Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Ya Think? (Score 1) 60

Sabri, your information is for general aviation flights operating under Part 91. For air carrier flights, that ultimate responsibility is shared between the pilot and the operator company. Safety, in particular separation of aircraft in the appropriate airspace is also a joint responsibility, that includes the air traffic control service provider.

Comment Ethanol: Scam of scams for lobbyists & Big Eth (Score 1) 432

Ethanol, as currently used to water down gasoline in the USA with corn is a scam. It is a huge gift for the corn growers, for ADM, for the ethanol lobbyists. Everyone else looses. It takes enormous energy to cultivate, grow the corn and then process and generate the ethanol. When all of that is done, you have a product that contains less energy in the gasoline it displaces. You've already created tons of greenhouse gas emissions BEFORE the ethanol enters a car's gas (ethanol) tank. Ethanol is charged highway fuels taxes to consumers just as the gasoline component is, but the ethanol companies get to KEEP their share. It is a double subsidy. No wonder big ethanol is fighting so hard to keep corn ethanol in our gas tanks and even increase its use! Sure, you can design new equipment to handle high ethanol concentrations, but a lot of stuff already out there isn't compatible. And the consumer still loses while the lobbyists/special interests collect our money. In Brazil, ethanol is widely available for cars, almost pure ethanol. But drivers have a choice--gasoline and ethanol. (ethanol is a lot cheaper, but it contains less energy too. But the biggest difference is that their ethanol is produced with Sugar Cane---a much more efficient and less expensive process than the corn ethanol nonsense we are being subjected to in USA. If we must have ethanol, then give consumers a choice. Put the ethanol pump in a separate place, and allow consumers to buy what they want. Gasoline OR ethanol, not watered down junk.

Comment Re:It has? (Score 1) 131

You are assuming that the glidepath is the only reference for an aircraft on a CAT III approach. But CAT III (and II) also require a radar altimeter, which would foil a Die Hard II scheme.

  In addition, the aircraft would not be at the proper height for its location along the approach.

But it was a fun movie to watch, even if extremely unrealistic.

Comment Re:Solar (Score 2) 239

tlhIngan wrote

In North America, there is ONE refinery still producing it. And they pretty much only run a batch once a year - an entire day's production is sufficient for an entire year. Something like all the avgas used in a year is equal to all the regular gas used by cars in a day.

Don't suppose you have a reference for that assertion do you? There are several refineries in USA that make avgas, and production is much larger than a day.

In 2009 there were 10 refineries making avgas, this article indicates there "seven or eight" in 2011.

Check out this table , courtesy of the Energy Information Administration, for a summary of regions where avgas is produced.

Comment Re:The ultimate anti-theft device already exists.. (Score 1) 126

Engine kill anti theft devices based on keys with chips on them have been in place for years. Cars equipped with them at the factory still show up in the Top Stolen Car lists. It's a nice idea, but certainly not fail-proof and devices like aftermarket alarms bypass the anti-theft systems before the thief even arrives.

Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe