flying dog

Sorry, but this also may be a good read. http://www.geowebguru.com/articles/199-map-projections-and-coordinate-systems-part-2

Oh, P.S. I also think it is to do with the different STYLES of maps. There is the "Flat" one, where the world is simply a FLAT, RECTANGULAR shape. Then there is the one where the world is a zig-zag shaped thing which is more accurate to the actual size/shape. I forget the names, but Lambert conformal conic comes to mind. The polar areas are "distorted" with the rectangular maps and look bigger than they are due to how the map is drawn. Sorry, getting off topic. If you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

Well, that is a good question. Alas the answer isn't as simple as it seems. Ok, my understanding of why we have different datums. I may be wrong, but I am sure the idea is correct. OK, maps originally didn't have Lat/Long. This was a later addition. And there are MAPS and there are CHARTS - I am still coming to understanding the specific differences but anyway. I'll call them maps when they could also be CHARTS, but for the sake of simplicity....... MAPS shall suffice. Say it is WWII. Your side have maps and the last thing you want is the enemy to know where you are. This can be reduced by using a custom DATUM. Yes, I know: Millitary maps use a different system - GRIDs etc. Indulge me. So unless they know the datum and where it is, your maps are not as useful to them as they could be. Ok? Now, Let's say someone wants to map Oz. They use/pick/create a datum and use it. Someone else in Yank land wants to make a map of America. It would be "silly" us using their datum, and/or them using ours. So they have their own datum. Likewise for Europe. Then there are the POLAR areas. Normal Lat/Long don't work too well there. So, let's say everyone used ONE datum. It is 1900. Or when ever. The accuracy of the datum is technology dependant. As "back then" it isn't as good as it is today, don't get ahead of where I am going. So, everyone uses that datum and make their maps with that datum. There will be inherant errors with any map/datum system. Nothing is PERFECT. I don't undertand the shortcomings of different datums and/or the errors between them. Then technology improves. Errors are detected. A new datum is defined. Everyone starts using the new datum on the newer maps. Therefore all maps MUST have their datum specified on them. As well as that the dates for which the map is valid. There are other things which MUST/SHOULD be on a map but that's outside the scope of this post - and my knowledge at this point in time. Another example: Say you want to map out your property - you have a BIG farm out the back of NSW. It isn't for anything legal. It is just for your benefit. You can set your house/home as the datum and refere all points to it. Getting/using the "official" datum is too much work and/or not applicable to your needs on the map you are making. Sorry I can't go into all the specifics, but it has been too long and some things I never learnt. But I hope this kind of explains why we have so many datums. :)

Yes it is/was a downloaded app. The idea behind it is if the phone is "lost" someone can pick it up, see a picture of me and contact details. Alas it is buggy and I want to un-install it.

Just in. Heard sketchy details on the radio. Plane crashed. 2 pilots and 1 dog ok. (No, it wasn't a relative.) Alas no more details at this stage.

Well, when I look at the app list (again: the ^ button on the main screen) it shows as OWNER. Un-intall and settings/application manager don't show it. Got me beet'.

Alas it doesn't show up in the "Settings/manage applications list. ONLY when I am on the home screen and press the ^ button (bottom left of screen) :(

Ok, I shall ask on the HTC forum too, but I am "stuck" with an app. HTC Desire. It shows up on othe app list when I press the ^ key (bottom left of the phone) But when I go to UNINSTALL, it isn't listed. How do I remove it? It is called "owner". I may even annoy the person who wrote it too.

"Hence the reason we have endorsements/exams/test's/ evaluations etc" None of those were really broken either. This information is given to us and we process it as we see fit. The "Trick" is knowing how/when to apply this knowledge in varying situations.

Merve, sure. But I am not going to tell people what to do If they want to break the ruled it is their choice. All I can do is see what they did and assess the situation and make sure I understand what happened. Now, let's review what has been said: 1 - RAA planes are (for now) not required to carry EPRIBS/ELB. 2 - I haven't read what EXACTLY happened. Was it an EMERGENCY landing or an un-expected/scheduled landing? All I have read here is SPECULATION of what happened. 3 - Was there a REAL emergency? Sure walking 50 Km is not a good idea, but the question stands. Until we know what happened, I am not going to say they did anything wrong. It was THEIR choice not to have/use an ELB. Likewise with the phone. They are alive. Would I do the same? Well, that's my choice. That isn't what is being discussed. As I said at the start: I can use the information they give to better my knowledge and choices I make.

Yeah, interesting. Good to hear they are ok too. Not wanting to take sides on what happened, but would like to point out somel things: Lilfe is a learning curve. Luckily they "got away" with what happened THIS TIME. Only they know if they will ever do it again. As for the rest of us: "We" need to look at what happened and possibily re-think what we would do. Although the arguement of "poor/no mobile coverage" was mentioned, it seems strange not to be able to think about the possible problems if the big fan stops spinning and you are forced to land. ELB/EPIRB or a mobile with known coverage. Either one or better still: Both. Satellite phones *may* be a good idea too. WRT the ELB/EPIRB. Well, one idea for consideration is that the plane owner has one and whom ever uses the plane takes it. I think what may be good is if the people involved post an HONEST review of what happened saying both the good and bad things that happened leaving out personal bias and be as factual as possible. This would be most helpful to many people.

If you are interested in reading the latest about the QANTAS A380 who's engine exploded.... http://www.recreationalflying.com/downloads/aircraft-maintenance-2/ NOTE: It is 900kb in size Don't ask where I got it.

The other night I recorded and now just watched a doco on the "first" hi-jacking of a plane where it was only domestic. Anyway, what ever: It was a 727. Do 727's still have a rear door? I remember boarding planes from the back, but there were L1011's, Tri-stars and other planes. What was what I dunno. But they said that the 727 had a rear passanger door - ie: One which opens at the back inline with the plane's body. So.....? Do they still have that door?

WRT the first one, Yeah, "Billzilla" - Great bloke.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I should try to build one of these..... http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/teens-solar-death-ray-can-melt-concrete-20110204-1afxk.html

Can't remember, It was on the radio and I just happened to overhear it. As I said, I will try to get the podcast.

I shall try to get the "podcast" and include it here - if possible. That may remove the ambiguity.

The "reporter" was being interviewed on the radio about "looking death in the face"...... A bit of hype anyway. But he was recalling this occurence. Talking them through it. Just the detail given - to me - was a bit tooooo much. Though it was supposed to be about "close calls" and all that, I just can't believe it as he said. I can't belive the army/air force would allow such a flight with those limits. If it had to be done, they would have given them the plane with the needed systems.

The AJ's? The reporter has a big enough mouth that he makes mountains of mole hills quite well enough with no assistance required at all.

Well that is what "worries" me. This is a MILITARY flight. There was an Air Crash Investigation where a similar things happened. Ok, "it happenes", but this dork telling people in the real world about this? Maybe they shouldn't be doing it, but I think this is stepping over the line of what they should be talking about and what they shouldn't.

Stareing death in the face. I'm listening to the radio and one of these "famous" news people are on. :csm: He's talking about when he and his crew were flying in a plane to Torres Straight islands. They were flying into the airport and had to be there before dawn. It was a night flight. He went on saying they were getting close and were starting to land but there was a problem with getting the airport to turn on the lights. Cutting to the chase, he was saying the plane wasn't capable of landing without the lights of the runway and they were pretty well thinking they were going to die. They were getting low on fuel, and all this stuff. "I said to the producer it's not worth waking the camera/audio guy. Let them die in their sleep." Errrr...... So the plane was flying below minimus - right? It didn't have enough equipment to land unless the runway lights were on. Would this be a legal flight? Military or otherwise?

Well, yes they are BIG ozzie, but as I get 747's and all other sorts of planes taking off right over my place, I kind of know the normal height at which they are. When the jumbos are that low they are quite-ish too but WOW those 380's...... You can usually tell the 380's by the wing depth/size. Front to back is more than the 74's. And if you get a real close look I guess you could inspect the wheel doors. The 340's I think have that "extra" middle wheel at the back/main set of wheels in the middle of the plane.

If anyone knows the Sydney layout I live in the inner west. About 10k out of the city. Just recently I have noticed some A380s taking off over my place. Ok, that's nothing new, but the altitude - or lack there of! I can swear that they would be not much over 2,000 feet AMSL. They are LOW! and the only reason I know they are there is because I see them. They are quiet as....... When you hear some jets taking off they have the "balls to the wall" and they are climbing like nobody's business. These A380s are just on a slow climb and the engines are hardly ticking over. Yeah, I guess it is a "de-rated takeoff" (is that the right term?) but wow are is it amazing. You look up and can count the number of people looking out the window back at you. Fantastic!

Facthunter, I've heard similar versions of that story. I don't know if it was the same story re-hashed or it was another exciting story. As it was told to me I don't want to repeat it as I would not be able to repeat it was was told.