- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- June 2014
- May 2014
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
I’m near certain that umpteen zillion posts have written about this subject. Nevertheless, here I go with my addition to the pile.
How do you teach students to land safely, who didn’t know how to fly a mere 10 hours ago?
The answer, to me, is 100% about feel, energy management (à la glider teaching), looking, sensing and adjusting as necessary. A trap that I, and many of my colleagues, have fallen into is thinking that landing is something a student will embrace if they are given firm numbers, power settings, checkpoints etc. Any type of recipe that emphasizes standardization exclusively does two big disservices to the student:
Conceiving, designing, prototyping and launching a great airplane isn’t enough. You need buckets of money. Container ships of it. Some connections with the mob, won’t hurt either. Better yet, if you are in a big hurry, a rich and connected European aunt or uncle. Perhaps the best, simplest overview of how it all went down can be found here.
That way, when Boeing comes after you, you can run to the only other safe harbor in town – Airbus. A good lesson for early entrepreneurs here (not that Bombardier has the “hey… Armand.. make me a snowmobile, esti!” feel to it anymore) is that being heavily diluted and living to talk about it is better than being cut off from the US market and certain death.
If I was an aviation tarot card reader I would say something smart like, “There was no other way for this to work. It was written!”
For us scrappy people of the start up world, this is a great story if only for how it ended. While Bombardier to some may no longer be the epitome of agility, brilliance or innovation, it is nice to see a relative “little person” find safe harbor from the sledgehammer of abuse, myopic policy, and too many litigious hit men in the boardroom.
I’m not a terribly patriotic Canadian, but I think this is an interesting story worth following.
Hegemony, aerospace, and the military industry industrial complex make for great reading when trying to understand the 51st State “nort of de border” as we say in Maine. Richard Aboulafia writes extensively about the link between US prime contractors and the Canadian companies that play second fiddle as subcontractors for US aerospace manufacturing.
It is really hard to fight when we are so intertwined. Bonne chance Justin. Donald, more reading recommended.
For those of us that extract money from airplanes and aerospace related things, the evolution of the pilot archetype fascinates me.
Jeff Friedrich outlines the current trend of the marginalization of skilled labor in one of the best articles on the subject. Labor, regulation, technology and business models conspire to forsake a key ingredient – people.
While many debate that automation will do us in anyway, why not have some competent people around just in case?
If Elon Musk has anything to say about it (prediction), it might not be a bad idea to keep them even better trained and fed too. The car you can park. For critical aircraft failures, why not have a pilot with a compass and watch? And throw in some half decent training and compensation for good measure.