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."
Lemme guess. You're an asshole.
Probably just as accurate, no?
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.
1) The A330 has turbofan engines, and does not have "propellors"
2) "get stuck"?? icing doesn't make anything get stuck, it disrupts the aerodynamic shape of the wing
You are clueless and do not belong in a cockpit (not that I believe for a second that you actually are a pilot)
Now hold on, didn't those Euro-voters just vote the other day in favor of right-wing neocon-types?
Oops! As you were..you're right...he's an asshole!
If it ain't Boeing,
Then I ain't going.
Yeah, while ppl will point to the storm, it simply was not that bad. OTH, Airbus has had a KNOWN issue with the CPU's taking control and literally diving the aircraft a 1000 ft+. THe reason is that some logic appears to have issues with how it handles errors, in particular, how it handles the laminar air flow sensors.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If airbus is running windows it WOULD explain a lot....
That's not the correct counterfactual though. You need to provide us with 2 examples where the pilot decided to manually override the flight computer and crashed. Also, you need to show that had the pilots not manually overridden the computer the crash wouldn't have happened.
Well? Get to it.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
For the record, it was an Airbus A320 (a full FBW aircraft) that was flown into the Hudson.
To add to the record it was during a take off over Manhattan so it would have been operated manually by a human no matter who owned or made it.
Let's not argue about companies or nationalities, the simple fact is we think this particular French Airbus crashed do to design failure, specificity computer related and not human failure and this only strengthens the case for humans to still be able to fully operate complex machines.
"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."
It's not surprising that kdawson is an inconsistent bigot either. Bash Microsoft (or similar) one minute for being anti-personal freedom (hint: The EU are the ones forcing them to change), then turn around and say that a European company is less likely to be pro-individual-freedom the next. The doctor could help with that inflamed bile duct if you would just get your foot out of your damn mouth.