Navigation has historically been based on land based radio navaids (VORs, TACANs, and NDBs and inertials. Modern aircraft use GPS and inertials but still use radio navaids. I don't know if aircraft could be subject to interference from the satelite uplinks, but I think its unlikely. I have no resources to circumnavigate satelite xmitters anyway, so I don't think its an issue.
Some airlines have figured it out, so don't give me any "the economy" or "fear of terrorists" bullshit.,
Oh, you mean Southwest, JetBlue. Good luck getting from Des Moines to Paris on them. Their model is not the same as an international carrier. Point to point low frills service with multiple stops vice hub and spoke. You cannot offer affordable global travel point to point. If you can, let me in on it- I love a good business opportunity.
I don't understand why you think a plane ticket is any different than a ticket to, say, a broadway show
People don't mill about at the airport and shop for last minute fares (like at a broadway show). Travel requires substantial preplanning on the part of both comsumer and provider. Perhaps your tavel plans are that flexible, but that would not be typical.
Once the lobbying dollars run out, and the airline busines actualy starts to resemble a capatilistic market (i.e. the government stops propping up your failed business), your time will be up.
?! Deregulation occurred back in the late 1970's. What do you wish for? Failure of the airlines or is it just cheaper tickets? Better think about this because all you need is one less major carrier out there and fares will rise sharply. Maybe you want re-regulation. Fares are much cheaper now compared to the regulated airline days.
Of course if you're so smart how come you're not making any money?
I can't think of a more perfect storm than a recession combined with threat of terrorism, SARS and war. It isn't just US carriers- Singapore, Quantas, JAL, BA, Air France are all unprofitalble at the moment. We'll have to disagree here that the issue is "smarts" (I assume you were refering to the industry as a whole rather than mine). The industry is evolving faster than ever. The profitable carriers you talk about are domestic low fare- an apples to oranges comparison. My area of expertise is in the operational side, not economics. What's yours? Perhaps we're both wrong. See here for a summary of yield managment: http://www.siam.org/siamnews/mtc/mtc69 4.htm Sounds like broadway show pricing to me.
re: They fly in the face of how every other ticket selling business prices their tickets to make money, even though the principles are exactly the same.
What businesses are you talking about? Ticketmaster? Airline seats are commodities. Once the flight departs, the empty seat is worthless. Thus if you wait until the last minute your price will be higher.
re: We'd be better off in the long run if the major airlines collapsed and were built from scratch.
You're free to start your own airline using your improved business model. I assume your doctorate in transportation economics will save us all from capitalism.
Lastly, I understand your frustration with fare schedules. They don't satisfy the customer, but not every reason for complicated fares is bogus.
As a matter of fact, yes. I am a "let's say commercial airline pilot". I have flown Boeing (737, 757, 767, 777) and Airbus (A319 and A320), and Lockheed, and Beechcraft too. Sitting in the cockpit is a great place to witness the unusal occurrances in question. And I've not seen any (yet). I fly planes because I can't write software...
Then this will scare you... Every Airbus ever made has been fly by wire. There is absolutely no direct connection to the flight control surfaces. The closest it gets is pitch trim can manually deflect the stabilizer through a hydralic actuator- the connection is still wired but seperate. All control inputs are fed to seven computers (2 ELACs, 2 FACs, and 3 SECs) which position the control surfaces. The system has three catagories of control law. Without any electrical power, the aircraft is uncontrollable. Now to ease your fears... If there are multiple failures of redundant systems, the controls can move from normal to alternate or direct law. Even with complete loss of generator power, the pilot can operate in direct law (on battery) and land safely. Yes, we train in this law. No, its not easy.
P.S. Lightning stikes are common and most aircraft have some damage taht is deferred until the next heavy maint. visit.
I fly too. But while I support the current policies on use of consumer electronics during critical phases, I tend to believe that they have no effect on aircraft systems. I've never experienced anything like what was cited in the article and I've flown electric airplanes for years. Don't tell anyone but I have even forgotten to turn off my cell phone for a whole flight right in the cockpit (OK maybe even more that once). The most likely interference to navigation will be external- for example, I've found it common that ILS interference occurs with aircraft in front of me on final or at the hold short. A good reason to respect the ILS critcal area.
Aircraft electronics are indeed both designed to withstand and tested for RF interference- even more so than consumer electronics. And I've never experinced anything like what was cited in the article. As for making money by providing a service- that's capitalism.
From personal experience, I doubt seriously that any consumer electronic device is going to fritz the controls on a commercial airliner. I've never experienced anything like what was cited in the article. However, I couldn't say for sure what would happen if someone were to intentionally generate some form of EMP. Regardless, aircraft systems are more that minimally hardened and the are adequate redundencies to provide for this.
As for the question posed at the end of the article, I find that the use of the laptop or any other consumer electronic device is insignificant. I've personally never experienced any thing like what was cited in the article. But since you feel that is a reflection on our inability to make money, I would like make a few points. First, the airline business is unbelievably capital intensive. Just a minor economic downturn can put an end to an airline. If enough of them go under, count on paying more. Second, yeah, tickets are expensive, but they're much cheaper today than they were 15 or 30 years ago and the trend is toward more affordable fares. Furthermore, its safe. Its safe because of organizations like the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and Air Line Pilots Assoc. ask questions like these and push for other safety improvements.
I miss Be, but now the important question is how much can we expect to receive in the end? I figure from the last 10Q we should get $28M/38M shares outstanding the small sum of about 74 cents per share. Oh well, it still beats the trading price.
Good question. I would say the answer to that is the same as for a user of any product, be it an airplane or even a software application. Any user can be a judge of the quality of the product in question simply by using it. The relevance of their opinion can be assessed by their perspective, training and experience. To elaborate on my previous comment, I was speaking not from the perspective of a pasesnger but from that of the pilot. I have flown (piloted and passengered) both Boeing (737,757,767,777) and Airbus(A319,A320) and I stand by my opinion that Boeing build aircraft of a higher quality, and furthermore, are less difficult to operate (pilot).
And you know because you've been through this training? The NTSB report has not been finalized, but I suspect the pilots use of rudder was not "typical". Nonetheless, up until this incident, transport pilots in general had not been taught to avoid such rudder inputs even though such avoidence might be presumed to be intiutive. Incidentally, it has been reported that this aircraft had a previous rudder repair. We will find out when the investigation is finished what bearing this had on the accident.
re:Of course, if the personnel costs are too high (like United), nothing will help.
Have you looked at those costs lately. Have you looked at them throughout the century. Do more homework than just reading USA Today. Just so you know, I'll be working half again as many hours for 45% less money. I'm not complaining- just want you to know some facts. It seems common practice to bash (rightly sometimes) labor and ignore (wrongly most of the time) management's missteps. Can't think of any examples of management misdeeds? How 'bout a recent one: American's senior mngt greed got Carty fired about a month ago. Another one: Delta's CEO Leo Mulin was pretty well compensated for an unprofitable airline screaming about need of labor savings- even the politicians thought so. There's much more but I've most likely lost your attention. Do a Google search, but remember how slanted towards business the big media are. Go here: http://www.alpa.org/ for a different perspective. Lastly, be careful what you ask for. If you pay chump wages, you'll get chump product. This goes for software as well as pilots and mechanics. Do you really want the guy flying you somewhere to be a novice who quits for better pay just at the point where his experience becomes valuable to your safety? Flying is very safe, but its not because of management's drive to reduce costs and put pesky labor in its place!
re:...allowing passengers to use assorted electronic gadgetry...
I still don't know why this is an issue. Other than a few anecdotal tidbits about unexplained aircraft performance deviations, I can think of no reason for the prohibition of the use gadgets. I think its just that no one wants to put the time in to disprove the assumptions or be accountable for saying their use is OK.
re:Not only is Boeing trying to compete with what many consider is an inferior product...
IMO, If you mean Boeing's products are inferior, I have to strongly disagree. I have flown both and find that on the issue of quality, Boeing has a significant advantage. Boeing also have a better approach to automation. However, Airbus are more afordable and cheaper to operate and maintain because they have achieved commonality (training, maintainence, parts) across models that Boeing have yet to achieve.
Disagree. Boeing's most recent transport (777) was finished by 1995. Do you suppose the have been developmentaly idle in the past 8 years? Any efforts they spent on the sonic cruiser would be usable on the 7E7- just look at the similarities.
Two types of aircraft have moved to the desert: those too old and those too expensive to operate. Most are too old- 737-100's and 200's, DC-9's, 727's, DC-10's, etc. Some (mostly 747-400's) have leases negotiated under stronger economies and are no longer cheap enough to operate, but a trip to Ch 11 can make the lease terms improve. The older aircraft were destined for the desert long before Sept. 11, but ended up all going there at the same time because of the dramatic economic changes. The newer ones will return soon...
Some very nice discussion here, but I notice that few have proposed alternatives to CAPPS, nor a meaningful approach to security of the flying public. Perhaps that is due to the nature of the Slashdot reader- IT smarties, not security smarties. Most here see themselves as privacy experts too- all it takes to be a privacy expert is to posit that more (privacy) is better. From Privacy Activism: >Instead of CAPPS, why not reinforce cockpit doors,
A work in progress, and step in the right direction.
>match passengers with their luggage, employ explosive-sensing detectors or dogs on passengers, baggage and cargo.
Already in effect. Dogs need rest breaks, training, play time, etc. Explosive detectors are expensive and require trained, experienced operators- you will pay for them both in higher ticket prices and lengthier pre-boarding times, or as is presently happening, avoid flying altogether!
>Consider fly by wire guidance systems that would allow a pilot to flip a switch to automatically land an endangered plane at the nearest military airport.
Very little point to this. Consider writing the code to automate the functions of the pilot altogether but don't forget to include a subroutine that effectively models the pilots judgment and experience- some things humans will always be better at doing.
This isn't open source folks. It involves lives and surfaces from irrationally desperate hatred or insanity.
Sept 11 changed the way I look at my job. I want to feel less vulnerable, and we've only made a little progress. I agree that we need to improve things. As a working pilot, I have had to pass through security my entire career to make sure I wasn't carrying explosives or weapons. If I intended harm, I wouldn't need anything more than the same access to the controls that I've always had. (Two pilots who pointed this precise issue out while being screened were arrested on seperate occasions.) Why do we subject working crew members to this type of mis-targeted inspection? We need to tailor the inspection to the type of threat. Consequently I advocate more intense background and psychological scrutiny on all individuals in security sensitive positions (not just pilots). Likewise, the flying public should endure more than just a cursory inspection, and whatever form it takes must be effective on a scale of millions per day. Is CAPPS the answer? Maybe not, but whatever evolves is unlikely to ever satisfy privacy advocates.
>I for one don't care for fly-by-wire. Perhaps I'm >old fashioned.:>
>I'd rather the airplane do what I told it to do >than what it thinks I should have told it to do. >Same reason I like Unix- I don't want my airplane, >or my computer, doing what it thinks I meant >rather than what I told it.:>
When Airbus was the only commercial FBW aircraft manufacturer, I used to feel the same way. The issue is how FBW is implemented and to what degree the pilot understands the implementation. Airbus' approach the FBW issue is that the aircraft will never allow the pilot to break the "flight laws" that the engineers designed. Airbus' says once a given critical flight parameter is reached, any further control input that would exceed this limit is ignored. Personally, I feel this is too limiting. Boeing's approach with the 777 (their first commercial FBW) has been to provide the pilot adequate warning that a critical flight parameter is nearing or exceeded but allow the exceedance. Recall the A320 that flew beautifully into the trees at the end of the runway in Toulose, FR back in the late 80's or early 90's. The pilot exploited the software without fully understanding the consequences. FBW works wonderfully well when its used as a tool and the pilot that has ultimate control rather than vice versa. Disclaimer: I've never flown Airbus, but I have flown lots of Boeing- 737,757,767,777. I do, however, have access to industry safety data that shows the advantages/disadvantages of both implementations and IMHO Boeing's is better.
Slashdot Mirror
Navigation has historically been based on land based radio navaids (VORs, TACANs, and NDBs and inertials. Modern aircraft use GPS and inertials but still use radio navaids. I don't know if aircraft could be subject to interference from the satelite uplinks, but I think its unlikely. I have no resources to circumnavigate satelite xmitters anyway, so I don't think its an issue.
Some airlines have figured it out, so don't give me any "the economy" or "fear of terrorists" bullshit.,
9 4.htm
Oh, you mean Southwest, JetBlue. Good luck getting from Des Moines to Paris on them. Their model is not the same as an international carrier. Point to point low frills service with multiple stops vice hub and spoke. You cannot offer affordable global travel point to point. If you can, let me in on it- I love a good business opportunity.
I don't understand why you think a plane ticket is any different than a ticket to, say, a broadway show
People don't mill about at the airport and shop for last minute fares (like at a broadway show). Travel requires substantial preplanning on the part of both comsumer and provider. Perhaps your tavel plans are that flexible, but that would not be typical.
Once the lobbying dollars run out, and the airline busines actualy starts to resemble a capatilistic market (i.e. the government stops propping up your failed business), your time will be up.
?! Deregulation occurred back in the late 1970's. What do you wish for? Failure of the airlines or is it just cheaper tickets? Better think about this because all you need is one less major carrier out there and fares will rise sharply. Maybe you want re-regulation. Fares are much cheaper now compared to the regulated airline days.
Of course if you're so smart how come you're not making any money?
I can't think of a more perfect storm than a recession combined with threat of terrorism, SARS and war. It isn't just US carriers- Singapore, Quantas, JAL, BA, Air France are all unprofitalble at the moment.
We'll have to disagree here that the issue is "smarts" (I assume you were refering to the industry as a whole rather than mine). The industry is evolving faster than ever. The profitable carriers you talk about are domestic low fare- an apples to oranges comparison.
My area of expertise is in the operational side, not economics. What's yours? Perhaps we're both wrong. See here for a summary of yield managment:
http://www.siam.org/siamnews/mtc/mtc6
Sounds like broadway show pricing to me.
re: They fly in the face of how every other ticket selling business prices their tickets to make money, even though the principles are exactly the same.
What businesses are you talking about? Ticketmaster?
Airline seats are commodities. Once the flight departs, the empty seat is worthless. Thus if you wait until the last minute your price will be higher.
re: We'd be better off in the long run if the major airlines collapsed and were built from scratch.
You're free to start your own airline using your improved business model. I assume your doctorate in transportation economics will save us all from capitalism.
Lastly, I understand your frustration with fare schedules. They don't satisfy the customer, but not every reason for complicated fares is bogus.
As a matter of fact, yes. I am a "let's say commercial airline pilot". I have flown Boeing (737, 757, 767, 777) and Airbus (A319 and A320), and Lockheed, and Beechcraft too. Sitting in the cockpit is a great place to witness the unusal occurrances in question. And I've not seen any (yet). I fly planes because I can't write software...
Then this will scare you...
Every Airbus ever made has been fly by wire. There is absolutely no direct connection to the flight control surfaces. The closest it gets is pitch trim can manually deflect the stabilizer through a hydralic actuator- the connection is still wired but seperate. All control inputs are fed to seven computers (2 ELACs, 2 FACs, and 3 SECs) which position the control surfaces. The system has three catagories of control law. Without any electrical power, the aircraft is uncontrollable.
Now to ease your fears...
If there are multiple failures of redundant systems, the controls can move from normal to alternate or direct law. Even with complete loss of generator power, the pilot can operate in direct law (on battery) and land safely. Yes, we train in this law. No, its not easy.
P.S. Lightning stikes are common and most aircraft have some damage taht is deferred until the next heavy maint. visit.
I fly too. But while I support the current policies on use of consumer electronics during critical phases, I tend to believe that they have no effect on aircraft systems. I've never experienced anything like what was cited in the article and I've flown electric airplanes for years. Don't tell anyone but I have even forgotten to turn off my cell phone for a whole flight right in the cockpit (OK maybe even more that once). The most likely interference to navigation will be external- for example, I've found it common that ILS interference occurs with aircraft in front of me on final or at the hold short. A good reason to respect the ILS critcal area.
Aircraft electronics are indeed both designed to withstand and tested for RF interference- even more so than consumer electronics. And I've never experinced anything like what was cited in the article. As for making money by providing a service- that's capitalism.
From personal experience, I doubt seriously that any consumer electronic device is going to fritz the controls on a commercial airliner. I've never experienced anything like what was cited in the article. However, I couldn't say for sure what would happen if someone were to intentionally generate some form of EMP. Regardless, aircraft systems are more that minimally hardened and the are adequate redundencies to provide for this.
As for the question posed at the end of the article, I find that the use of the laptop or any other consumer electronic device is insignificant. I've personally never experienced any thing like what was cited in the article. But since you feel that is a reflection on our inability to make money, I would like make a few points.
First, the airline business is unbelievably capital intensive. Just a minor economic downturn can put an end to an airline. If enough of them go under, count on paying more.
Second, yeah, tickets are expensive, but they're much cheaper today than they were 15 or 30 years ago and the trend is toward more affordable fares.
Furthermore, its safe. Its safe because of organizations like the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and Air Line Pilots Assoc. ask questions like these and push for other safety improvements.
I miss Be, but now the important question is how much can we expect to receive in the end? I figure from the last 10Q we should get $28M/38M shares outstanding the small sum of about 74 cents per share. Oh well, it still beats the trading price.
Victorville, CA. is one where most of ours have gone. The photo's of Marana and DM are 747 SP (Special Performance) that were retire before 1994.
Good question. I would say the answer to that is the same as for a user of any product, be it an airplane or even a software application. Any user can be a judge of the quality of the product in question simply by using it. The relevance of their opinion can be assessed by their perspective, training and experience.
To elaborate on my previous comment, I was speaking not from the perspective of a pasesnger but from that of the pilot. I have flown (piloted and passengered) both Boeing (737,757,767,777) and Airbus(A319,A320) and I stand by my opinion that Boeing build aircraft of a higher quality, and furthermore, are less difficult to operate (pilot).
And you know because you've been through this training?
The NTSB report has not been finalized, but I suspect the pilots use of rudder was not "typical". Nonetheless, up until this incident, transport pilots in general had not been taught to avoid such rudder inputs even though such avoidence might be presumed to be intiutive.
Incidentally, it has been reported that this aircraft had a previous rudder repair. We will find out when the investigation is finished what bearing this had on the accident.
re:Of course, if the personnel costs are too high (like United), nothing will help.
Have you looked at those costs lately. Have you looked at them throughout the century. Do more homework than just reading USA Today. Just so you know, I'll be working half again as many hours for 45% less money. I'm not complaining- just want you to know some facts. It seems common practice to bash (rightly sometimes) labor and ignore (wrongly most of the time) management's missteps. Can't think of any examples of management misdeeds? How 'bout a recent one: American's senior mngt greed got Carty fired about a month ago. Another one: Delta's CEO Leo Mulin was pretty well compensated for an unprofitable airline screaming about need of labor savings- even the politicians thought so. There's much more but I've most likely lost your attention. Do a Google search, but remember how slanted towards business the big media are.
Go here: http://www.alpa.org/ for a different perspective.
Lastly, be careful what you ask for. If you pay chump wages, you'll get chump product. This goes for software as well as pilots and mechanics. Do you really want the guy flying you somewhere to be a novice who quits for better pay just at the point where his experience becomes valuable to your safety? Flying is very safe, but its not because of management's drive to reduce costs and put pesky labor in its place!
re:...allowing passengers to use assorted electronic gadgetry...
I still don't know why this is an issue. Other than a few anecdotal tidbits about unexplained aircraft performance deviations, I can think of no reason for the prohibition of the use gadgets. I think its just that no one wants to put the time in to disprove the assumptions or be accountable for saying their use is OK.
re:Not only is Boeing trying to compete with what many consider is an inferior product...
IMO,
If you mean Boeing's products are inferior, I have to strongly disagree. I have flown both and find that on the issue of quality, Boeing has a significant advantage. Boeing also have a better approach to automation. However, Airbus are more afordable and cheaper to operate and maintain because they have achieved commonality (training, maintainence, parts) across models that Boeing have yet to achieve.
Disagree. Boeing's most recent transport (777) was finished by 1995. Do you suppose the have been developmentaly idle in the past 8 years? Any efforts they spent on the sonic cruiser would be usable on the 7E7- just look at the similarities.
Two types of aircraft have moved to the desert: those too old and those too expensive to operate. Most are too old- 737-100's and 200's, DC-9's, 727's, DC-10's, etc. Some (mostly 747-400's) have leases negotiated under stronger economies and are no longer cheap enough to operate, but a trip to Ch 11 can make the lease terms improve.
The older aircraft were destined for the desert long before Sept. 11, but ended up all going there at the same time because of the dramatic economic changes. The newer ones will return soon...
Some very nice discussion here, but I notice that few have proposed alternatives to CAPPS, nor a meaningful approach to security of the flying public. Perhaps that is due to the nature of the Slashdot reader- IT smarties, not security smarties. Most here see themselves as privacy experts too- all it takes to be a privacy expert is to posit that more (privacy) is better. From Privacy Activism:
>Instead of CAPPS, why not reinforce cockpit doors,
A work in progress, and step in the right direction.
>match passengers with their luggage, employ explosive-sensing detectors or dogs on passengers, baggage and cargo.
Already in effect. Dogs need rest breaks, training, play time, etc. Explosive detectors are expensive and require trained, experienced operators- you will pay for them both in higher ticket prices and lengthier pre-boarding times, or as is presently happening, avoid flying altogether!
>Consider fly by wire guidance systems that would allow a pilot to flip a switch to automatically land an endangered plane at the nearest military airport.
Very little point to this. Consider writing the code to automate the functions of the pilot altogether but don't forget to include a subroutine that effectively models the pilots judgment and experience- some things humans will always be better at doing.
This isn't open source folks. It involves lives and surfaces from irrationally desperate hatred or insanity.
Sept 11 changed the way I look at my job. I want to feel less vulnerable, and we've only made a little progress.
I agree that we need to improve things. As a working pilot, I have had to pass through security my entire career to make sure I wasn't carrying explosives or weapons. If I intended harm, I wouldn't need anything more than the same access to the controls that I've always had. (Two pilots who pointed this precise issue out while being screened were arrested on seperate occasions.) Why do we subject working crew members to this type of mis-targeted inspection? We need to tailor the inspection to the type of threat. Consequently I advocate more intense background and psychological scrutiny on all individuals in security sensitive positions (not just pilots). Likewise, the flying public should endure more than just a cursory inspection, and whatever form it takes must be effective on a scale of millions per day. Is CAPPS the answer? Maybe not, but whatever evolves is unlikely to ever satisfy privacy advocates.
>I for one don't care for fly-by-wire. Perhaps I'm :>
:>
>old fashioned.
>I'd rather the airplane do what I told it to do
>than what it thinks I should have told it to do.
>Same reason I like Unix- I don't want my airplane,
>or my computer, doing what it thinks I meant
>rather than what I told it.
When Airbus was the only commercial FBW aircraft manufacturer, I used to feel the same way. The issue is how FBW is implemented and to what degree the pilot understands the implementation. Airbus' approach the FBW issue is that the aircraft will never allow the pilot to break the "flight laws" that the engineers designed. Airbus' says once a given critical flight parameter is reached, any further control input that would exceed this limit is ignored. Personally, I feel this is too limiting. Boeing's approach with the 777 (their first commercial FBW) has been to provide the pilot adequate warning that a critical flight parameter is nearing or exceeded but allow the exceedance. Recall the A320 that flew beautifully into the trees at the end of the runway in Toulose, FR back in the late 80's or early 90's. The pilot exploited the software without fully understanding the consequences. FBW works wonderfully well when its used as a tool and the pilot that has ultimate control rather than vice versa.
Disclaimer: I've never flown Airbus, but I have flown lots of Boeing- 737,757,767,777. I do, however, have access to industry safety data that shows the advantages/disadvantages of both implementations and IMHO Boeing's is better.