ecliptic_pole

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by ecliptic_pole 6y ago

   I agree that the arguments he made are not supported by evidence, but this is our judgment of his paper, not a reason to retract it and prevent other people from reading it. The fact that the paper is written in a scholarly tone is obviousl
2. 2.▲
   by ecliptic_pole 6y ago

   The good thing about digital publishing is that virtually no "entertaining" of authors is required of anyone. I highly doubt this 6-page paper in a low-impact Springer journal significantly consumed anyone's electronic or phy
3. 3.▲
   by ecliptic_pole 6y ago

   I read it: it is a real paper, professionally written in an staid tone. Therefore, even if the premise is entirely wrong, even if you disagree with every single word, there is no reason for it to be "retracted". Instead of signing
4. 4.▲
   by ecliptic_pole 7y ago

   Boeing planes do have some features like that, one is called GPWS ("Ground Proximity Warning System") and it yells things like "Sink Rate, Pull Up"! and then it makes obnoxious "Whoop! Whoop!" noises. There&#x2
5. 5.▲
   by ecliptic_pole 7y ago

   The fact remains that this crash was 99% pilot error. The A/T displaying "RETARD" for something like 60 seconds and the airspeed got down to something stupid like 80 knots (airspeed is prominently displayed in at least 3 plac