Since its not difficult to map all the world on a single USB card
(including height information)
the plane itself might have enough information to simply refuse to be
led to ground under uncontrolled
circumstances.
Drones (even below 1000 USD) do autonomously return to their point of
departure
>Or lockout should be impossible unless there are two officers on the
flight deck (two security codes needed, not a toggle switch!).
That would be simple: to momentary switches to be actuated at the same
time
with enough physical distance between them
Gert Gremmen
-Oorspronkelijk berich
John:
"could those in the cabin area be provided with a system whereby, in cases
where the cockpit gets "taken over", it could allow them to communicate with
the "someone" "somewhere" to alert them of the problems"
Hmm, like posting a sign on the bulkhead something like "1-800-gutentag?"
John
You do have a point - but, actually, there is a much wider one that IACO
could consider: that is, in such cases, could those in the cabin area be
provided with a system whereby, in cases where the cockpit gets "taken
over", it could allow them to communicate with the "someone" "somewhere" to
In message
ucpoOcBAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Wed, 1 Apr 2015, John Allen
writes:
you think they could conceivably operate consistent and reliable
systems whereby a pilot says "I need a cr*p, please open the cockpit
door in 30s", and "someone", "somewhere", has to say " OK", and do th
John
Military drones analogy? - I don't think so!
In those cases you have dedicated (at least) two-man teams flying 1 drone
each on a specific operation.
In the real-life civil aviation industry, you have thousands of simultaneous
flights "from here to there " controlled by hundreds of
In message
kQ8nscBAA==@blueyonder.co.uk>, dated Wed, 1 Apr 2015, John Allen
writes:
Not realistic for a huge raft of reasons: air-to-ground-to-air
time-delays, comms issues, EMI issues, language issues, situational
awareness issues - need I go on? !! L
Those factors may be taken into a
Not realistic for a huge raft of reasons: air-to-ground-to-air time-delays,
comms issues, EMI issues, language issues, situational awareness issues -
need I go on? !! L
-Original Message-
From: Amund Westin [mailto:am...@westin-emission.no]
Sent: 01 April 2015 19:29
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSE
In message <01d06ca9$c89b05e0$59d111a0$@westin-emission.no>, dated
Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Amund Westin writes:
Doors should be opened by ground control officers via radio.
Or lockout should be impossible unless there are two officers on the
flight deck (two security codes needed, not a toggle
In message
.com>, dated Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Brian Oconnell
writes:
Is the failure of internal personel an extension of 'forseeable misuse'
?
It's foreseeable, but I leave it to Mr. Nute to say whether it's
'misuse' or something else.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.d
In another life, long ago, in a galaxy far away, was a member of a squadron
that frequently deployed detachments to isolated and not nice places. Our
security model was based 99% on exogenous events/effects. The only internal
influence considered was weapons proficiency and material assignment f
Doors should be opened by ground control officers via radio.
-Opprinnelig melding-
Fra: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sendt: 1. april 2015 18:38
Til: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Emne: Re: [PSES] Germanwings crash
These type doors became mandatory after 9/11. Boeing wa
In message
<64D32EE8B9CBDD44963ACB076A5F6ABB026D7789@Mailbox-Tech.lecotech.local>,
dated Wed, 1 Apr 2015, "Kunde, Brian" writes:
It would seem our only option is to add overcurrent protection to the
secondary side of the transformer so we can size the Primary OPD so not
to nuisance trip due
In message , dated Wed, 1
Apr 2015, Ken Javor writes:
These type doors became mandatory after 9/11. Boeing was sued after
9/11 because these type doors had not been installed.
What is the manufacturer to do?
I feel that Boeing and Airbus have enough clout to get bad decisions by
FAA, ICAO
In message , dated Wed,
1 Apr 2015, Scott Xe writes:
I received the attached IEC info for 5017 and wondering if it is also
outdated.
Of course; it is 13 years old and is only a liaison document from TC16
to TC3, not a TC3 committee document. TC3/SC3C clearly hasn't changed
5017 in the past
To all, thank you for some great input.
Many of you explained the science behind protecting a transformer from
overheating but unfortunately the CSA inspector don't care, nor has the
authority to make a decision or ruling; he can only apply what the CEC says in
this case, which really limits ou
Ken et al,
John has made a good point here. Ken's question points to the need
for backup measures which seem to be process oriented. In the USA the
requirement is reported to be that there always be two people in the
cockpit; when one pilot leaves then one of the cabin staff steps inside
These type doors became mandatory after 9/11. Boeing was sued after 9/11
because these type doors had not been installed.
What is the manufacturer to do?
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
> From: John Woodgate
> Reply-To: John Woodgate
> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 17:08:07 +0100
> To:
> Subject: [P
There is a general safety lesson to be learned, which needs to be
applied to every risk analysis. An irrecoverable situation (flight deck
door locked from inside and opening denied) cannot be accepted even if
the probability of a bad result appears vanishingly small.
This post is not meant to
In message
utlook.com>, dated Wed, 1 Apr 2015, "Nyffenegger, Dave"
writes:
EN 60204-1:2006 and EN 60950-1:2006 define requirements for the use of
those symbols (and the two are not entirely consistent). So if you are
applying those standards
He isn't: the Subject line says EN 60335-1
--
O
In message <93c5791b-7130-4436-a0a5-0c79f441e...@gmail.com>, dated Wed,
1 Apr 2015, Scott Xe writes:
The standard calls for IEC 60417 for the symbols. Currently there are
3 symbols to serve different purposes.
1. IEC 60417 - 5017: General earthing
2. IEC 60417 - 5018: Functional earthing
3.
EN 60204-1:2006 and EN 60950-1:2006 define requirements for the use of those
symbols (and the two are not entirely consistent). So if you are applying
those standards I'd assume the symbol usage will still apply as stated until
those standards are revised, regardless of what the IEC does.
-Dav
The standard calls for IEC 60417 for the symbols. Currently there are 3
symbols to serve different purposes.
1. IEC 60417 - 5017: General earthing
2. IEC 60417 - 5018: Functional earthing
3. IEC 60417 - 5019: Protective earthing
5017 is being proposed to be withdrawn according to IEC discussion
I recall most if not all of the Acme products were delivered by USPS. I
believe Wile E had an Amazon account.
-Dave
-Original Message-
From: John Woodgate [mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 2:12 AM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] Basic ins
In message
, dated
Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Julian Jones writes:
We have had an enquiry from a customer about testing their special
copper foam material which is used as a heat sink and also doped with
some ferrous materials to improve RF absorption. I realise copper
doesn?t have great properties
Hello All,
We have had an enquiry from a customer about testing their special copper foam
material which is used as a heat sink and also doped with some ferrous
materials to improve RF absorption. I realise copper doesn't have great
properties as an RF absorber as standard.
We have no experti
26 matches
Mail list logo
