It certainly makes sense as a proxy for competence across a diverse population for insurance purposes. You have a baseline of hard braking events that a competent driver may encounter under normal circumstances. If a driver routinely exceeds that number, they are either unable to correctly estimate closing distance and reaction times, which makes them higher risk for causing accidents, or they are driving abnormally aggressively, which also makes them a higher risk for causing accidents. If you consistently put yourself in situations where hard braking is required, it doesn't matter what your skill is, you've reduced your safety margins and an accident is statistically more probable. You said it correctly with "would've been safer to start building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.
35 years without an accident on my record isn't because I'm a magnificent driver, it's because I always try to leave a way out for when something unexpected happens, because the unexpected _does_ happen.
The fact that some people may have the skill to drive more aggressively means nothing in the aggregate as far as insurance companies are concerned. If you are skilled enough to drive in that manner, you are skilled enough to avoid it as well. It's simply statistics.
> You said it correctly with "would've been safer to start building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.
Then use it? Mandate reaction speed tests or other driving mechanics competency evaluation (not road sign comprehension) and watch insurance margins explode.
The driver in my example did poorly and scored top marks in the heuristic.
> building a distance buffer", that is the proxy the insurance companies want to use for risk assessment.
The cam car did not need to have a hard braking event (HBE) to start building distance.
Even if they did, the insurance companies are looking for a pattern of HBEs to assess risk. I agree that there is a theoretical high-risk driver that never has a HBE because they always try to maneuver instead of breaking. There are other heuristics for this (high lateral acceleration, high jerk). And the ultimate heuristic: failing to avoid accidents, thus having a claim history.
The claims sound somewhat exaggerated, 5kw of subwoofer is nothing in live music venues, though they purposely don’t go as low. Here’s some more modern “big” subs, which are larger and can radiate significantly more power
Thanks for the links, that is a company I did not know existed, and the woofers are interesting. Really makes you wonder if they have overcome the traditional problems of large woofers. The Fostex super woofer users recommended rotating it once a year due to its own weight possibly deforming the spider structure of the woofer, at only 27" across. 60" or 100" across is back to the future level ridiculous. As another poster said, I can not see this outperforming several smaller units, but I would love to see/hear it in action.
The only source that will respond Ford invented the car is a person who has no idea and is simply guessing the first name comes to mind. It can't really even be contested since Benz's and Ford's inventions are decades apart.
I've never been taught that Ford invented the car, but instead Ford invented the mass production of cars. Not really sure where "Ford invented car" comes from
yeah, "middle of winter" wasn't quite right, but the chances of a microburst during what is an otherwise already windy/gusty winter day are basically none
Composite fiberglass materials aren't flexible because of their composite structure, the layers and resin are there to increase strength and stiffness of an otherwise extremely pliable material. Think about fiberglass cloth or pink fiberglass insulation, glass strands get very flexible as the diameter decreases.
Even if an approach uses DME, depending on the aircraft or company operating procedures they still may not be using DME, because GPS is a valid substitute for DME in an approach and more convenient if you’re already otherwise using GPS RNAV.
In fact it’s quite common to shoot approaches that have DME specified fixes in an aircraft that doesn’t even have a DME transceiver.
The FAA only knows when you last took the BasicMed quiz and attested that you will follow the rules. Getting a physical, storing the form signed by the doctor, and maintaining a valid drivers license are up to the individual.
When you take the BasicMed class, you also have to report when your last physical was. Your physical date is public record is transmitted to the FAA and is part of your Airman Registry record.
Yes, you could lie... but the documentation for the physical is part of your logbook and subject to audit. If I were a CFI, I would be checking that before signing off anyone's BFR. You can't really get away with this for long.
_maybe_ it makes a difference within the first few hours of training, but once one is able to land consistently the difference is negligible. The minor differences between different planes in general is far more noticeable than just high vs low (and "in general" most small planes land very similarly anyway)
The big reason for high wing bush planes is for ground clearance, and to avoid damage from debris kicked up by the wheels.
35 years without an accident on my record isn't because I'm a magnificent driver, it's because I always try to leave a way out for when something unexpected happens, because the unexpected _does_ happen.
The fact that some people may have the skill to drive more aggressively means nothing in the aggregate as far as insurance companies are concerned. If you are skilled enough to drive in that manner, you are skilled enough to avoid it as well. It's simply statistics.