Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
Would Computerized ATC Intentionally Under Report Safety Deficiencies?
Do incentive bonuses create cheats?


Probably not.

....but humans have a knack of working their way out of their failures and
stupidities such that, while things may get uncomfortable for a while, at
the end of the day nobody gets seriously hurt in most cases.

Computerized systems tend to fail spectacularly because they never
anticipate the conditions that will result in their failures and
stupidities... as in: air traffic shut down over all of the UK, or 120
flights cancelled at Northwest, or all your bank's ATM's are down for 36
hours, or somebody hacks in and steals 40 million credit card numbers, or
your car's ignition control system shuts down your car on the freeway
because of some minor glitch in your transmission... etc., etc... all actual
cases.

I would believe that a lot of flights should be able to go end-to-end within
a fully automated ATC system. But there will also always be some number
that will not be able to, and as long as we recognize that and design the
system accordingly, go for it.






-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 11, Number 26a -- June 27, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------------


WHISTLE-BLOWER'S CLAIMS SUBSTANTIATED...
....snip...

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 10:08:42 -0400, "Icebound"
wrote in
::

Computerized systems tend to fail spectacularly because they never
anticipate the conditions that will result in their failures

It is difficult for software designers to anticipate every situation
that might occur. Computerized systems tend to evolve over time as
feedback is acquired and software is patched to address the issues
uncovered by use.

I would believe that a lot of flights should be able to go end-to-end within
a fully automated ATC system. But there will also always be some number
that will not be able to, and as long as we recognize that and design the
system accordingly, go for it.

She is:

http://www.jpdo.aero/site_content/ExecDirJobDesc.html
In March [2005], Federal Aviation Administrator Marion C. Blakey
announced the creation of the Next Generation Air Transportation
System Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that will
coordinate with the Joint Planning and Development Office as it
continues to implement the Integrated National Plan.

http://www.jpdo.aero/site_content/news.html#cooling
The Administrator detailed the vision of the future system: "Our
overarching goal in the Next Generation initiative is to develop a
system that will be flexible enough to accommodate very light jets
and large commercial aircraft, manned or unmanned air vehicles,
small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike,
and to handle up to three times the number of operations that the
current system, does with no diminution in safety, security and
efficiency. At the same time, the system would minimize the impact
of aviation on the environment."

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
..snip...


http://www.jpdo.aero/site_content/news.html#cooling
The Administrator detailed the vision of the future system:


"Our
overarching goal in the Next Generation initiative is to develop a
system that will be flexible enough to accommodate very light jets
and large commercial aircraft, manned or unmanned air vehicles,
small airports and large, business and vacation travelers alike,
and to handle up to three times the number of operations that the
current system, does with no diminution in safety, security and
efficiency. At the same time, the system would minimize the impact
of aviation on the environment."



I have seen these quotes before. I have been involved in software projects
where they have occurred.

I wonder if the quote is as much from the Administration, as it is from the
first page of those responses (to the Request For Proposals) from all of the
software companies lining up for a piece of the development contract. The
quote has little resemblance to what will ultimately get delivered many
hundreds of millions of dollars later. And that won't include the annual
cost of maintenance if you really want that proverbial 99.9-percent up-time,
because at this stage few are even thinking about maintenance... and those
who are, are blissfully hoping that it will be *trivial* and easily
recovered from all those salaried positions that will be cut.

There is lots of argument about how successful systems get implemented. The
quote above scares me mostly because it implies that we intend to *try it
all* in one swoop. Ain't gonna happen. Henry practised on the Model A
before he built a Lincoln with air-conditioning. Bill practised with
Windows 3.0 before he built XP... and it ain't finished yet, either. As you
said: successful large systems evolve from successful small systems.

I do not pretend to know their strategy, but I hope that it will emphasize
less the grand "next Generation initiative" and focus on the mundane small
steps that could be implemented today and tomorrow.

IMHO.