Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:17 From: email@example.com Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1998.1549@ohare.Chicago.COM> Thomas Buro <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >On a conference about the design of human-machine systems, i.e. Cockpit >design the issue of Rejected take off was discussed. A professor could >mathematically prove that decisions shortly before V1 is reached are >better made by a computer. The scenario was: one engine failure, no >further problems etc. In case of engine failure and a wrong decision of >the pilot the computer would fly the aircraft. Given a fixed number of variables, a computer can perform almost any task better than a human. The difficulties arise when the variables are subject to interpretation. Do you abort after a loud noise? When did the takeoff roll start? How confident do you feel you can actually stop? A number of incidents in the 1980s brought forth a realization that an incident at or before V1 doesn't *have* to mean you stop. Sometimes, it's better to take off. That judgement is what we pay pilots the big bucks for. >What do professional pilots think about that issue? Would you like such >a system, which is taking control or would you like to have warnings >from the computer what is the better decision ? (How should such a >warning look like) NASA (Ames, I believe) had a performance-based indicator system for this purpose. Check the tech reports server. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off.