If they rebooted it, and it started working again, would you just walk away? Or would you try to figure out why the fuck it needed to be rebooted in the first place?
Thales or Collins or Honeywell or whoever provided the system would. The technician at the airport would only follow a procedure listed on a checklist, which probably includes rebooting the system.
Ironically there have been a fair few cases of aircraft incidents where components were reported as bad by pilots but the issue couldn't be reproduced on the ground and "it worked" after a reboot and self-test so they just kept using it (with this cycle repeating multiple times). Often there were clear physical problems (cracked solder joints, stuck microswitches, broken insulation) that were only discovered after a catastrophic failure but could've been discovered with a more inquisitive engineering culture.
I would argue a "just reboot it" culture leads to more problems -- engineers should be empowered to diagnose problems before they become catastrophic. In the world of software we even have mechanisms for extracting data from failed systems to root cause them later, and yet most people do not take that step before "just reboot[ing] it".
[1]: AirAsia 8501, Lauda Air 004, and SmartLynx Estonia 9001 come to mind.
But these intermittent failures lead to delays and worse. The sheer cost of repeat events leads to action. If deferrable at all the standard troubleshooting is mostly remove and replace. The repair and reliability processes identify these rogue units fairly fast and the actual rates of that in a well functioning airline are very low.
Yes, I remember a flight that sat at the gate past departure time, the explanation to the passengers was that some essential piece of equipment wasn't functioning, they had tried restarting it, and it was going to be replaced. About 30 minutes late, we were on our way.
Right, rebooting only really makes sense if you understand why the reboot is going to fix the problem. As in, corrupted volatile state is reasonably fixed with a reboot. Any hardware issues or persistent state problems could well get worse.
The vast majority of the problems were a system that missed the time window to report it's self test. A reboot got things in order.
It was a small fleet, so we had a pretty good idea if the same problem kept popping up so we could look more into that system.
A few fault codes were well known enough that if you called with that one the answer was to shut down and find a hotel, you aren't going anywhere and no reboot will take care of it. (bad detectors in the engines for about 10 years until a redesign)
All he had to do was say no and keep his dick in his pants. Use some judgement, think about your wife and kids (oh yeah and all that national security bullshit). The man with all his money and power can't say no, that's what's absurd.
The question is how long took and if he was happy with his family.
It's easy for a professional with china backend to play with your feelings, much easier if you have normal family life or worse.
Is the woman likable it's just a matter of times. (Independent of the gender)
If this happens within a week, I would agree, if this happens within months the gender you like can makes your heart jump if you are I a very long term relationship.
I think this is true, but there are still reasons to like RWD:
- Smaller turning circle because the front wheels can turn further without complicated engineering.
- More traction when accelerating on a wet surface, due to weight transfer backwards. (1)
- Usually better weight distribution due to engine layout.
There are other downsides in addition to what you mentioned:
- Any scenario where you will definitely lose traction, then rear-wheel drive becomes harder to control. There was an old Top Gear episode with a steep grassy hill, and drivers of the RWD cars could not get up it. (2)
- The transmission tunnel required for RWD
- Reduced fuel economy due to having to turn the power 90 degrees (assuming the engine is mounted in the front). (3)
1) This one may sound like unnecessary acceleration, and it probably often is, but there are situations where it can arise, especially if you prefer older cars. There is one particular hill I used to encounter frequently, where you are trying to turn onto a main road, so you want to accelerate fairly briskly to avoid waiting for a huge gap in traffic. On economy tires, in the wet, you can easily reach the limits of FWD. I would see many cars time a gap, and then have to rapidly decide to give up on it when their acceleration was much slower than they expected due to wheel spin. I think there may have been bus lane paint on the road too, but I'm not certain. Obviously AWD is even better than RWD for traction, but at that point, that is usually only when requiring rapid acceleration.
2) I suppose with perfect/computer assisted driving, RWD would out-perform FWD.
3) I once searched, and had a very hard time quantifying this, but it is almost certainly a few percent, and perhaps more. There are also weight differences involved because of the long drive-shaft, but I think the effect is larger than that. It is very hard to find an apples-to-apples comparison.
RWD cars also feel much nicer to steer, even when just driving around town. The fact that the steering axle doesn't receive engine torque makes working the steering wheel while moving feel smoother and less jerky.
But then the base model with only one clock would need a clock that reads the can bus, and something putting the time on the CAN bus. Instead they just put a cheap ass standalone clock in the base model. And this clock trickles up to the models with more features.
IIRC at least one of the two other displays optionally take turn-by-turn remote guidances from the nav. So it can easily have a time data type added to that data, and they didn't. Though, all I researched for was for an outdated model of a car, and it seems one of three desynched clocks appear to be not be present anymore, and the desynced clock count must have gone down by one, unless they compensated for the loss by adding one.
No? Presumably the one base-model clock would be the canonical clock writing its idea of the time to the bus. No need to read it, and no need for a hidden clock anywhere.
reply