Airbus to Expand Cockpit Automation

In article , John
wrote:

[snip]

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:

In article , John
wrote:

[snip]

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.

Apparently Airbus is putting serious engineering into this and not just
slapping something together. Why be afraid of any automation? I don't
think that inherently unstable aircraft like the B-2 or X-31 could fly
at all without heavy duty automation. Let's not forget that people
(pilots) have many potential problems too. Consider that some of the
worst nuclear accidents (Chernoybl, Idaho Labs, TMI) were at least
partially caused by humans bypassing or overriding automation systems.

In a previous article, Jeff Rogers said:
slapping something together. Why be afraid of any automation? I don't
think that inherently unstable aircraft like the B-2 or X-31 could fly
at all without heavy duty automation. Let's not forget that people

Let's also not forget two crashes of the Saab Gripen and one of the YF-22
caused by incorrectly tuned software.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I've never understood why women douse themselves with things that are alleged
to smell of roses/tulips/freesias. What exactly are they trying to attract?
Bees? -- Tanuki

In article ,
Jeff Rogers wrote:

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.

Apparently Airbus is putting serious engineering into this and not just
slapping something together. Why be afraid of any automation?

I'm not afraid of automation. I'm afraid of people who place too much
faith in automation. Sure, humans make mistakes, sometimes
spectacular mistakes. And automated systems make mistakes.

Note that I never ever said automated systems are better or worse than
human systems. I have this futile hope that people will think thru all
the risks and potential problems.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

In article ,
Martin Hotze wrote:

On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

Almost. Automated systems have implementation flaws and design flaws.
But sometimes automated systems are affected by environmental conditions
such as high energy particles (which are not impossible at enroute altitudes).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:35:55 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

Almost. Automated systems have implementation flaws and design flaws.
But sometimes automated systems are affected by environmental conditions
such as high energy particles (which are not impossible at enroute altitudes).

still: the automated system itself does not make the mistake.

yeah, I see your point, of course. :-)

#m
--
Did you ever realize how much text fits in eighty columns? If you now consider
that a signature usually consists of up to four lines, this gives you enough
space to spread a tremendous amount of information with your messages. So seize
this opportunity and don't waste your signature with bull**** nobody will read.

Martin Hotze writes:

On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:35:55 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

Almost. Automated systems have implementation flaws and design flaws.
But sometimes automated systems are affected by environmental conditions
such as high energy particles (which are not impossible at enroute altitudes).

still: the automated system itself does not make the mistake.

The difference is only important to the accident investigation team
and the lawyers, though. You're just as dead either way.

yeah, I see your point, of course. :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Martin Hotze writes:

On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:15:38 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

And automated systems make mistakes.

hmm, they work as designed. If somebody programmed a loophole and the
system comes to this point, well. Then there is don't see a mistake. Those
systems don't make any decisions. They do what the programmer told them to
do.

They encounter situations that weren't anticipated. Their reactions
are even worse than human reactions to unanticipated situations.
They're often *better* than humans for the rest of the time, though.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Bob,

Anyone who can't see the potential problems with this should be required
to understand the many times automation is discussed in comp.risks.


And anyone who can't see the potential benefits should be required to read
the Ueberlingen accident investigation.

So who's more right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)