Yeah, that's a good point though, of course in most situations it is more urgent so this choice makes sense. BUT in this case not being aware of the dual input made the GPWS worse. So in this paricular case it was not.
Personally I would do a different type of alarm for dual input, like a big red light somewhere. Or just not allowing dual input somehow (always requiring the use of the takeover button).
The snippet in the first update is very wrong. The manpage for Linux’s implementation of close() explicitly says that it should not be called again if it fails. Apparently, this is the same under FreeBSD.
“Close will return an error if it has already been called.”
An os.File is a data structure containing a file descriptor and some other fields. It is safe to call Close() multiple times, because it will only call the underlying syscall close() once.
Their claim is false. The eCommerce Directive (2000/31/CE), article 14, exempts service providers of liability when they merely act as hosts (eg. comment sections, chat services, you name it), as long as they are not aware of hosting illegal content.
Fines were less than 1% of the revenue of the EU in 2023, to be more precise. I don't know how people here got the idea that the EU can fund itself only with such fines, to be honest.
That's already the case (cf. article 83(2)). The percentage of revenue thing in articles 83(4) and 83(5) is a cap, not a fixed amount. I don't think anybody was ever fined the maximal amount possible.
> And a trebling of damages where noncompliance is shown to be willful.
This is taken into account, cf. article 83(2)b. Not a trebling though, it's up to the DPA to decide, and cannot exceed the cap.
You'd have to physically break through the jammed control mechanism to get to that point, otherwise, they're mechanically linked up to a certain amount of pressure.
Anyways, the point is, assigning blame in this way is petty and weird on the authors part.
> You'd have to physically break through the jammed control mechanism to get to that point, otherwise, they're mechanically linked up to a certain amount of pressure.
That's what I said.
Interestingly, the BEA pointed out that the dual input rate is the same on Airbuses and Boeings (cf. https://bea.aero/fileadmin/user_upload/F-GSQJ_finalreport_EN..., page 47). Lack of communication and stressful environment here too, maybe coupled commands would not have saved AF447 after all…
> Anyways, the point is, assigning blame in this way is petty and weird on the authors part.
I agree, but you're doing the same thing as the author of the article: taking the fact that the captain pulled on the stick, and try to find something to blame the plane.
Unlike in your car example where the steering authority is “suddenly” reduced, the flight envelope protection system is always here, and pilots are trained accordingly. Full stick back is not uncommon on Airbuses, e.g. in a windshear escape manoeuvre. And as pointed out by others in this thread, it was actually the correct action. Oh well, if alpha max was 1° higher on the 320, maybe the landing would have been softer.
