Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UA 1093

windbornesystems.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 117 posts

Re: UA 1093

#61

Post by bjt »

alistairSH wrote: post #48
baggy_trough wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It needs to be much stronger than the ability to pass new regulations, but it's much weaker instead.

Is that really true? An agency can remove a regulation it created. Congress (via the linked law) can also remove a regulation. Congress can also create regulations via legislation (though they typically don't go to that level of detail). And we have to remember, at one point, every regulation that exists was created to solve a problem / prevent a harm. The cost of removing that regulation prematurely is reintroducing…

The problem is more about regulatory capture. An industry adapts to a regulation, and creates winners and losers. Once the regulation no longer makes sense (costs taxpayers/consumers more than it benefits), those who are winning from it have a strong interest in keeping it around anyway.

A good example is the state franchise laws against car manufacturers owning dealerships. Why can't Toyota sell me a car directly? Direct manufacturer sales seem to work fine in other contexts (e.g. Ikea). In Europe they're moving more and more direct sales. There's no good reason to keep them here in the US, but the dealership owners who benefit from these laws are the only people impacted directly enough to bother hiring lobbyists.

Re: UA 1093

#62

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

rocmcd wrote: post #24

What I don't get is how did the pilots not see it? Are they that hard to see, or was vision obscured? The balloon in the attached picture looks pretty large.

At normal cruise, a B737 is travelling at 700 feet/second. You're not going to have much time to do anything but go, "oh, fuck!"

Re: UA 1093

#63

Post by bri3d »

thorsson12 wrote: post #21

It is surprising that weather balloons don't have ADS-B out (or did this ballon have that and something about the system didn't work?). If it did work, ADS-B would have made this collision very avoidable.

ADS-B, as regulated, is a terrible solution for this stuff. EIRP requirements make it extremely impractical as a transmission solution for small devices, most ADS-B In equipment isn't designed to correctly alert for separation with non-fixed wing devices, and (due in no small part to the very high EIRP), there are concerns about both air-time saturation and management plane saturation (ie - ADS-B In equipment also wasn't designed to track very many entities).

Re: UA 1093

#64

Post by modeless »

trenchpilgrim wrote: post #34
thedudeabides5 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

isn't the worst case it goes into the engine and it explodes/burns?

No, because the plane is designed to safely fly without an engine. They test the engines by shooting turkeys from the grocery store into them while they run.

Exactly. The plane can land with one engine or even no engines, but it can't land without a pilot in a functioning cockpit.

Re: UA 1093

#65

Post by mbreese »

alistairSH wrote: post #51
imglorp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off limits? What's the reason? Why not ADS-B everything in the air and let the computers sort it out?

It's not off-limits. But, it's not required (for most balloons, ULs, etc). And due to cost and/or weight, people don't always use it when it's not mandatory.

The comments I was reading at ArsTechnica suggested that adding transponders was off-limits to balloons. The argument was that balloon operators wanted to add transponders but that it was resisted by FAA worrying about there being too many non-plane transponders for pilots/ATC to keep track of.

I obviously don't know which is right, but it does show that there is definitely confusion out there about the issue.

Re: UA 1093

#66

Post by BubbleRings »

Gravityloss wrote: post #15

Who would have believed, what was suspected of being a mysterious malevolence coming from outer space, was just a quaint weather balloon all along! Somehow that rings some faint bell but can't quite put my finger on it...

Okay you two… Sugar and Art Bell. I had to get ChatGPT to refresh my memory, but I’m with you now… hovering like a fly, waiting for the windshield on the freeway.

Re: UA 1093

#67

Post by Polizeiposaune »

eirikbakke wrote: post #60
trenchpilgrim wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the plane is designed to safely fly without an engine. They test the engines by shooting turkeys from the grocery store into them while they run.

Afterwards, they ship the entire engine, with turkey giblets and all, to a lab where the resulting damage is analyzed. Smells awful, according to the engineer I sat next to at a Thanksgiving dinner once...

Hopefully the giblets at your Thanksgiving dinner didn't come from the engine-sliced turkeys...

Re: UA 1093

#68

Post by whycome »

elAhmo wrote: post #53

I wonder how much damage to the society should Musk do before people stop posting links to Twitter.

Do you stop using American products when you don't agree with the ones running it?

Re: UA 1093

#69

Post by the__alchemist »

rocmcd wrote: post #24

What I don't get is how did the pilots not see it? Are they that hard to see, or was vision obscured? The balloon in the attached picture looks pretty large.

Fighters can pick up balloons like this on radar, and you can see them in targeting pods (e.g. cued from the radar). You can see them with eyes if you get close, but it's not a guarantee.
Post reply on HN