Slashdot Mirror
Computers Key To Air France Crash
Michael_Curator writes "It's no secret that commercial airplanes are heavily computerized, but as the mystery of Air France Flight 447 unfolds, we need to come to grips with the fact that in many cases, airline pilots' hands are tied when it comes to responding effectively to an emergency situation. Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not. It's not a design flaw — it's a philosophical divide. It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information. It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer."
"What are you doing Dave?"
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
when James T. Kirk has the conn. He doesn't believe in a no-win scenario!
Don't hate the submitter for following standard /. article format: "simplify, then exaggerate."
Next up: how this crash is actually the fault of RIAA and Airbus should have used Linux.
What a dumb phrase. Do you only want former airforce pilots who've actually seen combat flying commercial planes?.
Who wouldnt want to be on a commercial flight where random barrel rolls, climbs and dives occur?
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
This is the danger of communism. Obviously, on a Boeing, Tom Cruise would have guided the plane to safety with PURE AMERICAN FREEDOM(TM).
Oh fuck off.
I'm a pilot, and I fly both Boeing and Airbus planes, quite often at night, when its really windy. I've watched the news and seen the preliminary reports, and it is clear to me that the Air France crash was caused by icicles forming on the propellors, making them get stuck. With such a reduction in thrust, the plane would have been in danger of stalling. The common procedure in this situation, which I have followed on a number of occasions, is to put the plane into a steep nosedive to regain some speed, before using full thrust to get back up to the desired height.
There is no doubt that the Air France pilots put the plane into a near vertical dive, as required by procedure, but then hit some waves on the sea before they could pull out. Once they find the black box then we will know for sure, but for now this is the most likely answer.
it is clear to me that the Air France crash was caused by icicles forming on the propellors, making them get stuck.
You forgot one thing. The pilot's bible states that before the pilot puts the plane into a steep nosedive they should send a co-pilot or flight attendant out on the wing to try to spin the propellers themselves to break the ice.
Nosediving should only be done as a last resort.
Next up: how this crash is actually the fault of RIAA and Airbus should have used Linux.
Wow. I've been reading Slashdot long enough that I know exactly what arguments could be made to advance those two statements.
http://outcampaign.org/
You are clueless and do not belong in a cockpit (not that I believe for a second that you actually are a pilot)
That 'whoosh' you hear is the failure of the parent poster's troll detection system. The troll detection system maintains level posting attitude for turbulent articles. CmdrTaco speculates that a similar troll sensor failure resulted in catastrophic Karma loss that may have contributed to the crash of Flight 447. Slashdot recommends that future posters be immediately retrofitted with properly functioning troll sensors.
As long as L. Ron Hubbard wrote the avionics software, I'm *so* boarding that plane!
you had me at #!
Apparently landing in water is far more dangerous than landing on land
We can file this sentence under "things that probably shouldn't need to be written down"
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Sorry to be pedantic, but that was a Grumman F-14 Tomcat, not a DC-8.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
What happened to your dad's foot?
So what I'm getting from this is that Airbus is 3 Laws Safe(tm) ?
I would normally agree with you, but terrain-following radar is quite unnecessary over open ocean. Unless of course you plan on dodging swells with an airplane.
this sig was brought to you by the letter
Gosh, that was such a terribly worded article summary I can't decide if the author is a regular 'editor' of /. or just a typical reflection of the poor taste and low competence of the /. editors.
Dunno, but the editor was kdawson. :-D
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
And, errrr the Hudson landing thing was done in an Airbus. Somehow the pilot managed to steer and land an Airbus with no engines even though the computers were fighting him and obstructing his every move.
Yeah, but if it had been a Boeing, the landing would have been smooth, and he would have reached port on his own.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Excuse me, these nice gentlemen in black suits would like to have a word...
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
Computer control merely makes these economic by having fewer do landscaping.
Is "landscaping" some amusing pilot euphamisim referring to the alterations a crashing plane makes to the ground when it hits?