From: PaulMmn <PaulMmn_at_ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: [NTLK] [OT] airports and Newts
--snip--
commercial flight saved his aircraft by executing either a barrel
roll or a vertical (Immelman?) loop. It was smaller than a 747,
--snip--
That's one of the major limitations and reasons pilots hate these new
"fly-by-wire" plane designs, such as the new Airbus and 767(?). They do
not use control cables, just a network to send signals to the
ruddder/elevon/aileron actuators. The software has HARD-CODED LIMITS on
what a pilot can do. No rolls, loops, etc., to keep the plane within
100% of it's performance design envelope.The scary thing is that planes
(or most anything) can tolerate brief exceedences, sometimes thousands
of % above design limits, and that incidents like the Sioux City flight
crash a long time ago had a far fewer death toll as the pilot "broke the
rules" as he flew in and landed.
I (we) obviously love technology, but for anyone who is or knows a
pilot, I'd rather have a human in direct control of my plane.
Of course, in the case of the software on these planes, I'm sure it's
100% bug free and fault-tolerant. I mean "abort/retry/fail" kinda sucks
rubber donkey lungs at 35,000 feet!
--Mark Rollins mark_at_mrollins.com www.mrollins.com
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 10:01:42 EST