FYI: firm landings are actually correctly done, especially with rain or drizzle. It should not feel like a crash though.
The worst landing I ever had was when I landed with no sensation of touching down on the runway (a zero feet rate of descent.) Both myself and my CFI went nuts trying to figure out if we were down, or still flying along the runway and about to bounce.
In SV it's rare to pay for commercial OS or other support due to the scale. I have never worked anywhere that paid for anything, whether it's RHEL or Cloudera or whatever, unless it's only available as SaaS/Cloud.
That's why working at FB or Google is like going back in time as far as monitoring UIs, etc.
Some of the clever large companies took advantage of "site-wide support licenses." For example, Netflix paid MySQL AB $40,000/year for MySQL site support so they didn't have to hire any MySQL DBAs. Just keep filing support tickets. :)
The details are nuanced by the definitions in the CFR, the details of the reporting requirements (NTSB must do something with everything reported to it but that may be minimal), and the NTSB's authority to delegate more minor investigations to FAA flight standards. Lots of people in the thread are hashing these out. But it suffices to say that when an airplane is seriously damaged or people are seriously injured, the NTSB is obligated to investigate. This dates way back to before the NTSB existed. In straightforward situations that sometimes consists only of the regional office making some phone calls and then preparing a two-page summary (you see a LOT of these two-page summaries for GA incidents, it's basically a form letter), but that's under the assumption that their cursory review doesn't turn up anything interesting. You can already find this incident in the NTSB's investigation database, WPR22LA049.
Yeah, parent commenter has no experience in any aviation matters. I've been in a "crash" (off runway excursion, no injuries, no damage save a slightly bent landing gear door flap.)
The "investigation" consisted of the airport director speaking with the PIC and passenger (me.) His sole question to me was "were you operating the aircraft?"
There are a lot of stories of pretty terrible decisions made by GA pilots and little/nothing happening from the FAA. And then do stupid shit like going after Bob Hoover's license because he was too old for their tastes.
"The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in other modes of transportation – railroad, highway, marine and pipeline."
So if the NTSB is not investigating every civil aviation crash, then they are failing in their congressional mandate. If you have evidence of this, you should probably contact your congress person or a newspaper with the details.
An aircraft crash where the aircraft suffers minor damage and no one is seriously injured is, by definition, not an aircraft accident, but rather an incident. (This incident is definitely an aircraft accident, of course, whether or not it was accidental. :) )
Thanks for the clarification of terminology. "Crash" is indeed a bit ambiguous as a layman's term (though I would personally argue that incidents that cause minimal damage are generally not considered crashes.) Indeed, I think there are even many accidents that don't rise to the level of what I consider a crash (such as when my dad's friend bent a prop by briefy tipping his plane onto its nose when landing on a gravel bar to pickup a load of the moose they had killed. While they did fly it out by cutting/sanding all the prop blades to match and reducing weight, it would seem to easily match the definition of "significant damage" but I still wouldn't call it a crash.)
I believe the claims made by the GP are still clearly wrong, given that they do use the term "accident" and stipulate criteria for investigation that (commercial or passengers) that have no basis in the definition your provided or the NTSB's mandate.
> While they did fly it out by cutting/sanding all the prop blades to match and reducing weight, it would seem to easily match the definition of "significant damage"
Probably not (assuming you're trying to determine reporting requirements and figuring out if it's substantial damage). It's specifically excluded: "ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part." The NTSB doesn't want to be bothered everytime a prop makes ground contact, hits a runway light, a towbar, etc. It happens a lot.
In most countries, depending on severity of the event, the agency responsible for crash investigation can delegate investigation of the event to another entity.
Mind you, this is usually done for incidents, not accidents. However, sometimes an accident is clearly due to illegal operation, and sometimes that means that a) matter is passed directly to prosecution b) investigation is closed without conclusion due to explicit disregard of safety mechanisms, thus making further investigation useless to the purpose of aircraft accident investigation (under common rules from ICAO that NTSB also operates when it comes to aircraft)
I wonder how they define a "civil aviation accident"? In places like Alaska, people routinely land at sites which are not airports. If someone has a hard landing, there could be some damage to the aircraft with no injuries. Do they investigate every one of those? It might be there are a lot of minor "accidents" that fall into grey areas. I don't know if that's the case, I'm actually curious if anyone knows.
Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
"
That sounds like an incident, not an accident. They are treated differently.
> [1] Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
Substantial damage is then defined as:
> Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered substantial damage for the purpose of this part.
Accident, Incident and Serious Incident have explicit definitions in civil aviation, and are also graded internally and thus might have different scope of investigation.
A planned landing in terrain, if it caused no injuries but caused enough damage to aircraft to prevent takeoff without repair, would be classified as accident, but its investigation might be very brief depending on the event in question.
Essentially if you have an "occurence", you're required to report it to NTSB, which in turn will grade it and decide if you need even a cursory interview.
Not quite correct. You have to report any accident and any of a specific list of serious incidents to the NTSB. You do not have to report other incidents or occurrences.
Also note: a landing that required repairs would not necessarily be an accident either, assuming no serious injuries occurred. "Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part." (Those minor damages, even if they made the airplane require repairs prior to further flight, are not enough to make that landing an accident.)
Well, I'm going off more ICAO rules than NTSB specific - what I know for sure is that the differences you just specified are prerogative of NTSB and its parent govt to hash out (and seen it being decided upon in Polish PKBWL)
The significance of the recent mathematical advances, especially topology, is that somebody will be born and combine them into a major advance later.
The article is a bit misleading to laypersons in that pure math (topology and countability) and computer science have almost no overlap in the short term.
Pure mathematicians don't use computers or even think of them in their work, for the most part. It's up to applied mathematicans to read their proofs and do something concrete later, if applicable.
> Pure mathematicians don't use computers or even think of them in their work, for the most part.
That's not true. Many pure mathematicians use programs such as Wolfram Mathematica and Macaulay2 in their work. (Source: I studied maths and I know a bunch of them personally.)
I don't know how good of a mathematician I am, but I've certainly used computers in all sorts of ways: CAS, plots, numerical experiments, wikis/blogs/QA sites... You use whatever you can.
Proof assistants are having a bit of a breakthrough as well, while previously they were associated with "inelegant" proofs or non-mainstream stuff for mathematicians.
Mandelbrot talked about an anti-computer snobbery that permeated mathematical culture in university mathematics departments in the '70s, and how he overcame it and produced the famous Mandelbrot set.
A quote from the mathematician in the video expressing enthusiasm for using computers for mathematics: "All I want to do... I don't want to do mathematics on pen and paper anymore, because I don't trust it, and I don't trust other people that use it; which is everyone." (in case people only read this quote, instead of watching the lecture, the tone is tongue-in-cheek)
Formal Verification would seem a literal intersection of pure math (formal proofs[1]) and computer science (formal specification[2]).
Of note, one of the popular underlying foundations of an approach to formal verification is Homotopy Type Theory(HoTT)[3][4] which is an asserted effort to show the relationship between type theory and, specifically, topology (homotopy[5]).
> pure math (topology and countability) and computer science have almost no overlap in the short term
I may be misinterpreting the word "overlap" since I've seen quite a bit of usage of at least countability in CS works. Did you mean that CS doesn't influence pure math back?
You mean countability as a term in set theory. How is axiomatic set theory useful in computer science?
Axiomatic set theory is a non-constructive theory. Many results in set theory depend on the existence of functions which cannot be computed. Or assert that something exists without providing any means of finding it. Even the Cantor-Schroeder-Bernstein theorem asserts the existence of something that cannot be explicitly constructed.
I fail to see how any of it has any connection to computing.
More broadly, I think many computing people are too uncritical about the relevance of mathematics like AST to their discipline. They are very likely to find themselves disappointed.
Might want to read the "Math and Computers Join Forces" near the end. Includes a use of interactive theorem prover Lean (functional language with a dependent type system) and some other stuff. Very much CS meets math.
I've initiated "process improvements" a few times. It's always unpleasant since you're rocking the boat (kinda like when you report a security issue to a company with no established process.)
- got Royal Bank Canada while I was there to star out account numbers on ATM receipts. Had to find a competitor's receipt first (CIBC) and show a senior manager to "prove" there was an issue.
- shortly after leaving Netscape found email parsing bug and submitted that to a an ex-coworker who channeled it to the right developer.
> was sworn to the bar without actually going to any sort of law school.
It can still be done today in most US states.
Also, note that even the self-represented can take on a government and win. See Jim Pattison's (Canadian billionaire) tax hearings vs. the Crown (Canada), which he won after a decade of litigation. Multiple prosecutors and judges retired during that time period.
Besides developing further tax filing methods for his empire, you can bet he wasn't sued again by the government - they hate taking a loss. (The US SEC infamously tries to undermine defendants today by going after their ability to pay lawyers before trials.)
If by "most" you mean 4 or 5 US States (California, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and maybe West Virginia). That's 10% of states, although more than 10% of the US population (but still a very small minority).
Meanwhile, anyone can represent themselves in court, and with sufficient facts on their side have won. However, the Supreme Court no longer allows people to represent themselves. This means, in the US there are many cases where you cannot take on the government yourself and win.
Even in those states, you can't just show up to the bar exam and ace it.
Thost states all requires you to spend four years (i.e., even longer than law school) working/studying under an attorney. Washington even charges "tuition" of $2000/year.
> Thost states all requires you to spend four years (i.e., even longer than law school) working/studying under an attorney. Washington even charges "tuition" of $2000/year.
I did try to to explain that in my OP:
>>>> (some states have just as lengthy apprenticeship periods replace that)
Ontario is the "California" engine province of Canada, similar in geographic size and sophistication. It subsidizes the rest of Canada (the "have-nots"), but it can afford to do so.
To give you an idea of how sophisticated Ontario is, most Hollywood comedians and a large percentage of writers are originally from the Toronto, ON area because of their writing and self-production abilities.
Ontario universities have a direct brain-drain pipeline to SV, but this will help them return later in their careers.
That's quite the Kool-Aid. I am also from Ontario and have the exact opposite conclusions as you.
> It subsidizes the rest of Canada (the "have-nots"), but it can afford to do so.
This is only a very recent phenomena that they are not getting equalization payments [1]. Even then, it's mostly because of the bottom provinces falling even further than Ontario rising. Don't even be tempted to blame this on the rural areas as Toronto alone accounts for about half the population.
> To give you an idea of how sophisticated Ontario is, most Hollywood comedians and a large percentage of writers are originally from the Toronto, ON area because of their writing and self-production abilities.
Such a sophisticated engine cannot keep them?
> Ontario universities have a direct brain-drain pipeline to SV, but this will help them return later in their careers.
From my personal experience, other than interns and students, I don't know a single Canadian who opted to build a career in the US and later to return.
> To give you an idea of how sophisticated Ontario is, most Hollywood comedians and a large percentage of writers are originally from the Toronto, ON area because of their writing and self-production abilities.
Haha, that's just because Ontario has a large population with respect to Canada as a whole. Sophistication is not the right word to use as someone from Ontario.
One has oil/gas and the other has money/tech. And I'm not sure per capita is the proper metric if you're looking at funding a country rather than comparing them.
Have you played Mass Effect, used Java or OpenBSD? One has natural resources and money and tech. Different parts of Canada bring different things to the table.
> It subsidizes the rest of Canada (the "have-nots"), but it can afford to do so.
How? I was wondering if you were talking about equalization payments, but it looks like Ontario is sending none and it used to receive payments from other provinces during most of the 2010's.
Also, many provinces may claim to be the California of Canada based on different aspects (laws, taxation, proximity to west coast, health system, climate, car-centricity - where Ontario would win, etc.), but this has the same value as cities claiming they are the new SV: not so much.
BC has the real title of Canadas California! We have unaffordable housing, restrictive zoning powered by aging hippy boomers in multimillion dollar homes, temperate weather, and a massive film industry.
To top it off we resent our conservative neighbors to the East and have a chip on our shoulders about our overlords in the east.
BC is definitely the California of Canada.
The thing that unites all Canadians though is our strong belief that our neighbors to the south are dangerous and run by a corrupt and incompetent political system, regardless of their suitability as a winter vacation spot. Which… I guess is a feeling that the Americans have too.
But they don't need to hire in NYC, and companies look at other regulations when deciding head count.
For example, you'll see a lot of startups freeze hiring at employee #49, since in the US (and other countries), there's a ton of HR requirements that kick in, including submitting IRS documents on magnetic tape.
One of Netscape's early advantages was that since they knew they would hire thousands of people, they skipped over all of the entry-level HR systems and started with enterprise-level systems. It was controversial at the time, but turned out to be the correct decision (the first exec was from SGI, so knew what growth looked like.)
I've read that quote on a couple of different occasions, and don't see a conflict. Of course you want to prepare engines to pass the tests, and in fact, make any ECOs to make that work.
Every airplane prototype goes through exactly that.
He shouldn't also be conducting the test. That's the conflict.
The wider conflict is that you cannot be employed by the testee and still a reliable tester. That's why we don't let people give themselves driving licenses for instance.
The worst landing I ever had was when I landed with no sensation of touching down on the runway (a zero feet rate of descent.) Both myself and my CFI went nuts trying to figure out if we were down, or still flying along the runway and about to bounce.