your pilot's certificate ;)

    E

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 10:05am

    Re: Re: Altitude + Airspeed = Safety

    That is a common misnomer. Most accidents do NOT occur during takeoff and landing. They occur during the descent from cruise. Fascinating study review at http://www.theglobalist.com/when-do-planes-crash/.

    However, powerplant failure at any phase of flight can be dangerous. It *MUST NOT* be fatal (or more correctly it should be designed survivable). Given the choice of high and fast or slow and low the latter is definitionally less safe.

    Best regards

    E

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 10:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying

    I wasn't trying to be snarky... just making sure we're all speaking the same language.

    My apologies if I came across negatively. English is not my first language.

    Ehud

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying

    All excellent points except you don't get to 'define' light aircraft as unpressurized. I appreciate that's what you're suggesting the OP meant, and I agree with the concept.

    You do get some fuel savings by leaning the air/fuel mixture no matter how "low" the altitude you climb to... but it's not significant until -- as you pointed out -- the atmosphere is at a fraction of its density at sea-level so the fuel savings are comparable.

    Still, fuel savings is not top of the list of goals here, and that presupposes normally-aspirated combustion engines. Since we're talking science-FICTION here we can also presuppose a future fuel with a greater energy density than gasoline -- only nuclear has that now -- and the ability to safely and efficiently use it.

    E

  • Jun 17th, 2016 @ 2:43am

    Re: Re: Re: Probably dead no matter what you're flying

    Lol, no, most of that is wrong.

    >The higher the attitude the less the air,

    The higher the altitude above sea level the less DENSE the air is. There's not less air. It's also exponential so you have to go REALLY high to make a difference. No such altitudes are discussed here.

    >and the easier it is to travel at speed.

    I don't know what "easier" or "at speed" means.

    >Therefore light aircraft are limited

    What is a "light aircraft"? The FAA has a class called Light Sport Aircraft" but that's different. Why do you think that aerodynamics ONLY limit "light" aircraft? Please use big words when making up facts.

    >in altitude by the necessity for the occupants to breathe,

    Breathing (for humans) occurs just fine and requires no special oxygen in FAA certificated flights at altitudes of 12,000ft and below. That's for all aircraft, "light"[sic] and otherwise.

    >lower speeds due to air resistance

    Junior-high physics fails again. At the speeds discussed there's no noticeable change in air resistance depending on altitude.

    >and friction heating of the aircraft.

    Perhaps you're thinking of the SR-71 and Mach-3. For normal aircraft there's no factor of friction heating of the aircraft [airframe] based on airspeed.

    >It is due to physics and physiology.

    "it is"

  • Jun 16th, 2016 @ 4:52pm

    Altitude + Airspeed = Safety

    When an aircraft loses power the way in which it survives is that it glides (fixed-wing) or autorotates (helicopter) to the ground.

    This process consumes "stores of energy" such as altitude (gravity) and airspeed. (In a helicopter we also store energy in the rotor speed).

    You can trade airspeed for altitude, altitude for airspeed, and either for distance to a safe landing spot.

    When the power failure hits the more stored energy you have the more options you have as to "where to go". A commercial jetliner at 33,000ft traveling at Mach 0.82 can glide for 150km (93m). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing

    Being low and slow are recipes for "nowhere to go" in the event of a power failure because there is not enough "energy" in a low altitude to convert to airspeed before hitting the ground. Similarly if you're going slow there's no way to convert that to distance to get to a safe place.

    E

  • Jun 16th, 2016 @ 1:32pm

    Never.

    Disclosure: I'm a current FAA-certificated commercial helicopter pilot.

    Dreams of flying are awesome, and dreams of flying cars are great, but the regulatory reality will prevent these from *ever* flying at least in the United States.

    A. Reliability and Technology
    1. "Drones" and UAS devices don't have the failsafes to allow safe landing (for human passengers) in the event of a failure. All commercially-certificated aircraft *must* demonstrate power-off landing.

    2. In order to provide those failsafes, "Drones" and UAS devices would have redundant systems making them too heavy to functionally lift humans and carry them anywhere.

    B. Regulations
    3. The FAA has control of the air from the ground up. (Yes, there are those who claim it's from 8' up, those who claim 58' up, those who claim 400' up but recent rulings support the "anything from the top of ground or structure on up"). The FAA jealously regulates its airspace -- to the point they don't want to allow military UAVs unless the pilot flying the UAV is a)FAA-certificated (which military pilots are not), and b)Is in radio contact with the appropriate air-traffic control coordinator. In other words, only a pilot can fly one and only while keeping in contact with ATC.

    4. All aircraft within the national airspace system (NAS) have to be not only certificated by the FAA but also registered. These add *substantial* fees to what would otherwise be "A car".

    C. Exisitng Industries Won't Allow it
    5. Law-enforcement has a very big hard-on for the driver being responsible for the equipment. Thus there will never be a self-driving car... not will there ever be a car that can fly away from a road-block.

    6. Insurance companies enjoy taking hard-earned money to gamble that you WON'T ever use your policy. Governmental regulations requiring the purchase of insurance provides them a captive audience of clients all of whom also gamble they WON'T ever use that policy. (Not to worry, if the policy gets used, the rates go sky high for at least three years...) That's just to insure a vehicle that at most can cause minor damage. When you put that same mass in the air, (F=ma and all that), its potential for damage is exponentially higher... and so, btw, is the cost of aircraft insurance. (At least for the helicopters we fly)

    Would I love to see a vehicle that "if things got frustrating I could just pick up and fly"... sure... but that makes no sense... because if you can "just pick up and fly" why would you use the road in the first place?

    Far better to build a plane that can legally drive on the highway.

    Ehud Gavron
    Tucson AZ
    FAA CPL-H

More comments from Ehud Gavron >>