Active no fly zone avoidance

[Eduardo Kaftanski]

Geek meets pilot, slashdot.org has news that interest you:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/03/1834237&mode=thread&tid=126


--
Eduardo Kaftanski |
| Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to loose.
|

[Jay Honeck]

> Geek meets pilot, slashdot.org has news that interest you:
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/03/1834237&mode=thread&tid=126

I wonder how bullet-proof that system is? Can you imagine the consequences
of a malfunction?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Eduardo Kaftanski]

In article <G4KJb.734217$Tr4.1964223@attbi_s03>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Geek meets pilot, slashdot.org has news that interest you:
>>
>> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/03/1834237&mode=thread&tid=126
>
>I wonder how bullet-proof that system is? Can you imagine the consequences
>of a malfunction?

I was just imagining a plane at its service ceiling being commanded
a pull up....



--
Eduardo Kaftanski |
| Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to loose.
|

[Aviv Hod]

>
> I wonder how bullet-proof that system is? Can you imagine the
consequences
> of a malfunction?

It doesn't matter how "bullet-proof" the system is, since the whole paradigm
is flawed. Our current paradigm works pretty well: one human pilot in
command bears ultimate responsibility for the safety of flight. Anything
that helps the pilot make and execute decisions is welcome. Anything that
interferes with the pilot's control of the aircraft is asking for serious
trouble. We're not talking about elevators here - aviation is not something
that I can forsee ever being completely automated. I say this as an
electrical engineer and as a pilot.

Slashdotters show themselves to be as ignorant as the rest of the public
with respect to aviation every time an aviation related story pops up (and
it's usually a duplicate story...). I sometimes chime in over there to try
to set facts straight but I'm getting awfully tired of it. Genuine, polite
attempts to point out the issues from a pilot's perspective have been met
with ignorant, snotty and elitist replies.

It seems that there are a whole lot of people that think the amazing safety
record of the commercial aviation industry is solely due to airliner's high
technology, not the phenomenal dedication and training of the people that
maintain and fly these machines.

They are, of course, dead wrong. Just ask Al Haynes.

Blue Skies!

-Aviv Hod

[StellaStar]

>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/03/1834237&mode=thread&tid=126
>

This sounds like a deeply stupid idead.
"Basically, through GPS, if a plane begins to enter a no-fly zone (eg, around a
mountain, or over Lower Manhattan), an alarm goes off in the cockpit. If
ignored, the system actively removes control of the plane away from the pilot
and co-pilot to steer the plane out of the no-fly zone..."

And the pilot could not regain control of the plane. What if the reason for a
detour was another plane popping up in your path, a storm, or losing one engine
in a twin...only to lose total control of the plane?

Their test sample, OTOH, has nothing to do with no-fly zones..."steered the
plane toward a nearby mountain. As the distance between the aircraft and the
mountain closed, the system issued an audible warning: 'Caution, terrain.
Caution, terrain.' With about one minute to spare, the computer took control
of the plane..."

Yes, collision-avoidance gadgets are nice but they have nothing to do with
no-fly zones. You don't prove the worth of one thing by demonstrating another,
and I can't imagine very many situations in which wresting control from a pilot
would make a situation better.

[Ron Natalie]

"Eduardo Kaftanski" > wrote in message ...
> In article <G4KJb.734217$Tr4.1964223@attbi_s03>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >> Geek meets pilot, slashdot.org has news that interest you:
> >>
> >> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/03/1834237&mode=thread&tid=126
> >
> >I wonder how bullet-proof that system is? Can you imagine the consequences
> >of a malfunction?
>
> I was just imagining a plane at its service ceiling being commanded
> a pull up....

It would also be easily defeated. Light aircraft aren't fly-by-wire.

[John Galban]

Eduardo Kaftanski > wrote in message >...
> Geek meets pilot, slashdot.org has news that interest you:
>
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/03/1834237&mode=thread&tid=126

"ABCNews recently profiled the project (with video) and also rode
along with a working prototype built by Honeywell that successfully
kept a Beechcraft from hitting a mountain."

Suppose I happen to be landing on the mountain, what then? I was
also wondering what the effect of an engine failure over mountainous
terrain would be. Would that gadget keep steering you away from the
higher terrain to the lowest, regardless of it's suitability for an
emergency landing?

I could go on, but it's pretty obvious that this gizmo would be
dangerous in a small aircraft unless you could disable it. If you
could disable it, then it cannot perform its intended purpose.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)