News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn. Parent comment

Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by jessaustin on Thursday June 29, 2017 @12:58PM (#14664822)
It's fine to be suspicious, but one should at least read carefully while in that state. TFA is about "amendment -> more noise on takeoff -> narrower engine -> fuel savings -> lower costs". Literally one paragraph mentions the sonic boom restriction, while the rest is about fuel savings. Lots of comments here are skipping that entirely, which indicates some confusion. Perhaps Boom will publish something else with more detail about flying jackhammers?

To address that issue, ISTM we trust FAA to get many things right, but previously the thoughtful regulation of supersonic civil aviation was not one of those things. If this amendment passes, it will become one of those things. Is there a particular reason not to trust FAA thoughtfully to regulate this sort of flight?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by idlewords on Thursday June 29, 2017 @01:06PM (#14664913)
Boom is writing about narrower issues of engine noise and fuel economy because they don't want to discuss the intractable problem they're named after. That doesn't mean we can't discuss it.

I think the status quo (no shattered windows in Chicago) is desirable and worth preserving. The FAA may regulate it sanely, but then again, given the current political climate, they may not.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by jessaustin on Thursday June 29, 2017 @01:42PM (#14665256)
It has been several months since I visited Chicago, but that was not my impression of the status quo? This is a very hypothetical concern, however. It's quite unlikely that any passenger flights will pass the sound barrier at an altitude of 200 ft. [0]

Then again, if Vladimir Putin wants to break some American glass in a really roundabout way, who are we to oppose him? Perhaps he needs to brush up on his Bastiat?

[0] https://military.id.me/aircraft/can-a-sonic-boom-break-glass...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by idlewords on Friday June 30, 2017 @03:37PM (#14673157)
Sonic boom strength scales with aircraft size, and you know this. Your footnote is in bad faith.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lee-Gardner Amendment would reduce supersonic fuel burn by tptacek on Friday June 30, 2017 @03:03PM (#14672969)
I don't know what that quip about Chicago was meant to accomplish, but I don't think you can complain about other people's "reading comprehension" while misapprehending that comment so thoroughly. Obviously, the point being made is that sonic booms break windows (some people near airports that saw supersonic traffic used to buy special windows), and Chicago is a major air transport hub.
[ Parent | on HN ]