| Author |
Message |
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
John Woodgate wrote:
| Quote: |
How about one like HAL?
|
No, HAL was an autoDESTRUCT pilot. ;-)
--
?
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Woodgate
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
I read in sci.electronics.design that Pooh Bear
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote (in
<432B2853.C86D2BCD@hotmail.com>) about 'Taking back control of the
flight computer ?', on Fri, 16 Sep 2005:
| Quote: | I expect your idea of the autopilot is the blow-up version like on
Airplane.
|
How about one like HAL?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
If everything has been designed, a god designed evolution by natural selection.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pooh Bear
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Skybuck Flying wrote:
| Quote: | "Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:dgdc5l$rho$2@blue.rahul.net...
In article <1126811985.390961.238570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1126731334.818926.221680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a complex answer to a simple problem. Plus, it
presents the opportunity for hackers to take control of airplanes from
a secure location. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "fly by
wire"
The system can be all contained on the aircraft. It only needs GPS or
the
like to know where it is. The software contains a map of the world.
If
there isn't an airport marked at this location, you can't go below 3000
feet.
Complex solution again, though I grant that it eliminates the
possibility of remote control. For any such system, the flight crew
would need an override method, and there's no practical way to prevent
its use by others.
I believe:
The pilot can't override the antistall system on the Airbus.
The flight crew does not have to have an override at all. In the places
where the maps says "you don't go below 3000 feet" you simply can't do it.
Based on what others found, the area where flight below 3000 feet is
disallowed may be just the cities etc instead of everywhere but the
airport.
Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
Yes, did anybody read my post about the emergency button(s) and landing the
plane automatically ?
........................ ????????
|
In your dreams nitwit.
I expect your idea of the autopilot is the blow-up version like on Airplane.
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred Abse
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:03:12 -0500, gerard46 wrote:
| Quote: | Any time a plane breaks up into three pieces on a "landing", I'd call that
a controlled crash, fire or no fire.
|
A satisfactory landing is one that you can walk away from. A good landing
is one where they can use the airplane again ...
--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benny Amorsen
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 2:28 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
| Quote: | "SK" == Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> writes:
|
SK> So if they shut down the engines they'll be automatically
SK> re-engaged? Interesting. What does the system do if the plane has
SK> a mechanical failure?
In the Scandinavian Airlines Flight 751 crash mentioned elsewhere, the
engines had mechanical troubles (they didn't like digesting ice) and
the crew tried to turn the power down to protect them. An automated
system decided that it was too soon after takeoff and that speed was
insufficient, so it turned the power right back up again. Crew was
unaware of this system. Both engines failed completely.
/Benny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In article <1126885515.723483.302930@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | So if they shut down the engines they'll be automatically re-engaged?
Yes, why not. |
| Quote: | Interesting. What does the system do if the plane has a mechanical
failure?
|
The plane crashes if the failure is serious enough, but that is already
the case. At least then for once, the NTSB wouldn't suggest that it was
pilot error.
[..]
| Quote: | I know :) I'm mostly playing the devil's advocate here. As far as
autopilots are concerned, I once heard that the auto-landing system is
so accurate that a degree of randomness had to be built in to ease wear
on runways--trenches were being formed from the wheels contacting the
ground in the same place for every landing.
|
That could well be true. The randomness could also have been added to
prevent wear on the control systems. Without it or some dead band, you
tend to get limit cycle oscillations due to the LSB of the ADCs.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich, Under the Affluence
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:22:39 +0100, John Woodgate wrote:
"They've broken The First Law!!! They've broken The First Law!!!"
"Well, Isaac, strike them down with a bolt of lightning."
Cheers!
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bernd Paysan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Del Cecchi wrote:
| Quote: | This is all very amusing, but if you look at the actions of the 9/11
guys before the event, they were drinking and going to strip clubs,
apparently in the belief that "martyrdom" would cancel it all out. So
your scheme doesn't work in that case.
|
The first part of your sentence is the point. It's not supposed to work,
it's supposed to be amusing ;-). I don't know anything that's supposed to
work against people who strongly believe the uttermost bullshit (e.g.
taking hostage of 1000 innocent children and killing around 300 of them
will take them to paradise, or generate any sort of sympathy for their
conern - if you want to hate the other side, e.g.: My Lai village
massacre). And this strong believe is not limited to theism; people who
believe in Fashism or Communism or whatever secular totalitaristic idea (or
even non-totalitaristic ideas like "export democracy with force") there is
will fall into the same brain lock-in.
Confuzius sais: "Going too far is just as bad as going not far enough."
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Holford
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 5:07 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
| Quote: | In article <1126811985.390961.238570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1126731334.818926.221680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a complex answer to a simple problem. Plus, it
presents the opportunity for hackers to take control of airplanes from
a secure location. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "fly by wire"
The system can be all contained on the aircraft. It only needs GPS or the
like to know where it is. The software contains a map of the world. If
there isn't an airport marked at this location, you can't go below 3000
feet.
Complex solution again, though I grant that it eliminates the
possibility of remote control. For any such system, the flight crew
would need an override method, and there's no practical way to prevent
its use by others.
I believe:
The pilot can't override the antistall system on the Airbus.
The flight crew does not have to have an override at all. In the places
where the maps says "you don't go below 3000 feet" you simply can't do it.
Based on what others found, the area where flight below 3000 feet is
disallowed may be just the cities etc instead of everywhere but the
airport.
Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
|
That would be really interesting -
When would it commence descent?
What descent profile would it perform?
Which runway would it choose? or just pick one at random and risk meeting other
traffic head on?
Would it perform a STAR, a published approach proceedure, or something else?
What would it do on final when it received an ACAS/TCAS alert?
When would it apply spoilers, reverse thrust, brakes, nosewheel steering etc.
Would those decisions be based on an assumed bare and dry runway?
Presumably it would totally ignore DH, MDA etc.
----------
Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"?
Is that MDA, MOCA, MEA, MRA, MSA, or GASA?
What altimeter setting would it use?
etc. etc.
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pooh Bear
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 6:05 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Dave Holford wrote:
| Quote: | Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1126811985.390961.238570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In article <1126731334.818926.221680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sean Kelly <sean@f4.ca> wrote:
[...]
This sounds like a complex answer to a simple problem. Plus, it
presents the opportunity for hackers to take control of airplanes from
a secure location. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "fly by wire"
The system can be all contained on the aircraft. It only needs GPS or the
like to know where it is. The software contains a map of the world. If
there isn't an airport marked at this location, you can't go below 3000
feet.
Complex solution again, though I grant that it eliminates the
possibility of remote control. For any such system, the flight crew
would need an override method, and there's no practical way to prevent
its use by others.
I believe:
The pilot can't override the antistall system on the Airbus.
The flight crew does not have to have an override at all. In the places
where the maps says "you don't go below 3000 feet" you simply can't do it.
Based on what others found, the area where flight below 3000 feet is
disallowed may be just the cities etc instead of everywhere but the
airport.
Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
That would be really interesting -
When would it commence descent?
What descent profile would it perform?
Which runway would it choose? or just pick one at random and risk meeting other
traffic head on?
Would it perform a STAR, a published approach proceedure, or something else?
What would it do on final when it received an ACAS/TCAS alert?
When would it apply spoilers, reverse thrust, brakes, nosewheel steering etc.
Would those decisions be based on an assumed bare and dry runway?
Presumably it would totally ignore DH, MDA etc.
----------
Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"?
Is that MDA, MOCA, MEA, MRA, MSA, or GASA?
What altimeter setting would it use?
etc. etc.
Dave
|
You have of course outlined many of the reasons why it doesn't make sense. Sadly
the airmchair experts likely won't 'get it' 'cos they've seen stuff on TV that
makes them right. ;-)
In any event, an automated 'red button' would only ever work on a totally fbw
aircraft which makes the concept pointless since any hijacker simply needs to
hijack an non-fbw airliner ( the vast majority ) .
Never mind the issues of retrofitting such a system and the issues of certification
which again the armchair experts have no clue about.
The simple truth is that it's not required anyway. Its very highly unlikely that
such a method will ever be used again and the pasengers and crew are a pretty good
line of defence against that in any case now they're wiser. I gather a couple of
'misbehaving ' pax have had pretty rough treatment btw just for acting up.
Graham |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In article <432CAFBF.DBB1ACE9@sympatico.ca>,
Dave Holford <holford@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
|
[...]
| Quote: | When would it commence descent?
What descent profile would it perform?
Which runway would it choose? or just pick one at random and risk meeting other
traffic head on?
|
If what it is squawking a code indicating that it is emergency mode, the
others would look out of the way. It is already not uncommon for
airtraffic control to have to route aircraft away from someone who didn't
follow the instructions or is not in radio communications.
| Quote: | Would it perform a STAR, a published approach proceedure, or something else?
|
The approach would be selected from a smallish set of predetermined paths.
The odds of two aircraft having an emergency is low enough that we don't
have to have much logic to do with keeping multiple aircraft from hitting
each other while in the emergency mode. Remember that we go to this mode
as a better option than crashing.
| Quote: | When would it apply spoilers, reverse thrust, brakes, nosewheel steering etc.
Would those decisions be based on an assumed bare and dry runway?
|
Spoilers is an easy one since the condition of the air they are used in is
fairly well known. The same is true of the flaps setting. Reverse thrust
would be applied as recomended by the maker of the aircraft. Remember
that these systems already exist and do work. This is not something new
we are making here.
The decisions about brakes would be made very conservative. The aircraft
would use up a lot of runway in the landing but never more than there is.
[...]
| Quote: | Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"?
Yes I could and I think it is obvious enough that you could too. |
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ken Smith
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In article <432CBD56.E0F7AA1F@hotmail.com>,
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Never mind the issues of retrofitting such a system and the issues of
certification
which again the armchair experts have no clue about.
|
Have you ever worked on anything that had to be FAA certified?
BTW: I have.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sander Vesik
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:44 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In comp.arch John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
| Quote: | I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <dgbvne$hb0$4@blue.rahul.net>)
about 'Taking back control of the flight computer ?', on Thu, 15 Sep
2005:
Hummm yes maybe I typed the right answer by mistake. I meant the FAA
but perhaps placing a trained pig at the front of the aircraft would
help a lot.
You'll be giving Ryanair ideas!
|
Their pilots are by and large ok, its the planes that only a pig
would want to pilot...
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Holford
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:15 am Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
| Quote: | In article <432CAFBF.DBB1ACE9@sympatico.ca>,
Dave Holford <holford@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[...]
Aircraft already have a bunch of really complex stuff onboard in the form
of the autopilot. On many of the new planes, the autopilot can take the
plane to the airport and land it with no action by the crew during the
landing.
When would it commence descent?
What descent profile would it perform?
Which runway would it choose? or just pick one at random and risk meeting other
traffic head on?
If what it is squawking a code indicating that it is emergency mode, the
others would look out of the way. It is already not uncommon for
airtraffic control to have to route aircraft away from someone who didn't
follow the instructions or is not in radio communications.
|
If you used English it would be easier to understand.
So the autopilot also has control of the transponder as well!
| Quote: |
Would it perform a STAR, a published approach proceedure, or something else?
The approach would be selected from a smallish set of predetermined paths.
The odds of two aircraft having an emergency is low enough that we don't
have to have much logic to do with keeping multiple aircraft from hitting
each other while in the emergency mode. Remember that we go to this mode
as a better option than crashing.
|
Maybe ATC should know about this "smallish set of predetermined paths" - sounds like
published approach procedures to me.
Absolutely nowhere did I even insinuate that two or more aircraft would be in
emergency mode so I fail to see what you are getting at here.
However, the odds of multiple aircraft having loss of communications is not so low
if the ground communications system fails - it has happened.
| Quote: |
When would it apply spoilers, reverse thrust, brakes, nosewheel steering etc.
Would those decisions be based on an assumed bare and dry runway?
Spoilers is an easy one since the condition of the air they are used in is
fairly well known. The same is true of the flaps setting. Reverse thrust
would be applied as recomended by the maker of the aircraft. Remember
that these systems already exist and do work. This is not something new
we are making here.
The decisions about brakes would be made very conservative. The aircraft
would use up a lot of runway in the landing but never more than there is.
|
Conditions of the air they are used in????? You mean warm and wet as opposed to hot
and dry?
Just how conservative would the braking decision be? Aircraft not infrequently use
up more runway than there is - that's what overruns are for (except on 24L in CYYZ).
| Quote: |
[...]
Could you clarify "areas where you don't go below 3,000 feet"?
Yes I could and I think it is obvious enough that you could too.
|
No it is not. Which of the listed ones would the autopilot even know about, let
alone be able/not-able to violate?
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
You, and several million other people, have worked on things that have to be FAA
certified, like light bulbs, fire axes, pillow covers, carpets etc.
I have some considerable experience working on Conflict Alerting and Minimum Safe
Altitude Warning systems, among others.
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:19 pm Post subject:
Re: Taking back control of the flight computer ? |
|
|
In sci.electronics.design Sander Vesik <sander@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
| Quote: | In comp.arch John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Ken Smith
kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote (in <dgbvne$hb0$4@blue.rahul.net>)
about 'Taking back control of the flight computer ?', on Thu, 15 Sep
2005:
Hummm yes maybe I typed the right answer by mistake. I meant the FAA
but perhaps placing a trained pig at the front of the aircraft would
help a lot.
You'll be giving Ryanair ideas!
Their pilots are by and large ok, its the planes that only a pig
would want to pilot...
|
Do you have anything that could lead to proof of fatal neglect on their part?
There was a documentary on a MD-80 (?) plane that crashed becasue the tailroder
hydralics weren't serviced 3x the prescribed period. And it's single point of
failure (bad thing in airplane enginnering!).
Ryanair serviceprotocols could be interesting proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in