I'll use it with my PS1 and Sega Genisis...think of the pixelation.

To the pilots out there. They already do put this into glass displays, called CMax. I use it all the time in my Cirrus and it's a heck of a lot cooler than this one because it can do a lot more than just display the chart, such as actually tracking your progress as you fly the approach on the chart. CMax is definitely the way to go, but it's also a $3,600 option on top of the glass avionics package.

This is a pretty good idea for those who have a plane that has the old steam gauges. I use CMax charts, basically a built in and much more expensive version of this, and they are just awesome. No more bag-o-charts and you can find the one you want quickly. While they are boring for the non-pilots out there these new electroinc flight bag devices are pretty cool for us pilots.

Rick,
Actually they have GPS technology that is accurate to within 1 cm. They use a technique called RKP, Relative Kinematic Positioning, to correct GPS error to within 1-10 cm. I don't know of, and would highly doubt it's availiblity to the public....yet.

Actually the GPS satellites already compensate for relitivety. Relitivity accounts for about a 38 microseconds per day error, so to compensate they run the frequency off the satillite a little slower than it would be on earth, 10.22999999543 MHz instead of 10.23 MHz, which through what we in the aviation field call PFM (Pure F---ing Magic) corrects the error.

#27

I do know my aerodynamics. Speed doesn't climb you, thrust does, if i could draw you the pretty little diagram I would, but just understand excess thrust it what climbs an aircraft. If i trim an airplane out to say 100 knots, and add power, it will almost immediately begin to climb. I fly REAL airplanes, I have been trained on the Saab 340, Dash 8, and am currently type rated on the CRJ. I have been doing this for many years, I think I know a little more then a freaking RC pilot. Yes, RC planes don't handle the same. Why? You have a tiny little engine. This thing has a huge Turbo Fan engine. If he added 83% N2 trust me, if he pulled back it would have gone up, otherwise the airspeed would start to go through the roof. 14 degrees pitch up is not that high. Normal takeoff pitch is usually 15 degrees.

#22

Actually what happened from everything I have been taught and studied about the accident is the plane got stuck in what I believe they called landing mode. This is where the plane thinks "YAY I GET TO LAND" and doesn't really want to do anything else. When the crew applied power to Go Around, the plane refused to climb out because it thought "Hey you told me we are going to land, so we are landing". Granted there may have been a lack of crew training in figuring out how to kick it out of that mode, or learning that if you go below a certain point it goes into that mode, but I would prefer there not be any thinking involved to take over control. If I take the controls, I want the plane to hand it over to me, not tell me no.

The computers in the flight prevented the crew from climbing out of the collision, even with the autopilot off and Airbus's computer will prevent the crew from doing certain things. I don't care what plane you are flying, or what your engine speed is, (btw according to the report, 83% N2 is damn near full power) if you yank back on the controls the plane will go up. If you watch the video link above, the plane does not go up, ie the crew was not in FULL control.

I am a Commercial Pilot and Flight Instructor and I'll throw in my two sense. Modern commercial planes are highly computerized, but the pilot has the final call. Taking that privilidge away is something Airbus has started to do to a point whereas it will not let the pilot exceed certain criteria not matter what(ie the video of the plane flying straight into the trees thats floating around). This has caused a lot of pilots I know to refuse to fly their equipment. TCAS advises pilots what to do but does not do it for them. What Airbus is proposing is completely whacko. The day a computer decides what to do is the day I don't fly on or near that plane anymore. Airbus systems are great but they don't always work. A friend of mine used to fly for British Airways and once had an Airbus plane refuse to start the engines, because the computer got confused and thought it was already running and in flight. While that did not cause a problem it brings up the question of what would happen if the plane were in the air, and it decided it was on the ground and turned the engines off. Airbus is a good company but their philosphy of taking the highly trained flight crews out of the equation is going to ruin them.