It's more that they have the ability to control the pressurisation manually in case the automatic system fails.
Ultimately the pilots have to be able to turn anything off that might malfunction.
Also even if you (try to) take capabilities away they are by definition quite smart people and could probably figure a way round if they really wanted to.
The difference between Science and Religion is not proof, because nothing is ever really proved in Science.
The difference is that for Science there are clear criteria for dis-proof.
A science fact is a fact not because we proved it but because we have repeatedly failed to disprove it.
So if there is an answer to the question what would it take for you to disbelieve in X. its Scientific if there is no answer it is religion
There is an answer to the question: what would it take for you to stop believing in the 1st law of thermodynamics? Everyone pretty much agrees what it would take and it has never happened.
So to thw case in point. What would it take for someone to disbileve that we are in a simulation. Answer Nothing because you can always assume a more complex simulation. Ergo it falls in the realm of religion.
>Not really. It depends on the quality of the measure and any underlying assumptions. If the target is knowing who is the fastest then a simple stopwatch (measure) is 100% aligned with the target. So the measure becoming the target is completely fine.
I am thinking of how runners all lean forward just before the finish line. This must slow their overall speed but gets a part of their body to the measurement datum slightly quicker.
I admit its not a huge deviation between the measurement and the target but still it is an attempt to affect the measurement by means other than running fastest
Hence my "at the time" bracket. Since then, newer Boeing planes have actually removed the physical connection between the sticks! Absolutely bonkers decision given the background. (I put "at least" at the end of my bracket because I wasn't 100% sure I rememebered correctly.) But maybe there is a good reason - e.g. like a sibling comment suggested, if one gets stuck.
As the sibling comment points out the 777 has mechanically linked yokes. The 787 does too. With the Air France go around, the pilots were pulling hard enough that the mechanical connection between the yokes was broken. Both pilots continued to provide contradictory inputs.
On an Airbus this would trigger a "dual input" annunciator, and there's a "priority takeover" button that would lock out one set of controls.
On the Boeing once the torque tube splits each yoke controls one side of the aircraft.
The synchronization and feedback intuitively seem like a good idea, but the reality is that at the point where you need to notice that the other pilot is doing something wrong you're already up shit creek and you're no more likely to notice an increase in force required to move the yoke than you are an annunciator. Linked controls aren't a substitute for CRM.
AFAIK the 777 still has mechanically linked yokes. It has a breakout mechanism in case one of the controls gets jammed (allows freeing the other one), but it's not been removed.
In aviation it does not work like that usually.
Supplier provides a full BOM including all labour and invoices for materials.
Company pays x% over the top of the costs
This would still be digital (discrete) not analog. For example you can have 4 voltage levels representing 00, 01, 10, 11
This technique is used in modems.
So you can store more information in each memory location resulting in higher density.
I don't know what that is intended with that, but for simple line splits I'd use awk, which is typically everywhere, and its parameter -F
(F there stands for field separator) that is, given the file L with the lines
Ultimately the pilots have to be able to turn anything off that might malfunction.