that's actually how take-off distance is defined regulatory. The take-off distance of a plane is over a 50ft obstacle (i.e. a line of trees at the end of the runway or similar).
The problem with pusher configuration is that the prop operates in turbulent air, that has already ben disturbed by going around the rest of the airplane. Whereas in tractor configuration, the prop grabs "clean" air. This is traditionally cited as the reason why pusher prop planes are louder (from the outside). In fact, one of the noisiest GA planes is the Cessna 337, which is a pull-push twin configuration.
The advantage of the Piaggio Avanti is that you can do away with the prop heat completely, as the hot exhaust from the turboprop engine simply blows on the blades. Which makes for a very nice anti-ice system.
interestingly, I don't have much trouble with that, as it works exactly like most airplanes that I fly as a pilot.
An airplane autopilot is a dumb device, in that it does execute _exactly_ the plan you tell it to, and it is up to the pilot to at all times decide whether the current plan still makes sense or needs to be altered. So the pilot makes the strategic decisions, and leaves most of the physical tasks of flying to the autopilot.
I find myself using my M3 w/FSD in exactly the same way, as that I put on autosteer pretty much immediately when I'm out of the driveway, but I constantly nudge it into the lane that I want it to be in (by using the turn signal) or push the accelerator when I think it is taking too long pondering a turn. So i leave the physical driving (keep lane and distance) to the car but manage the car to always go exactly where I want it.
I have no trouble staying alert this way when doing medium long drives. Long highway drives where autopilot is so good that it requires no manual interaction is where the trouble starts and I find it hard to keep paying attention.
This is where in an airplane you have a copilot and can discuss strategic things like overnight stops, fuel stops, etc... Maybe Tesla needs a built-in chatbot to make me do that :)
Isn't airplane autopilot considered to be significantly easier than automobile autopilot? Fundamentally, it's PID to track a bearing and elevation, and the worst kind of emergency it's likely to encounter is rough weather or some kind of mechanical problem with the plane itself, neither of which need to be handled with sub-second response time the way many road emergencies do.
I get what you're saying about the physical/strategic split, but my perception is that automobile autopilots are simply not good enough to be trusted with the "physical" stuff in a hands-off way like an airplane's can. And that's mostly because driving a car in a straight line down a highway is way harder than flying a plane in a straight line in an empty sky.
"I have no trouble staying alert this way when doing medium long drives. Long highway drives where autopilot is so good that it requires no manual interaction is where the trouble starts and I find it hard to keep paying attention."
Exactly!!!!!!
The trouble is when your attention wanes and you don't know exactly when you should be paying attention. What I found is the small amount of automation my car does is wonderful to keep my exhaustion down. When I drove for 4 hours in my 2012 prius, it was a chore, i had to do ALL the mental math myself. When I drive my 2023 CX-50 I have to pay attention at least 30% less, and that 30% is a massive difference, it feels like 90%. And any time my attention wanes, the car starts complaining because I am drifting or not putting enough immediate response to the road. It becomes a "pay attention quickly" wake-up call that happens within seconds of attention waning.
The worry is when the car doesn't snap you back into that attention mode, and you just trust it, right up to the problem.
The guy who ignores all established standards (do one thing well) in order to reinvent a square wheel, now works for the company, that, wait a minute, has been well known for ignoring all established standards (IE box model anyone?). Yup, he's going to do just fine!
There used to be a (long) time where everybody ignored web standards, and each browser had their own extensions. But you are right: it was Microsoft who tried to introduce complete vendor lock-in with ActiveX controls - I couldn't use my private banking without it, for example. And it wasn't that long time ago.
> ignoring all established standards (IE box model anyone?)
Funny you should mention that.
IE box model was correct from the practical point of view, and the standard was wrong. Today every single CSS reset forces IE box model with box-sizing: border-box;
Forgive my ignorance, but what's this "deadline for EICAS" you are talking about? Are they going to change part 25 certification requirements? Is there a source, a draft document for that?
