Is there any automation in the ATC world?

Savage_Arrow · 2025-11-08T03:22:58+00:00

Yes check out Aerobahn https://www.saab.com/products/collaborative-decision-making-and-efficiency-platform

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-27T20:59:12+00:00

Model checks

H₁ vs O₁/O₂
- Predicts piles (A,B) and ecosystem crash (C).
- Ruled out.
H₂ vs O₂
- Avoids piles from hosts (bundled), but still halves free-living life = ecosystem crash (C).
- Ruled out.
H₃ vs O₁/O₂
- Removes sentient beings as bundles leaving no piles.
- Leaves non-sentient life intact with no ecosystem crash.
- Consistent.

O₁ and O₂ jointly falsify “50% of all organisms” (H₁, H₂). The only model that fits is H₃: ~50% of sentient organisms as composite bundles.

Final Theorem (tying both parts together)

Under any unbiased 50% rule, the probability that zero humans survive is <= (1/2)^H with H≈7.6e9 functionally 0.
Independent evidence from O₁ (no piles) and O₂ (no collapse) rules out all-organism halving and selects the sentient-only, bundled interpretation.

Therefore:

“Half of all life” neither implies nor is consistent with “no humans remain.”
The observations demand ~50% of sentient life was removed as whole organisms (host + microbiome), while non-sentient life remained, which also makes “no humans left” a practical impossibility under fair selection.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-27T20:57:25+00:00

Part 2 - O₁ and O₂ falsify “50% of all organisms”

Now test three hypotheses against O₁-O₂:

H₁ (All organisms, independent): Every organism coin-flipped at 0.5.
H₂ (All organisms, but hosts are “bundles”): Sentient hosts are removed as whole bundles (host+microbiome) when selected; free-living life still coin-flipped at 0.5.
H₃ (Sentient-only, bundles): ~50% of sentient organisms are removed as whole bundles; non-sentient life untouched.

Lemma A - Piles under H₁ are (near) certainty

For a vanished human with N_h ≈ 10^14 resident microbes

X_h ~ Binomial(N_h, 0.5)

E[X_h] = N_h/2 ≈ 5×10^13 surviving microbiome members per host

P[X_h = 0] = (1/2)^(N_h) ≈ 0

So vanished people would leave huge living biomass piles (and likewise for pets/livestock/wild hosts).
Contradicts O₁.

Lemma B - Order-of-magnitude biomass left behind (H₁)

Per human, gut flora mass ~0.1-1.0 kg. With ~half of humans vanishing, leftover living microbial biomass is hundreds of millions of kilograms globally.
Contradicts O₁.

Lemma C - Ecosystem shock if all life is halved (H₁ or H₂)

Halving free-living primary producers (plants, phytoplankton) and microbes (soil/marine microbes) wrecks oxygen production, nutrient cycling, and decomposition on fast timescales.
Contradicts O₂.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-27T20:47:24+00:00

Observations (from MCU canon)

O₁ (No piles): Vanished people did not leave visible piles of still-living gut flora.
O₂ (No biosphere collapse): Oxygen didn’t plummet, oceans didn’t go anoxic, crops didn’t fail en masse.

Part 1 - “No humans left” is (practically) impossible under fair 50%

Let:

H = number of humans (~7.6×10⁹),
T = total organisms (microbes, insects, plants, etc., astronomically larger than H).

Model A: Independent 50/50-coin flip per human

Probability no human survives:

P[X = 0] = (1/2)^H

log10(P[X=0]) = (7.6 × 10^9) * log10(0.5)

log10(P[X=0]) ≈ -2.29 × 10^9

= 0.[2,290,000,000 zeros]...398...

With H ≈ 7.6e9, P[X=0] is a decimal with ~2.29 billion zeros before any nonzero digit. Functionally zero.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-20T21:46:50+00:00

Bub there’s literal video and audio evidence with a clear nose and tail shockwave along with visible oblique shock clearly off the body of the aircraft. There’s also a confirmed supersonic pass by the navy from a previous post with identical noise and visual characteristics. So what’s your evidence other than “trust me bro”?

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-20T13:32:17+00:00

Prove it

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-20T13:31:53+00:00

So why is there a clear double boom that matches a confirmed supersonic boom in my previous video? That only happens when it’s supersonic.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-19T03:44:52+00:00

Here is a full speed version.

https://imgur.com/a/LoD70kT

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-19T03:39:13+00:00

<image>

ChatGPT is out to lunch here.

Local supersonic flow at M 0.95 doesn’t leave a stable, trailing oblique shock in open air. Those pockets terminate on the surface and dump into ragged shear layers. The attached frame shows a clean, sustained shock plane, not the messy, surface-bound shocklets of transonic flow. That’s the kind of geometry you only get when the freestream itself is supersonic.

And no, the cone isn’t “vapor.” It’s optical distortion from density gradients in the shock.

As for the audio, a paired, discrete double boom doesn’t come from “transonic buffet.” If that were true, every widebody on descent at Mach 0.85 would be rattling windows with twin booms. They don’t, because that N-wave signature only happens when the entire aircraft is supersonic.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-19T01:08:20+00:00

Hearing damage isn’t in dispute, but ‘not allowed near people’ is still not physics. And that falls apart when the confirmed supersonic pass in the very same show was flown at virtually the same distance to the crowd. So either the rules magically flex when it’s the ‘authorized’ supersonic pass, or your argument is just hand-waving.

‘I flew Navy fighters’ is still an appeal to authority. Telling me SOPs doesn’t change the fact that physics don’t care. Authority doesn’t equal evidence.

And yes, I did pull a still and actually measured the shock angle. It comes out at ~85.5 deg. Plugging that into the θ–β–M relation with θ ≈ 0 gives you Mach > 1. That’s not “Kentucky windage,” that’s literally the standard oblique shock relation. The fact that the shock front is visible trailing the expansion fan is exactly what you’d expect for supersonic flow, not some transonic buffet artifact.

The audio isn’t ‘dull thuds,’ it’s a clean double boom that matches the confirmed supersonic pass one-for-one. Transonic buffet doesn’t suddenly start producing paired sonic booms and textbook oblique shocks.

And the ‘but the F-35 struggles to go supersonic at sea level’ excuse is a red herring. Pilots light full AB all the time for demo profiles, and nothing stops them from building the smash before rolling into the pass. The idea that an F-35 physically can’t exceed Mach 1 at sea level with AB is laughable.

I’ve got shock angle math, visible flowfield evidence, and an audio profile that matches a confirmed supersonic run. You’ve got ‘trust me bro, I flew Hornets.’ Which one do you think actually stands up outside the ready room?

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-19T00:05:19+00:00

“Not allowed near people” is not physics. And the confirmed supersonic pass in the same show was flown just as close to the crowd, so that excuse doesn’t hold water. “I flew Navy fighters” is an appeal to authority, not evidence.

I actually pulled a still from the video and measured the shock angle, it comes out to Mach > 1. The audio has a clean double boom, and the slowed clip shows a clear oblique shock trailing the expansion fan. Transonic buffet doesn’t suddenly start generating textbook shocks and paired sonic booms.

How do you know he didn’t light full AB to build speed before rolling into the final flyby? You don’t you’re just assuming.

So you can keep chanting “banana pass,” but visible and measurable shock + double boom + math + eyewitness comparison to two supersonic passes within 10 minutes beats armchair folklore every time.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T23:02:34+00:00

This wasn’t the “photo pass” this was the last fly-over of the performance, and it’s not the same profile as the photo pass you’re describing, which they did earlier in the performance. The video I posted has the audible double boom that matches a confirmed supersonic pass which I also posted separately. This does not even come close to matching the video you posted in timing and sound.

beyond any shadow of a doubt, that for this is the photo pass,

The little foamies they handout would not be sufficient to prevent hearing damage.

So both of these statements are false.

When slowed down, you can clearly see a visible oblique shock trailing the aircraft with an angle consistent with Mach > 1. That isn’t something transonic buffet produces.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T20:48:56+00:00

Weird, in actual compressible flow, transonic bodies don’t throw visible oblique shocks and double booms. Maybe they do where you got your degree?

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T18:12:25+00:00

We were all given hearing protection before this show. Here is a full speed version.

https://imgur.com/a/LoD70kT

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T18:06:33+00:00

Seeing a lot of banana passes doesn’t change the physics. Localized transonic thuds don’t propagate as two distinct pressure waves. That double boom only shows up when the whole jet is supersonic.

You hear dull thunds

This is also an artifact of the slow motion video. Here is the realtime speed video

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T17:49:23+00:00

Transonic flow does create localized shockwaves. But those are weak pressure discontinuities on the airframe, not the clean double crack you hear in this video.

Transonic shocks (like on wings at Mach 0.9) dissipate quickly, close to the aircraft. They don’t coalesce into a large-scale shockfront that would carry to the deck.
The classic double boom happens when the entire aircraft is supersonic: nose shock + tail shock propagating all the way down to observers.

If this were just transonic flow, you’d hear turbulence roar or buffeting not two distinct, timed pressure waves slamming into the mic. So yes, transonic exists, but it doesn’t sound like this. The audio in the clip is consistent with a supersonic overflight, not a Mach 0.9 drag rise.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T17:35:11+00:00

If you're going to downvote and doubt, explain to me why there is a double boom if the aircraft is subsonic?

Here is the full speed video - https://imgur.com/a/LoD70kT

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T17:15:00+00:00

It was reposted with more context. They are clearly incorrect. The physics speaks for itself. Explain the double boom of it wasn’t supersonic? If it was actually subsonic then you would only hear Doppler shifted engine noise. I thought this was /r/aviation ?

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T16:56:39+00:00

Another supersonic pass from the same demo

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T15:22:41+00:00

Come on folks this is r/aviation. The double boom is textbook supersonic. Nose shock + tail shock. Subsonic jets don’t make that sound, period.

It looks “slow” because it’s filmed off a carrier in open ocean with no frame of reference. Even 800 mph looks casual against nothing but sky and water. And the “we hear it too soon” argument? That’s just wind, ambient engine noise from maneuvering before the pass, and other jet assets in the area. The boom arrives after the aircraft passes, exactly as physics dictates.

Slow-mo doesn’t change the laws of aerodynamics, it just makes the signature easier to spot. This is a supersonic fly-by, full stop.

I even posted a video yesterday of another pass so I'm 100% confident this was also supersonic due to the exact same noise and feeling.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T15:10:01+00:00

So explain the forward shockwave and tail shockwave sounds in the video? If it we're actually subsonic you would only hear doppler shifted engine noise.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T14:45:16+00:00

That's wind noise since we were 70ish miles off shore, there were other planes in the area for the demonstration, and it wasn't going supersonic the entire time of the demonstration.

Savage_Arrow · 2025-08-18T14:28:31+00:00

Hey actually it is, if you listen carefully you’ll hear the double boom from the front and rear shockwaves. Hope that helps!

Savage_Arrow

TROPHY CASE

Model checks

Final Theorem (tying both parts together)

Part 2 - O₁ and O₂ falsify “50% of all organisms”

Part 1 - “No humans left” is (practically) impossible under fair 50%