From: dominop@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Philippos A. Peleties)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: A320/automation...
Keywords: A320, 747-400, FMS
Date: 27 Jul 92 05:20:25 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Jul26.234326.7646@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>Yet MORE comments...
>
>>Which more points to the irresponsibility of the whole exercise of flying low,
>>dirty with 130 passengers. It is not unreasonable to think that the pilots did
>>indeed put the plane in a situation where it was not physically possible to
>>recover, A320 or otherwise. I think from the three crushes *this* one is the
>>least suspicious one from the aircraft's perspective (IMHO).
>
>I agree!  I disagree with the assertion, however, which is what I was 
>originally replying to, that the airplane "saved" the airplane or minimized 
>the crash damage.  This was the Airbus line from day *one*, and is rather 
>specious, IMHO.  Quote facts, not scared company propaganda.
>
>

I do not own Airbus shares :-) Nor do I pay attention to their marketing 
department. Let's be careful here.

The argument is plausible (IMHO) whether Airbus supports it or not. 

>
>Let's look at this from a software engineering perspective.  If a program
>need only search for simple character strings in a block of data, one 
>simply does not *need* to code for the pattern-recognition capabilities
>of, say, awk.  A ten-line function can do the job just as well.  Having 
>awk's capabilities in the program, though, may help *sell* it.  
>
>However, from the user's perspective, the awk approach is more complex and 
>difficult to learn; it's different from how the user has always viewed the
>use of such features.  From *management's* perspective, the increased 
>frequency of mistakes by the users using the awk-based program might be cause 
>for concern.  But if the program is *purchased* by *administration* types, 
>who are required to fairly evaluate competing products, and who tend to choose 
>the more feature-ridden, or more "fancy,", the awk program is the one that 
>gets purchased.  Thus, many programs tend to suffer from "feature-ism",
>to compete against other programs.
>
>The fact that simple pattern-matching is more appropriate for this 
>application doesn't mean the "awk" approach has no merits.  Nor does it mean 
>that we're "stretching" the old-fashioned "string-matching" method to its 
>limits, as you imply.  How can you stretch something if the application
>*purpose* is identical to those that preceeded it?  We can only say that, 
>for this application, string-matching is best.  In an academic environment, 
>flexible pattern-matching might well be desired.
>

Cute example. Generic in nature, hence applicable in sweeping variety of cases,
right? However, I question and I very much doubt that the various A320
operators have bought the plane on the basis of "fancyness" etc etc. Doesn't
seem to have been UA's reasons for getting some, unless you know something I 
don't.

This thread has been going on for some time now and all the arguments that I
hear about sticks and non-moving thrust levers are of generic and ad-hominem
nature (IMHO). None of the above features (or bugs depending on your
perspective) was shown to be contributing to the three crushes and it is
beyond me why visual (electronic display) indicators cannot provide adequate
information regarding thrust levels. But then again I use awk a lot, I am (in
some respects) of the administrative variety, I am not a pilot and I am
perfectly content with my PC-based flight simulator's joystick and thrust
buttons... and on occasion I do fly the A320 (real, as a passenger.)


(insert smileys wherever and whenever appropriate)


Philip Peleties






-- 


I speak for myself, I think for myself, I work for myself ... but I don't want
to play by myself ... so bring your toys and let's share ...