I would GTFO, IBM ain't your friend and ain't your savior and are unlikely to invest and the worse may come with increasing IBM management sticking their fingers in the pie. The folks who did well out of this already know, they have the checks to cash if that was your take away congratulations. Otherwise find another opportunity. If nothing else look around and find out what you are worth on the market and then have that hard discussion soon with HashiCorp/IBM.
Oh God more Audiophile snake oil idiots. I feel sorry for Mend it Mark putting up with YouTube's copyright stupidity triggered by these idiots. I thought his well natured response video was a lot of fun. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIrCaeVtvI)
I hope Mend it Mark can continue to work to be less dependent on YouTube/Google, his training courses are hosted on Wistia for example.
Run your own code :-) I used to fly sailplanes and around Northern California at least there is an interesting intersection of computer nerds, aerodynamics nerds and weather nerds. One of my favorite things being Jack Glendening's weather code/models for sailplane pilots, culminating in the RASP forecasts that more technical sailplane (and hang glider etc) pilots ran for their own hyper-local forecasts. The localized terrain triggered thermal hotspots and convergence prediction of these RASP models were super impressive. http://www.drjack.info/rasp. Today specialized commercial forecast services are used by many sailplane pilots, and RASP and related forecasts predated or inspired those, but a well run RASP forecast on a fine grid is still something to behold.
Given Mullenweg's behavior I wish WP Engines and their very capable litigation attorneys nothing but the best of luck, which I doubt very much they will need. Jeez, how to torch a brand's reputation.
Yes, great article. And now can we convince folks with http+https websites to shut down http access and only offer https. I've seen simple mistakes like only partial redirects happening. Large numbers of internal links that still go to the http site, and some of those not redirect, etc. (you would think they are simple to find and just clean up), etc. And it is frustrating when sites like some online forums may be interesting targets for password theft.
Radical has all the wrong implications. It's a "major alteration" in a regulatory sense, done from an approved kit of parts, with a very well documented installation and post-installation operation and maintenance procedures.
The aircraft was modified with a Robertson STOL kit. A common type of modification to make to a "bush aircraft". In the USA the modification is covered by an STC (Supplemental Type Certificate), the installation needs to be supervised and approved by an A&P technician with IA (Inspection Authority). The STC will modify the airspeed indicator markings, including the stall speed markings (bottom of green and white arcs), and modify the approved flight manual/pilot operating handbook and maintenance documentation for the aircraft. Since this is a major alteration (in a 14CFR regulatory sense) that modifies the flight characteristics of the aircraft it needs to be test flown after the work, and the STC will also separately requires this. I expect/hope the STC includes instructions for checking stall characteristics including airspeed. In European countries a similar level of regulation/documentation is followed based on the USA STC.
Give the description of the pilot's sad lack of understanding of basic operation of the aircraft I am doubting they even read the pilot operating handbook.
As noted in the article, the plane had been modified with far more than just the STOL kit.
> A further issue was that his Cessna 185 had been extensively modified. The addition of floats, cargo pack, short take-off and landing kit and a three-blade propeller had never had their combined effect documented.
That’s a lot of things that modify the flight characteristics of a plane, all interacting together in what seems to be a previously untested configuration.
I can completely see how each individual modification might modify the planes flight characteristics in a well know manner. But I struggle to see how anyone could realistically predict the result of all the modifications without some basic empirical testing.
A three bladed prop modification along with floats is very common. Wipaire, the leading float manufacturer has its own STC for that. In combination with STOL kits is not uncommon either. I expect the Robinson STOL STC explicitly accommodates floats (Wipaire’ STOL STC sure do) but not sure since I don’t have the paperwork in front of me.
You are over inflating issues here. Are you a pilot? The issue here is straight up incompetent operation of an aircraft.
Operating a floatplane and separately operating with a STOL kits can increase complexity and risks especially when aircraft are mishandled/abused like here with an incompetent pilot who does not know what they are doing. You don’t need to dream up issues from combination of stuff here, the simple linear addition of issues was more than enough for an incompetent pilot to get into trouble, and seems they are lucky they did not get into more trouble before, and lucky they were not killed.
The C185 is a beautiful well behaved workhorse used extensively in bush and floatplane flying, often with multiple STCs to upgrade these aircraft.
I get what you're saying, and I agree this sounds like operator negligence to me.
But the article does say that investigators had to get another aircraft set up with the same modifications and fly it around with bits of wool all over it in order to understand the stall characteristics.
So I assume this plane setup isn't so widespread that its stall behaviour is common knowledge.
What a horrible click-bait title. There is nothing about a C185 or one modified with a STOL kit that is unstallable. A better title would be something like "Clueless pilot stalls aircraft. Which unfortunately is not an uncommon thing.
I wonder if they're practicing modern journalism strategies that are worried about libel suits? Or it's so obviously satire to them that they don't need to clarify? When they write:
> However, the investigation discovered that despite his experience, he had never practised stall recovery on the Cessna 185. The pilot had no knowledge of the aircraft’s stall behaviour at all. His opinion was that the Cessna 185 simply didn’t stall.
In writing targeted at lay readers, I would expect this to be followed with something like "This opinion, of course, is complete lunacy. All aircraft can stall. Practicing stall recovery should be a normal part of pilot training."
I believe this article doesn't need such clarifications. It says in unambiguous terms that Cessna had stalled, with an obvious logical implication that a pilot was dead wrong. The article even discusses differences of how the stall occurs in modified and unmodified versions of a plane. To not get the message a reader must be not a lay person, but an exceptionally dumb one.
As a science (and science fiction) nerd kid growing up in Australia in the 1970/80s I got a kick out of tracking station 43 mention in Epilogue 2 of Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of War of the Worlds (1978)...
[NASA unmanned landing craft just touches down on mars]
[Houston Control]:
"What's that flare? See it? A green flare, coming from Mars, kind of a green mist behind it. It's getting closer.
You see it, Bermuda? Come in, Bermuda!
Houston, come in! What's going on?
Tracking station 43, Canberra, come in, Canberra!
Tracking station 63, can you hear me, Madrid?
Can anybody hear me? Come in, come in!"
[instrumental music suddenly stops]
The Viking missions to mars had started planning in the late 1960s and Viking 1 and 2 landed on Mars in 1976 so the inclusion of a NASA Mars landing in Epilogue 2 was pretty neat.
reply