Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:20 From: Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de (Ralf Sipple) Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering References: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In sci.aeronautics.airliners Thomas Buro <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > 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 Experience in many accidents has shown that pilots tend to abort the T/O even at speeds slightly above V1. Asked, why they had done this, they didn't have an explanation or stated something like "#3 had failed, so I suspected that #4 had failed too". I think that there is a psychological barrier. One doesn't want to take off with an unhealthy plane. Men want to keep their feet on the ground. I predict, that most pilots don't want a computer to decide whether to abort or continue a take off. On the other hand, there aren't many exceptions to the rule "before V1 stop, after V1 go". I have no doubt that AI wouldn't hesitate to build such a device in its planes to make them more "pilot proof". I think that such device could assist the commander in making his decision by not just saying "ding, ding, ding" but give a more distinct warning like "engine 2 flameout, everything else ok. Please continue". Viele Gruesse, Ralf -- 2-Zimmer-DG-Wohnung in Greven bei Muenster/Westf. zu vermieten: http://home.t-online.de/home/ralf.sipple/whg_greven.html Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-2571-549327 | email@example.com D-48268 Greven | Anrufbeantw. +49-2571-549326 | pgp key on request!