Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pcstel who wrote (16671)	9/11/2000 11:48:13 PM
From: Mr. Adrenaline	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29987

Re: Maurice: <<Yes, the airline has to demonstrate that Globalstar phones won't crash 747s. Big deal! That should take about 10 minutes to prove. Get three 747 pilots to rev up the engines, turn on the radios and stuff, then fire up 20 Globalstar phones on board and see if the pilots can spot their fuel guage. . .>> I wouldn't pontificate anymore, but I think it underscores a fundamental problem with all of our collective armchair quarterbacking and hand-wringing. While Maurice's suggestion would serve to show with perhaps 80% certainty that there was no interference, it wouldn't be 100%. The difficulty lies in making it water tight. Permit me to explore this a little. Fire up a 747, and test the phone-plane interference on the tarmac. A fair test, and perhaps a decent first hurdle. But what constitutes a 747? Boeing makes several different varieties. And what about the build history of those varieties? A certain model might have been supplied with avionics from vendor x through model year 1982, and then they got them from vendor y. Vendor y bought capacitors from a gazillion different suppliers over the years. Then some airlines upgraded the entertainment system after delivery, how does that interact with the avionics? How when it is in the presence of RF from a sat phone? And, by the way, Boeing makes more planes than the 747, and Boeing is but one manufacturer of planes. There are people whose full time job it is to poke holes in test procedures. And while Maurice's test was a decent first hurdle, it is far from 100% certain, and with airplanes with the paying public on it, nothing less will do. It is quite easy to second guess everything that is going on with the roll out, but the details are possibly (probably?) mind-numbingly complex. I'm not thrilled with the roaring silence, nor with the "trust us" attitude, but I do take much of the "it can't be so hard" and "those guys must be stupid or lazy" type of comments with a grain of salt. I'm just as impatient as the next guy, but I'm certain that the roll out is proving to be more difficult than anticipated. Sorry Maurice. I wasn't trying to pick on you. Nor am I sure what my point really is. Regards, Mr A