How long did it take? I’m doing an MRI for extremely elevated prolactin. Even if there’s no tumor I’ll probably be prescribed cabergoline, but would prefer to return to normal without using another drug.
Yes. I think about this all the time. It's so strange, and aside from internet comments it doesn't seem to come up in the mainstream. What happened to people? Why do they not care? It's very evident in driving, but shows up in other areas as well.
Thanks all. Wasn't aware of MusicXML or musescore. I do write out exercises on manuscript paper and find that the time it takes and contemplation is helpful. They're legible bug generally pretty ugly, and I don't always want my notebooks to take up space when traveling. Even when I do use tools to generate certain things, I often still write them out as a way to contemplate the music without my instrument. Also having a bunch of handwritten manuscript paper makes me feel more accomplished than I am.
Ugh. Aviation before, say, 1990 was amazing. Still necessary to do things like ground speed checks, non-radar approaches, VOR to VOR, etc. Real pilot sh*t. And lots of the equipment going back decades was still flying. An amazing time to be a pilot. Now everything is so optimized and dumbed down. I was born too late.
The NOTAM system is embarrassing. This just tops it off. Actually, our whole ATC system and the way the FAA operates is embarrassing. It all works kind of like waste management in NYC. If they were to add new tech and efficiency, fewer people would have jobs, so we keep doing it the old way to the detriment of everyone else.
A general inefficiency example using two airpots I often have in mind: IAH and JFK. In IAH, traffic is spaced out in cruise well before the arrival begins, where they're burning much less fuel at high altitude. They're then instructed to descend via the full STAR (standard terminal arrival), including the transition to the approach for the runway in use. This looks like a hundreds mile long line of planes all following the same path to the same runway. The only further instruction necessary from ATC is speed adjustment, and allows for an almost continuous descent to the runway provided there's no weather in the way.
At JFK, the spacing occurs much later and, even though the airport has some similar arrivals (though none quite as thorough), they instruct every altitude change and speed adjustment for every aircraft individually, along with vectoring them to the approach for the runway in use. It results in an incredibly busy radio environment and numerous inputs from pilots flying planes capable of simply following a STAR and transition, like in IAH (or ORD, SFO, LAX, etc). There's also much more time spent at low altitude burning more fuel. It reminds me of everything else in NYC, which seems to be inefficient on purpose (NYPD, MTA, DSNY, etc.).
JFK and IAH have a similar number of aircraft movements. Yes, NYC has busier airspace with numerous airports, however, I don't see how this prevents the design and implementation of more modern procedures. Flying around at 4000 feet in an airliner getting numerous vectors just seems ridiculous compared to what I experience elsewhere.
This whole comment seems like a charming case of advanced Dunning-Kruger. You sound very confident in your assessment, but then it seems you are honestly suggesting that NYC TRACON controllers are being inefficient on purpose… for what? Fun times? You said it yourself— it is a busier airspace. The approach and departure spacing of EWR, JFK, LGA and TEB— not to mention the changeable airspace restrictions over parts of NYC itself and managing GA traffic into and out of the Hudson River Corridor— makes a simple single hundred mile long elephant walk to your preferred runway at JFK logistically untenable. Not to mention potential conflicting traffic from smaller airports in Connecticut and Long Island… And just a gentle reminder that as pilot in that airspace you have precisely one small piece of the big picture when it comes to being aware of exactly how complicated that can be for the ATC personal.
It’s easy to say things are about jobs but do we have any evidence of that? There’s a modernization project underway at the FAA so I’d bet that if you looked there’s someone who’s been trying for years to get attention on it before something like this happened.
Cargo planes like the C-17 can make a steep “tactical approach” by creating lots of drag, with spoilers, reverse thrust, etc. It’s difficult to get very aerodynamic aircraft to ‘go down and slow down’. That’s not to say that the flying wing design couldn’t have drag devices, but it’d take more to reach similar performance.
The approach isn’t “slow” in terms of aircraft speed but rather its duration. Shallower equals more time in reach of adversary weapons.
On the other hand, a tanker aircraft typically flies from a much more prepared base, something with a longer, guaranteed to be well paved runway, in non-contested airspace, with minimal or no risk of MANPADS in the area.
The design requirements for a C-17 to operate from a rough field, such as that which was built at camp bastion in Helmand province, are considerably different than for an aerial refueling tanker.
The rough field tactical tanker role is as far as I know presently served by a variant of c130 modified for special forces missions.
I spent a stupid amount of time figuring out how to make a custom splash screen for Windows XP. And then a service pack reverted all my efforts. Good times.
