"...one wing is stalled more than the other."


Is there such a thing as a wing being partially or not fully stalled? I'm thinking...no. It's either stalled (broken boundary layer) or it's intact.
Educate me.


Caveat: a design could have a wing designed with washout (twist) so that one portion along its span stalls before another portion.

John took some time away from flying, several years in fact. Deciding to rent from the local FBO he did some ground and flight training with one of their instructors. The instructor got John 61.56 legal again and endorsed him to rent from the FBO. The instructor got a new job in a new city.


The rental agreement says John's private insurance is primary and they provided him with minimum coverage amounts. He paid his premium for the year. The rental agreement also says that John must remain 90 days current or must do another checkout flight with them before renting their airplane. John worked out an exception that allows him to fly with ABC, inc that has the same type airplane in their fleet and as long as he does so, he is exempt from their 90 day rule.



John went flying with ABC with their CFI, Jack and did some pattern work, including a night landing to a full stop. John is now day legal according to the FARs.


John wants to improve his confidence but isn't quite ready to fly solo again. He has a friend who is a CFI and is cleared to fly and instruct with ABC. John thinks that 1 or 2 more flights just might get him where he wants to be, but there's an administrative hangup preventing ABC from dispatching any airplanes.


John proposes to his friend that they rent from the FBO and John will be legal PIC and his friend will be a passenger, but by agreement will provide instruction. The CFI friend balks at the arrangement. John wants to preserve the peace but believes the flight is 100% legit, so he finds small print in the FBO rental agreement that says that only approved pilots may operate the controls of their aircraft.


Who is right?

I watched this video thinking there are several controversial things that could be discussed and that maybe this should posted in SZ, but alas considering that it starts with an interest in aviation, decided to post it here to share it.


There's some discussion about human weakness/fallibility, possibly skewing national interests, potential for a sub-story about sexism and finally some reality that we are still plagued by the problem today with the author saying that 6% of American GA accidents have a shared root cause (not going to spoil it).


It's 27mins in length, but worth speeding up a bit to watch the whole thing as it's replete with diagrams and citations.


Enjoy.

In case it wasn't clear, I am confirming that I am of the Few, the Proud.
@Rush reminded me of that detail I've left mysterious.


I served on active duty 1999-2007, Honorably Discharged and making the rank of Sergeant in 2yrs 11months, my terminal rank.


There are a lot of details in the dashed area, which is why I never talk much about my service, only revealing it the last 2 years, which is bittersweet considering that this month marks the 2 year anniversary of what would have been my retirement eligibility.


I have recently been told that my legacy and name is remembered in the Corps, recently invoked and influencing some current events, something for which I am proud though it came at the cost of my own career.


Semper Fidelis

I just recently learned the word, transagression. Apparently, one can put two words together and make a new word that requires cultural context to really know what it means. Whodathunkit.


Wondering what the in-crowd over at Pilotspin is saying about Chappelle's latest Netflix special, The Closer- I ran a search and to my aghast there wasn't anything.


I'm a Chappelle fan, but have to admit it wasn't until controversy was enflamed, did I actually watch the thing. I was busy binge watching Better Call Saul, the spin-off from Breaking Bad, but that's another post, maybe.


Here's an article about The Closer. I warn you that it reveals a lot about the show and the jokes, and it provides some context. I'm in agreement- there should not have been any controversy, except for those that purposely wanted to skew Dave's jokes to make the proverbial "mountain out of a molehill". IMO, they got more people to see it than otherwise might have. I wonder what form of mental derangement is that in the DSM?


Here's the article

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/8/15/2046070/-Taliban-leader-and-top-commanders-are-among-the-5000-fighters-Trump-released-against-objections?fbclid=IwAR3TYj9EW4FUtIw67gEXVDe8cHaMRFFM-8MxzNUtlxv-44KHTIlCVS5bxKA


From the article:
Keep in mind that Donald J. Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David the week of Sept. 11 to strike what was essentially a surrender deal, but cancelled after the obvious backlash of hosting the Taliban on 9/11. Instead, he sent Pompeo to Qatar to sign the deal with the Taliban, and announced that he had given the Taliban everything they asked for because “everyone is tired of war.”

Before I decided to post this topic, I did a search of the board to see if it had been discussed before and more importantly if this article had been posted; it had not. My research turned up 3 noteworthy threads of discussion here with one each in 2016, 2017 and 2018. Without further adieu here's a snippet about Checking the Checkers...


“In the counter-intelligence world, this is what is known as a “wilderness of mirrors” – creating a chaotic information environment that so perfectly blends truth, half-truth and fiction that even the best can no longer tell what’s real and what’s not.

Thus, when I reached out to David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, for comment, I fully expected him to respond with a lengthy email in Snopes’ trademark point-by-point format, fully refuting each and every one of the claims in the Daily Mail’s article and writing the entire article off as “fake news.”

It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I’d be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I’m precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce.”

This absolutely astounded me. Here was the one of the world’s most respected fact checking organizations, soon to be an ultimate arbitrator of “truth” on Facebook, saying that it cannot respond to a fact checking request because of a secrecy agreement.

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it’s secret.”

and

"...This is precisely the same approach used by Facebook for its former Trending Topics team and more recently its hate speech rules (the company did not respond to a request for comment).

From the outside, Silicon Valley looks like a gleaming tower of technological perfection. Yet, once the curtain is pulled back, we see that behind that shimmering façade is a warehouse of good old fashioned humans, subject to all the same biases and fallibility, but with their results now laundered through the sheen of computerized infallibility. Even my colleagues who work in the journalism community and by their nature skeptical, had assumed that Snopes must have rigorous screening procedures, constant inter- and intra-rater evaluations and ongoing assessments and a total transparency mandate. Yet, the truth is that we simply have no visibility into the organization’s inner workings and its founder declined to shed further light into its operations for this article."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/?fbclid=IwAR2-h5K29Pudnms9x4bnuPOXcgs-DsYqwGuVus0MlChQ_ruGz9MGD2zA1_M&sh=4960ae1a227f