When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I paid for a CompTIA exam voucher today because I found out they are retiring a particular certification on Feb 28th, at which point it becomes a lifetime certification with no renewal or CE requirements.
When I went to schedule it, I discovered that my local testing center has an opening tomorrow, and Monday, and then nothing until March. Whoops. So now I'm cramming for an exam Monday morning. Yay.
I paid for a CompTIA exam voucher today because I found out they are retiring a particular certification on Feb 28th, at which point it becomes a lifetime certification with no renewal or CE requirements.
When I went to schedule it, I discovered that my local testing center has an opening tomorrow, and Monday, and then nothing until March. Whoops. So now I'm cramming for an exam Monday morning. Yay.
Healthcare IT Technician (HIT-001). CompTIA's attempt at connecting typical security certs with healthcare specific guidelines like HIPAA and HITECH. Never really gained any traction, which is probably why they are retiring it. I wasn't going to bother with it, but since it's cheap ($100), won't expire, and covers things I already know for the most part, I figured it was worth taking a shot at. Just wanted a couple weeks to prepare rather than 5 days.
Healthcare IT Technician (HIT-001). CompTIA's attempt at connecting typical security certs with healthcare specific guidelines like HIPAA and HITECH. Never really gained any traction, which is probably why they are retiring it. I wasn't going to bother with it, but since it's cheap ($100), won't expire, and covers things I already know for the most part, I figured it was worth taking a shot at. Just wanted a couple weeks to prepare rather than 5 days.
Good luck on your exam. I have sort of given up on CompTia exams because they keep changing if they are lifetime or 3 years or what. Now I will only go get one if it is required for my job. For example I had to get Security+ for a DoD job requirement. So I got it, it has since expired, but I won't bother renewing it because I no longer am required to have it. Now going to keep giving CompTia money for it.
Good luck on your exam. I have sort of given up on CompTia exams because they keep changing if they are lifetime or 3 years or what. Now I will only go get one if it is required for my job. For example I had to get Security+ for a DoD job requirement. So I got it, it has since expired, but I won't bother renewing it because I no longer am required to have it. Now going to keep giving CompTia money for it.
Thanks. I jumped over into IT at the age of 31 with no real prior experience or formal training/education, so I'm trying to just catch up on some basic certifications to fill out my resume. I should have Security+ done in a month or so, which will complete the CompTIA A+/Network+/Security+ trio, plus this Healthcare IT Technician cert (assuming I pass it).
After that, I'm really torn -- the two paths that interest me most are security and project management, but the training/certification paths are completely different so I'd really need to pick a direction. I might start with an ITIL cert as they are pretty easily attainable and don't expire.
Thanks. I jumped over into IT at the age of 31 with no real prior experience or formal training/education, so I'm trying to just catch up on some basic certifications to fill out my resume. I should have Security+ done in a month or so, which will complete the CompTIA A+/Network+/Security+ trio, plus this Healthcare IT Technician cert (assuming I pass it).
After that, I'm really torn -- the two paths that interest me most are security and project management, but the training/certification paths are completely different so I'd really need to pick a direction. I might start with an ITIL cert as they are pretty easily attainable and don't expire.
Project management long term will probably be slightly more versatile and easier to find jobs. Security is very hit or miss and tends to be location specific. I prefer the security aspect of IT, but its harder to find jobs, so I am doing general SysAdmin/DevOPS work. Project management will also most likely have slightly higher pay on average. The best of the best in security will get paid better then PM's, but the amount of those jobs is far less then PM's.
Could just be the teeth in the mast. If so, you might need to open up the housing on the motor assembly to clean out the stripped teeth, but the only thing you'd need to replace is the mast itself.
many of the turbocharged miatas on the planet use these:
================
An FAA/industry working group examining the safety issue of V-band coupling failures on turbocharged reciprocating engines has asked the public to assist the effort by providing information about their experiences with the turbocharger exhaust pipe interface.
According to an airworthiness concern sheet (ACS) issued Nov. 22, V-band coupling failures affect fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and can lead to “engine bay in-flight fires, smoke/fumes in the cockpit, and engine power loss.”
The problems are not unique to any specific brand of engine and “continue to result in incidents and accidents” despite numerous attempts to correct the problem. A May 2016 accident linked to this cause resulted in four fatalities, according to the ACS.
Information is requested within 90 days of the ACS issue date.
“The working group is looking at this airworthiness concern from a comprehensive perspective to develop safety enhancing corrective actions. We seek your assistance in obtaining in-service data to help drive corrective action decisions,” the document says.
The ACS requests specific information on 14 detailed aspects of V-band couplings, including V-band inspection procedures and criteria, observation and replacement of components, aircraft data, and recommendations for corrective action. It also invites aircraft operators to send along any removed turbocharger or exhaust pipe couplings that may be available.
Responses to the ACS may be david.hirt@faa.gov to FAA Aerospace Engineer David Hirt. Please send any available removed turbocharger exhaust pipe couplings to Jeff Janusz, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office; 1801 Airport Road, Room 100; Wichita, KS 67209.
many of the turbocharged miatas on the planet use these:
================
An FAA/industry working group examining the safety issue of V-band coupling failures on turbocharged reciprocating engines has asked the public to assist the effort by providing information about their experiences with the turbocharger exhaust pipe interface.
According to an airworthiness concern sheet (ACS) issued Nov. 22, V-band coupling failures affect fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and can lead to “engine bay in-flight fires, smoke/fumes in the cockpit, and engine power loss.”
The problems are not unique to any specific brand of engine and “continue to result in incidents and accidents” despite numerous attempts to correct the problem. A May 2016 accident linked to this cause resulted in four fatalities, according to the ACS.
Information is requested within 90 days of the ACS issue date.
“The working group is looking at this airworthiness concern from a comprehensive perspective to develop safety enhancing corrective actions. We seek your assistance in obtaining in-service data to help drive corrective action decisions,” the document says.
The ACS requests specific information on 14 detailed aspects of V-band couplings, including V-band inspection procedures and criteria, observation and replacement of components, aircraft data, and recommendations for corrective action. It also invites aircraft operators to send along any removed turbocharger or exhaust pipe couplings that may be available.
Responses to the ACS may be david.hirt@faa.gov to FAA Aerospace Engineer David Hirt. Please send any available removed turbocharger exhaust pipe couplings to Jeff Janusz, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office; 1801 Airport Road, Room 100; Wichita, KS 67209.
FAA orders Boeing 787 safety fix: Reboot power once in a while
December 1, 2016 at 11:05 am
By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
The FAA is mandating that operators of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner periodically reset the power on the airplane to avoid a glitch that could cause all three computer modules that manage the jet’s flight control
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing a rule requiring urgent attention by operators of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner to avoid the possibility all three computer modules that manage the jet’s flight-control surfaces could briefly stop working while in flight.
Operators must periodically shut and restart the electrical power on the planes, or the power to the three flight control modules. That will avoid the problem until Boeing has a permanent software fix.
In an airworthiness directive to be published Friday, the FAA said it is reacting to indications that “all three flight control modules on the 787 might simultaneously reset if continuously powered on for 22 days.”
It said such a simultaneous reset in flight “could result in flight control surfaces not moving in response to flight crew inputs for a short time and consequent temporary loss of controllability.”
A person with knowledge of airline practices, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it is “extremely rare” for any operator to leave the jet powered on for longer than a week.
In a statement, Boeing said the new rule mandates actions the jet maker has already recommended to 787 operators during the past two months.
“Boeing recommended that operators cycle power to flight control modules periodically to ensure overlapping resets do not occur,” Boeing stated. “A permanent software fix is anticipated in the second quarter of 2017.”
The FAA is mandating that the roughly 99 Dreamliners registered in the U.S. act on the directive within a week.
Foreign airlines typically follow the FAA’s lead on such directives. To date, 489 Dreamliners have been delivered worldwide.
[SIZE="6"]FAA orders Boeing 787 safety fix: Reboot power once in a while[/SIZE]
December 1, 2016 at 11:05 am
By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter
[SIZE="4"]The FAA is mandating that operators of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner periodically reset the power on the airplane to avoid a glitch that could cause all three computer modules that manage the jet’s flight control [/SIZE]
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is issuing a rule requiring urgent attention by operators of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner to avoid the possibility all three computer modules that manage the jet’s flight-control surfaces could briefly stop working while in flight.
Operators must periodically shut and restart the electrical power on the planes, or the power to the three flight control modules. That will avoid the problem until Boeing has a permanent software fix.
In an airworthiness directive to be published Friday, the FAA said it is reacting to indications that “all three flight control modules on the 787 might simultaneously reset if continuously powered on for 22 days.”
It said such a simultaneous reset in flight “could result in flight control surfaces not moving in response to flight crew inputs for a short time and consequent temporary loss of controllability.”
A person with knowledge of airline practices, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it is “extremely rare” for any operator to leave the jet powered on for longer than a week.
In a statement, Boeing said the new rule mandates actions the jet maker has already recommended to 787 operators during the past two months.
“Boeing recommended that operators cycle power to flight control modules periodically to ensure overlapping resets do not occur,” Boeing stated. “A permanent software fix is anticipated in the second quarter of 2017.”
The FAA is mandating that the roughly 99 Dreamliners registered in the U.S. act on the directive within a week.
Foreign airlines typically follow the FAA’s lead on such directives. To date, 489 Dreamliners have been delivered worldwide.
I know nothing about airline maintenance or SOP. That being said is the 787 flight control modules uptime really that important that they leave them on for 22+ days? I would figure they would kill power to the whole system just about every night when they planes are not in use. I base that on knowing that airlines are extremely cost aware and want to save money anywhere they can.
Or maybe IB really uses 787's to host all their sites, and that is why the planes can't be powered off.
I know nothing about airline maintenance or SOP. That being said is the 787 flight control modules uptime really that important that they leave them on for 22+ days? I would figure they would kill power to the whole system just about every night when they planes are not in use. I base that on knowing that airlines are extremely cost aware and want to save money anywhere they can.
I have no idea what the shore-power requirement of a 787 is, but I'd imagine that there's a large convenience factor to leaving the electrical systems powered on when the planes are parked at the gate. And given the 787's long-range capability, I'd imagine that a lot of them probably don't spend much time at all parked at the gate between A-checks.
Still, regardless of how improbable the event, aircraft manufacturers tend to take things that they know with absolute certainty will cause a crash rather seriously, even if it's just a software crash.
From what I've heard, they're not especially fond of you either.
Could be worse, could be Backup Exec
In all reality this is a wetware problem. More specifically, a documentation problem. I'm covering for a coworker who is out having a kid and while I'm sure his documentation makes sense to him, my boss (who is a pretty smart guy) and I are struggling to understand what the documentation is trying to tell us to do. We started this transition process a month ago (because I knew this was going to be an issue) and he's made so many changes since I started working with it that the documentation is next to worthless. I'm not a Backup Engineer so I don't have a lot of experience with these systems to pull from. But whatever, ***** getting backed up now so IDGAF. It was a lot worse a few years back.
It's funny how history repeats itself. AECL killed a few people in the 80s by doing essentially the same thing on a PDP-11.
AIUI, the Therac-25 was a counter overflow bug but not a direct time counter.
I worked on an ethernet switch in the 90s (Catalyst 5000) that had the milliseconds bug. If the switch managed to stay up for the 40-odd days required (double the airplane time due to using an unsigned value), then it would crash when the counter rolled over. It rarely stayed up that long, however. Man that software was a POS.
11-30-2016, 07:16 PM
0
