It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Problem here is nobody minds if I bash bash the lazy B, but don't you dare point out Airbus failures.
Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by verylowfrequency
so a computer starts getting faulty inputs and reacts to them - but you say the computer can`t crash the aircraft when the inputs recieved are faulty?
rubbish
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
As a computer engineer I blame the problem on software design and implementation because sensors will always fail sooner or later, but they should have foreseen such a possiblilty.
Originally posted by ecoparity
Perceptions are based on individual experiences, history and preferences. They cannot be "right" or "wrong" and cannot be changed by argument.
Originally posted by C0bzz
Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by verylowfrequency
so a computer starts getting faulty inputs and reacts to them - but you say the computer can`t crash the aircraft when the inputs recieved are faulty?
rubbish
He actually expects aircraft to fly without sensors.
Aeroperú Flight 603
[edit on 22/10/2009 by C0bzz]
Originally posted by ecoparity
Wasn't that the flight that crashed because a ground crew member put tape over the pitot tube inlets for washing the plane and forgot to remove it? I seem to remember the wrong color tape being used and being harder to see was missed during the walk around.
The pilots reacted badly to the disparate and erratic sensor readings, they were getting overspeed and stall warnings concurrently if I remember correctly.
The pilots reacted badly to the disparate and erratic sensor readings, they were getting overspeed and stall warnings concurrently if I remember correctly.
Originally posted by ecoparity
I fail to see where I've applied my perceptions "globally", any chance you can enlighten me on that one?
I once spent a summer flying on a certain Phoenix based carrier twice per week on nothing but Airbus jets and I have to say, the quality was not impressive. A value carrier might have more maintenance issues than most but almost every flight was delayed for mechanical problems and the interior of the planes was trashed.
Originally posted by ecoparity
No, it would probably be due to watching National Geographic "Air Crash Investigation", season 1, episode 5 "Flying Blind" a week ago.
You go right ahead and keep making those assumptions and using them to accuse people of dishonesty without factual reason to do so though. It makes you look oh so clever and all that.
Originally posted by ecoparity
At least we don't have to put up with people telling posters to STFU because they lack professional experience in the field being discussed.
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Originally posted by ecoparity
No, it would probably be due to watching National Geographic "Air Crash Investigation", season 1, episode 5 "Flying Blind" a week ago.
You go right ahead and keep making those assumptions and using them to accuse people of dishonesty without factual reason to do so though. It makes you look oh so clever and all that.
Ahh...
I see. A few programs on NG, and now you've acquired in-depth knowledge of how and why aircraft crash.
Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by C0bzz
Again I'm no aviation expert, but I do know how computers work - they do exactly what you tell them to do - except in this case they were provided with the wrong information which caused the software to do exactly what it had been programed to do and thus it was not the sensor failure that caused the crash.
It was the sensor failure that exposed a flaw in the software design, because that scenario was not planned for when it was designed. Had it had the ability to check another source of sensor data, another words it could of cross checked other sources of data before the fatal action was taken.
The software should of had the ability to pull other sources of data so that it could predict the likely simultaneous sensor failures - at least to the point that it would of given the pilots better information so that they were able to take corrective action.
Perhaps the flaw would of never been exposed had the crashes not occurred, that I do consider. Still once a flaw is exposed it seems in the aviation industry liability is more important than admitting a poor design and immediately fixing it.
[edit on 23-10-2009 by verylowfrequency]