The ORIGINAL movie about air traffic controllers (fuck you PUSHING TIN), Kiefer Sutherland stars as the once-hotshot Chicago controller Jack Harper (you know he's a hot shot because his boss calls him Hot Shot) who controls a plane right into the ground and has to live with the consequences. Five years later, Sutherland is really making it in the software industry in Phoenix when he's approached by his old boss for one more night of controlling.
6 December 2010. A year before the more quirky comedy drama PUSHING TIN (1999) came out starring John Cusack and Billy Bob Thorton, the more mainstream disaster thriller GROUND CONTROL was released starring television's 24 Keifer Sutherland with co-starring roles for 1986's Kelly McGillis (TOP GUN, 1986) and Kristy Swanson (FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF). GROUND CONTROL is relatively traditional, predictable, interestingly in a way less sensationalized, dramatized than PUSHING TIN and less relational and more focused fascinating active air control dynamics which in some ways makes this more watchable than average dramatic thrillers. **Added January 9, 2012 - With a decent storyline that keeps building, this is good entertainment. What makes this dramatic thriller on solid ground is its use of stereotypes but in a way that never overextends their use, the irritated man's eventual response to the babies, the way the ending wasn't as pat as most dramatic endings are with its more realistic and, literally, twists and turns, and even the non-verbal exchanges at the end make for a believable and satisfying landing.**
A handful of Air Traffic Controllers in Phoenix manage a crowded sky and nurse an injured airliner back to earth. Kiefer Sutherland is an ace at the job, but he quit after one of his airplanes crashed. Now he's called back to help on a night full of tension.And there IS a lot of tension after the introductory period that walks us through the character and their equipment. It's one of those movies in which, if anything can go wrong, it goes wrong. The equipment blows out, a goose flies into the radar fan, conflicts between the ATCs emerge, and so forth. Brief spurts of Morse code add to the mystery behind all that technology, but only two letters are heard in Morse: \"s\" and \"u\". Actually it's a vast improvement over most airplane-in-jeopardy movies. First of all, we don't have a single airliner filled with diverse passengers whose back stories must be explored seriatim. Second, and most important, the ATC people are on the ground, where all human beings belong. Man was not meant to fly. I can't speak for women and children. In fact, all means of mass transport are suspect. I thought the driver on my last Greyhound bus looked a little odd.The narrative comes through neatly and cleanly. It begins in an exploratory mode and ends in crisis and triumph, accompanied by generic music. The performances are all decent, with perhaps the best acting laid on by Robert Sean Leonard as Cruise, the competent and low-keyed controller who becomes rattled by too much stress. Sutherland's role is the flashier of the two. Also notable in minor roles are Alex Wexo as a pilot and especially Drew Snyder as the avuncular pilot of a stricken airliner. It would be so easy to overact, but Snyder does a fine job. Knowing his airplane and its passengers are doomed, he languidly tells Phoenix, \"Keep us away from a city.\" But in any case it's really an ensemble movie.The director does not indulge himself in razzle dazzle techniques. The film was shot on stilts, not by a hand-held camera wobbled around by a spazz. Even during the scenes of second-by-second action, the images remain steady.
This review of ultralow-volume (ULV) ground aerosols for adult mosquito control includes discussion on application volume, aerosol generators, droplet size, meteorology, swath, dispersal speed, assay methods, insecticide efficacy, and nontarget effects. It summarizes the efficacy of ULV insecticidal aerosols against many important pest and disease-bearing species of mosquitoes in a wide range of locations and habitats in the United States and in some countries of Asia and the Americas. Fourteen conclusions were drawn from the review. 1) ULV ground aerosol applications of insecticide are as efficacious against adult mosquitoes as high- or low-volume aerosols. 2) ULV aerosols with an optimum droplet size spectrum can be produced by several types of nozzles including vortex, pneumatic, and rotary. Droplet size of a particular insecticide formulation is dependent primarily on nozzle air pressure or rotation speed and secondarily on insecticide flow rate. 3) Label flow rates of insecticide for ULV aerosol application can be delivered accurately during routine operations with speed-correlated metering systems within a calibrated speed range, usually not exceeding 20 mph. 4) The most economical and convenient method of droplet size determination for ULV aerosols of insecticide is the waved-slide technique. 5) The efficacy of ULV ground aerosols against adult mosquitoes is related to droplet size because it governs air transport and impingement. The optimum droplet size for mosquito adulticiding is 8-15 microns volume median diameter (VMD) on the basis of laboratory wind-tunnel tests and field research with caged mosquitoes. 6) In general, ULV aerosols should be applied following sunset when mosquitoes are active and meteorological conditions are favorable for achieving maximum levels of control. Application can be made during daytime hours when conditions permit, but rates may have to be increased. The critical meteorological factors are wind velocity and direction, temperature, and atmospheric stability and turbulence. 7) Maximum effective swaths are obtained with aerosols in the optimum VMD range during favorable meteorological conditions in open to moderately open terrain. The insecticide dosage must be increased in proportion to increased swath to maintain the same level of mosquito control. 8) Dispersal speed within a range of 2.5-20 mph is not a factor affecting efficacy if insecticide rate and optimum droplet size are maintained. 9) The results of caged mosquito assays are comparable with reductions in free-flying natural populations. 10) The field efficacies of mosquito adulticides applied as ULV ground aerosols are predictable from the results of laboratory wind-tunnel tests. 11) Results of field tests in open to moderately open terrain during favorable meteorological conditions indicated that ULV insecticidal aerosol application rates producing 90% or more control of Anopheles, Culex, and Psorophora spp. are below or approximately equal to maximum United States Environmental Protection Agency label rates. Against some Aedes spp., some pyrethroid insecticides must be synergized to produce 90% control at label rates. 12) Results of field tests in residential areas with moderate to dense vegetation and in citrus groves or other densely wooded areas showed that insecticide rates of ULV ground aerosols must be increased 2-3-fold to obtain 90% or more control of adult mosquitoes. However, the maximum rates on some insecticide labels would have to be increased to allow higher application rates. 13) Applications of ULV ground aerosols of insecticide in accordance with label directions following sunset do not pose a serious threat to humans, nontarget beneficial animals, or automotive paints. 14) Some aerosol generators operated at high RPM levels exceed the OSHA 8-h hearing hazard criteria of 90 dBA and may require hearing protectors for operators.
The company sought assistance from NASA, and the VisualFlight technology came to fruition under a Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract with Johnson Space Center in 1998. Three years later, on December 13, 2001, Ken Ham successfully flew NASA's X-38 spacecraft from a remote, ground-based cockpit using LandForm VisualFlight as part of his primary situation awareness display in a flight test at Edwards Air Force Base, California. This simulated a realistic flying environment and landing for the windowless X-38, which is expected to eventually serve as NASA's Crew Return Vehicle for the International Space Station.
The most common difficulty in orthorectifying historical photos is that of finding enough ground-control points on an image. To make matters more difficult, many more ground-control points are necessary when working with images for which no camera information is available. Ground-control points are not always plentiful, and those that are available may not always be precisely interpretable. A building corner, for example, or the intersection of a sidewalk with a road, can be quite precise (within a meter, perhaps), while the center of a wide road intersection or a property corner in an agricultural area may require some interpretation and estimation on the part of the analyst. As another example, roads have often been widened during the period between, say, 1938 (the year a given historical aerial photo set was flown), and 1998 (when a Digital Ortho Quarter-quad reference source was produced); picking the center of an intersection in 1938 and 1998 is often by far the best control point available in the area in question, but still requires some interpretation and guesswork.
ERDAS Imagine's OrthoBASE software module (now called the \"Leica Photogrammetry Suite\") can almost always overcome such problems as outlined above to produce good data, even when control has been difficult to achieve. Photogrammetric modeling based on collinearity equations eliminates systematic and non-systematic geometric distortion most effectively, creating a more reliable geographically corrected image. Photogrammetry is unique in terms of considering the image-forming geometry (though in the case of historical photos with no camera-calibration information, image-forming geometry is largely estimated), using information between overlapping images, and explicitly dealing with the third dimension, elevation. As opposed to conventional geometric correction (georeferencing with polynomial transformation models), which deals with images one at a time, orthorectification provides an integrated solution for multiple images simultaneously and efficiently. It is very difficult, if not impossible, for conventional techniques to achieve a reasonable accuracy without an even greater number of ground control points (a task that is always painstaking and often nearly impossible); to accommodate images that have severe errors (systematic or non-systematic); or to accommodate images covering rough terrain. Misalignment is more likely when mosaicking such separately rectified images. The photogrammetric techniques used by ERDAS Imagine overcome the problems of conventional geometric correction by using an integrated and more accurate solution called a \"least squares bundle block adjustment.\" Any error is identified, minimized, distributed, and even partly removed by the mathematical \"bundle block\" solution for the entire photo set, thus providing very reliable overall results. 59ce067264