I just went through an absolute debacle with my phone number being in limbo and no customer reps being able to access the account. Submit a complaint to the better business bureau within a day or two executive services will contact you via email. They resolved my issue, it still took a few more days but it worked without spending even more time chatting to bots and reps who simply do not have the power to resolve the issue.
For anyone using a firewire capture device you can use an abandoned but free piece of software called Scenalyzer to automate the capture process and scene splitting. I used this with a Digital8 Sony Camcorder to transfer 30+ Hi-8 tapes with only minimal intervention required. I haven't compared it to anything like the author used so hard to say if it is better or worse.
It works well for them. Keep in mind the US has thousands of more airports and significantly more air traffic. Just like in the tech world something might work for 100 users of an app but may not work at scale. I am not bashing the NAV Canada system just saying the comparisons to the US ATC aren't apples to apples for numerous reasons.
> Nav Canada manages 12 million aircraft movements a year for 40,000 customers in over 18 million square kilometres, making it the world’s second-largest air navigation service provider (ANSP) by traffic volume
usa:
> In 2006 En Route and Oceanic Services supported 47 million operations in the national airspace system. We are responsible for controlling more than 5,600,000 square miles (15,000,000 km2) of airspace in the U.S. and more than 24,600,000 square miles (64,000,000 km2) of airspace over the oceans.
roughly 1/4 the volume, I'm willing hazard a guess it would scale.
It seems the US can't learn anything from anywhere in the world because it's too big, too many states, too small (in comparison to China) or for some other reason.
Sorry, I didn't want to attack you. I just notice that whenever something works in another country (see healthcare or public infrastructure) a lot of people in the US will say it can't work in the US: Either the US is too big or it's a "socialist" thing and therefore needs to be avoided.
I think this attitude is a big danger for the US. There was a time when the US could teach the world but that time is coming to an end. Other countries have learned whatever advantages the US system has and now they are building on that knowledge and they are sometimes coming up with better solutions. If the US keeps ignoring these developments it will slowly fall behind until it's too late.
No worries. I agree completely that the US can learn plenty from other countries regardless of size on tons of topics. I was just trying to point out the typical over simplification/comparisons that news articles tend to make about technical things especially aviation.
I think, the guys who built the system for a 100 airports probably know best how to change the system for a 1000 airports while preserving all its advantages.
Maybe NavCanada can slowly scale up by exporting it to bigger and bigger countries until its big enough for American airports.
Note with respect to scalability you're only asking for one order of magnitude. Technologically we've advanced far more than one order of magnitude in the 15 years they've been developing the system, so we NIH'd it and started development here, there should be no technological limit.
Flytenow would make this a more attractive proposition by agreeing to pay my attorney fees if the FAA takes action against me because of a Flytenow flight. That would include representing me before the FAA in administrative proceedings and in federal court as far as I choose. (I'm a private pilot, not a commercial pilot.)
Better yet, because I'm not aware of the funding behind Flytenow, put the estimated maximum cost in escrow with a trusted third party such as a bank so it would be available even if Flytenow runs out of money and ceases operation in the middle of the litigation.
Then I'd be more likely to try it, and as an additional benefit the FAA would be less likely to pursue Flytenow-affiliated pilots. (FedGov agencies would rather try to make a test case, all else being equal, of citizens lacking aggressive legal representation.)
It probably can't be bought. Most insurance relies on there being some kind of probabilities associated with different outcomes, and that the insurer can sell enough policies such that they capture the law of large numbers and the idea of an expected outcome is valid.
If Flytenow wants to cover this, they're going to be self-insuring and the policy is only good as far as the company has cash or credit to pay legal bills.
I guess it would be hard to underwrite something which is essentially a legal opinion, but there are underwriters who will do weird one-offs. Generally it's based on being able to reduce it to well-known probabilities, though.
According to the FAA they have a way to determine what is fake and not. Not sure how they do it but it could involve comparing the signal to an actual radar return.
I find it interesting that match.com which owns okcupid works fine in firefox. So it seems they are making a statement with the smaller site that wont cost them nearly as much in traffic. I could be wrong but that is my 5sec observation.
There are essentially two simulators that the majority of pilots use. Microsoft FSX and Xplane. They both have pretty much all of the airports in the world installed by default. The extras you install are the actual scenery, but the airports are there without any manual installation.
