What's with the author linking a MS FlightSim (or is it XPlane?) video claiming to be cockpit video of the accident airplane?
Lol I didn't get that far into it. Brings this to mind
https://giphy.com/clips/romy-billy-madison-WS7RGsscLqgxfIEeOv
What's with the author linking a MS FlightSim (or is it XPlane?) video claiming to be cockpit video of the accident airplane?
It's hard to prove a negative. I'd rather require him to prove it's true, since it goes against what the overwhelming majority of the medical and public health community says.I don't think the article is correct, but I haven't seen proof it is wrong.
I don't think the article is correct, but I haven't seen proof it is wrong.
I consider all of those guys entertainment, and no more. Because that's what they are. And I don't always trust the result of the official investigation, either.People are finding ways to make money off of youtube.
Just like with the media, there is a wide range of quality and style.
Dan Gryder is pretty much the National Enquirer - focus on sensational juicy tabloid details
Juan Browne is CNN - facts often get lost in bias. He editorializes and calls it 'Analysis'
Scott-Perdue (Fly-Wire) is more like the Wall Street Journal - good analysis, far less bias
And Flight Chops is Guy Fieri
Proving the nonexistence of a thing is a logical impossibility.
My instrument DPE did something similar, gave me a bunch of climb/turn/descend instructions with my eyes closed. After a minute or so, he said "This isn't working. Are you peeking? My airplane."
Absolutely true. But I'm probably not likely to hire someone who tells me their ancestors settled the United States from another planet, flown in by rocket ships shaped like DC-8's.![]()
I don't remember exactly how I did it, but I think I purposely ignored my sense of balance, braced my elbow on the armrest and flew using finger pressure and mental timing. I'd bet that if the DPE had messed with the trim or gently nudged his yoke/rudder that it would have been enough to throw me off.My CFI instructor taught me to have the student put their head down, close their eyes, and nod slowly throughout, which can induce a Coriolis illusion. Holy crap did it work on me.
So you're saying that the manufacturer of the vaccine could never show that there was no statistical correlation between taking the vaccine and adverse consequences? Good to know.Proving the nonexistence of a thing is a logical impossibility.
So you're saying that the manufacturer of the vaccine could never show that there was no statistical correlation between taking the vaccine and adverse consequences? Good to know.
I don't remember exactly how I did it, but I think I purposely ignored my sense of balance, braced my elbow on the armrest and flew using finger pressure and mental timing. I'd bet that if the DPE had messed with the trim or gently nudged his yoke/rudder that it would have been enough to throw me off.
Alas, that quote is not original to Carl Sagan. In fact, he attributed it to space historian James Oberg. Sagan's actual quote: Keeping an open mind is a virtue—but, as the space engineer James Oberg once said, not so open that your brains fall out.“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” - Carl Sagan
It's easiest just to assume that EVERYTHING said by media talking heads is wildly inaccurate.I don't think the article is correct, but I haven't seen proof it is wrong.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." -- Attributed to King David (1010–970 BC)It however, is felt the at the saying had been floating around before he coined it as well.
This is how I approach the media. I took my first flying lesson 26 years ago. I have been employed as a pilot for 22 of those years. I consider myself to be, at the minimum, literate in aviation knowledge.It's easiest just to assume that EVERYTHING said by media talking heads is wildly inaccurate.
I think that approach runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water. How about "trust, but verify"?It's easiest just to assume that EVERYTHING said by media talking heads is wildly inaccurate.
If you verify, you have to go to a source other than the “news” media. That’s just misinformation.I think that approach runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water. How about "trust, but verify"?
As an engineer by profession, the media get about 8% correct with regards to stories I have subject matter knowledge in-- peripheria like what day it was and where it was located. Years ago I sent Wikipedia a documented correction of a misconception. The reply I got back was basically, "you might be correct, you have a Masters Degree in the subject and I do not, but my answer is easier to understand. So thanks, but no thanks."My assumption when watching news about a topic without subject matter expertise is that the reporter is doing the same quality work as when aviation is the subject. Interestingly enough friends that are informed in other fields have confirmed the same observation when asked...
This is how I approach the media. I took my first flying lesson 26 years ago. I have been employed as a pilot for 22 of those years. I consider myself to be, at the minimum, literate in aviation knowledge.
I’m still waiting for a reporter to discuss anything Aviation related with even a hint of accuracy. Alas it never happens. Doesn’t matter what they are talking about it’s clearly misinformed, poorly written and misunderstood by who ever wrote the teleprompter script.
My assumption when watching news about a topic without subject matter expertise is that the reporter is doing the same quality work as when aviation is the subject. Interestingly enough friends that are informed in other fields have confirmed the same observation when asked.
Want me to laugh in your face during a conversation… quote a bobble head from a U.S. media company. They should all be treated as entertainers.
If you verify, you have to go to a source other than the “news” media. That’s just misinformation.
Totally disagree...I think that approach runs the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water. How about "trust, but verify"?
Totally disagree...
Airplanes do not fall out of the sky when the engine quits. Guns don't shoot people without human beings manipulating their controls. Big hands do not come from the sky and smite people. Most humans look after their own interests-- but don't truly give a rats a** about anything else. Things engineers design with specific components (look at the HUGE paper trail on the M-16 rifle in Vietnam) where the assembler varies from the specifications cannot be assumed to perform as the test showed... These are facts, not fiction.
What the media promulgates is PURE FICTION.
Sure, it often corrolates with fact. But that is coincidence.
That's more like it.OK, how about "distrust, but verify"?
Making blanket assumptions about the truth or falsity of any media report is unlikely to have a reliable correlation with reality.
I must be the victim of misinformation.I don't think it's possible to reliably make that judgment without looking at the sources they're relying on.
I'm sure we all are, to some degree.I must be the victim of misinformation.
That’s ok. Dave’s not here.Totally disagree...
Airplanes do not fall out of the sky when the engine quits. Guns don't shoot people without human beings manipulating their controls. Big hands do not come from the sky and smite people. Most humans look after their own interests-- but don't truly give a rats a** about anything else. Things engineers design with specific components (look at the HUGE paper trail on the M-16 rifle in Vietnam) where the assembler varies from the specifications cannot be assumed to perform as the test showed... These are facts, not fiction.
What the media promulgates is PURE FICTION.
Sure, it often corrolates with fact. But that is coincidence.
While (as my stock broker says) past performance is not a guarantee. Where 92% of everything you have heard from "Dave"* is wildly inaccurate BS, what sane person puts credence in what Dave has to say?
*Apologies to those named Dave, it was just the first name I came up with.
You have just made all members of the news media completely irrelevant.I don't think it's possible to reliably make that judgment without looking at the sources they're relying on.
As @Boundary Waters said, if you have to sort facts from fiction, the news media is irrelevant, which makes them a giant hole for sucking oxygen that can be better used elsewhere.I'm sure we all are, to some degree.
People needs tools for sorting fact from fiction. I don't think saying that it's all fiction is going to help.
For the purpose of educating the public about aviation issues, better used where? Certainly there are more authoritative sources, but they generally don't reach a wide audience without the assistance of the media.As @Boundary Waters said, if you have to sort facts from fiction, the news media is irrelevant, which makes them a giant hole for sucking oxygen that can be better used elsewhere.
If those sources don’t generally reach a wide audience, “verify” becomes irrelevant, regardless of whether “trust” or “distrust” is the basis.For the purpose of educating the public about aviation issues, better used where? Certainly there are more authoritative sources, but they generally don't reach a wide audience without the assistance of the media.
My assumption when watching news about a topic without subject matter expertise is that the reporter is doing the same quality work as when aviation is the subject. Interestingly enough friends that are informed in other fields have confirmed the same observation when asked.
I had never heard of that before and enjoyed some reading on the subject. You are correct. It is exactly what I’m talking about and now I can quote a really smart person so it seems legitimate in conversation. Thank you.Gel-Mann amnesia is what you're referring to. I tend to disbelieve a good portion of things any media reports on.
I see what you did there.I had never heard of that before and enjoyed some reading on the subject. You are correct. It is exactly what I’m talking about and now I can quote a really smart person so it seems legitimate in conversation. Thank you.
![]()
I think we're at about 2.5 turns, the aileron is still cranked over and nobody's stepped on the right rudder pedal yet.
I don't say this lightly, but this might literally be the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life. I find it hard to believe that a human being with the neurological capability of sustaining life unaided could actually put those words to paper with a straight face. Dan Gryder made this point while insisting about 5 times that he wasn't making this point. I sincerely hope this was posted to show how ridiculous some people can be, because this is patently absurd.