IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New WIndows NT in the cockpit.
Hee. Hee.

Well its not too funny when/if they start using it.

(Same issue is a discussion of the Airbus 3XX/380, which if they build it will be bigger than the 747 - and its so big, evacuation from it is problematic.. so they're using "mathmatical models" to show that its "safe" (not tossing real people down the slides))

[link|http://www.avweb.com/toc/avmail.html|http://www.avweb.com/toc/avmail.html]



David Reinhart
12\ufffdJul\ufffd2001

Lancair's Columbia 400: Looking For Higher
For some reason I've been reluctant to voice my opinions about Windows NT as the operating system for real-time control applications but now that the dam has opened I'll jump in.

There is no way on God's green earth or blue sky that I will flyin actual IFR in an aircraft using NT to run the glass panel, at least not without a full set of backup steam gauges. I manage a QE environment (which includes just about every major operating system there is) for a major software developer and NT is, in many ways, the least stable OS we have. Not to mention the fact that changes in one of their service packs made our product crash faster than you can say "blue screen of death"
.
I have one Hewlett-Packard HP-UX (a UNIX variant) server out in my lab that hasn't crashed or been rebooted in 318 days. That kind of dependability is unheard of from NT. Yes, with only the one application running there is much less worry about in terms of resource constraints, code being stepped on by other apps, etc., causing a crash but I still don't like the odds.

The local cable company carries NASA TV during shuttle missions and I was amazed to hear one of the astronauts discussing a problem with a laptop running Windows. They were trying to resolve a serial port conflict on orbit! This is software you want to be your life on?

New So lemme get this straight...
AirBust is planning to use NT to drive their displays in the AirBus 38x "Flying Wharehouse?"

Are they out they fuckin minds!!!

Boy, are they so off the list of planes I'll fly!
jb4

(Resistance is not futile...)
New I don't know about that.
Sorry, just was commenting on two different "stupid things". Airbus *has* full scale mockups of the A380... but they don't want to "risk" hurting anybody in a "test".

Errr.

The NT was for another article. But its quite possible, really.

Airbuses are completely computer-driven. Such that the pilots are there only to suggest to the computer what it might want to do - and the computer can - has has ignored their input. A couple of times all the way into a flaming fireball.

So I can belive Airbus engineers think that NT is a Good Thing. :)

Addison
New Huh? manual override at the COMPUTER's option ?
Any more refs on this?

(And if this could possibly be true AND they think they might also employ NT: could the World Court possibly consider this a genocidal plot against all Europeans ? First WC Restraining Order ever ??)


Ashton
who will pay more attention to the kind of -bus an airline books me on. For dead certain.
New The computer is always right.
(And the NT issue is seperate - the guy writing is was talking about Lancairs, IIRC.

Airbus *might* be doing something with NT, but that's not to be inferred from my data.)

Looking around very quickly, I don't see the accidents my friend as told me about) His brother in law is an Airbus driver)

The problem is, the Airbus in these accidents is *working as designed*. Just the guys who planned how this should work aren't pilots. :) Flipping the aircraft into (or out of) "modes" isn't intuitive in emergencies - and so there's lots of sim time to build those "reflexes" in... and if you accidentally engage a mode..... (and don't realize it).. some references to the A300 I found had a "take off go around (TOGA)" control, that has been accidentally engaged during landing.

[link|http://www.public.asu.edu/~spadams/glasscockpit.htm|
[link|http://www.public.asu.edu/~spadams/glasscockpit.htm|http://www.public.a...scockpit.htm]] for a general comment on some of the Airbus (And other) problems.

(a good comment:
\ufffdPilots
who fly aircraft equipped with glass cockpits often say they have never
been busier, even though automated cockpits are supposed to relieve workload. As it turns out, the new cockpits realign work more than relieve it.\ufffd (Aviation & Space Technology, 1992)\ufffd


Addison
New Cackle.. loved the last \ufffd - a tissue of contradictions
apparently scripted by John Cleese (at full Argument pay ;-)

Only personal experience I can relate these ideas with (though I have er 'flown' light planes sort of) is:

Motorcycle - no way in Hell could you introduce a *#%!@^# \ufffdP between self and the man-machine-road Singularity. (Yes I'm aware that ABS has struck there - and the best of those are allegedly pretty well subordinated to the rider's exact 'lever feel' - haven't tried the BMW compromise yet)

But as to the sensory inputs, literally at the speed of the nervous system, in a milieu inherently more demanding than much of flying is, (there is no 3rd dimension to escape via), and when I notice How actually "I" am Doing this, I see a serial/parallel process completely intertwined and not analyzable for anything but academic wonderment. Entire body, CG, memorized control/tire/brake 'feels' and many more inputs - working synergistically or: you lose it.

I can only surmise that in a 3-D emergency like: that one wherein the pilot had lost all tail controls? and made that Iowa? landing on pure engine throttling - No Machine could have helped him, or remotely anticipated the need for his invented 'algorithm'. Everyone who tried his performance in a simulator: crashed. (Which may be as much about human limitations as.. the simulator's) That pilot may not have accomplished a 'miracle' - but he certainly illustrated what the word virtuoso performance means. Machines can never achieve virtuosity.

Ditto Apollo 13, when they 'forgot' to disengage servo system from turned-off CModule while running from the LEM lifeboat - and the thrusters were going gollywampus till ___? went to manual and 'taught' himself to fly that configuration and damp the osc. They came This close to losing gimbal-lock!

I can see why there will be lots of ranting and armed camps on this "we only want to Help you" proposition == we want to eliminate as many backup HUMANS as we $ee we Can. Hey! maybe One can do it all, with a hot NT mirror {}

Thanks for the exposure to Windoze Does Flying. Scary. I really WILL eschew Airbus, but see that the idea is bound to spread. It's a virtual MBA Certainty. Let the MBA take up an empty plane for his beta.



A.
{sigh} is there no surcease from the techno-mindset? Can transistorized artists brushes be far behind?
New And then there's the USMC V-22 Osprey...
[link|http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/|Osprey picture]

One wonders how long it will take to develop controls that work with humans.
Alex
New I understand the Osprey now.
Makes perfect sense the problems they're having, now that I'm a employee of a government contract.

Weird, wild stuff, as Johnny Carson would say.

But one might note that Boeing is developing a 'Civilian' version - which is not having the teething problems.

I ascribe this to *one* team working on it. As opposed to spread out to the nether reaches of the subcontracting system to meet government requirements.

(So that the guys putting the hydraulic lines know what pressure the pumps will be generating, and if it changes, they'll all be notified, etc).

Plus, it doesn't have to have the redundancy and ability to "survive" ground fire, so its less complex, and easier to build, and less to go wrong.

Addison
New So then.. what about the Cartercopter\ufffd ??
I presume you've at least given a gander to Doug's webpages ?

A.
New Re: I understand the Osprey now.
As opposed to spread out to the nether reaches of the subcontracting system to meet government requirements.

Not really government requirements but political requirements. Spread the development of a new system to as many different companies (in many different congressional districts/states) as you can and you guarentee it will never be cancelled

That's what happened with the C-17.
Jay O'Connor

"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
New Now That's the best excuse for the 'Osprey' I've seen!
New I've gotta share that \ufffd
They include comments from a number of periodicals, papers, journals and other documents showing that glass cockpit automation increases, decreases and redistributes workload. It enhances situational awareness, takes pilots out of the loop, increases head down time, frees the pilot to scan more often, reduces training requirements, increases training, makes the pilot job easier, increases fatigue, changes the role of the pilot, has not changed the role, makes errors, leads errors, changes the nature of human error, tunes out small errors, raised likelihood of gross errors, is desired by pilots, is not trusted, leads to boredom, frees pilot of mundane tasks and finally, increases air safety and has adverse effect on safety.


Damn. Now that's comprehensive.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
New Reread Addison's first two posts a couple times more, Ash...
Ashton: Thanks for the exposure to Windoze Does Flying. Scary. I really WILL eschew Airbus, but see that the idea is bound to spread.
...then maybe you'll notice that IT! WASN'T!! AIRBUS!!! that had the Win-NT instrumentation.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
New Poetic license - re 'fly-by-robot'. On another tack -
Ever read Airframe, Michael Crichton's take on the industry via a fictional particular 'incident' ?

It contains a pretty persuasive argument for 'letting the computer help', along with a reminder that most fighters today could not be flown without servo-loops making weird airfoil, pressure and other calculations, second by second.

We'd be really stupid though - not to see the transparent bizness goal of: a traineee in every automated plane, in cel-fone contact with one of the dozen remaining actual pilots. Most big air wanna-be monopolies are morphing to MBA operation, the CIEIO having 0 knowledge of flying.

So while Airbus might not be That naive (let M$ design our controls) they Must remain in death-struggle with Boeing, lest there be just The One US Monopoly. What will they risk to demonstrate 'higher profitability' ??

(Yes the NT epithet ought to be reserved for clear-cut boondoggles. I will do better, er less..)

A.
New Naah...
Ever read Airframe, Michael Crichton's take on the industry via a fictional particular 'incident' ?
...but I'll try and get it sometime soon. Since you can't seem to stop recommending it, and all! :-)


It contains a pretty persuasive argument for 'letting the computer help', along with a reminder that most fighters today could not be flown without servo-loops making weird airfoil, pressure and other calculations, second by second.
Actually, AFAIK, "most" fighters today _are_ still inherently aerodynamically stable. All of them except the SAAB JAS 39 Gripen, that is -- or is the Rafale in production yet? The ATF/YF22 doesn't count; I'm fairly sure it's still just in the prototype stage.


So while Airbus might not be That naive (let M$ design our controls) they Must remain in death-struggle with Boeing, lest there be just The One US Monopoly.
Fuck knows how far they'll go... Not THAT far, I sincerely hope. One little ray of light that contributes to keeping this hope alive is the likelyhood (fact?) that as a European (Pan-, actually) company, they'll be more reluctant than Boing-boing to keep that _other_ "One US Monopoly" in power...


(Yes the NT epithet ought to be reserved for clear-cut boondoggles. I will do better, er less..)
(I just got the "Only the choicest German spam!" LRPDism, BTW. This has to mean *something*...)
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
     WIndows NT in the cockpit. - (addison) - (14)
         So lemme get this straight... - (jb4) - (13)
             I don't know about that. - (addison) - (12)
                 Huh? manual override at the COMPUTER's option ? - (Ashton) - (11)
                     The computer is always right. - (addison) - (10)
                         Cackle.. loved the last \ufffd - a tissue of contradictions - (Ashton) - (9)
                             And then there's the USMC V-22 Osprey... - (a6l6e6x) - (4)
                                 I understand the Osprey now. - (addison) - (3)
                                     So then.. what about the Cartercopter\ufffd ?? - (Ashton)
                                     Re: I understand the Osprey now. - (Fearless Freep) - (1)
                                         Now That's the best excuse for the 'Osprey' I've seen! -NT - (Ashton)
                             I've gotta share that \ufffd - (drewk)
                             Reread Addison's first two posts a couple times more, Ash... - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                 Poetic license - re 'fly-by-robot'. On another tack - - (Ashton) - (1)
                                     Naah... - (CRConrad)

You know the comments are going to be good.
105 ms