There are a lot of displays that are virtually unreadable with polarizing lenses including the GPS/depth finder on my boat. Very annoying to have to take them off constantly. Also the clock & radio in my 350Z went completely dark with polarizing lenses. I'm talking expensive prescription sunglasses.
----------------------------------------
The Help for this program was created in Windows Help format, which depends on a feature that isn't included in this version of Windows.
I guess most everyone knows this already, but if the display goes dark when viewed through polarized glasses then the light is already horizontally polarized from the source, probably due to some mirrored/reflected display image or I suppose a horizontally polarized bezel. Polarization reveals some eerie properties of light.
Edit: Apparently many LCD displays are set at 45/135 to allow them to be viewed with polarized lenses. Also, the polarization of LCD displays is more a side effect of the way LCD technology works (switching on/off of multiple polarizing crystal layers), rather than from a separate polarized bezel.
LCDs work by polarizing/depolarizing its active layer, relative to the internal polarization filter. But, since LCDs are almost passe, it's a matter of time before most displays get converted to OLED, assuming the costs come down as desired.
TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
The 737 MAX uses a 283 processor for its primary flight control computers.... I am pretty sure with 17 years left to go before retirement I will never fly a aircraft fitted with OLED displays the hardware costs are basically petty cash compared to the other costs of certification etc. They could cost 10k$ each in the normal world and it wouldn't make any difference. The LCD PFD screen on a q400 costs 55 000$
Speaking of out-of-date computer hardware, based on a display I saw years ago at the now defunct 'Boston Computer Museum', the last operational computers which utilized vacuum tube technology, were ones that were part of the nation's air-traffic control system. If I recall correctly, it wasn't until the late 1990's before the last vacuum tube systems were replaced with solid-state equipment. There's a story about how in 1995, Bill Clinton, in one of his bipartisan moments, was heard complaining to then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, that it was a travesty that the FAA was forced to procure replacement parts (vacuum tubes) from former Communist-bloc nations as they were the last place where they were still being manufactured.
I can relate to this as one of my hobbies is old radios, and my pride and joy, a 1965 Hammarlund HQ-180A, uses vacuum tubes.
When I acquired the radio back in 1999, I needed to replace several of the tubes which were broken. I finally found a guy in Mesa, AZ, who had a warehouse stocked with over a million vacuum tubes. The vast majorities of his inventory came to him when the Pentagon would close a military base and they would literally sell off stuff like that by pound. Since my Hammarlund was based on a military design, I had no problem getting the tubes that I needed.
Surprised that the radar shows this chopper turning left, with the altimeter indicating climb.
The man rotor won't support the weight, and you lose elevation.
The only way you'll get that sort of behavior is if you are caught in swiriln cross winds, common in the mountains, with low pressure centers, that would show higher elevation while falling.
its not a radar plot its a radar 24 ADS-B plot. Which has several well known issues especially with a rapidly changing situation. They are all documented by people more knowledgeable about them on the internet.
I just know that you can't trust them, not the tech reasons why.
ADS-B makes flying significantly safer for the aviation community by providing pilots with improved situational awareness. Pilots in an ADS-B In equipped cockpit will have the ability to see, on their in-cockpit flight display, other traffic operating in the airspace as well as access to clear and detailed weather information. They will also be able to receive pertinent updates ranging from temporary flight restrictions to runway closings.
Zero difference to the outcome, there is a network of ADS-B receivers in most populations. Its actually quiet cheap and easy to set one up and then link it into the various networks on the internet which track flights.
I must admit we have it on the aircraft, all the airside vehicles have it and the ops can track movements of everyone. In Europe there is a deadline for it to be fitted to commercial aircraft. There are no pilot controls for it, its all linked through the transponder which is on pretty much as soon as the engines start until engines are turned off. It broadcasts various bits of flight data derived from the GPS, its problem is that it does it every 3 seconds or so so you get snap shots everything 3 seconds. Most of the sites then average between the snapshots.
A lot of these ADS-B plots are put up for public discussion but there are no riders about the limitations. They are certainly good enough to see prolonged tendency's aka the plots for PIA and unstable approach. But not good enough to see what's really happening if an aircraft is doing aerobatics. Certainly for the aircraft with a FDR quiet often the FDR paints a different picture to the one that's been discussed for the previous 18 months until the report is out.
I believe you can get a dongle for your laptop which comes with software and you can see all the aircraft above the horizon around where you are subject to normal radio limitations for under 50$. I don't have one and never played with one.
Fair enough, but the trace shows several right turns, early on, but in the final moments a left turn, and claim of rapid rate of climb.
So the question is why would a chopper try to turn left, when that is not an allowable flight path, and show climbing trajectory when no trained pilot would do that.
Fair enough, but the trace shows several right turns, early on, but in the final moments a left turn, and claim of rapid rate of climb.
So the question is why would a chopper try to turn left, when that is not an allowable flight path, and show climbing trajectory when no trained pilot would do that.
There are a load of forces which I know about but have zero clue about on a rotary helicopter.
There are gyroscopic effects of a big disk spinning. There is forward moving blade and retreating blade giving different amounts of lift which the swash plate is meant to help with.
The tail rotor on the tail has similar effects going on.
But fundamentally the pilot is stopping the thing crashing from the moment of engine start to the moment the disk stops. Its not like a fixed wing that the forces in the operating envelope are designed in such a way that the aircraft will returned to the trimmed flight profile. A climb in a fixed wing is just an addition of power and that's about it. And deviations happen relatively slowly. But a none instrument pilot in cloud has a life span of about 90 seconds. Helicopter every single primary control has to be changed. None trained instrument pilot has a life span of under 15 seconds.
The main rotor blades are airfoils and if you turn in the direction of rotation you lose lift accoring to the sharpness of the turn. Beyond that, with excessive rate of climb or descent, the chopper can lose flight stability and literally drop. Heaven help you if the Jesus nut comes off, then you are in non-recoverable free fall.
And see figure 2b. I don't see any turn and climb there?
What I see is a climb (believed to be into the cloud layer) , followed by a gradually increasing turn and descent to the left,possibly caused by complete lack of visual horizon and possibly sudden transition from visual to instrument only flying.
you are right about the elevation, poor recollection here inregards to is requested elev increase, but making left turns is dangerous as the rotor blades lose lift and can experience aerodynamic stall depending on rate of turn and wind conditions.
If the engine dies in normal flight, pilots if they're quick, let it free rotor to the ground for a hard landing just short of a crash,
If you read the full article, I hope you pick up the competing goals that are being compared. Certain safety standards are built on analytical methods, and others are built on the effective outcome. When one method (analytical) is pushed so far in one direction that the solutions using it become very expensive, then the benefit it offers is unreachable. And the effective outcome therefore won't change.
The author's argument continues that the FAA is in control of the safety requirements and the reliability targets for certain types of components. Focusing tightly on a single component's reliability target does not improve the safety of helicopters that don't have it; in this case an automatic control system to help stabilize the helicopter. A simpler system could also have the effective outcome of reducing the accident rate, especially when heli's enter clouds. But to be affordable, and potentially retro-fittable to older helicopters, that simpler system would not be able to meet the current analytical standard - which was actually set for commercial fixed-wing aircraft.
It's a very interesting argument. I've been rolling it around in my head since reading the article a few months ago. I should have shared it earlier.
