It seems extremely relevant. Your argument suggests the president need only appoint a subordinate who will themselves give the desired illegal order without the president's public command. In the unlikely event the subordinate is called to account, the president can simply pardon them.
This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1]
War crimes sounds scary as a whole mess of badness, but which one is kind of material. Eg Obama's drone strikes and CIA torture likely count as war crimes, though no court has actually tried him for them, so it's hard to get worked up about Navy Seals (whos job it is to go into war zones and do war-type things) having generically having committed war crimes. Did they rape women and babies, or did they shoot the wrong person in the dark of night who it turns out wasn't actually a threat.
> Gallagher was the subject of a number of reports from fellow SEAL team members, stating that his actions were not in keeping with the rules of war, but these reports were dismissed by the SEAL command structure.
> Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed elderly man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls.
Murdered a prisoner, and was shitty enough his fellow SEALs were uncomfortable enough to complain. Pardoned eventually, by Trump.
> A lot of these important projects have a single point of failure - who is the president every four years. I wonder how we build institutions and resources resilient to that?
We already did. The legislative branch allocates funds for stuff that the people deem worthy. That budget becomes law. The Constitution says the "President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." There's even a specific law that prevents the President from withholding Congressionally-approved funds.
What you are seeing here is not a lack of designed resilience, it's the wilful removal of that system.
It's not clear whether the 1500 hour rule directly improved safety. Both the Colgan captain and the FO had more than 1500 hours at the time of the accident. What the rule did unambiguously is severely restrict the supply of new pilots to regional airlines. This significantly improved quality of life for regional pilots, who prior to Colgan were effectively making minimum wage or worse. (That may have indirectly improved safety, by making pilots more well-rested and fed...)
Another point of comparison is Europe, which has a not-dissimilar safety record, but still allows FOs to have 250 hours. That said, from what I understand, they have a very different training culture where students start in a multi-crew environment very early.
I remember reading about the typical lifestyle of a new regional pilot. Low wages, long hours, and often flying many hours as a passenger to get to work (living in Pitts, grabbing the first flight to NYC to work, etc). It sounded miserable.
A two-wheel drive vehicle with an open differential is limited in acceleration by only one wheel (the drive wheel with the least traction). However, braking is always the combined effect of all wheels.
> The steer is basically not higher than the frame. Very bad for back, shoulders and wrists. ... That position is not maintainable for a longer time, especially if you're a desk worker.
A slight forward lean is desirable. Sitting bolt upright on a bike makes it very hard to engage your biggest, most efficient muscles: your glutes and hamstrings. This is also why the "athletic position" is universal to just about every physical activity; the slight crouch is similar to the natural position on a bike. Those larger muscles help stabilize your pelvis, reducing the force on your shoulders, arms, and wrists. https://www.pedalpt.com/upright-bicycling/
(There are other benefits too—the bike's handling improves as weight is balanced between the front and rear wheels and the center of gravity is lowered—but I'll assume we're talking about purely recreational/daily needs riding where such concerns are secondary.)
Critics of the Taycan Turbo badging usually make some argument about "Turbo" meaning the-model-that-has-turbocharger(s), but Porsche hasn't been consistent about that for some time. The iconic 911 Turbo is turbocharged, but since 2015 the regular non-Turbo 911 is as well.
(Next we can discuss whether a "Mustang" is a kind of horse, a two-door sports car, a four-door electric crossover, or...)
> ... it could be a fantastic tool for an affordable, fast commute.
I understand the attraction to owning your own plane and buzzing merrily above the wheel-bound masses below on the daily, but I have to think it's a bad idea (avgas or electric). I think of all the times I've overslept, needed to be at the office unexpectedly, forgot to put some air in the car tires, should get that warning light looked at, etc... phrases that are usually at the start of an NTSB report.
The beauty of airlines and charters is that you're paying them, at least in part, to tell you "no, we're not flying right now." Turns out it can be hard to do for yourself when your job depends on it.
I think the grand idea is that with improvements to battery density and weight this will spill into commercial aviation market.
Small electric planes with lower per-hour operating costs are also a game-changer for flight schools and their students. Cheaper pilot licenses should translate into increased supply of qualified labor and lower the costs of starting/operating an airline.
I am guessing the EV trainer companies have already addressed - but it's not clear to me:
How similar are EV airplanes and ICE powered ones? Aren't there a number of factors that vary from motive power and availability to weight/form factor that make training on an EV not sufficient to training on "the real thing"?
EV airplanes are simpler to fly than a gas powered one, so it could be great for a new student who mostly wants to focus on the actual flying and not so much on how to manage the engine. The current market leader, Pipistrel, is selling an EV airplane that is the same airframe as their gas trainer. So the path for students to transition from the EV plane (local airport circuits and learning landing and takeoff) to cross country (flying long distance, learning judgement about weather, understanding navigation, managing the engine, human factors) is no issue in terms of actual airplane controls and familiarity.
One thing to add is that jet engines are quite different from piston engines with propellers. So, whether you learn in a Cessna 152 and then step up to Airbus/Boeing, or learn in an electric aircraft and then step up, is probably not a dramatic difference.
Note: the article is about an ultralight, which is not really an airplane based on what most people think of: it can only have one seat, cannot be used for commercial activity or flight training. It's for hobby-use only.
> I think the grand idea is that with improvements to battery density and weight this will spill into commercial aviation market.
That's a pipe dream for 2 reasons:
1) battery density is still a small fraction of fuels
2) thus small trainers are about the weight limit you'll see for electric aircraft. There is no path for airliners to propel with batteries.
3) Most of the small electric airplanes have been destroyed in battery fires. So aviation-grade batteries will be needed, and anything certified will be very expensive.
> Small electric planes with lower per-hour operating costs are also a game-changer for flight schools and their students.
"lower per-hour operating costs" would be nice, but fuel is not the dominant cost for flight training, and is not a game changer. In addition, most of the small electric planes you have read about were destroyed in battery fires, killing the pilots.
> Cheaper pilot licenses should translate into increased supply of qualified labor and lower the costs of starting/operating an airline.
No, you're not going to see cheaper pilot licenses (unless you personally open some kind of flight school as a charity), and in the US, the 1,500 hour rule means operating an airline will be expensive. Almost all of the US "regionals" have already shutdown due to a shortage of ATP holders.
It gets old reading aviation news on HN because the fanbois can't separate SciFi from reality. Aviation is an expensive, regulated industry, and will only become more that way.
So let me explain what the game changers are ...
For amateur non-IFR practise and commuting, combining a Sport Pilot or Private Pilot license ($10,000+) with an electric LSA (under 1,320 pounds) plane and free tie-down would be a game-changer for non-commercial use.
(There's no affordable airport access in the Bay Area since tie-downs start at $500/month, and hangars at $1,000/month. No municipality will let you "take off and land" on your driveway in any urban area.)
Otherwise, you're looking at ultralights (under 254 pounds), which is not what most people consider a safe way to commute, but you could trailer. There is one all-metal ultralight, the Hummel, that looks like an airplane, so it is possible to build one for ICE. (See below why that doesn't include electric.)
Note that ultralight weights don't include fuel or pax, so it's that weight plus fuel. (LSAs gross weight is 1320 pounds, so that includes fuel and pax.) However, batteries would subtract from the empty weight, making those categories useless!
What I described above is non-experimental US aviation. If you're clever, there are workarounds using experimental aircraft that can help with the weight limits. However, you can't do any commercial activities, and insurance may not be available for carrying passengers.
So instead of the SciFi nonsense, please follow the above to create a reality-based plan, instead of "Gee-whiz, I can't wait for electric airliners!"
Checklists are key, but the pilot must be willing & able to take appropriate action when a checklist item fails or cannot be completed -- i.e., stand down & cancel, instead of "it should be fine...".
That failure to cancel is two of the three items usually needed for a crash (the failure itself and the bad pilot decision).
The saying pilots generally have is "If you have time to spare, go by air"
Ok, going 40mi you have only so much weather than can go wrong, but I've had friends trapped at an airport due to weather, leave their plane and drive/fly commercial home. It's a fun hobby though. :D
I've known people who commute this way. You have to of course have a backup plan or be able to work from home if the weather is poor. You just have a plane and a car. And there are parts of the US where you'll be able to fly 90+% of the time if you're only going a short distance and not too picky on timing.
It's definitely not practical for most but it would be great. And not having much of a precheck would be really nice.
Wanted to plug this; no connection other than being a subscriber. It's well-written, not spammy in the slightest, and a good overview of what's interesting in commercial spaceflight—especially for someone like me (physics background but no industry connection).
On the contrary, there appear to be good legal arguments that Hegseth merely saying "no quarter" is, on its own, a war crime:
https://www.justsecurity.org/133970/legal-advice-hegseth-no-...
reply