[HN Gopher] Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
___________________________________________________________________
Easter egg in flight path of last 747 delivery flight
Author : eatmyshardz
Score : 1484 points
Date : 2023-02-01 19:48 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.flightradar24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.flightradar24.com)
| bcatanzaro wrote:
| Queen of the skies. :hugging_face:
| DarmokJalad1701 wrote:
| The actual GPS points filed in the flight plan can be seen here:
|
| https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI747/history/20230201/...
|
| There's probably a similar function for flightradar24 as well but
| I don't know how to find it there.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| I'm sure it's insignificant in the scheme of things, but I don't
| think it justifies the unnecessary carbon emissions
| sho_hn wrote:
| I'm sad you are getting downvoted for this. This was my first
| thought as well. You are not a party pooper and you live in
| reality.
|
| I like the atmosphere/branding of aviation and prefer flights
| over train travel as an experience, but after my wife recently
| wrote an article about the handling of emission information by
| the sector and I read many of the more science- and
| engineering-focused studies she is referencing in her work I am
| now officially horrified by flying.
|
| It's just so damned inefficient and the industry is so
| disingenuous about it (layers of fraud related to carbon offset
| schemes, lobbying, etc.) and tries so hard to talk customers
| out of caring that stunts like this do not read as the
| heartwarming celebration of the engineering crafts it once
| would have. Instead being this wasteful and callous makes a
| mockery of trying to engineer a better world.
|
| It's a misuse of a magnificent tool we should respect more
| surgically for its utility and risks.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| If I'd expressed it this eloquently I suspect I'd have been
| less downvoted!
|
| I would totally think this cool if there were no climate
| emergency. But the needless and frivolous extravagance feels
| so tone deaf to me.
| userbinator wrote:
| There is no "climate emergency". It's mainly propaganda
| from those in power to further their desire for an
| authoritarian dystopia.
| tomcam wrote:
| I am grateful I don't live in the world you live in
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| But you do, I fear.
| kefka_p wrote:
| I'm rarely impressed anymore for whatever reasons, but even in
| the midst of a miserable bout of viral induced malady, I have to
| stand in awe of this.
|
| I can't even fathom the skill required to move a piece of
| equipment that large in a straight line let alone produce precise
| graphics with its flight path.
|
| Sometimes people are pretty cool.
| malkia wrote:
| I see two planes now flying very close to each other...
| https://imgur.com/a/QcZohkC
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Now that you know, see if you can find an airport with bad
| weather and check out the holding patterns they do. You'll se a
| half dozen planes in the same circle separated by 1,000ft
| vertically.
| pilsetnieks wrote:
| Very unlikely the same height. They could be kilometers apart.
| It's a 3D space.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Without knowing how far you're zoomed in on the map or the
| altitude of the two planes, I can assure you that they're
| nowhere near each other.
| malkia wrote:
| yup - just layman (me) being scared not understanding what's
| going on :) - then I saw earlier what the plane did (took me
| a while to figure out what was this about)
| mulmen wrote:
| The planes are not drawn to scale. Looks like your screenshot
| is over South Dakota. Looking at the scale on the map those
| planes are around 6km apart, not considering altitude
| differences.
| dividuum wrote:
| That seems neither close nor something special. There are
| different flight levels, so planes can cross each other safely.
| malkia wrote:
| yup - it just shows how little I know about the subject...
| agh! - It was bit spooky looking at these, and I thought I
| zoomed in but by the time I took the screenshot it was way
| oof
| amai wrote:
| Not the first ,,easter egg" on flight radar:
| https://www.sfgate.com/national/article/Pilot-draws-penis-on...
| dingosity wrote:
| Hmm. I thought all new Boeings flew out over the pacific so at
| the moment the customer signs the paperwork receiving the
| airplane, it was someplace where there would be no state or local
| sales tax.
|
| I'm not in the aero business myself, just repeating what I heard
| other, more knowledgable-sounding people said. Maybe that's not
| true or there's an exception for this one.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > I thought all new Boeings flew out over the pacific so at the
| moment the customer signs the paperwork receiving the airplane,
| it was someplace where there would be no state or local sales
| tax.
|
| I'm pretty sure that's an urban legend; I've seen the same
| story, but never evidence for it.
| mulmen wrote:
| And I suppose Boeing put down $1.00 on the bill of sale? Give
| me a break. It's not a handshake deal on an El Camino. Give the
| IRS some credit here please. If this was feasible every bank
| and e-commerce site in the world would be hosted in
| international water.
| fsagx wrote:
| Scroll back to central WA to see the interesting part.
| M3L0NM4N wrote:
| Right when I clicked this the plane started taking off again.
| BXLE_1-1-BitIs1 wrote:
| Somebody spent a few hours programming the FMS with lat-longs as
| few, if any, of the waypoints would be in the directory, likely
| offline.
|
| Then there's a long phone call to, likely Seattle, Center to get
| the flight route accepted into the system. There's a possibility
| the ATC computers couldn't take all the way points, in which case
| they would need an airspace reservation where they could do the
| pattern.
| xs83 wrote:
| Ok but the dev in me needs to know if this was done manually or
| programmed into the flight computer, I am assuming the latter as
| it looks meticulously done!
| petecooper wrote:
| Posterity screenshot (work safe):
|
| https://i.imgur.com/jPIlUJQ.png
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| davidw wrote:
| As someone who does not like flying (I don't like heights), I
| will miss those planes. The large size makes me more comfortable
| in one.
| dheera wrote:
| Interesting. I often feel safer in smaller (but not too small
| planes), where I don't see the wings visibly flapping.
| Something like a A320 or a 737.
|
| With 747s the wings flap up and down quite visibly in
| turbulence, and you can even see the fuselage twisting if the
| curtains aren't closed between the sections.
|
| There's also just the wall thickness to mass ratio. You ever
| notice that you can crash toy RC cars all you want and they
| never break, but if you crash a real car even mildly it's
| rather easily totaled?
| capableweb wrote:
| > There's also just the wall thickness to mass ratio. You
| ever notice that you can crash toy RC cars all you want and
| they never break, but if you crash a real car even mildly
| it's rather easily totaled?
|
| That might not be the best to share to someone who says they
| are being uncomfortable in a airplane, you're making things
| worse for them! :D
| potatochup wrote:
| Full size cars are designed to crumple because its less
| dangerous for the occupants
| dividuum wrote:
| Maybe this video helps a bit to put all that twisting into
| perspective? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B74_w3Ar9nI
| rootusrootus wrote:
| There's another one from way back where they bend a 747
| wing until it breaks. Definitely puts into perspective how
| strong a wing is.
| mulmen wrote:
| The famous video is of a 777 wing. I don't believe any
| similar footage exists for the 747 or if the test was
| even performed decades before.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
| projektfu wrote:
| Now you have me imagining an articulated-bus version of the
| 747....
| kortilla wrote:
| Any plane at 500mph is tissue paper if it hits something.
|
| If you haven't seen the wing flex in a 737 or A320 you aren't
| paying close enough attention. It's very obvious during the
| takeoff roll as load is applied or during any moderate+
| turbulence.
| dheera wrote:
| > Any plane at 500mph is tissue paper if it hits something.
|
| Sure, but a commercially-sold 1:500 plastic model of the
| same plane crashing into a wall at 1mph won't be tissue
| paper.
|
| Similarly, ants can lift 100 times their own weight and
| survive having 5000 times their own weight placed on top of
| them, but it's quite impossible to for a human-sized mammal
| to do the same.
| ece wrote:
| After the 777 gained enough market share, it just seemed like
| less and less flights (especially the long range ones) were on
| the 747. End of an era. I flew on the top deck of a 747 once, I
| was sweating the whole time, but the views were worth it.
| sva_ wrote:
| Flight not found for me. Does someone have a screenshot?
| blantonl wrote:
| This was almost certainly drawn out by hand, waypoints (lat/lon)
| and turns were plotted and then inputed into the flight
| management computer, and there is a good chance the plane just
| flew itself as told.
|
| Although given it was flown at such a lower altitude below 15k
| feed near Moses Lake (which is where Boeing does a ton of testing
| at that airport) it's possible the pilots hand flew this by
| following a pre-plotted magenta line already plotted on a map for
| them.
| [deleted]
| joncrane wrote:
| This is what I was curious about. Presumably ATC wasn't calling
| out vectors, they were doing it through their own navigation.
| So did ATC basically give them free movement within a certain
| box and certain altitude? It looks like they did the moves at
| about 10,000 feet.
| px43 wrote:
| They could also just spoof the ADS-B data right?
| lxgr wrote:
| Given that the area is covered by radar (as well as MLAT SDR
| coverage), it would be tricky to pull off - and the FAA would
| probably not find it funny at all.
| schoen wrote:
| I doubt their normal on-board systems have a feature to do
| that, or that the pilots would feel confident in doing so in
| terms of the FAA's possible reaction.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| If Boeing wants to draw a 747 logo in the sky for the last
| 747 ever made, the 747, the symbol of american design, and
| they don't want to actually drive the plane around in
| loops, I'm sure the FAA would sign off on some foolery. But
| kudos to them for doing it live.
| blantonl wrote:
| that didn't happen. They flew this.
| jaywalk wrote:
| From a technical perspective, probably. In reality,
| absolutely not.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| One of the all time greatest products ever produced.
| matt-by-nature wrote:
| I wonder what font that is..
| Sunspark wrote:
| On a trip home a few years ago, I went ahead and booked a 747,
| partially intentionally. It was very nostalgic knowing that it
| was probably the last time I would ever fly in a 747 again. That
| was a good plane.
| leaving wrote:
| I like Boeing and the 747 is a great aircraft and a fantastic
| technical achievement, but, really, this is pretty atrocious.
| Couldn't they have just paid FlightAware to add some data to the
| track?
|
| Until we get our population down to a sustainable level, this is
| unconscionable.
|
| Get it under a billion and we can probably afford this. Until
| then, definitely not.
| mulmen wrote:
| > Couldn't they have just paid FlightAware to add some data to
| the track?
|
| Huh? Why would FlightAware agree to this? What would the point
| even be?
|
| By that logic Boeing could just pay to have their carbon
| numbers falsified too. May as well falsify the population
| numbers too while they are at it.
|
| You can criticize the carbon emissions but why advocate for
| falsifying data? They could have just... not done the flight.
| noobermin wrote:
| Just a thought, the article has 747 points, and I do not want to
| upvote it further.
| drpixie wrote:
| Too late - it's gone past 747 points :(
| aeturnum wrote:
| Makes me think of the famous "707 Barrel Roll" story from its
| initial testing: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
| news/60-years-ago-the-f...
|
| "You know that. Now we know that. But just don't do it anymore."
|
| Edit: forgot the barrel roll was on a 707 - not a 747
| ekianjo wrote:
| youtube video of the barrel roll
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_khhzuFlE
| [deleted]
| blamazon wrote:
| That very plane is on display at the Udvar-Hazy center of the
| Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, at Dulles airport.
| Plane nerds MUST go there!! Incredible place.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_F._Udvar-Hazy_Center
| exhilaration wrote:
| Agreed, it's the best museum in the DC area.
| fsckboy wrote:
| there's film of Tex Johnston's Dash-80 barrel roll
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk
|
| many years later, _Boeing Chief Test Pilot John Cashman stated
| that just before he piloted the maiden flight of the Boeing 777
| on Jun. 12, 1994, his last instructions from then Boeing
| President Phil Condit were "No rolls"._ -- anecdote from
| https://theaviationgeekclub.com/that-time-tex-johnston-barre...
|
| I wonder why "the suits" at Boeing are so against the barrel
| rolls? The pilots all agree it's not that big a deal, not
| dangerous, and anybody watching is going to love it.
|
| this article https://www.straightdope.com/21341407/is-it-
| possible-to-loop... says that the bigger the plane, the more
| dangerous because it will roll more slowly, and during parts of
| the roll particularly 90 degrees off "flat" there is no lift
| and you're going to be falling.
|
| I'm reminded of the tragic crash of a B-52 illustrating a
| similar circumstance, and this was the pilot's last flight
| before retiring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6io8Tjv7xk
| themadturk wrote:
| The Dash-80 roll was a 1-G maneuver that didn't strain the
| airframe at all. Local legend says that single barrel roll
| was enough to convince an airline industry skeptical of jet
| aircraft to open their checkbooks. Boeing -- in the person of
| Tex Johnston -- changed the world that day.
| rconti wrote:
| The only thing I can think is that it _looks_ dangerous to
| casual observers, and that 's the furthest thing Boeing and
| the airlines that purchase from them want potential
| passengers thinking.
| mulmen wrote:
| Thank you for sharing this, I had never seen it even though I
| knew the story. I love how excited Tex is describing the 707.
| "We had an airplane that was going to shrink the world by a
| factor of two." the whole idea drips with 1950s techno-
| optimism.
|
| The Fairchild B-52 crash isn't really comparable to the 707
| roll. That was at a much lower altitude and a far more
| aggressive maneuver.
| sv123 wrote:
| SS 91.303 Aerobatic flight. No person may operate an aircraft
| in aerobatic flight - (a) Over any congested area of a city,
| town, or settlement; (b) Over an open air assembly of
| persons; (c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface
| areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace
| designated for an airport; (d) Within 4 nautical miles of the
| center line of any Federal airway; (e) Below an altitude of
| 1,500 feet above the surface; or (f) When flight visibility
| is less than 3 statute miles. For the purposes of this
| section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver
| involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an
| abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary
| for normal flight.
| dav_Oz wrote:
| Tex Johnston's first flight was in 1925 with the age of 11 on
| a "barnstormer". At the time where the first flight
| regulation appeared in the US.
|
| Back then "flight acrobatics" beside showing off the skills
| of a pilot was the art of "selling" planes/flying and making
| it popular after all the "Jennies" were sold off (and the
| pilots laid off) by the government after WWI[0] for
| essentially pennies: about $200 (~$4.000); production cost
| initially at $5.000 (~$100.000). Civil aviation "mass-
| adopted".
|
| So, by selling a 707 with a barrel roll is as old school as
| it gets.
|
| [0]https://web.archive.org/web/20150324051634/http://www.sout
| he...
| buildsjets wrote:
| A barrel roll is one thing to perform in a transport category
| jet, it is a ~1G maneuver when performed correctly. A loop is
| altogether different. My good friend Bernardo Malfitano,
| https://www.understandingairplanes.com/Bernardo-
| Malfitano.ht... , when he worked as a Structural Methods &
| Allowables engineer at Boeing, was also an aerobatics pilot
| on the side and put on a fantastic brown-bag lunch
| presentation entitled "Can you loop a 747?" where he
| demonstrated how he calculated the weight, altitude,
| airspeed, and configuration points to theoretically loop a
| 747 while staying within the certified load limits, then did
| a stepwise simulation of the results. It would theoretically
| be possible, but it would be very close to the limit of the
| airplane's capabilities.
|
| Found it - "Aerobatic Capabilities of "Marginally Aerobatic"
| Airplanes" - scroll down to "The Physics of Aerobatics" and
| click "Paper", toward the end there is a detailed summary of
| how a transport jet could just barely do a very ugly loop.
| https://www.understandingairplanes.com/online.html
| fnands wrote:
| "Marginally Aerobatic"
|
| Gotta love the understatement there.
| burkaman wrote:
| Even if intellectually you know it's totally safe, it's still
| something the plane was not explicitly designed to do and
| literally will never be used for again. I can understand the
| "oh my god what are you doing" reaction feeling a lot
| stronger than "I guess he must know what he's doing".
| numpad0 wrote:
| Based on my "flight" experience in MSFS and various other
| games, you have to start high enough to complete a barrel
| roll, and you have to have good control surface authority
| that allows such deep rolls. At some scale it becomes hard to
| start high enough and finish it quick enough.
|
| It's not a big deal in a clean F-15C to start a barrel roll,
| change minds, and add a full right deflection for 1s to
| recover to a level flight. But in a larger and non-manauver-
| oriented planes like a 747, you might find out that the
| aircraft under present circumstances cannot command more
| pitch or roll rates to transition from a high-speed inverted
| descent to a desired positive climb situation before the
| altimeter indication would reach zero or below. The latter
| was not so fun.
|
| Overall, I think it's reasonable that "the suits" were not
| embracing it. The test pilots made their point, the world
| witnessed it, any further attempts weren't strictly
| necessary, and frankly would have been scary.
| aeturnum wrote:
| Thank you - I had never seen it. This is great.
| ordu wrote:
| [dead]
| isaacdl wrote:
| Should note that's a 707 that Tex Johnston rolled, not a 747.
| I'm not aware of any barrel rolls performed in a 747.
| kloch wrote:
| It wasn't even a 707, it was a prototype model 367-80.
|
| There were some unusually significant structural differences
| between the prototype dash 80 and production 707's, for
| example:
|
| > The 132 in (3,400 mm) wide fuselage of the Dash 80 was
| large enough for four-abreast (two-plus-two) seating like the
| Stratocruiser. Answering customers' demands and under Douglas
| competition, Boeing soon realized this would not provide a
| viable payload, so it widened the fuselage to 144 in (3,660
| mm) to allow five-abreast seating and use of the KC-135's
| tooling.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
| jefftk wrote:
| Those two pages disagree. Your quote is from
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707, but
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_367-80 has "The Dash
| 80 fuselage was wide enough at 132 inches (335 cm) for
| five-abreast seating; two on one side of the aisle and
| three on the other. The fuselage diameter for the
| production KC-135 was widened to 144 inches (366 cm) and
| Boeing originally hoped to build the 707 fuselage with that
| width. By the time the Boeing company committed to
| production, the decision had been made to design the
| production model 707 as a six-abreast design"
| Aeolun wrote:
| They added 26 centimeters. Just barely enough to fit
| another person.
|
| Seriously, what were they planning to transport? Pixies?
| paledot wrote:
| The aisle width and/or chair clearance probably changed
| as well. Indeed, if only 26 cm was required to add
| another seat to each row, there must have been
| substantial wasted space with four-abreast seating.
| throwawayx134ax wrote:
| It's in the wikipedia article, but just want to call
| something out: That particular airframe 367-80 is in the
| Air and Space Udvar-Hazy museum at Dulles. It is gorgeous.
|
| The 747s first airframe is at the Museum of Flight in
| Seattle, and you can _go inside it_.
| https://www.museumofflight.org/aircraft/boeing-747-121
| turnsout wrote:
| FTA: "In his Boeing office, he [Tex] hung a sign that
| proclaimed, 'One test is worth a thousand opinions.'"
|
| I need that sign. ha
| aeturnum wrote:
| Oh good note lol! I misremembered
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Someone wrote:
| I wouldn't call that an Easter egg. It's not hidden.
|
| Also, if I'm not mistaken that flight started at 7:50 local time.
| Was that 3 minutes later than intended?
| petilon wrote:
| The question in my mind is, what replaces the 747, and is it
| safe? Looks like 777X is going to replace 747. Does the 777X have
| the same design flaws as the 737 MAX, namely larger engine,
| positioned forward in way that destabilizes the airframe?
| mulmen wrote:
| > The question in my mind is, what replaces the 747, and is it
| safe? Looks like 777X is going to replace 747.
|
| The 747 has been replaced for passenger service for decades.
| This isn't the first time production has been halted. The 777
| has been around since the 1990s. With the 767, 777, and 787
| there's really no need for the 747 anymore, especially for
| passenger service.
|
| > Does the 777X have the same design flaws as the 737 MAX,
| namely larger engine, positioned forward in way that
| destabilizes the airframe?
|
| In a word, no.
|
| The 777X looks more like the 737NG vs the 737 Classic. It's
| stretched and has new wings, but the engines on the 777 were
| already massive. The 777 started with 330cm diameter engines
| and the new ones are 335cm. Given the gear arrangement on the
| 777 I doubt they had to move the engines forward.
|
| Further, the 737 MAX crashes weren't directly caused by moving
| the engines, it was more caused by MCAS and a lack of training
| and explanation. Boeing tried to make the 737 MAX _feel_ like a
| 737NG, but the plane itself wasn 't inherently unstable.
|
| The 777X does not have MCAS:
|
| > Boeing stated that the 777X does not have an equivalent of
| the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) that
| is installed on the 737 MAX and that played a role in two
| crashes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777X
| themadturk wrote:
| I can't answer your question directly, but the modern 737 is a
| 2010s aircraft forced into a 1965 design. Many, many
| problematic design decisions have been visited upon the low-
| rise airframe, and many critics of the plane think the 737s
| should have been retired long ago in favor of a new narrow-body
| aircraft. I don't think those kinds of design problems are
| present in the 777, which was a new design from the ground up.
| RobRivera wrote:
| little more creative than marine aviators thats for sure
| katamarimambo wrote:
| the carbon cost of this crap
| pdabbadabba wrote:
| I hate to be that guy but...anyone able to compute the total C02
| emissions from this stunt? I guess when you manufacture planes
| for a living, this sort of thing doesn't seem like a big deal.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| My dad drew my kids' names (and a Minecraft pickaxe) over Indiana
| a few years back. They were delighted.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The world's largest vector plotter. Good thing they didn't have
| to do PU/PD.
| tpmx wrote:
| Was just thinking of HPGL when I saw this.
|
| Would be neat to have an AutoCAD driver for the 747 navigation
| system.
| daveslash wrote:
| Vector Display you say? Now... the next logical step is to make
| it play Doom (or Quake)..... with an extremely low framerate.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMli33ornEU
| jacquesm wrote:
| The CO2 impact of one level would be astronomical :)
| goldfingeroo7 wrote:
| I wonder if the pilots were giggling the whole time they were
| flying this pattern.
| k_sze wrote:
| For those curious: you can see that they drew the top part of the
| crown first, if you zoom in enough.
| poopsmithe wrote:
| Zooming in isn't even necessary because you can use the flight
| playback scrollbar to see the little plane move along the
| route.
| [deleted]
| ho_schi wrote:
| If you want fly with 747:
|
| Book a flight from/to Germany with Lufthansa or from/to South
| Korea with Korean Air. They use the 747-8i and Lufthansa even the
| older 747-400 (delivery issues with B787 and B777). It is a nice
| plane and efficient between high demand routes of major
| destinations (e.g. JFK<-->FRA). If you want spend more money, I
| recommend the upper-deck which is provides a private atmosphere.
|
| Question: But I'm not wealthy?
|
| Answer: Me neither. I had a nice talk with a complete stranger in
| the middle row in the Economy during the last intercontinental
| flight. No Champagne but nice memories.
|
| If business: Lufthansa business-class seats allow for lay-flat
| but with older screens. I like them because use an open interior
| without the closed "office-cubicle" interior of other airlines.
| Look out of the window, drink champagne, eat a nice meal (or
| two...) or sleep.
|
| PS: Booking the 747 keeps her flying.
| pwarner wrote:
| I had the pleasure and privilege to sit under the pilot on a BA
| 747 from LHR to SFO. Amazing experience. That plane has been
| melted down and made into beer cans.
| vyrotek wrote:
| See the design here.
| https://flightaware.com/live/flight/map/GTI747/history/20230...
| Baxxter wrote:
| Is the dashed blue line their intended route, or what they
| would submit to ATC? Differs quite a bit from the actual
| flight.
| stevehawk wrote:
| It's usually the filed flight plan (for instrument flights)
| titanomachy wrote:
| Looks like it could be the same as the actual route but
| sampled at a lower resolution.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| In the layers (button top right) it's called the "planned
| route".
| juliand wrote:
| It took them 2 hours and 40 minutes to complete the easter egg
| alexose wrote:
| More cynically: Roughly 2.4 tons of fuel, equating to 16.8
| tons of CO2 emissions.
| culi wrote:
| Or put in another way, the equivalent of ~2.24 years of
| energy usage by the average US household
| ekianjo wrote:
| Do you also track the CO2 consumption of all the guys who
| want to save the environment by going with private jets to
| Davos?
| stanmancan wrote:
| I have no clue what I'm talking about but this piqued my
| interest. If I ask WolframAlpha: Q:how
| many carbon molecules in 2.4 tons A: 1.092x10^29
| molecules
|
| X molecules of pure carbon carbon would theoretically
| require 2X molecules of oxygen to turn into CO2
| Q: how much does (10^29)*2 molecules of oxygen weight in us
| tons A: 5.827 tons
|
| So 2.4 tons of Carbon + 5.827 tons of Oxygen = 8.227 tons
| of CO2? Maybe? What am I missing to have 2.4 tons of fuel
| turn into 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions? I'm not doubting it,
| and I'm sure it's WAY more complicated than above, but just
| genuinely curious!*
| tonymillion wrote:
| You also missed the carbon monoxide and water vapor that
| would be produced. Along with nitric and sulfur oxides.
| So it's probably not as bad.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| No need to ask WolframAlpha; you can do those
| computations yourself very easily.
|
| Avogadro's number is the conversion factor between grams
| and "atomic mass units", 6.023e+23+.
|
| 1.102e-6 is the conversion factor between grams and tons.
|
| The atomic weight of carbon is 12.01 amu.
|
| So 2.4 tons of pure carbon should contain 1.312e+30 atoms
| of carbon. The concept of a "carbon molecule" is not well
| defined; theoretically you could arrange all of these
| into one big diamond, or a bunch of graphite, or
| whatever.
|
| The atomic weight of oxygen is 16.00 amu. If you're
| making carbon dioxide, every 12.01 units of carbon mass
| will correspond to 32.00 units of oxygen mass, so 2.4
| tons of carbon would require 2.4 * (32.00/12.01) = 6.4
| tons of oxygen.
|
| There are a few comments we can make:
|
| - "What you're missing" appears to be that the emissions
| are described as "equivalent to" a certain amount of
| carbon dioxide by some metric, not as actually containing
| that much carbon dioxide.
|
| - Wolfram Alpha, at first glance, does not appear to be
| capable of answering your question correctly, but it's
| also in the right ballpark. Something is up.
|
| - Could be that your question is posed too poorly to get
| a good response.
|
| - Could be that the mass of a carbon dioxide molecule is
| greater than the sum of the masses of the one carbon and
| two oxygen atoms that it contains. I am told that in fact
| these two quantities are not equal - there is energy in
| the molecular bonds which ultimately equates to mass -
| but I don't know whether the molecule or the independent
| atoms should be heavier, and I feel sure that, if it's
| the molecule that's heavier, it is _not_ heavier by a
| factor of 12, which is what the WolframAlpha answer
| requires.
|
| - Your second question, "how much does 2e+29 molecules of
| oxygen weigh in US tons", is perfectly well defined,
| although it is incorrect given your goals. One molecule
| of oxygen contains two oxygen atoms, so you only need one
| molecule of oxygen per carbon atom to make carbon
| dioxide.
|
| But WolframAlpha _should_ have been able to answer this
| one unambiguously, and it couldn 't. The correct result:
|
| 2e+29 molecule_O x 2 atom_O/molecule_O x 16.00 amu/atom_O
| / 6.022e+23 amu/g x 1.102e-6 g/ton_US = 11.71 US tons
|
| Something went very wrong in the WolframAlpha answer.
| Mostly it seems to have mistaken molecules for atoms, but
| I can't explain the difference between 5.855 and 5.827.
| On the other hand, that difference is small enough that
| if you said it was the effect of the "mass" of the
| molecular bonds, I wouldn't just dismiss the idea out of
| hand.
|
| A larger lesson here might be that just because an
| automated system (or a human!) claims that it understands
| you, that doesn't mean it actually does.
|
| + I just checked wikipedia and they have 6.022e+23. This
| doesn't make a significant difference to this
| calculation, so I'll ignore it.
| stanmancan wrote:
| This was a fantastic answer, thank you!
| undersuit wrote:
| Kerosene(jet fuel) has between 6 and 20 carbon atoms per
| molecule. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Properti
| es_and_grades
|
| Have fun with the math!
| stanmancan wrote:
| Hm, does that change anything? Atoms per molecule doesn't
| seem important when we're talking about the total weight.
| If anything jet fuel isn't pure carbon so the math works
| out to create less CO2 than I calculated?
| thayne wrote:
| I don't think the number of atoms directly matters.
| However, the amount of energy that is released when
| kerosene burns has a _small_ impact. Because that energy
| was contributing to the mass of the kerosene (E=mc^2).
| But, that difference in mass will be tiny. Far surpassed
| by the mass of the non-carbon atoms in kerosene.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| I wish to make a climate confession. I drove to the beach
| yesterday for recreation despite it not being necessary to
| keep myself alive and paying taxes to the climate gods. How
| many fraudulent carbon credits do I need to buy from rich
| people to absolve my sins?
| usrusr wrote:
| Yeah, this can't be some prank by a renegade flight crew,
| it can only be a farewell celebration act with a kick-off
| meeting, a budget and a dozen people who signed off. But
| I'm not criticising, by that measure we'd have to question
| any resource expenditure that exceeds the bare minimum for
| sustaining life.
| ant6n wrote:
| Well this admittedly cool looking stunt represents more
| than 5 persons worth of annual sustainable co2 budget
| (estimated at 3T/year), so I'd say it's a smidgeon above
| the ,,bare minimum for sustaining life".
| usrusr wrote:
| That's why you don't do stuff like this for each and
| every subvariant. This is a once in half a century
| occasion, it absolutely pales in comparison to the amount
| of fuel the type has burned for trade show visits, photo
| opportunities and numerous other nonessentials. Arguably
| there isn't a single use case for jet aviation that isn't
| far out of the range of sustainable co2 budget.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I think you misplaced a decimal point on that fuel tonnage,
| they probably burned around 27 tons of fuel for that
| pattern.
|
| If my own napkin math and google searching is correct, the
| daily worldwide consumption of jet fuel is (in _very_ round
| numbers) a million tons a day. A bit less than the total
| daily consumption of gasoline in the US.
| alexose wrote:
| You're absolutely right. I wish I could edit my post, but
| I'm too late!
| stubish wrote:
| Fun is a good thing to spend some of our CO2 emissions
| budget on. We need fun. A joyless society isn't worth
| saving.
| cute_boi wrote:
| I, personally, don't believe this easter egg provides any
| valuable joy.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I enjoyed it.
| culi wrote:
| some fun is more expensive than others. That's ~2.24
| years of energy usage by the average US household
| t-writescode wrote:
| And a sendoff to the hard work of tens of thousands or
| more people.
|
| Oh. No.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| That's a fair sentiment, but in this particular case the
| portion of society that will be aware that this even
| happened, much let get joy from it, is a rounding error
| above none of society.
| klempner wrote:
| And 17 tons of CO2 is a rounding error above none of
| society's total emissions -- the US alone is around 5
| billion tons per year.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Exactly. It's why I have a truck, actually. Sure, I could
| drive an electric Nissan Leaf, but come on. Is that life
| worth living?
| stubish wrote:
| Sure, if that is important to you. You are welcome to
| make sacrifices elsewhere. We will need to make sure you
| make them though, probably by taxing your petrol through
| the roof.
| renewiltord wrote:
| You're welcome to try.
|
| Both Boeing and I will win.
| kelnos wrote:
| I was thinking along those lines as well, but:
|
| 1. For context, this was the final delivery flight of a
| 747, ever. It's a pretty momentous occasion.
|
| 2. If we're going to criticize something like this, then we
| probably should be criticizing a lot more about the waste
| in our own lives. Everyone generates a lot of unnecessary
| waste, even if we don't think about or consciously
| acknowledge it.
| ant6n wrote:
| Arguably, the stunt is a symbol. Critizing it for also
| being a symbol for the inconsiderate waste of co2 budget
| is fair.
|
| ...I mean, building a 747 in 2023 is really not a
| reasonable thing to do given our remaining co2 budget,
| even if some techies feel sentimental about that plane.
| slyrus wrote:
| Or the average annual carbon footprint for one person in
| the US.
| culi wrote:
| > The average US household produces 7.5 tons of CO2
| equivalents per year.
|
| https://www.ccfpd.org/Portals/0/Assets/PDF/Facts_Chart.pd
| f
| slyrus wrote:
| Or 15.52 tons according to worldometer. Not sure who's
| right here.
|
| https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-
| co2-emissions...
| culi wrote:
| Yeah good question. To add to the confusion, this paper
| published PNAS says "2.83 +- 1.0 t of CO2-equivalents per
| capita". Per capita is different from per household but
| might be a better metric
|
| It also states that using just national energy statistics
| (this study actually analyzed 93 million households
| instead) you'd arrive at 3.19 t CO2 per capita which
| falls in line with their results
|
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922205117
| slyrus wrote:
| And, either way, this maneuver seems like it generated
| CO2 emissions roughly equal to those that would be saved
| by 10 people line drying their clothes for a year. Which
| 10 people are we gonna pick?
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| That's equal to the average CO2 emission of one US citizen
| per year. I don't think this is particularly noteworthy.
| There is a cost to this celebration, but that doesn't mean
| it isn't worth doing.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terri
| t...
| OneCommentMore wrote:
| Yes. I agree. But it's a joke compared to what happened in
| Europe during the pandemic [0], when thousands of empty
| flights happened to secure their airlines landings slots.
| This could have been a checkmark in an Excel-sheet and did
| by far not draw the attention and ire of the public it
| should have last year.
|
| [0] https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-
| business-hea...
| sllabres wrote:
| Or here
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n863gt#2f0b1162
| Took 2 1/2 hours to plot this :)
| notac wrote:
| My grandfather was a mechanic on the first 747 to roll off the
| assembly line. Quite a majestic career the 747 had.
| classified wrote:
| Darned cool. 747 rules!
| thedrake wrote:
| Here is the story behind the flight and drawing in the sky via
| flight path https://aviationsourcenews.com/breaking/atlas-air-to-
| fly-spe...
| thrownaway561 wrote:
| thank you... i was wondering why they did this.
| swyx wrote:
| > "She's a darn good-looking airplane... An incredible honor
| for me"
|
| don't all 747's look the same by definition? lol
| ribs wrote:
| My friend notes that the logo covers Grand County Int'l Airport,
| containing the 2nd-longest runway in the US, where JAL and FedEx
| both have 747 pilot training facilities.
| orenak wrote:
| are you sure its not a greek fig? :D
| jbandela1 wrote:
| The 747 IMO is the most beautiful aircraft ever, certainly the
| most beautiful civilian aircraft.
|
| A couple of years ago, I made it a point on an international trip
| with my kids to book seats for us on the upper deck. It was
| really awesome, and I am sure they will look back on it as a
| great memory.
|
| If you are able to, before it is too late, I would encourage
| doing it.
|
| The most iconic seats on the most iconic civilian airplane!
| z303 wrote:
| Like most people a 747 was my first long haul flight. I've not
| been lucky enough to fly the upper deck but a few years ago, I
| did get to fly in the nose, seat 1A. A great experience,
| strange being in front of the pilots and surprisingly noisy
| when the nose gear is moving up or down
|
| As for being the most beautiful civilian aircraft. I see your
| 747 and raise you a Concorde
| sib wrote:
| I flew on the upper deck a few times between Seattle and London
| - great way to travel! Even got to see the Northern Lights more
| than once...
| dylan604 wrote:
| When you have been away from them for a while and you're used
| to just spending time in terminals with nothing but 737s
| everywhere, when you come back to a terminal with a 747 at the
| gate, it is a bit awe inspiring to see just how big these are.
| Similar to the first time walking up to a 777, A380, etc. They
| are just huge (or the 737 is tiny).
| jbandela1 wrote:
| > (or the 737 is tiny)
|
| A 737 is roughly that length and weight of a Blue Whale
| (North Pacific).
| themadturk wrote:
| Both.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I got excited just seeing one on flightradar and then looking
| up :-). They are quite rare compared to 737 and various
| Airbuses
| FabHK wrote:
| Question: On the western side, the top-left side of the crown, it
| looks like two curves were flown, both more than 90 degrees.
| Wouldn't it have been possible, instead, to fly straight (and
| then fly the ,,crown" the other way around)? Wouldn't that have
| been marginally prettier?
| supernova87a wrote:
| I find it just really endearing that at companies, regardless of
| how many other issues they have or the dysfunctions and bland
| corporate culture, there are people who keep the pride of purpose
| and "olden days / traditions" in their memory and do things like
| this. Or are able to call on institutional memory of something
| bygone, that reappears once in a while. (whether it's a big
| gesture like this or small cultural day-to-day manifestations).
|
| You wonder how pockets of this survive when top management comes
| and goes, who sometimes only know the company as just some logo
| or another corporation to be managed, and when workforces go
| through rounds and rounds of potential layoffs where such
| knowledge and initiative is generally lost.
|
| Maybe it also helps to be a company that has at least something
| to do with hardware that leaves a physical history :)
| crazygringo wrote:
| Why do you think top management isn't part of this? Many times
| it's top management itself that makes sure these traditions
| continue. Maintaining company culture is something incredibly
| important to a lot of executives, at certain companies at
| least.
|
| And judging from the press, this was a highly coordinated event
| including thousands of spectators and John Travolta. [1]
|
| Top management can love having fun and maintaining traditions
| too. They're people too.
|
| [1] https://thepointsguy.com/news/boeing-747-farewell-
| celebratio...
| bigiain wrote:
| > Why do you think top management isn't part of this? Many
| times it's top management itself that makes sure these
| traditions continue. Maintaining company culture is something
| incredibly important to a lot of executives, at certain
| companies at least.
|
| It sure as hell wasn't the "out source the 737 Max 8 avionics
| software to some low cost of living $8/hr contractors"
| beancounter management.
|
| Nor the "lets make the secondary angle of attack sensor part
| of the 'premium package' and blame the cheapskate customers
| when their planes crash" MBA bro management.
|
| And it definitely wasn't the "Lets put 'undue pressure' on
| our ODA-certified staff and make them lie to the FAA about
| the MAX8 program" assholes either.
|
| But maybe you're right, maybe it's not an entire barrel of
| bad apples yet...
| SQueeeeeL wrote:
| > You wonder how pockets of this survive when top management
| comes and goes, who sometimes only know the company as just
| some logo or another corporation to be managed
|
| This makes me so sad, all of our traditions which make
| companies unique will actually be eroded away by market forces.
| No wonder no one stays at a workplace anymore.
| dleslie wrote:
| The market force putting a stop to this is legal liability
| that can arise from undocumented or unauthorized behaviour.
| That's more an issue of an overly-litigious society.
| cj wrote:
| I'm sure culture/traditions play a role in employee
| retention, but it feels like "the 20-year tenure company
| man/woman" of the 90's was likely driven by less optionality
| in the job market compared to today, and also fewer benefits
| to staying with a company long-term (e.g. no more pensions,
| unlimited vacation for both new and old employees, etc).
| mulmen wrote:
| Boeing still needs pilots. They're a sentimental, capable, and
| stubborn bunch.
| cfeduke wrote:
| Heh, the last time two Marine aviators drew a suitable shape
| often doodled throughout the Corps[1] it was not as well
| appreciated! Though they were certainly keeping pride of
| purpose alive.
|
| 1. https://metro.co.uk/2018/11/11/marine-pilots-investigated-
| fo...
| noobermin wrote:
| This is why people on the ground deserve more respect (and yes,
| pay) than they get.
| obrajesse wrote:
| . o O { also, the ones in the sky }
| gcanyon wrote:
| As this involved an extra hour(?) of flight time, it cost
| thousands of dollars. It also required filing a particular
| flight plan, and probably coordination between Boeing and
| Atlas. So it seems safe to say that it required approval at a
| pretty high level. And given everything else that happened
| surrounding the delivery, that doesn't seem strange at all.
| qwertox wrote:
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n863gt/#2f0b1162
|
| The drawing started at 16:50 UTC and ended at 19:30 UTC, so 2
| hours and 40 minutes of the 6 hours and 20 minutes long
| flight.
|
| In any case, this most likely required approval from the FAA,
| but the cost per se should be neglectable, considering that
| they have been produced since 1970s.
| selectodude wrote:
| It didn't require approval from the FAA as the flight plan
| was filed in class G (uncontrolled) airspace below 14,000
| feet.
|
| Might have been a bit of a trip to fly in your Cessna and
| see a 747 flying down there though.
| qwertox wrote:
| You're right, thank you for sharing that fact.
|
| I revisited the flight data and if flies below 13,000 ft
| until it finished the drawing. Then it rose to 41,000 ft
| and increased the speed from ~200 knots to somewhat over
| 500.
|
| It blows my mind to think that an 747 is allowed to use
| the uncontrolled airspace as if it were a Cessna.
| userbinator wrote:
| "thousands of dollars" may seem like a lot to an individual,
| but to a company like Boeing, it's tiny. They probably spend
| far more on explicit advertising than this.
| harry8 wrote:
| I basically wear zero visible labels on my clothes because why
| would I wear advertising? I own a t-shirt with 747 on it and a
| picture. It's one of the great pieces of human engineering.
| Many of us, even those who have never had anything to do with
| it beyond seeing one in the sky and occasionally riding on one
| love it like any other great work of creation.
|
| There would be people who think like that who joined boeing in
| the past couple of years...
| UberFly wrote:
| Nice. I love it. It's like the trendy NASA shirts you see.
| Now there's a logo to flaunt regardless of the reason.
| protastus wrote:
| Every complex project lives and dies by a relatively small
| group of true believers.
|
| From the outside, we don't know who they are, but sometimes we
| get a glimpse of their passion.
| kibwen wrote:
| This goes for human organizations and communities in general.
| If you want something to persist and excel, find a way to
| empower the people who truly Give A Shit.
| dwohnitmok wrote:
| Pain ensues when you have two or more people/camps of
| people who Give A Shit but are in conflict with each other.
| Then often the organization just rips itself apart or
| collapses.
|
| The tricky bit is how to empower people who Give A Shit
| while maintaining alignment.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Interesting, I'll make a note to keep my GAS levels
| around 80.
| afandian wrote:
| Seriously, I think the answer to this isn't about
| intensity of feeling (although 100% is never healthy for
| anything, ever).
|
| It's about channelling the GAS into principles,
| tightening them up, and agreeing on what matters. Then
| putting that energy into being flexible about everything
| else.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Kinda agree. I like to raise GAS levels as high as
| possible but by balancing the fun, effort level and
| importance.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| I think it's more that most people are basically trying their
| best and that includes managers and top brass. Sometimes we
| get a glimpse when that shines through from the whole group.
| mach1ne wrote:
| I don't mean to be negative, but most people certainly
| don't try their best. Many are only working for the
| paycheck and don't attach their sense of success to their
| professional output.
| americanmotto wrote:
| Agree. I've said for ~10 years now, that it seems the
| American Dream has transitioned from "Anything is
| possible as long as you work hard enough." to "Do as
| little as work possible to get the same paycheck."
| Something has definitely changed in the culture.
| dbingham wrote:
| What could have possibly changed in the last several
| decades that might have affected someone's willingness to
| give their job there all?
|
| https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
|
| Sorry for the sarcasm, but it is very frustrating to see
| people standing around wondering at this change as if
| it's a moral failing when people have been pointing out
| for decades that those at the top broke the social
| contract and that there would eventually be consequences.
| mcv wrote:
| The moral failing is definitely in how corporations are
| lead and how work is rewarded. I don't blame anyone for
| not being passionate about a job that barely pays a
| living wage. In fact, I think it's incredibly harmful for
| a country when work is not properly rewarded.
| eigilsagafos wrote:
| I wonder if the tide will ever turn? That it would become
| a competitive advantage to build enterprises with values
| other than maximizing the returns to their shareholders.
| girvo wrote:
| Companies no longer reward loyalty or working hard on the
| whole, so I'm surprised that you are surprised. Those at
| the top reap entirely outsized rewards, the company does
| stock buy-backs, and the workers get table scraps.
|
| We're insulated somewhat from that in our industry, we're
| well compensated, but I don't blame others in other
| industries for responding to how companies focus their
| resources today.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Executives from corporate America led by people like
| Welch treated workers like cogs, which eventually taught
| employees to treat employers transactionally.
| runarberg wrote:
| I think majority of jobs are low wage with no future
| prospects, and quite a lot of jobs have bosses or--worse
| --shareholders taking away the profits for their own
| private climate devastating opulence. Why would you work
| hard for these people? Why would you do anything more
| than the absolute minimum?
|
| I think this supposed American dream was only ever a
| ruse, a Hollywood propaganda. If it ever existed it only
| applied to a certain demographic and was never actually a
| possibility for majority of Americans.
|
| In the past decades (since the late 70s at least)
| Hollywood has slowed down it's propaganda machine in
| favor of more independent film making (or the propaganda
| has shifted elsewhere; mainly the military during this
| century), so the illusion of the American dream is slowly
| but surely wearing off. In the meantime our jobs suck
| just as much as before, possibly even more, and are
| paying even less.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > Why would you do anything more than the absolute
| minimum?
|
| For personal satisfaction? You are going to be there
| anyway, you might as well do a good job.
|
| I'm not saying to put in more hours than contracted, but
| those hours should be high quality (or as high as you can
| make them, under the circumstances).
| mordae wrote:
| If the tasks or people suck, giving shit is tiresome. Way
| better to do half assed job and spare some mental energy
| to use on your terms in the evening.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| No that's not how it works unfortunately. You are
| supposed to do overtime and answer emails on your
| weekends. Fuck that.
| behringer wrote:
| I earn my paycheck and no more. When I work on my
| personal pet projects, that's where the passion and
| personal satisfaction is.
|
| You want excellence? Treat me excellently and you'll get
| it.
| TurkTurkleton wrote:
| Personal satisfaction, like exposure, is not legal
| tender.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| While this is obviously true, the long term effects of a
| positive, growth mindset are more likely to have an
| effect on your net worth than if you cannot or will not
| take pride in working hard and doing the best job you
| possibly can.
| ZephyrBlu wrote:
| This is not correct for a lot of jobs. For people with
| white-collar 'careers', maybe. But not for many other
| people.
| mcv wrote:
| Keep in mind that this "positive, growth mindset" means
| quitting your job for a better one if you're not going to
| get promoted in the job that you have. That, or starting
| your own business. Many companies have made it abundantly
| clear that there's no positive growth inside their
| company for ordinary workers. Only for the wallets of the
| managers and shareholders.
| runarberg wrote:
| This reads like its from a questionable research paper
| funded by an HR group with the sole aim of gaslighting
| workers into working harder for less money. I'm not
| buying it.
| gorgoiler wrote:
| It is certainly questionable research, but from the lived
| experience of a superannuated engineer (me!) not an HR
| group.
|
| As for gaslighting? Well, my aim is indeed to make you
| work harder. Not only that, but for you to have _more
| money_ not less. At all levels -- our society, the sector
| in which we work, our businesses as a whole and each team
| in those businesses -- your success has a positive effect
| on everyone else _as well as on you_ and part of that
| success will come as "legal tender".
|
| The flip side is that if we all drag our heels, everyone
| is worse off. I have sadly met many people in my life who
| seem to want everyone else to be as miserable as they
| are.
|
| (Your comment way up this thread talks about jobs with
| low wages with no future prospects. You make a good point
| and those jobs really are different -- one is unlikely to
| innovate oneself to greater wealth as a coal miner. Lots
| of us here on HN don't fall into this category of work
| though, and yet, alas, I see the mindset of the low pay /
| low prospects worker more and more in the tech sector.)
| runarberg wrote:
| If your boss or--worse--your shareholders are making
| significant money from your work, and spending it on
| furthering the climate disaster (like most bosses of
| large companies do) then I would argue that, no, your
| work is actually making the world a worse place.
|
| This wealth gap that keeps increasing is not good for
| anyone (except for bosses) and it is literally destroying
| our climate, even if it makes your personal net worth
| increase, that isn't good enough if it increases your
| boss' net worth 100x that.
| ionwake wrote:
| Im trying to understand why you made these points, I
| think you misunderstood what you replied to.
|
| He is saying you cant buy personal satisfaction, not that
| it has no effect on money earned.
|
| PS - Maybe Im confused, can someone correct me?
| girvo wrote:
| Working smarter and for better companies/people is what
| got me more money, not working harder
| mcv wrote:
| Working smarter and for better companies also got me
| working harder. I simply work harder when I'm working for
| a company I care about, on a job I care about, when I
| feel appreciated and have the freedom to contribute in a
| way that works for me.
|
| If you make me care less about the job and worry more
| about money, that's not going to help my productivity. If
| you want passionate and productive workers, you've got to
| give them something to be passionate about, but you also
| have to make sure they don't have to worry about money.
| If they're thinking about how they'll make rent or how
| they're going to pay for some unavoidable expenses,
| they're not thinking about how to solve an interesting
| problem for you.
| EGreg wrote:
| American Dream made sense when one person in the family
| worked for corporations. When everyone flooded the labor
| market, and automation made workers much more productive,
| wages got depressed. Now the American dream is propaganda
| for getting 30 year mortgages from banks and working to
| pay off the money you rented.
| behringer wrote:
| Sorry but this sort of drive is a two way street. If the
| company's not going to promote me and will drop me as
| soon as they've burned me out, I'm most definitely not
| going to "give my all" to the company.
|
| The company needs me, I don't need them for my self
| gratification. I just need a paycheck.
| losteric wrote:
| MBAs instead of promote-from-within. Bringing along
| egotistical bean-counter superiority with typically
| vastly inferior performance. Seeing this trend in big
| tech has me very bearish - the non-tech MBAs just can't
| execute on long-term big bets that require the deep
| understanding/cross-cutting coordination that comes with
| career insiders.
| rocqua wrote:
| Is the problem of outside MBAs their lack of deep
| understanding? Others here have argued that the promotion
| of outsiders erodes loyalty and passion of the workforce
| towards their jobs.
|
| I could imagine good outsiders who have the skills for
| long-term big bets are quite common. But then the erosion
| of the community inside the company could still foil such
| bets.
|
| As an aside, this alternative narrative seems more
| palatable to MBAs then your version. Hence it might be
| more easily accepted.
| mordae wrote:
| Actually, MBA schools actively teach people to be shitty
| to their employees and instill a sense of superiority.
| It's a scheme of sorts.
| whydoyoucare wrote:
| I don't think "working for a paycheck" necessarily
| implies one is not trying his/her best. Also the sense of
| success may not even depend on "success at work". Being
| successful and trying their best is far more nuanced than
| usually made out to be.
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| This is one of the more excellent comments I've ever seen
| here. Thank you.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| For sure. Whatever happened to hired guns putting their
| hearts and souls into maximizing profits for the
| shareholders? I mean, not to be negative or anything.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| I know a Japanese expat who moved from America to Europe
| because he didn't want to work himself to death. There is
| more to life than career and money. Sure he earns less
| now but he actually has the opportunity to spend it!
| waynecochran wrote:
| I find it highly unlikely that any manager would have
| anything to do with easter eggs.
| [deleted]
| xp84 wrote:
| i highly doubt an IC could make something like this
| happen without approval from somebody. It would be a huge
| risk.
|
| Also relating to easter eggs, anecdotally I think there
| are far fewer of them in software these days for just
| that reason: when a developer puts in an easter egg, it's
| hard to prove categorically that its addition wouldn't
| have some unintended effect, and possibly very
| embarrassing to the company if a major issue was traced
| back to some joke added by a developer for lulz.
| Uncomfortable questions would be asked. Imagine if adding
| an easter egg to Windows ended up leading to the
| grounding of all flights, or caused a life support system
| to behave improperly. etc.
|
| I know MS specifically banned easter eggs a long time ago
| on these grounds, I think it's a fireable offense but
| could be wrong.
| bigiain wrote:
| > i highly doubt an IC could make something like this
| happen without approval from somebody. It would be a huge
| risk.
|
| I'd bet at least beer money that this was some "IC"
| career 747 guy (or bunch of guys) who organised, planned,
| and authorised this without actual authority, because he
| was "a 747 guy" and he tendered his retirement 3 months
| ago and today was his last day. And a delivery pilot who
| was either in on it or was prepared to claim plausible
| deniability and that he was just following the autopilots
| pre-planned route, which he assumed was fully authorised.
|
| What's the huge risk? They're gonna fire him???
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/405783/why-does-
| man...
| colpabar wrote:
| Just because you don't like your manager(s) doesn't mean
| we're all bad :)
| RHSeeger wrote:
| My manager sends me videos of particularly challenging
| video game things he's accomplished. And links to fun
| games. Managers are people, too; there's plenty of good
| ones.
| waynecochran wrote:
| Not that you're bad ... you just love Jira tickets and
| spreadsheets and don't want to be accountable to anything
| that could come back and bight you.
| colpabar wrote:
| No I don't. Like I said, just because _your_ manager is
| like that does not mean that we all are, and it 's kind
| of childish to think that way.
|
| You also spelled 'bite' wrong.
| darkwater wrote:
| Don't project your manager(s) habits onto others, please.
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| You think a pilot took an unnecessarily longer route in a
| clients purchased plane without senior manager buy-in?
| bigiain wrote:
| The pilot just took off in Seattle, engaged autopilot,
| and sat back watching for warning lights until it was
| time to land.
|
| I'll bet he knew exactly what was going on, because the
| perpetrator clued them in, and made sure they had
| suitable ass covering paperwork to show they were just
| flying the flight as per the delivered flight plan.
|
| There may have been, maybe even probably was, a middling-
| senior manager involved here, but he was a "747 guy" as
| well, and today was his last day before retirement as
| well. And I'd guess all the "747 guys" have been there
| long enough to know exactly how to bury this paper trail,
| and possibly one guy who's prepared to "take the fall" if
| a board member or the customer bursts a coronary artery
| and demands a full forensic blame storm investigation -
| "Oh yeah, Bob signed off on that. He's got cancer,
| probably only a few weeks left, he was so happy to see
| the last one ever built fly, he started on the tools
| building them in the 80s. Last I heard he'd just sold up
| everything and spent his entire life savings paying off
| all his kids and grandkids houses and college loans. What
| a guy, huh?"
|
| (I aspire to be Bob.)
| graphe wrote:
| How true is this? In civilizations past such as the Romans
| you could cut off the heads like the emperor and it would be
| unchanged for millions. In china when the communists defeated
| the Manchus, some villagers were amazed these people defeated
| what they thought was the Ming dynasty.
|
| Khomeini was killed, Trump isn't president anymore and Iran's
| military and the right haven't died. In tech, Bell Labs is
| 'demonopolized' yet it's parts have become stronger.
|
| I disagree that the it dies with true believers. It decays
| and reforms and even gets stronger.
| pmontra wrote:
| Khomeini was killed is news to me. It's been a long time
| and I don't remember the details so I checked Wikipedia. It
| seems he died by hearth attack in hospital at age 89.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
| johntiger1 wrote:
| when did the communists defeat the manchus? do you mean the
| KMT..?
| [deleted]
| blantonl wrote:
| What's cool is that aviation can be so stifling at times with
| training, rules, regulations, etc, that it seems that certain
| very cool traditions are either set in stone, or born and
| survive relatively intact.
|
| ADSB reporting, which powers these flight tracking sites that
| are available to the public, is (relatively speaking) a very
| new thing to aviation and the general public. And the fact that
| these maneuvers are absolutely fantastic training and aviation
| problem solving and you've got the perfect storm for a newly
| born tradition that will continue to survive and evolve.
| mulmen wrote:
| Is this tradition even new? Drawing things in the sky seems
| to be a well established aviation tradition.
| tobinfricke wrote:
| > Drawing things in the sky seems to be a well established
| aviation tradition
|
| Not really... This level of high-precision and publicly-
| available flight tracking is pretty new.
| brian-armstrong wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywriting
| asmithmd1 wrote:
| On a much smaller scale, it has been around for a long
| time:
|
| http://wbcnthefilm.weebly.com/film-blog/who-ever-heard-
| of-a-...
| mulmen wrote:
| I don't think it is. Boeing has been doing it for years.
| They did it in 2014 for sure and that wasn't new. That
| was nearly a decade ago.
| fragmede wrote:
| This particular level and visibility of sky writing is
| new, but "drawing things in the sky" dates back to the
| 1920s or so. That sort of skywriting uses oil to cause
| the airplane to leave a trail of white smoke, visible
| against the blue background of the sky.
|
| The precision we see in this route is fairly new, but,
| especially on proving flights for new aircraft, which
| needed hours and hours of flight time and would take off
| and land at the same airport, and even before the public
| could see it on a website, filing flight plans that
| contained (much cruder) drawings of "747" or otherwise
| certainly exist.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I'd say this is a very different type of drawing, because
| you only see it on a tracker. Someone watching in real
| live from the ground wouldn't see the pattern, because I
| don't think jet trails stay in the air for two hours.
|
| This seems more like people using run/cycle trackers to
| make drawings on a map. (Strava Art)
| fragmede wrote:
| _We_ can only see it on a tracker. My claim is that sort
| of flight route drawing predates modern tracking on the
| Internet by decades. GPS was released to the public in
| the 1980 's.
| pmontra wrote:
| Jet trails stay in the sky all the day long with the
| right meteo conditions. They just become wider and look
| like long clouds. Check the picture at
| https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-
| about/weather/typ...
|
| Also this paper https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/7/12/169
| usrusr wrote:
| Drawing stuff on a map with a GPS track is a rather
| beaten path in the world of Strava and similar [0]. Not
| being bound to the road network graph just makes it
| easier. I don't want to think about the fuel burned for
| this stunt, but if I were in some position that is
| required to sign off that flight path I'd sure
| congratulate whoever came up with this. Wouldn't even be
| all surprised if tomorrow some Airbus ferry flight would
| respond in the same medium with a respectful salute to
| the old lady.
|
| ([0] but relative to anything that would be considered a
| tradition in aviation, the entire _concept_ of GPS is
| rather newfangled, despite it 's surprising age, I'm not
| disagreeing)
| mulmen wrote:
| I don't think this uses GPS, at least not directly. This
| data comes from ADS-B and radar. ADS-B involves the plane
| itself broadcasting where it (thinks it) is. That may
| come from GPS onboard but is probably more sophisticated
| than that in a modern 747.
| snuxoll wrote:
| The ADS-B out data is fed from the aircraft's ADIRU (air
| data inertial reference unit), which, yes, just uses GPS
| unless that fails for some reason. There's a fallback
| based on accelerometers and laser gyros to provide
| shockingly accurate positioning should such a failure
| occur, but it does lose some accuracy (enough that you
| can still fly autopilot on it for an approach at max
| range, but it'll be drifting by some number of meters)
| over long flights before it needs to be reset from GPS
| data on the ground.
| blantonl wrote:
| Not at this extent, and the ability for the general public
| to be aware of it.
| mulmen wrote:
| Skywriting seems visible to me? This is just an evolution
| of the same idea. This is a Looney Toons gimmick.
| Aeolun wrote:
| You don't think this is an autopilot course?
| bigiain wrote:
| It is 100% an auto pilot flown course.
|
| (The only real alternative option is that it's spoofed
| ADS-B transmissions, which is way way more likely to mean
| jail time for whoever was involved than a few extra tons of
| jetfuel and an un-management-authorised mission plan
| uploaded to the nav hardware would result in...)
|
| (It shows on other ADS-B tracking sites, so it isn't just
| some FlightRadar dude having fun or getting a kickback.)
|
| (Actually, there's a _very small_ possibility it was a
| large enough group of pissed of ADSBExchange feeders who
| all collaborated to use their gear to send spoofed data to
| the various flight tracking services? When some guy sells
| out an "open community" for $20mil, trolling the entire
| industry isn't a super surprising result...)
| snuxoll wrote:
| With there being no obvious deviations from the pattern
| there's no doubt it was done on autopilot. That said, a
| skilled pilot who wanted to deal with the nuisance of
| hand flying that would get pretty close just by following
| the flight director (But at that point you're just
| manually moving the yoke on behalf of the autopilot,
| given the FD is essentially just showing you what the
| autopilot wants to do).
| dingosity wrote:
| I'm sure someone will get fired over this.
| obrajesse wrote:
| Why? It was even the scheduled flight plan.
| https://twitter.com/FlyingPhotog/status/1620605523094818819?
| mcv wrote:
| While I certainly appreciate the passion and artistry to design
| and fly a path like that, I also wonder if it's not incredibly
| wasteful to do that with a kerosine-burning 747.
| lobochrome wrote:
| Of course, it is. And you don't wonder; you know that ;)
|
| But it is also deeply human. Humans are designing this
| aeroplane and building this aeroplane. It's a piece of human
| history and a significant one in recent times.
|
| So it is well worth ignoring efficiency and commemorating it
| for the sake of the humans involved. After all, our entire
| human existence is incredibly wasteful.
| renonce wrote:
| https://aviationsourcenews.com/breaking/atlas-air-to-fly-spe...
| The ceremony is prepared by CEO himself in this case.
| phtrivier wrote:
| This should be the top comment, and the title should probably
| be set to "Planned ceremonial flight path of last 747
| delivery path".
|
| There a now hundreds of comments arguing about how this
| "Easter egg" got pulled off, when it is in fact nothing else
| than a well organized publicity stunt (typical HN discussion,
| though, I suppose ? Fontenelle, golden teeth, etc..)
|
| Good for the 747 folks, though, it's always nice to get some
| form of recognition.
|
| And good luck to all the people trying to make planes fly
| with less GHG emissions - hopefully they get a ceremony, too,
| someday.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > there are people who keep the pride of purpose and "olden
| days / traditions" in their memory and do things like this.
|
| My inner cynic cannot ignore the fact that this was a planned
| flight, with several layers of approvals, not something a small
| group of enthusiasts did as an homage to the olden days. I bet
| this is a PR stunt and nothing else. Yes, I am very fun at
| parties.
| phantomathkg wrote:
| Even with multiple approval. One has to started this, with
| everyone in the approval chain to agree this homage is
| worthwhile to do.
| dTal wrote:
| Your inner cynic might be warmed with a reread this classic
| anecdote, as a reminder that even the glossy PR-ified output
| of a huge corporation can be the work of a few passionate
| individuals with human motivations:
|
| https://www.pacifict.com/Story/
| cbfrench wrote:
| We're in the flight path, and I told my wife to go up to her
| office roof to see if she can see it, but she's stuck in a
| meeting, and I'm too far north to catch a glimpse. I guess I'll
| have to settle for spotting it on my ADS-B receiver, which is
| still pretty cool.
| snickerbockers wrote:
| [flagged]
| oliveshell wrote:
| It's okay, we'll always have this:
|
| https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/05/14/the-navy...
| fsagx wrote:
| and this:
|
| https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/15878580720219217...
| blantonl wrote:
| speaking from experience, I would tell you the sky penis is one
| of the easiest things to "draw" by flying an airplane. It's two
| turns around a point and a quick run out to maybe to a training
| maneuver or two, them a 180 and head back to where your turns
| were, and then head home.
| scallaway wrote:
| And what looks to be a touch-and-go at the end of the journey as
| well just to round off the flight.
|
| Very nice.
| eiiot wrote:
| Flightaware link: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N863GT
|
| (FR24 makes it difficult to see on mobile & in general)
| aendruk wrote:
| Screenshot: https://cloudflare-
| ipfs.com/ipfs/QmcjrYXR934QZqBuMHioRdcZEmo...
|
| On small displays this is otherwise obstructed by a cookie popup
| that offers _only_ an "accept all" button. What's even the point
| of the popup then?
| lostlogin wrote:
| Thank you, I couldn't see the interesting part due to
| zoom/number of other planes etc.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Thanks. It wasn't showing anything for me at all, just a bunch
| of icons of planes. Much appreciated.
| knodi123 wrote:
| > What's even the point of the popup then?
|
| Complying with idiotic bureaucratic regulations. Nobody wants
| to be popping that thing up, but if they don't, they can get
| reamed by the EU.
| kefka_p wrote:
| I recently realized you can bypass cookie auth requests by
| toggling reader. Led me to wonder what the EU plans on doing
| to enforce compliance if JavaScript isn't enabled, for
| example. Kind of makes the legal obligations of sites more or
| less impossible to fulfill under some limited circumstances.
| krab wrote:
| If JavaScript is disabled, most of the offending cookies
| are not loaded. Session cookies are usually fine wrt GDPR.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| They could just... not use tracking cookies. Then no banner
| is required. The real idiocy is every website wanting to
| hoover up data.
| renewiltord wrote:
| And you can just not use the website. Then no data is
| hoovered. I actually think this is probably the best
| system. It's double opt-in. If you both commit to your
| sides, you both sign the deal and get what you want. If
| neither of you wants to do it, you can both just not sign
| the deal.
| gtirloni wrote:
| The popup is about _any_ cookies, right?
|
| Cookies are a basic building blocks of websites. If you
| login to a legit website, there's a cookie in your browser
| for that.
| nathancahill wrote:
| No, login cookies are specifically exempt.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> The popup is about any cookies, right?_
|
| The popup is, yes. But the legislation they are
| pretending to be compliant with isn't.
|
| For basic session-level cookies that are essential to the
| operation of some sites, no legislation requires consent.
| The issues are third party tracking, long term use
| stalking, etc. But those that want to stalk you want you
| to believe that the legislation is against even session
| maintenance & similar cookies as well so you'll be
| against the legislation and not them. And that is
| apparently working on you and some others commenting in
| this thread.
| gtirloni wrote:
| Got it, those are good points. Thanks.
| yreg wrote:
| Unfortunately it's not always reasonably possible to
| convince the client / legal team that a cookie banner is
| not needed in such case and the decision makers would
| rather be sure than care about the UX. Or so I heard.
| cute_boi wrote:
| github doesn't require such consent?
| ronjouch wrote:
| https://github.blog/2020-12-17-no-cookie-for-you/
| nielsbot wrote:
| I actually left the page and came back in private mode, so I
| am thankful they asked.
| [deleted]
| chrismorgan wrote:
| The trouble is that popups like this don't even comply with
| the relevant legislation. (Which is the ePrivacy Directive
| after the 2009 amendment, though people largely ignored this
| part of it until the advent of the GDPR which came into force
| in 2018. Simplified, ePD says "most cookies must be opt-in".)
|
| If anything, putting such wildly non-compliant popups should
| make you _more_ liable to punishment, because it undermines
| an argument of ignorance.
| xp84 wrote:
| If these silly laws were enforced, you'd have to shut down
| the whole Internet anyway.
| hans_castorp wrote:
| > If these silly laws were enforced, you'd have to shut
| down the whole Internet anyway.
|
| No, the tracking across sites will stop. None of those
| "silly" laws prohibit the use of e.g. session cookies.
| varenc wrote:
| I suspect if you access the site from an EU IP address
| you'll see an option besides "Accept All". The layout [0]
| even seems to leave room for where this other button might
| be.
|
| edit: looking at the code I even see references to a
| "Reject All" button as well as an XHR request to a
| geolocation endpoint.
|
| edit2: I set a breakpoint in their code and changed by
| country to "FR" and sure enough, I now see a "Reject All"
| button! Screenshot: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/09w
| cuy4yh3qqoaw/reject_a...
|
| [0]: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/vw2khgjnyrnqucb/f
| dspillett wrote:
| I walked away from the site on first visit due to "accept
| all" being the only option. Nipped back just to check
| after seeing your post while checking replies to my
| earlier comment, and wondering if the site is
| deliberately treating the UK differently. It turns out
| only-accept-all is the default and if the geolocation
| lookup fails (apparently that service is blocked by my
| pihole, it works if on mobile without home VPN) no reject
| option is present.
|
| A bit of bad design there, not failing safe, if there
| intention is to be compliant with stricter laws, because
| a failure in an external dependency makes the site less
| compliant.
| thayne wrote:
| so apparently they only care about your privacy if you
| are a citizen of the EU?
|
| And that just brings up the question again: why show the
| popup to non-EU viewers if the only option is to accept
| the cookies. It isn't even effective as a form of protest
| because those viewers have even less influence over EU
| regulations than EU citizens.
| dspillett wrote:
| _> so apparently they only care about your privacy if you
| are a citizen of the EU?_
|
| No, they care about being minimally compliant and laws
| vary.
|
| A number of places have legislation that just says "users
| much opt in" but the EU has legislation that says "users
| must opt-in, but cannot be forced to opt-in by there
| being no opt-out option".
|
| They don't care about your privacy at all, no matter
| where you are, if any claim otherwise is made it is a
| lie.
| thayne wrote:
| I was being sarcastic. I was referring to the fact that
| the on the EU dialog it said "we care about your
| privacy", but in the dialog I got in the US it didn't.
| And was thus implying that despite their claim, they do
| not care about anyone's privacy.
| nerdponx wrote:
| You can also view it on Flightaware, which doesn't have the
| popup:
| https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI747/history/20230201/...
| jerpint wrote:
| SOS would've been a funny prank
| SergeAx wrote:
| The point is that you won't access the info you came for
| without shoveling all the tracking malware up your cookie
| storage.
| xp84 wrote:
| There has never been a point to cookie popups, as with most
| things resulting from technically-illiterate politicians trying
| to help with technology matters.
|
| Their ideas are at best slightly lower-quality than the results
| of letting my 2-year-old wash the windows.
| jt2190 wrote:
| Make sure to choose "yes" to see the Easter egg
|
| > Live flight not found
|
| > The flight with callsign GTI747 is currently not tracked by
| Flightradar24. It's either out of coverage or has already
| landed.
|
| > Do you want to see the flight history of this aircraft?
|
| > [ ] No, close pop-up > [X] Yes, show aircraft history
| hackmiester wrote:
| It opened the app for me, but the app doesn't offer this
| option, so it just fails. Great.
| j5155 wrote:
| The app offered this option for me. Are you on the latest
| version?
| varenc wrote:
| > What's even the point of the popup then?
|
| If you're in the EU you'll see a "Reject All" option. To
| confirm this, set a breakpoint in their JS, change your country
| to an EU one, and the option to "Reject All" cookies appears:
| https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/09wcuy4yh3qqoaw/reject_a...
|
| Here's a screenshot of where I set the breakpoint and changed
| my country to France:
| https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/ju41dpj14pn4onh/bp.png
| t-writescode wrote:
| They chose to spend developer time on that rather than treat
| their users well.
|
| Wow.
| jeoqn wrote:
| They need the ad money to run the website and the better
| analytics to know how to improve it. It's not a mystery.
| smcl wrote:
| This is bad but I've seen worse. One of the bigger networks
| has a ~20second "processing" stage when you opt out of
| these, as a punishment for not clicking "accept" (which
| works instantly)
| LtdJorge wrote:
| TrustArc
| eddieroger wrote:
| They chose adhering to the legal requirements over the
| users, putting them right in the middle of the pack of
| literally all websites and companies run by more than an
| individual. You don't have to continue on to their site if
| you don't wish to.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Are jumbo jets being retired because of fuel economy? If so, is
| there a chance demand for them will return if there's a spike in
| passenger numbers? I would've thought a larger fleet of smaller
| planes would be less efficient because it increases operational
| cost and you have more overhead weight to move around.
| kube-system wrote:
| > if there's a spike in passenger numbers?
|
| The number of airline passengers goes up every year except for
| a couple of years where there have been dips due to major world
| events.
| rdhatt wrote:
| Wendover Productions has a great video on this topic:
|
| Big Plane vs Little Plane (The Economics of Long-Haul Flights)
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlIdzF1_b5M
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Four engine airliners are 2x more expensive to maintain. The
| extension of ETOPS to longer distances was their death knell.
| sofixa wrote:
| > I would've thought a larger fleet of smaller planes would be
| less efficient because it increases operational cost and you
| have more overhead weight to move around.
|
| You'd be wrong. Airline bosses (Willie Walsh? Almost sure it
| was him) have said it literally costs less to have two 787 fly
| one after the other than a single A380. The fuel efficiency of
| twin engine planes compared to 3 or 4 older engines compensates
| for the lower capacity.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| But the 4-engined models can fly more direct routes over
| oceans and uninhabited areas right? Because of ETOPS. Of
| course this is not a problem on many routes.
| mulmen wrote:
| ETOPS is what allows twins to fly routes that would
| otherwise require trijets or four engines. I'm not sure
| what the limits are but flights to Hawaii for example are
| routinely done with twins.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I know, but as far as I know it requires them to stay
| with 200nm or so of an airport. So they can't take the
| most direct route. Also for flights over the poles.
|
| I think four engines still have a benefit there. But I
| guess you don't run a whole airplane model just because
| it's not economical on 2 or 3 routes.
| mulmen wrote:
| I have personally flown from Seattle to Hawaii on a 737
| MAX. That is 2320nmi. So no, the ETOPS limit is not
| 200nmi. There's nothing between the west coast and Hawaii
| but water. You can see AS853 is a nearly straight line
| from Seattle to Honolulu. If any of that deviation is for
| ETOPS it is minor.
|
| ETOPS is time based, not distance based. The 777 has been
| approved by the FAA for ETOPS-330, which is 330 minutes
| of flight time to the nearest airport on one engine.
|
| The 737 MAX is ETOPS-180, so it only has to be within 3
| hours of a suitable airport when running on one engine.
|
| https://flightaware.com/live/airport_status_bigmap.rvt?ai
| rpo...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX
|
| https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/as853#2ef8bfcb
| Armisael16 wrote:
| The 787 has a 330 minute ETOPS certification, so as long
| as it's within 6.5 hours of an airport it can fly there.
|
| That's almost everywhere on the planet except the South
| Pacific and Antarctica.
| mulmen wrote:
| Jumbo jets are not being retired. That term applies to any
| airplane with two aisles between the seats or a "wide body".
| Currently produced examples from Boeing are the 767, 777 and
| 787. The 747 is simply not economical when compared to those
| newer airframes. Mot of the final run of 747s and I believe of
| those still in operation are used for cargo operations, this
| was an expected outcome even in the 1960s, although for
| different reasons. For airlines it is about running the plane
| at capacity and minimizing time on the ground. Airlines choose
| specialized models for the routes they run. The super jumbos
| are simply too big to be practical or economical.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Fuel economy is one piece of the puzzle. Another major piece is
| that passengers prefer the flexibility offered by smaller, more
| frequent flights instead of larger, less frequent flights.
| Macha wrote:
| Fuel efficiency is one part, but the increased consumer
| preference for direct flights is another, while the business
| model for the A380s was basically "ferry all your passengers to
| the nearest hub on A320s then use A380s to bring them from hub
| to hub". But instead larger twinjets like the B787 and A350
| which could do these direct routes more economically won.
| fatih-erikli wrote:
| Great, another proof showing they don't provide real data
| drno123 wrote:
| Greta is not impressed
| ssgodderidge wrote:
| Any flight buffs know the estimated cost of doing something like
| that?
|
| I'm all for having fun, and I love that they spent the money to
| do it
| peteradio wrote:
| There's cost and opportunity cost and marketing, so who knows?
| But it looks like it doubled the leg length, I'd guess cost and
| opportunity cost into the 100k+.
| culi wrote:
| Someone in a different thread estimated 2.4 tons of fuel,
| equating to 16.8 tons of CO2 emissions
|
| For comparison the average US household produces ~7.5 tons of
| CO2 emissions every year so that's ~2.24 years of the average
| household's emissions
| lxgr wrote:
| Do it as part of a flight that needs to happen anyway (such as
| this one, which was a delivery)? Probably not much more than
| the fuel and overtime the pilots needed to fly a few extra
| turns.
| topher515 wrote:
| Not a flight buff, but...
|
| - Jet fuel from NYC to LAX seems to cost ~$10k.[1]
|
| - You pay a pilot $50 / hour salary. (+100% more with
| benefits?)[2]
|
| - Double all of that for a bunch of random things I can't think
| of (airport fees?)
|
| My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly cost
| Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such a large
| company.
|
| [1] https://simpleflying.com/commercial-airliner-fuel-cost/ [2]
| https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/Commercial-Pilot-Salar...
| sofixa wrote:
| > My napkin math seems to indicate this couldn't possibly
| cost Boeing more than $10-20k? Pretty small potatoes to such
| a large company.
|
| Yeah they were losing billions through criminal negligence
| and delayed deliveries of the 737 Max, so a couple of tens of
| thousands for some well needed good PR is nothing. This is
| probably the first bit of it for multiple years now, with all
| the delays in the 777X, assembly quality issues of 787, etc.
| throwanem wrote:
| It feels to me like a final swan song for the era, both
| corporate and economic, in which a project like the 747 was
| possible.
| samstave wrote:
| Yeah but they are also a major contributor to our breakaway
| UAP program with Lockheed - and also, the Horse fucking
| industry.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case
| sofixa wrote:
| That link was... an interesting read. I'd say it merits a
| NSFW tag but it's kind of obvious from the title.
|
| > Pinyan had previously lost the ability to experience
| certain sensations after a motorcycle accident, and he
| had begun to seek out increasingly extreme sexual acts
|
| Almost feel bad for the guy if it weren't for the animal
| cruelty.
| stevehawk wrote:
| There isn't a 747 pilot on the planet making only $50/hr
| eYrKEC2 wrote:
| They more than $20k's worth of publicity from the stunt.
| Totally worth it.
| godot wrote:
| Does that napkin math subtract the cost of the same delivery
| flight but without the stunt?
|
| I didn't read about the flight but I assume that delivery was
| happening anyway, with or without the stunt. I am guessing it
| took an hour or two extra, so the fuel and pilot salary cost
| should only be what was extra in addition to the regular
| flight amount?
| unglaublich wrote:
| Then count the fame you get for it... and it actually
| _increases_ value!
| londons_explore wrote:
| Although destroying the environment for a PR win can
| quickly turn into a PR loss when someone on twitter
| calculates how many polar bears this will kill...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That is a textbook case of buzzkill.
| jehb wrote:
| Being a buzzkill doesn't make it less true, though. I'm
| disappointed to see the parent comment being downvoted.
| kelnos wrote:
| It may be true, but I would expect this sort of waste is
| a drop in the bucket -- drop in the swimming pool, even
| -- compared to all the waste going on over the rest of
| the planet during the same time period.
|
| That's not to say we shouldn't avoid waste, but this
| flight was a pretty momentous occasion (final delivery
| flight of a 747), and I think it's appropriate to mark
| that occasion in some unique manner. Burning a bunch of
| extra jet fuel doesn't seem all _that_ inappropriate,
| especially considering the total amount of jet fuel
| burned in a given day.
|
| There's just really no need for such buzzkillery.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > drop in the swimming pool
|
| That's pretty close. It could be a good chance to educate
| people, perhaps, without turning it into a buzzkill.
| "This plane burned 27 tons of fuel for that pretty
| pattern in the sky, but if that sounds like a lot of fuel
| just wait until you find out that planes burn a million
| tons every day!"
| goostavos wrote:
| It's pedantic buzz killery, which is boring and lame.
|
| Are we going to... not fly planes any more? Drive cars?
| Deliver cargo? Take trips to visit family in another
| town/state/country?
|
| "Hey Tim, how was the weekend?"
|
| "Great. I drove down to Portland to see my mom after her
| surgery, she's doing gr--"
|
| "You decided to spend your weekend destroying the
| environment?!"
| [deleted]
| samstave wrote:
| A single plane has less of an ability to " _Destro The
| Environment_ " than a Single Politician.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| While that's true that no individual action matters, it's
| also true that our individual actions taken as a whole
| has an impact on the world, and because of that, we must
| treat individual actions as though they had the impact of
| collective actions.
| mlindner wrote:
| Collective individuals have simply no way of affecting
| the environment in any major way simply by collective
| behavior change. The only thing that will change things
| is positive policies that encourage good behavior through
| positive methods.
|
| For example by making electric vehicles attractive Tesla
| did more for the environment than possibly any single
| company ever by causing the shift to EVs in the general
| populace's psyche.
|
| Alternatively by doing things like banning plastic straws
| you instead get malicious compliance and dislike for the
| policies. That will never change things in a positive
| direction in the long term.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| In that case we are basically fucked. Nobody is going to
| be elected on a platform of banning things that are fun.
|
| All human action is individual human action. It got us
| into this problem, and is the only thing thay will fix
| it.
| mlindner wrote:
| Individuals who can do things that will change the
| behavior of others through positive reinforcement can
| change things or by going to work at a company that was
| started with one of those efforts in mind. For example
| one of the biggest impact things an individual could do
| right now for climate change is to figure out a way to
| make a concrete that's cheaper than concrete but not made
| in the method that releases CO2 and start a business out
| of it.
|
| My only point was about _collective_ behavior change that
| is often advertised as a way to stop climate change that
| is advertised by many. I think that's completely
| pointless and impossible. For example I do nothing to
| conserve anything in my day to day actions other than not
| wasting money or time. So if you can make CO2 reduction
| possibly simply by saving money and time then it'll
| happen automatically.
|
| Also I'm not so pessimistic about the current direction
| as you. We're headed for a 3 degrees C change in
| temperature which isn't going to have the most disastrous
| impacts that could have happened. There's still also a
| lot of emerging tech that could play out and reduce those
| predictions further.
| [deleted]
| mlindner wrote:
| Well polar bears are not affected first off, and secondly
| the amount of CO2 is basically nothing compared to even
| the daily world CO2 production.
| repiret wrote:
| You pay a 747 pilot way more than $50/hour.
|
| https://www.aviationinterviews.com/pilot/payrates/united-
| par...
| spiderice wrote:
| Seems weird.. you get payed $39/hour in your first year..
| then jump all the way up to $239/hour in your second year
| and never really get a raise beyond that?
| repiret wrote:
| I had assumed it was an error.
| maxerickson wrote:
| The link there is specifically UPS, which is union.
|
| I guess it is probably the case that guys with a couple
| years experience are doing about the same work as guys
| with 10 years (plane smoothly and safely goes from A to
| B).
| [deleted]
| Baxxter wrote:
| Back of envelope ... 1 gallon of fuel per second [0], 2.5 hrs,
| $2.5 per gallon = $22,500
|
| That's uh...pretty rough and I'm not a flight buff, but wanted
| to do the bare minimum for the exercise.
|
| [0]
| https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/qu...
|
| * edited the ppg
| paxys wrote:
| Costs them $0 if they just bill the customer who the delivery
| was for.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Only if the customer wants to pay extra for the stunt
| somat wrote:
| I don't know anything about flight deliveries. But, including a
| set of basic flight maneuvers makes sense to me. In which case
| they would be maneuvering anyway and they decided to go out in
| style. Big salutes to them who set it up.
| jaywalk wrote:
| By the time the plane is delivered, it has already been fully
| flight tested.
| drjasonharrison wrote:
| Yeah, you don't want to find the problems on the delivery
| flight.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Better then than on the first passenger filled flight.
| Don't think of it as the delivery flight. Think of it is
| final test flight
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This is a cargo plane, though, I don't think a passenger
| 747 has been built in a while.
| dylan604 wrote:
| same difference
| dylan604 wrote:
| You can tell nobody from Nascar was involved as there are
| both left AND right turns.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Fun fact: not all nascar tracks are left turn only.
| indrora wrote:
| Yeah when you race them backwards they're right turn
| only.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| I'm guessing it is in the range of 50..60k. The sibling posts
| come up with lower values, including only fuel, ignoring the
| cost of the required regular (flight hours in this case)
| maintenance.
| jleahy wrote:
| (ignore)
| Tepix wrote:
| Decommissioned? It's brand new.
| [deleted]
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| Wisdom of crowds and all that, i'm guessing around $30k ?
|
| My working was:
|
| +2 hours (a path that should take 0.5 hours took 2.5h according
| to flight radar)
|
| According to a random aviation site, an unspecified 747
| revision at unspecified altitude with unspecified engines burns
| 4 litres per second, so take that with a bag of salt!
|
| Jet A1 fuel at $1/litre-ish
|
| $30k-ish ?
| tyincdyon wrote:
| Former pilot here: $3-4 million easy. FAA regulations alone
| require $500k per sky-number drawn by any aircraft [1]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKOFTEN
| [deleted]
| horsawlarway wrote:
| You might have the wrong link there.
| beckingz wrote:
| Citation needed?
|
| Your link is for an old covert drug research program?
| gwill wrote:
| i think you either linked to the wrong article or i
| misunderstood a joke
| ryanisnan wrote:
| I think the link you are looking for is
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/PEBCAK.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| So, how does this work? Do you plot this via the Auto Pilot?
| Like, inserting a list of waypoints?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| You can literally just give the flight computer a list of lat-
| lons and have it fly arbitrary routes in the sky in 3D.
| sokoloff wrote:
| If I was going to do it with my avionics, I'd do it with GPS
| user-defined-waypoints driving the auto-pilot.
| blantonl wrote:
| Given that they flew this below 15k feet, not requiring the
| full IFR flight plan which would be required above that
| altitude, I suspect they might have hand flown this out by
| Moses lake by following a magenta line on a map.
|
| They could have also just programmed the FMS with the waypoints
| and the plane flew itself.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Yeah even one step easier is following the flight director
| that tells you where to point the plane from a first person
| view.
| kashunstva wrote:
| It appears that flight was flown IFR as the cleared route is
| available: SEA V120 EAT 4700N/11924W 4723N/11930W
| 4714N/11915W 4712N/11901W 4714N/11848W 4728N/11831W
| 4714N/11816W 4711N/11803W 4714N/11750W 4722N/11733W
| 4707N/11739W 4708N/11811W 4708N/11856W 4706N/11926W
| 4637N/11918W 4638N/11909W 4657N/11856W 4657N/11913W
| 4701N/11913W 4701N/11849W 4637N/11904W 4638N/11831W
| 4657N/11831W 4645N/11841W 4645N/11831W 4643N/11831W
| 4643N/11849W 4701N/11834W 4701N/11827W 4638N/11826W
| 4638N/11813W 4657N/11800W 4657N/11816W 4701N/11816W
| 4701N/11753W 4637N/11807W 4637N/11749W 4707N/11739W
| 4713N/11737W HLN DPR MCW JOT CEGRM5
|
| Since the clearance includes a STAR, I'm suspect it was all
| filed IFR.
| blantonl wrote:
| That is an amazing IFR flight plan. I wonder if someone
| captured the readback on the radio. You're cleared to the
| Cincinnati airport via ......
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Some of the turns are way too tight to be done by the
| autopilot. But it looks very regular, so I would suspect some
| custom control system was used. Would also be interested to
| know how they did this!
| jaywalk wrote:
| > Some of the turns are way too tight to be done by the
| autopilot.
|
| Not sure what you're looking at, but this is absolutely
| incorrect.
|
| > I would suspect some custom control system was used.
|
| Not a chance in hell.
| blantonl wrote:
| _custom control system_
|
| This would be the very last explanation in aviation for sure.
| Like, dead last in terms of speculation.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| What a shitty website. Throws up a modal dialog that says:
| This site uses cookies By clicking "Accept all
| cookies", you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to
| enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our
| marketing efforts.
|
| No option to decline some or all cookies. No option to keep using
| the website without clicking accept. I hope some European sues
| them and wins under GDPR.
| voakbasda wrote:
| Does the GPDR even apply here? If it does, maybe I should start
| blocking all of Europe's netblocks....
| seszett wrote:
| Why would they put such a message if they didn't have the
| GDPR in mind?
|
| I think like many other (mainly US) sites it's partly to make
| a statement, and partly misguided belief that they have to
| put some kind of message.
|
| In reality it would be safer to ignore GDPR if you believe it
| shouldn't apply to you because you're not EU based. If you're
| doing something specifically for EU visitors then it becomes
| clear you're also targeting them as visitors and then you
| have to comply with GDPR (this popup isn't compliant).
| someweirdperson wrote:
| Seems fair. Why should they treat their (voluntary) web-
| visitors any better than the owners/pilots of the aircraft they
| collect data from without any form of consent?
| mrchucklepants wrote:
| The flight data is broadcast from the aircraft. Anyone with a
| receiver can listen. There is no expectation of privacy
| regarding this data.
| Fauntleroy wrote:
| Y'all stop downvoting this, it's a legitimate complaint.
| dpifke wrote:
| It's being downvoted because comments like these are against
| the guidelines[0]:
|
| _Please don 't complain about tangential annoyances--e.g.
| article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button
| breakage. They're too common to be interesting._
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| addandsubtract wrote:
| Not sure what device you're on, but on desktop Firefox, I see a
| "Show Purposes" button and have the option to configure which
| cookies I want and don't.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Huh. I'm also on desktop Firefox (Windows), and I didn't see
| that button. But now 8 minutes later, I don't see the cookie
| popup at all.
| [deleted]
| adenozine wrote:
| That's badass. A proper send off.
| mulmen wrote:
| Boeing does a lot of this actually. Here's another 747-8F drawing
| a massive "12" over the state of Washington to celebrate the
| Seahawks reaching the Super Bowl.
|
| https://www.travelcodex.com/seattle-seahawks-boeing-747-800/
| [deleted]
| walrus01 wrote:
| Also in eastern washington weird things drawn in the sky, google
| "eastern washington sky dicks" for a somewhat more phallic image
| representation.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=eastern+w...
|
| The Whidbey NAS pilots who did it got in trouble, as I recall.
|
| https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-u-s-navy-released-tr...
| RektBoy wrote:
| https://samchui.com/2023/02/01/the-last-boeing-747-delivery/
| cale- wrote:
| Reminds me of Qantas's final 747 route.
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-53509361
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-02 23:02 UTC)