151–160 of 486 posts
You know it’s true because it’s 2020. Remember that whole alien thing back in April? Me neither because about 10 years worth of events has happened in the past four and a half months.
A quick recap of 2020: https://imgur.com/gallery/x2o7JOi "Anything else?" ..."I'm still in January"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you referring to the documented cases of UFO sightings by the US navy? AFAIK there were also numerous pilot testimonies and radar logs to prove what was happening. Or is it a different case?
Mick West on YouTube has some pretty good explanations behind the UFO sightings by the US Navy. Here he goes through why the glare rotates while the horizon does not (and recreates the phenomenon): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ka_bX9Hx1H0 Here he highlights the relevant gimbal information on the Navy display that explains the "sudden" movements of the UFO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1di0XIa9RQ&t=251s He's a…
Unless there's some unmentioned specific expertise, that's not a very high bar, relative to what he's trying to discuss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, pilots say left/right, although it is more common to use clock positions for that. For example "traffic 3 o'clock" means there is someone on you right. Port/starboard is not used in aviation and I don't know of any equivalent besides left/right.
> Port/starboard is not used in aviation Some things seem to have been carried over though - you still almost always board an aircraft from the port side, don't you? And port/left is still a red light, and starboard/right is still a green light, on aircraft. A good way to remember all this is 'port is red and is passed to the left'.
Right of way rules are similar sailplanes have priority over powered aircraft, otherwise the one on the right has priority and in case of a face to face, you should turn right (or go up/down, but certainly not left)
They didn't completely reinvent navigation for aircraft and a lot of carry over is expected. I'd say port/starboard vs left/right is more of an exception than a rule, generally the same conventions are used when applicable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't downvoted it personally, because I would really really really love it to be true - but it's been "debunked"(if you can call it that). I suspect some of it is true - but not exactly as told. https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/8x5ndw/til_wh...
This is one of those cases where I try not to let the facts get in the way of a good story...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure its because falling hundreds of feet into water is more survivable than hundreds of feet into earth or concrete. There are flights, however, over land, but they usually involve a lot of practice and permitting.
>> falling hundreds of feet into water is more survivable than hundreds of feet into earth or concrete. No, not really - hitting watter as damaging as hitting concrete once you get above 100 feet high. But at least you're not going to kill an unlucky pederastian by falling on them.
As amusing as this is, it highlights how fragile air travel is -- someone managed to fly a 200 lb payload within a couple hundred feet of an airliner on final approach. And apparently did so anonymously since there was no mention of who or exactly what it was. It wouldn't be hard to maneuver it right in front of the airliner and cause a collision. While the aircraft would likely survive an engine strike, at only a fe…
That is why I never understand people who back flying car projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but it’s like the difference between the chicken and the pig at breakfast.
This comparison flew over my head easily at about 20,000 feet, anyone else? Can someone give me clearance to land this bird, 20L please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another pilot chimed in: "Only in LA." The SR71 radio speed check was in LA too. I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of its ground speed. '90 knots Center replied. Moments later,a Twin Beech required the same. '120 knots' Center answered. We weren’t the only ones proud of our ground speed that day as almost instantly an F-18 smugly transmitted: 'Ah, Center, Dusty 52 requests ground speed readout.' There was a slight…
That story is often told but is generally considered apocryphal. There is too much wrong with it procedurally. It's funny, but not likely a conversation that actually happened.
It's possibly a little too cute or maybe embellished, but there's nothing in it that sounds impossible or beyond plausibility.
For reference I have a pilot's license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I need a pair of flame-proof pants when I make a comment on Hacker News!
Nah, it's pretty mild, around these parts. I cut my teeth in the old UseNet days. I have made a commitment to never go back to the way I was, back then.