Imagine showing up to an HOA meeting with a presentation on why we need to spend ten million dollars on a localizer and glideslope array so Larry wouldn’t have to divert to O’Hare when it’s foggy again.
I can’t imagine this being used for anything other than daylight VFR flying, which doesn’t need radio guidance or even guidance in general beyond the airstrip itself. It’s also possible that there are lights, and they’re just too small to see when not lit.
Naw most VFR unguided airstrips like this don't have anything in the way of landing assistance. The idea being that they'd never fly at night time and divert to a nearby IFR airport if there's sudden weather. Like literal fair weather pilots.
Because this is a small general aviation field. This is for doctors flying their Cirrus SR22 in and out of. You might be surprised how many airfields are probably around you and how many of those are just a strip of grass with some hangers off to the side.
Why not? Less risk of being hit by a plane if they’re in the sky and requirements for a pilot license are much stricter. In a plane crash occupants are more likely to die than innocent bystanders, compared to cars that are designed for safety only for those on the inside.
Plane pollution is not that much worse than a car. Depending on what metric you measure it can be better (planes are more fuel efficient and thus less CO2. Small planes like the picture generally use lead fuel and old engine designs that pollute more) on long trips.
Nearly all land near small runways and airports that fly planes using AvGas will have lead contamination. That’s because lead is still used in most aviation fuels a consumer plane would use. Runways are also required to have and use PFAS in firefighting foam for emergencies. Training and system tests will dump that stuff in the surrounding area.
Unless these fine folks have A380s they’re paying a hefty premium for lead exposure and PFAS in their water and soil.
Lead is only one factor of pollution though. You will note that i acknowledged it exists. There is no objective way to say what is the most important factor or how you compare them.
No, planes are not more fuel efficient, even driving alone a car. The reason why it costs more to go by car is due to many reasons, especially the higher cost of fuel at petrol stations.
Yes, some light planes have fuel economy similar to efficient cars (which is very impressive considering how fast they are relative to cars). If you consider the advantages of direct, straight line routing, it’s not hard for planes to do better on fuel economy.
We’re not talking about jets here, though some of those do very well in mpg on a per passenger basis.
bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding
Technically, the CO2 animals exhale is carbon neutral because it’s from plants you eat (or your food eats). Unless you’re eating petroleum derived products of course.
I say technically because while the plants themselves are carbon neutral, modern food production and distribution, especially meat production, still has a large carbon footprint. So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.
Don’t forget that many small propeller driven aircraft run on leaded gas, and it’s a formulation of leaded gas that has 10x the lead that motor fuel used to.
But, didn’t you hear the Midgley guy who invented TEL like 100 years ago? You can safely breathe it and even wash your hands in it! (said right after he got lead poisoning)
That was a great watch - it’s cool to find out the history.
I must say, society is much better off without widespread use of TEL, but as someone who used to do racecar things, TEL works like magic. A little goes a LONG way, and Midgely did legitimately stumble upon something with very high effect for the concentration (they also touch on ethanol in the video which has the drawback of needing a lot).
I’m not opposed to using it in a small scale racing context (like definitely not NASCAR) because it’s so fucking useful and the quantity is unlikely to cause harm. Unfortunately so much bad has been done with it at this point, I don’t think that’s a very popular opinion.
Whatever your views on it, it’s the only thing that can make gasoline legitimately 120+ octane, and that has huge implications for some types of racing.
Worth noting that the amount of aviation fuel burned annually should make it a negligible contributer to environmental lead contamination compared to widespread automotive use (although I’m sure it contributes on airport grounds).
Edit: All the pilots I know want to use unleaded, and it was recently approved after being stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare process, but market forces may make it hard to adopt.
You’re only taking into account pollution and i bet you with the barrier of entry and cost accounted there would be less pollution from flying compared to driving.
I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.
It’s quite simple really. Less people would be able to fly, so those that can’t will just stand still in confusion until they die from starvation. The remaining population would be the small fraction who were able to afford to fly. Net loss in pollution.
Piston driven planes still do use leaded gasoline. There is a very recent push to certify lead free avgas and progress is being made but they’re being a bit opaque and seemingly rushing it which is making a lot of people weary of it.
Planes that would land here typically use 100LL which contains lead. (LL stands for Low Lead). It’s not banned for aviation use.
There has been a push recently to use alternatives which don’t contain lead but most places still have 100LL as it’s a very long process to get things certified for aviation use.
Cycling has carbon emissions if you factor the additional calorie intake needed to power your bike. :| Which will vary widely depending on your size, diet, and food source. Is it still a more sustainable form of transportation? Probably, but maybe not in extreme cases (like a 300-lb person eating beef daily flown in from the other side of the planet, versus, a tiny two seater electric car power off of solar energy, using batteries sourced from recycled materials) and it certainly isn’t 0 impact.
Also, for extra pedantism, carbon emission are not pollution (in the sense that it doesn’t poison the life forms directly), but it is a GHG which causes harm to the environment too.
If you factor calorie intake of the bike rider you need to do the same for other forms of transportation. And if you account for the amount of exercise people are supposed to get to stay healthy there’s no additional calorie intake whatsoever.
Small aircraft have a carbon equivalent to large cars. My plane is from 1961 and has a fuel economy of 15mpg as the crow flies (arguably closer to 25mpg because of straight line measurements versus winding roads that can almost double the distance), seats 4 people comfortably, and flies at 160 mph.
Hmm, interesting. I had the opposite impression. Maybe from discussion of private jets? I wonder how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare – similar to cars vs. buses, perhaps? I haven’t actually dug much into this subject :\
Props tend to be more efficient aircraft when it comes to fuel consumption but fly relatively low and slow. Jets are faster so they make more sense for ferrying people and cargo but they burn more fuel in the process.
how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare
Just looked some up, they’re approximately, per passenger:
-, bus, ~100…300mpg/pp
Commercial jet, -, ~60…120mpg/pp
Ultralight, motorbike, train, ~50mpg/pp
Light aircraft, car, ~15…60mpg/pp
Private jet, limo, ~5…50mpg/pp
Fighter jet, monster truck, ~0.5mpg/pp
The more passengers, the more efficient.
So, fully loaded, there isn’t that much difference between a private jet, a limo, a car, light aircraft, ultralight, motorbike, train, or low range commercial jet.
But if it’s a single person, a private jet would use 10 times more fuel than a motorbike.
It was caught in FAA-Bureauctatic hell for 15+ years and just approved last year. It will be still be slow to become available and adopt for reasons that are complicated, but amount to bureaucracy, economics, and an insane degree of risk aversion. The vast majority of pilots want unleaded and it’s also much better for the engines.
That’s right, bike pollution is less than walking (or running) pollution in terms of CO2 per mile travelled. Cycling typically burns ~⅓ of the calories compared to making the same journey on foot and there’s a direct link between calories burnt and CO2 produced.
Cycling at 12mph takes roughly the same energy as walking at 4mph. You emit the same CO2 per minute, but get there in ⅓ of the time. Running at 12mph takes 3 times the effort of cycling at 12mph. You’ll get there in the same amount of time, but breath out 3 times as much CO2. Bicycles are more efficient than our own two legs - how cool is that!
I’ve got to ask, though—how is breathing CO2 pollution? Aren’t we just taking in air, removing the oxygen, and exhaling the waste gases? Isn’t there the same net CO2 afterwards?
Have I misunderstood something as simple as breathing? Please say no.
You haven’t misunderstood it! You’re just coupling cellular respiration with photosynthesis, which on the surface seems to balance to net zero – 6 CO2 molecules and sunlight create 1 glucose molecule, and we break down 1 glucose molecule for energy and generate 6 CO2 molecules.
There’s one big factor though which isn’t immediately obvious, and that’s the rate of reaction. The chemical equations say nothing about how many molecules are consumed per second. In order for the net CO2 to be zero, they’d need to consume and generate CO2, respectively, at the same rate, which isn’t the case.
It’s actually a really good thing, because photosynthesis happens faster. Plants are net negative CO2 because of that. What we’d need to complete this comparison now is how much CO2 a human generates by existing, and we can determine how many plants are needed per human to have the same net CO2.
I dunno, I was supposed to get 100hrs of driving experience in order to get my license. Meanwhile the minimum required for a PPL is 40, and only 20 of that is required to be with an instructor. You can get away with fewer if you are just getting a Light Sport license, and an Ultralight requires no license at all (seriously though, get training).
Unless you live in an extremely remote place not served by roads. The arctic for example. It’s not technically commuting as in going to and from your 9 to 5, but plenty of small northern communities are still completely dependent on small gravel runways or even bushplanes for things like going to the doctor or dentist, or really anything they need to go to a city for, which is a lot of things.
I actually thought this was a similar situation, that they’re so out in the middle of nowhere flying is significantly more convenient than driving. But then I took a look at the map and realized that they’re not far from Chicago and are within easy driving distance from nearby smaller towns, which makes this way harder to justify though still mildly interesting.
One of the first things my instructor told me was “I hope you’re getting your license for fun or a job, and not planning on commuting. Eventually you’ll get stuck somewhere due to the weather.”
Heavy, powerful commercial jets have deicing systems. They also have the benefit of an entire team of air traffic controllers on takeoff and landing – and they still get grounded by weather. Small planes are grounded by such inclement weather as “fog”, “thunderstorms”, “high winds”, and “low cloud cover”.
It's the present in the US. Many people own personal train cars, and you just contract with Amtrak to hook you up and you're off on vacation. You can even bring Babu. You can rent personal cars as well, though you probably should make sure yuor ocelot is housebroken if you're taking a rental.
Now, I say "many" but what I means is that's more than a few. Many is still probably in the 3-4 digit number (I'm guessing). And you'd be correct in assuming that it's not a luxury most people can afford. But it does exist.
DO they still? Last I heard Amtrak was no longer taking private train cars as too many were not in good mechanical shape and thus a large cause of their delayed trains.
I was just googling around, and it looks to me like a private rail car costs something like a 2nd home, storage fees similar to property tax, $4/mile to have Amtrak haul you around. Basically a vacation home, but mobile. Definitely a 1% thing, but not billionaires-only. Probably way more prestige in saying you’ve got a private rail car than a beach house. At least among a certain segment.
My parents almost did this in India a few years back. They have travel agencies that plop you in a couple of nicely-appointed rail cars that you stay in for a month while they’re attached to different trains every night. You wake up each morning in a new city - basically a land cruise.
Railroad suburbs exist! Streetcar suburbs as well. Was actually the norm outside of the city core until they started ripping up all the rail lines to build highways.
Jet Assisted Takeoff - The gif is Fat Albert which is part of the Blue Angels. There was a plan to use jet-assisted landing and takeoff to rescue hostages in Iran but it wasn’t used after a failed test of the landing jets.
C130s were designed to operate from relatively short unimproved runways. If the place has enough runway to operate corporate jets, it should have enough for a C130.
EDIT: This place only has enough runway (2998 x 50 ft ) for small Cessna size aircraft, so no jets or C130s.
I’ve lived under a flight path, ~9km/6miles from the airport - while I understand the difference between a 787 and a Cessna 172, I’ve got no earthly idea why anyone would choose to have a runway in their front yard.
I lived adjacent to a neighborhood like this. It was much quieter than middle aged neighbors with Harley’s. Little Cessnas and Pipers are not that loud.
I live basically across the street from an Air Force base so I get turboprops over the house at 1,000 feet starting at about 7:00 5-6 days a week. Doesn’t bother me or my wife, we just like planes.
It’s a training base so we’ve got both here. I’m just on the prop side. Cargo planes are super fun too, used to fly C-17s over my old house all the time before we moved here.
Technology is clinically known to suppress emotions. It has a correlation to a-motivation. So banning technology use in school is actually good. It’s just that most schools think that will fix all the motivation problems, which it will not.
Does it though? That kind of sounds like buzzword science to me. Especially since I can’t find anything that actually says that it is technology being at fault here.
Yes, it absolutely does. We have a finite limit of attention / emotional energy / etc and most of the stuff on your phone is tailor made to try and monopolize it.
Watch The Social Dilemma on netflix, it will give a better and more compelling argument than an online article explaining it, however, I worked at facebook and I’ve seen the internal market research around boosting “engagement”. They’re all playing a zero sum game and know that they’re trying to maximize your engagement at the expense of everything else that might possibly be engaging (including other apps, games, media content, and incidentally useful stuff like work and school).
A recent survey of adolescents without symptoms of ADHD at the start of the study indicated a significant association between more frequent use of digital media and symptoms of ADHD after 24 months of follow-up.Citation [ jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…/2687861 ]
Executive Functioning: Executive function refers to a set of high-order cognitive abilities that enable humans to plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks successfully. The reason for the link between technology use and attention problems is uncertain, but might be attributed to repetitive attentional shifts and multitasking, which can impair executive functioning. [pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26999354/]
In a study of children aged 8 to 12 years, more screen and less reading time were associated with decreased brain connectivity between regions controlling word recognition and both language and cognitive con[ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29215151/ ] Such connections are considered important for reading comprehension and suggest a negative impact of screen time on the developing brain. Structurally, increased screen time relates to decreased integrity of white-matter pathways necessary for reading and language. [ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31682712/ ]
“Correlations between symptoms of addictive technology use and mental disorder symptoms were all positive and significant, including the weak interrelationship between the two addictive technological behaviors.”
“Although no studies showing causal relationships yet exist, problematic Internet use is associated with having greater difficulties in emotion regulation…” [ europepmc.org/article/med/25041745 ]
there are too many and I don’t have more time atm.
A recent survey of adolescents without symptoms of ADHD at the start of the study indicated a significant association between more frequent use of digital media and symptoms of ADHD after 24 months of follow-up.Citation [ jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…/2687861 ]
Executive Functioning: Executive function refers to a set of high-order cognitive abilities that enable humans to plan, focus attention, remember instructions, and juggle multiple tasks successfully. The reason for the link between technology use and attention problems is uncertain, but might be attributed to repetitive attentional shifts and multitasking, which can impair executive functioning. [pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26999354/]
In a study of children aged 8 to 12 years, more screen and less reading time were associated with decreased brain connectivity between regions controlling word recognition and both language and cognitive con[ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29215151/ ] Such connections are considered important for reading comprehension and suggest a negative impact of screen time on the developing brain. Structurally, increased screen time relates to decreased integrity of white-matter pathways necessary for reading and language. [ pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31682712/ ]
“Correlations between symptoms of addictive technology use and mental disorder symptoms were all positive and significant, including the weak interrelationship between the two addictive technological behaviors.”
“Although no studies showing causal relationships yet exist, problematic Internet use is associated with having greater difficulties in emotion regulation…” [ europepmc.org/article/med/25041745 ]
there are too many and I don’t have more time atm.
lemmy.ml
Hot