<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_09_0035253</id>
	<title>Computers Key To Air France Crash</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244556360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://e-piphanies.typepad.com/epiphanies/" rel="nofollow">Michael\_Curator</a> writes <i>"It's no secret that commercial airplanes are heavily computerized, but as the mystery of Air France Flight 447 unfolds, we need to come to grips with the fact that in many cases, airline pilots' hands are tied when it comes to responding effectively to an emergency situation. <a href="http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2009/06/computers\_key\_t.html;jsessionid=SJTYJVECC3TPGQSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN">Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations</a>, Airbus planes do not. It's not a design flaw &mdash; it's a philosophical divide. It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information. It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michael \ _Curator writes " It 's no secret that commercial airplanes are heavily computerized , but as the mystery of Air France Flight 447 unfolds , we need to come to grips with the fact that in many cases , airline pilots ' hands are tied when it comes to responding effectively to an emergency situation .
Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations , Airbus planes do not .
It 's not a design flaw    it 's a philosophical divide .
It 's essentially a question of what do you trust most : a human being 's ingenuity or a computer 's infinitely faster access and reaction to information .
It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems .
As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michael\_Curator writes "It's no secret that commercial airplanes are heavily computerized, but as the mystery of Air France Flight 447 unfolds, we need to come to grips with the fact that in many cases, airline pilots' hands are tied when it comes to responding effectively to an emergency situation.
Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not.
It's not a design flaw — it's a philosophical divide.
It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information.
It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261383</id>
	<title>Re:over-simplistic FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244480940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The main reason to use digital solid state computers is that they often reduce discrete component count, which usually increases reliability.</p></div><p>Not sure what you mean by this. A 9U board stuffed with TTL chips is a "digital solid state computer" too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason to use digital solid state computers is that they often reduce discrete component count , which usually increases reliability.Not sure what you mean by this .
A 9U board stuffed with TTL chips is a " digital solid state computer " too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason to use digital solid state computers is that they often reduce discrete component count, which usually increases reliability.Not sure what you mean by this.
A 9U board stuffed with TTL chips is a "digital solid state computer" too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28275965</id>
	<title>Quite silly all round</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244574900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some of the analysis is quite silly.  Instead of calling them 'air speed indicators', call them either "Pitot heads" or "Pitot-Static tubes" (yes, they really are tubes).  If the hole opening is too small, it can ice up, making for a faulty reading.  They may contain any (or all) of the following: barimetric altimiter, air speed indicator, mach meter,  ambient temperature indicator, humidity, pressure.  Traditionally (and unless things have changed), the pilots instruments are all electric.  The co-pilots instruments are all air/hydraulic.  A total loss in one major system, will knock one pilot (or at least one set of controls) out of order.  Fly the plane with the other.  Its one button to shut the computer off.  The plane should still be (very) flyable without the nav computer.  For planes that need fly-by-wire, no commercial passenger aircraft should be built that way.  Safe, reliable, slow-turning flight doesn't need fly-by-wire.  Its when fighter-aircraft look at their planes and say 'gee, our planes can do a 720 degree roll in one second" and then lament "a barn swallow can do an 1100 degree roll in one second" that you need fly by wire (just for 720 degrees per second).  Its not recommended that you roll commercial aircraft, (passengers hate that shit), and they only do 360 degrees in about 2 or 3 seconds.  You had better be able to turn the computer off, no matter who makes it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some of the analysis is quite silly .
Instead of calling them 'air speed indicators ' , call them either " Pitot heads " or " Pitot-Static tubes " ( yes , they really are tubes ) .
If the hole opening is too small , it can ice up , making for a faulty reading .
They may contain any ( or all ) of the following : barimetric altimiter , air speed indicator , mach meter , ambient temperature indicator , humidity , pressure .
Traditionally ( and unless things have changed ) , the pilots instruments are all electric .
The co-pilots instruments are all air/hydraulic .
A total loss in one major system , will knock one pilot ( or at least one set of controls ) out of order .
Fly the plane with the other .
Its one button to shut the computer off .
The plane should still be ( very ) flyable without the nav computer .
For planes that need fly-by-wire , no commercial passenger aircraft should be built that way .
Safe , reliable , slow-turning flight does n't need fly-by-wire .
Its when fighter-aircraft look at their planes and say 'gee , our planes can do a 720 degree roll in one second " and then lament " a barn swallow can do an 1100 degree roll in one second " that you need fly by wire ( just for 720 degrees per second ) .
Its not recommended that you roll commercial aircraft , ( passengers hate that shit ) , and they only do 360 degrees in about 2 or 3 seconds .
You had better be able to turn the computer off , no matter who makes it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some of the analysis is quite silly.
Instead of calling them 'air speed indicators', call them either "Pitot heads" or "Pitot-Static tubes" (yes, they really are tubes).
If the hole opening is too small, it can ice up, making for a faulty reading.
They may contain any (or all) of the following: barimetric altimiter, air speed indicator, mach meter,  ambient temperature indicator, humidity, pressure.
Traditionally (and unless things have changed), the pilots instruments are all electric.
The co-pilots instruments are all air/hydraulic.
A total loss in one major system, will knock one pilot (or at least one set of controls) out of order.
Fly the plane with the other.
Its one button to shut the computer off.
The plane should still be (very) flyable without the nav computer.
For planes that need fly-by-wire, no commercial passenger aircraft should be built that way.
Safe, reliable, slow-turning flight doesn't need fly-by-wire.
Its when fighter-aircraft look at their planes and say 'gee, our planes can do a 720 degree roll in one second" and then lament "a barn swallow can do an 1100 degree roll in one second" that you need fly by wire (just for 720 degrees per second).
Its not recommended that you roll commercial aircraft, (passengers hate that shit), and they only do 360 degrees in about 2 or 3 seconds.
You had better be able to turn the computer off, no matter who makes it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757</id>
	<title>I won't fly with a "Battle Hardened" pilot.</title>
	<author>M0b1u5</author>
	<datestamp>1244476380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generally airlines stopped hiring ex-military pilots as they tend to crash too often killing hundreds of people at a time.</p><p>Military pilots find it hard to change from "Achieve objective; fly hard and kill bad guys" to "Land passengers safely at all costs" mentality.</p><p>A huge oversimplification to say that US maker Boeing provides the freedom for pilots to fly. By the same token, you might well say that The US is the most over-regulated country on the planet, so why are pilots allowed to fly it with such freedom?</p><p>I think that in general, you are arguably better off when the pilots are connected to the flight surfaces via manual controls. Even if the power and hydraulics go out with enough strength you may move some control surfaces a little - perhaps enough to control a plane in level flight - maybe even land it.</p><p>But if FBW shits itself - you are TOAST.</p><p>And for every crash caused by pilots not being able to take the control of a plane, there's probably another crash averted by the computer.</p><p>The biggest problem of course is that flying a wide-bodied jet is 99.9999999\% pure boredom followed by 0.0000000001\% when you live or die because of a series of bad circumstances piling on top of each other.</p><p>If the hardware fails for any reason (pilots get wrong information) then they can't expect to live for long - especially if the computers are flying it. At least if sensors start failing, humans are flexible enough to know something is wrong, and work around it.</p><p>In general, I would prefer to be flying on a wide bodied jet that has the computer fly the entire flight, but with a pilot on board who is exceptionally good at looking at the computer non-stop to decide if it is working right. I expect that pilot to be so good, that he understands the point at which he needs to kick the auto-pilot into touch, and take control of the plane.</p><p>See my signature. It's standard, not put here for this post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally airlines stopped hiring ex-military pilots as they tend to crash too often killing hundreds of people at a time.Military pilots find it hard to change from " Achieve objective ; fly hard and kill bad guys " to " Land passengers safely at all costs " mentality.A huge oversimplification to say that US maker Boeing provides the freedom for pilots to fly .
By the same token , you might well say that The US is the most over-regulated country on the planet , so why are pilots allowed to fly it with such freedom ? I think that in general , you are arguably better off when the pilots are connected to the flight surfaces via manual controls .
Even if the power and hydraulics go out with enough strength you may move some control surfaces a little - perhaps enough to control a plane in level flight - maybe even land it.But if FBW shits itself - you are TOAST.And for every crash caused by pilots not being able to take the control of a plane , there 's probably another crash averted by the computer.The biggest problem of course is that flying a wide-bodied jet is 99.9999999 \ % pure boredom followed by 0.0000000001 \ % when you live or die because of a series of bad circumstances piling on top of each other.If the hardware fails for any reason ( pilots get wrong information ) then they ca n't expect to live for long - especially if the computers are flying it .
At least if sensors start failing , humans are flexible enough to know something is wrong , and work around it.In general , I would prefer to be flying on a wide bodied jet that has the computer fly the entire flight , but with a pilot on board who is exceptionally good at looking at the computer non-stop to decide if it is working right .
I expect that pilot to be so good , that he understands the point at which he needs to kick the auto-pilot into touch , and take control of the plane.See my signature .
It 's standard , not put here for this post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally airlines stopped hiring ex-military pilots as they tend to crash too often killing hundreds of people at a time.Military pilots find it hard to change from "Achieve objective; fly hard and kill bad guys" to "Land passengers safely at all costs" mentality.A huge oversimplification to say that US maker Boeing provides the freedom for pilots to fly.
By the same token, you might well say that The US is the most over-regulated country on the planet, so why are pilots allowed to fly it with such freedom?I think that in general, you are arguably better off when the pilots are connected to the flight surfaces via manual controls.
Even if the power and hydraulics go out with enough strength you may move some control surfaces a little - perhaps enough to control a plane in level flight - maybe even land it.But if FBW shits itself - you are TOAST.And for every crash caused by pilots not being able to take the control of a plane, there's probably another crash averted by the computer.The biggest problem of course is that flying a wide-bodied jet is 99.9999999\% pure boredom followed by 0.0000000001\% when you live or die because of a series of bad circumstances piling on top of each other.If the hardware fails for any reason (pilots get wrong information) then they can't expect to live for long - especially if the computers are flying it.
At least if sensors start failing, humans are flexible enough to know something is wrong, and work around it.In general, I would prefer to be flying on a wide bodied jet that has the computer fly the entire flight, but with a pilot on board who is exceptionally good at looking at the computer non-stop to decide if it is working right.
I expect that pilot to be so good, that he understands the point at which he needs to kick the auto-pilot into touch, and take control of the plane.See my signature.
It's standard, not put here for this post.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261451</id>
	<title>Mod down, FUD countered with FUD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244481480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Got any statistical data for your assertions about military pilots killing people in civilian airlines more often than non-military pilots? Or are you just talking out of your prejudiced ass?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Got any statistical data for your assertions about military pilots killing people in civilian airlines more often than non-military pilots ?
Or are you just talking out of your prejudiced ass ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got any statistical data for your assertions about military pilots killing people in civilian airlines more often than non-military pilots?
Or are you just talking out of your prejudiced ass?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260983</id>
	<title>What if the airplane sensors are bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244477760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, if this is true, this is dumb. The plane is only going to fly as well as the data provided by its sensors. If the airspeed sensors were acting wonky ( which Airbus thinks they might have been ), then a manual override is the ONLY way to save the plane, as the plane is flying with bad data. Pilots train for all sorts of disasters, and if the sensors are providing bad data, they MUST be able to take over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , if this is true , this is dumb .
The plane is only going to fly as well as the data provided by its sensors .
If the airspeed sensors were acting wonky ( which Airbus thinks they might have been ) , then a manual override is the ONLY way to save the plane , as the plane is flying with bad data .
Pilots train for all sorts of disasters , and if the sensors are providing bad data , they MUST be able to take over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, if this is true, this is dumb.
The plane is only going to fly as well as the data provided by its sensors.
If the airspeed sensors were acting wonky ( which Airbus thinks they might have been ), then a manual override is the ONLY way to save the plane, as the plane is flying with bad data.
Pilots train for all sorts of disasters, and if the sensors are providing bad data, they MUST be able to take over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261311</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>horatio</author>
	<datestamp>1244480340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Engineers are human too.  In the case of UA232 crash in Sioux City, all the hydraulics were destroyed.  The engineers never anticipated this, so they didn't write it into "the book".  The only way that anyone survived was because the pilots figured out a way to fly the aircraft never intended.  Computers are only as good as their a) inputs and b) programming.<br> <br>

Humans and computers are both prone to error, and both prone to confusion from conflicting input.  Computers are faster at making calculations, and more accurate at doing physics problems - but only if the input is correct.  Computers lack human flexibility, adaptability, creativity, and thinking outside the box to solve problems.  In normal operations, computers are arguably better at flying airplanes full of people than humans.  When things aren't normal, I don't want a computer trying to figure out what to do with an airplane <a href="http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html" title="strangemilitary.com">with a missing wing</a> [strangemilitary.com].<br> <br>

I'm a GA pilot and when I'm flying, I'm doing two basic things: 1) flying the airplane 2) keeping an eye out for a place to land if the engine goes out.  It might be a field, a road, a lake, or if I'm lucky a runway.  It would take millions of dollars of sophisticated equipment to have a computer figure out a place to land when the engine is out.  And I'd figure I can do a better job landing in that situation anyways - because the computers tend to get confused when they have no power<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineers are human too .
In the case of UA232 crash in Sioux City , all the hydraulics were destroyed .
The engineers never anticipated this , so they did n't write it into " the book " .
The only way that anyone survived was because the pilots figured out a way to fly the aircraft never intended .
Computers are only as good as their a ) inputs and b ) programming .
Humans and computers are both prone to error , and both prone to confusion from conflicting input .
Computers are faster at making calculations , and more accurate at doing physics problems - but only if the input is correct .
Computers lack human flexibility , adaptability , creativity , and thinking outside the box to solve problems .
In normal operations , computers are arguably better at flying airplanes full of people than humans .
When things are n't normal , I do n't want a computer trying to figure out what to do with an airplane with a missing wing [ strangemilitary.com ] .
I 'm a GA pilot and when I 'm flying , I 'm doing two basic things : 1 ) flying the airplane 2 ) keeping an eye out for a place to land if the engine goes out .
It might be a field , a road , a lake , or if I 'm lucky a runway .
It would take millions of dollars of sophisticated equipment to have a computer figure out a place to land when the engine is out .
And I 'd figure I can do a better job landing in that situation anyways - because the computers tend to get confused when they have no power ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineers are human too.
In the case of UA232 crash in Sioux City, all the hydraulics were destroyed.
The engineers never anticipated this, so they didn't write it into "the book".
The only way that anyone survived was because the pilots figured out a way to fly the aircraft never intended.
Computers are only as good as their a) inputs and b) programming.
Humans and computers are both prone to error, and both prone to confusion from conflicting input.
Computers are faster at making calculations, and more accurate at doing physics problems - but only if the input is correct.
Computers lack human flexibility, adaptability, creativity, and thinking outside the box to solve problems.
In normal operations, computers are arguably better at flying airplanes full of people than humans.
When things aren't normal, I don't want a computer trying to figure out what to do with an airplane with a missing wing [strangemilitary.com].
I'm a GA pilot and when I'm flying, I'm doing two basic things: 1) flying the airplane 2) keeping an eye out for a place to land if the engine goes out.
It might be a field, a road, a lake, or if I'm lucky a runway.
It would take millions of dollars of sophisticated equipment to have a computer figure out a place to land when the engine is out.
And I'd figure I can do a better job landing in that situation anyways - because the computers tend to get confused when they have no power ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263723</id>
	<title>HUman or COmputer</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1244551500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will take the human thanks.</p><p>It has nothing to do with reaction time.  If the decision made is wrong, no matter how much speed and calculation you have, your going to die.</p><p>Human beings have the ability to retract decisions, and to think about the situation while making the decisions before acting.</p><p>Computers are simply not capable of doing the same.</p><p>I think by combining computers and human potential the best of both worlds could be achieved.</p><p>I wasn't aware that Airbus locked the pilot out of the control loop.</p><p>No freaking way am I stepping on a Airbus plane if that is the case.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will take the human thanks.It has nothing to do with reaction time .
If the decision made is wrong , no matter how much speed and calculation you have , your going to die.Human beings have the ability to retract decisions , and to think about the situation while making the decisions before acting.Computers are simply not capable of doing the same.I think by combining computers and human potential the best of both worlds could be achieved.I was n't aware that Airbus locked the pilot out of the control loop.No freaking way am I stepping on a Airbus plane if that is the case.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will take the human thanks.It has nothing to do with reaction time.
If the decision made is wrong, no matter how much speed and calculation you have, your going to die.Human beings have the ability to retract decisions, and to think about the situation while making the decisions before acting.Computers are simply not capable of doing the same.I think by combining computers and human potential the best of both worlds could be achieved.I wasn't aware that Airbus locked the pilot out of the control loop.No freaking way am I stepping on a Airbus plane if that is the case.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261475</id>
	<title>RE: Killing Information</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information is the leverage.</p><p>All Presidents, Prime Misters, Chancellors (and the lessor humans including Supreme Court Justices and Senators) and Card Sharks crave and desperately try to monopolize, information.</p><p>Why, even the Neathanderthal Humans of the National Security Council and Executive Office know the transformative power of, information, and its value.</p><p>Its value, the value of information, transcends even the value of the life of any Human Being.</p><p>Presidents of the United States of America, are keen to order the killing of any human being, United States of America Citizen or some other poor fool from another country, why [?]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because they have impunity of their lusty actions, local laws -- state laws -- federal laws -- world laws, can not stand in the way, in their quest of the power of, information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information is the leverage.All Presidents , Prime Misters , Chancellors ( and the lessor humans including Supreme Court Justices and Senators ) and Card Sharks crave and desperately try to monopolize , information.Why , even the Neathanderthal Humans of the National Security Council and Executive Office know the transformative power of , information , and its value.Its value , the value of information , transcends even the value of the life of any Human Being.Presidents of the United States of America , are keen to order the killing of any human being , United States of America Citizen or some other poor fool from another country , why [ ?
] ... because they have impunity of their lusty actions , local laws -- state laws -- federal laws -- world laws , can not stand in the way , in their quest of the power of , information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information is the leverage.All Presidents, Prime Misters, Chancellors (and the lessor humans including Supreme Court Justices and Senators) and Card Sharks crave and desperately try to monopolize, information.Why, even the Neathanderthal Humans of the National Security Council and Executive Office know the transformative power of, information, and its value.Its value, the value of information, transcends even the value of the life of any Human Being.Presidents of the United States of America, are keen to order the killing of any human being, United States of America Citizen or some other poor fool from another country, why [?
] ... because they have impunity of their lusty actions, local laws -- state laws -- federal laws -- world laws, can not stand in the way, in their quest of the power of, information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260857</id>
	<title>What a bunch of crap</title>
	<author>gringofrijolero</author>
	<datestamp>1244477040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aside from gravity, human error is far and away the biggest cause of accidents. Read a little history. The airsafety.net site can be very enlightening for any of you non believers. And fuck you on that "individual freedom" crap. The machines' records speak for themselves. In "pilot" vs. "autopilot", autopilot wins 99.999\% percent of the time. And read up on TCAS while you're at it. Mod this article Troll/Flamebait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aside from gravity , human error is far and away the biggest cause of accidents .
Read a little history .
The airsafety.net site can be very enlightening for any of you non believers .
And fuck you on that " individual freedom " crap .
The machines ' records speak for themselves .
In " pilot " vs. " autopilot " , autopilot wins 99.999 \ % percent of the time .
And read up on TCAS while you 're at it .
Mod this article Troll/Flamebait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aside from gravity, human error is far and away the biggest cause of accidents.
Read a little history.
The airsafety.net site can be very enlightening for any of you non believers.
And fuck you on that "individual freedom" crap.
The machines' records speak for themselves.
In "pilot" vs. "autopilot", autopilot wins 99.999\% percent of the time.
And read up on TCAS while you're at it.
Mod this article Troll/Flamebait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265101</id>
	<title>Re:The article is a load of rubbish...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244559900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I don't agree with a lot of the discussions Airbus has made over the years:<br>&gt; - Low strength materials in key areas</p><p>possibly true. But boeing is following airbus to using more composite materials. they even advertize 787 for beeing ahead of airbus in this area.</p><p>&gt;  - No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengaged</p><p>Not true, Airbus plays 'Cavalry Charge' alert for autopilot disconnect</p><p>&gt; - Less manual control in case of system failure</p><p>FUD. Regardless, both boeing and bus pilots fly so little manually these days that system failure dropping the pilot to manual flying has become a huge risk scenario in itself.</p><p>It has been suggested that AF447 suffered a airspeed indicator failure. Imagine being dropped from autopilot to manual while the airplane is alerting "stall" and  "overspeed" at random times while flying in turbulence in a tropical storm cloud.. technically the airplane is still flyable using the manual controls, but you will have big trouble feeling the speed and direction of your plane. That is if manage not to panic from all the alerts shakiness of the plane...</p><p>google for "Aeroperu Flight 603" which happened on Boeing 757 when airspeed indication failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I do n't agree with a lot of the discussions Airbus has made over the years : &gt; - Low strength materials in key areaspossibly true .
But boeing is following airbus to using more composite materials .
they even advertize 787 for beeing ahead of airbus in this area. &gt; - No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengagedNot true , Airbus plays 'Cavalry Charge ' alert for autopilot disconnect &gt; - Less manual control in case of system failureFUD .
Regardless , both boeing and bus pilots fly so little manually these days that system failure dropping the pilot to manual flying has become a huge risk scenario in itself.It has been suggested that AF447 suffered a airspeed indicator failure .
Imagine being dropped from autopilot to manual while the airplane is alerting " stall " and " overspeed " at random times while flying in turbulence in a tropical storm cloud.. technically the airplane is still flyable using the manual controls , but you will have big trouble feeling the speed and direction of your plane .
That is if manage not to panic from all the alerts shakiness of the plane...google for " Aeroperu Flight 603 " which happened on Boeing 757 when airspeed indication failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I don't agree with a lot of the discussions Airbus has made over the years:&gt; - Low strength materials in key areaspossibly true.
But boeing is following airbus to using more composite materials.
they even advertize 787 for beeing ahead of airbus in this area.&gt;  - No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengagedNot true, Airbus plays 'Cavalry Charge' alert for autopilot disconnect&gt; - Less manual control in case of system failureFUD.
Regardless, both boeing and bus pilots fly so little manually these days that system failure dropping the pilot to manual flying has become a huge risk scenario in itself.It has been suggested that AF447 suffered a airspeed indicator failure.
Imagine being dropped from autopilot to manual while the airplane is alerting "stall" and  "overspeed" at random times while flying in turbulence in a tropical storm cloud.. technically the airplane is still flyable using the manual controls, but you will have big trouble feeling the speed and direction of your plane.
That is if manage not to panic from all the alerts shakiness of the plane...google for "Aeroperu Flight 603" which happened on Boeing 757 when airspeed indication failed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</id>
	<title>Overrides for when computers go mad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244477400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an ex airline pilot and current software developer I would say that an override must be available in any system. Of course computers are much better in quick decision making and collecting all the facts than humans are. In fact with a glass cockpit, the computer knows the data before the pilot does anyway. But there is the occasion that software fucks up. Plain and simple.</p><p>From my own personal experience:</p><p>1 - Autopilot with suicide attempt</p><p>Boeing 737-400 cruising at FL310 everything happy, clear skies. I'm Pilot flying and the captain suggest I have lunch. With the tray on my lap I eat while glancing at the instruments every once in a while. The captain was supposed to have control. So after a particular tasty piece of chicken I look up only to see the horizon at an angle and way too high. I glance across and see the captain reading the news paper. Look at the instruments which indicate a gentle diving turn. The VNav path on the displays indicate nothing out of the ordinary but this Autopilot decided to go for a turn and decent anyway. The whole thing would have only lasted a few seconds but there was absolutely no reason for the computer to do this manouvre. AP disconnect and reconnect sorted it all out.</p><p>2 - Lazy plane</p><p>Yeah, uh again during my mean and again I had handed control over to the captain while eating. This time at night. Cruising FL330 when auto throttle decides to close the throttles to idle. Auto pilot maintains altitude. WTF to I push the throttles back up. They stay up for a few seconds and yet again move to idle. Got rid of my food and disconnected the auto throttle. Set cruising power manually and checked everything. Nothing wrong. Re-engaged the auto throttle and things were fine.</p><p>3 - Dutch roll gone bad</p><p>Climbing through 10.000 feet on auto pilot, the plane begins a slight rocking left and right. No more than a few degrees. As we continue to climb the rocking gets worse. 5 deg bank either way. Auto pilot is working hard to compensate or so it seems because the control column moves noticeably. Again my luck to be pf. We thought the Autopilot had gone mad so after strapping ourselves in tightly we disconnected the ap. I tried to hand fly and stabilise but things got out of control rapidly as the plane started to buck left and right well past 10 degrees bank. I was obviously losing control. Nah, let's face it, I had no control and told the captain. He took over and at least was able to not allow it to get worse. Glad I was with this guy because he flicked off the yaw damper that is an automatic control system to stop an aerodynamic effect called Dutch roll. The plane steadied immediately although we were left with the Dutch roll effect but that was not too bad.</p><p>So there you go. In all three cases it was not a matter of pilots being better than computers. Overrides are required when the computer goes mad. I always valued having the mechanical controls as a backup in the 737. I travelled in Airbus aircraft and I no longer fly but I would still hesitate to be a servant to a fly by wire system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an ex airline pilot and current software developer I would say that an override must be available in any system .
Of course computers are much better in quick decision making and collecting all the facts than humans are .
In fact with a glass cockpit , the computer knows the data before the pilot does anyway .
But there is the occasion that software fucks up .
Plain and simple.From my own personal experience : 1 - Autopilot with suicide attemptBoeing 737-400 cruising at FL310 everything happy , clear skies .
I 'm Pilot flying and the captain suggest I have lunch .
With the tray on my lap I eat while glancing at the instruments every once in a while .
The captain was supposed to have control .
So after a particular tasty piece of chicken I look up only to see the horizon at an angle and way too high .
I glance across and see the captain reading the news paper .
Look at the instruments which indicate a gentle diving turn .
The VNav path on the displays indicate nothing out of the ordinary but this Autopilot decided to go for a turn and decent anyway .
The whole thing would have only lasted a few seconds but there was absolutely no reason for the computer to do this manouvre .
AP disconnect and reconnect sorted it all out.2 - Lazy planeYeah , uh again during my mean and again I had handed control over to the captain while eating .
This time at night .
Cruising FL330 when auto throttle decides to close the throttles to idle .
Auto pilot maintains altitude .
WTF to I push the throttles back up .
They stay up for a few seconds and yet again move to idle .
Got rid of my food and disconnected the auto throttle .
Set cruising power manually and checked everything .
Nothing wrong .
Re-engaged the auto throttle and things were fine.3 - Dutch roll gone badClimbing through 10.000 feet on auto pilot , the plane begins a slight rocking left and right .
No more than a few degrees .
As we continue to climb the rocking gets worse .
5 deg bank either way .
Auto pilot is working hard to compensate or so it seems because the control column moves noticeably .
Again my luck to be pf .
We thought the Autopilot had gone mad so after strapping ourselves in tightly we disconnected the ap .
I tried to hand fly and stabilise but things got out of control rapidly as the plane started to buck left and right well past 10 degrees bank .
I was obviously losing control .
Nah , let 's face it , I had no control and told the captain .
He took over and at least was able to not allow it to get worse .
Glad I was with this guy because he flicked off the yaw damper that is an automatic control system to stop an aerodynamic effect called Dutch roll .
The plane steadied immediately although we were left with the Dutch roll effect but that was not too bad.So there you go .
In all three cases it was not a matter of pilots being better than computers .
Overrides are required when the computer goes mad .
I always valued having the mechanical controls as a backup in the 737 .
I travelled in Airbus aircraft and I no longer fly but I would still hesitate to be a servant to a fly by wire system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an ex airline pilot and current software developer I would say that an override must be available in any system.
Of course computers are much better in quick decision making and collecting all the facts than humans are.
In fact with a glass cockpit, the computer knows the data before the pilot does anyway.
But there is the occasion that software fucks up.
Plain and simple.From my own personal experience:1 - Autopilot with suicide attemptBoeing 737-400 cruising at FL310 everything happy, clear skies.
I'm Pilot flying and the captain suggest I have lunch.
With the tray on my lap I eat while glancing at the instruments every once in a while.
The captain was supposed to have control.
So after a particular tasty piece of chicken I look up only to see the horizon at an angle and way too high.
I glance across and see the captain reading the news paper.
Look at the instruments which indicate a gentle diving turn.
The VNav path on the displays indicate nothing out of the ordinary but this Autopilot decided to go for a turn and decent anyway.
The whole thing would have only lasted a few seconds but there was absolutely no reason for the computer to do this manouvre.
AP disconnect and reconnect sorted it all out.2 - Lazy planeYeah, uh again during my mean and again I had handed control over to the captain while eating.
This time at night.
Cruising FL330 when auto throttle decides to close the throttles to idle.
Auto pilot maintains altitude.
WTF to I push the throttles back up.
They stay up for a few seconds and yet again move to idle.
Got rid of my food and disconnected the auto throttle.
Set cruising power manually and checked everything.
Nothing wrong.
Re-engaged the auto throttle and things were fine.3 - Dutch roll gone badClimbing through 10.000 feet on auto pilot, the plane begins a slight rocking left and right.
No more than a few degrees.
As we continue to climb the rocking gets worse.
5 deg bank either way.
Auto pilot is working hard to compensate or so it seems because the control column moves noticeably.
Again my luck to be pf.
We thought the Autopilot had gone mad so after strapping ourselves in tightly we disconnected the ap.
I tried to hand fly and stabilise but things got out of control rapidly as the plane started to buck left and right well past 10 degrees bank.
I was obviously losing control.
Nah, let's face it, I had no control and told the captain.
He took over and at least was able to not allow it to get worse.
Glad I was with this guy because he flicked off the yaw damper that is an automatic control system to stop an aerodynamic effect called Dutch roll.
The plane steadied immediately although we were left with the Dutch roll effect but that was not too bad.So there you go.
In all three cases it was not a matter of pilots being better than computers.
Overrides are required when the computer goes mad.
I always valued having the mechanical controls as a backup in the 737.
I travelled in Airbus aircraft and I no longer fly but I would still hesitate to be a servant to a fly by wire system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264309</id>
	<title>Re:something interesting about the airbus</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1244556120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A very badly informed comment though - it's actually so wrong it isn't even wrong.</p><p>Boeing use both fly by wire and composites. The B777 is full fly by wire, just like the Airbus (The B777 is a great aircraft -  very reliable, with no fatal crashes to date - only one has crashed - no one was seriously hurt - due to fuel contamination). The B787, which is Boeing's next model, is almost *entirely* composite - it's the first airliner to be primarily composite construction. It is due to enter service in 2010 (and has suffered some delays). Oh, and it's fly by wire too, naturally.</p><p>Composites are also much stronger than aluminium - it is no accident that high performance gliders have been made from composites since the 1970s - you can't make gliders with such a slender wing as something like any open class glider - huge long 25 meter plus wingspans, with very little chord - with aluminium. The best aluminium gliders were the designs by Richard Schreider in the late 1960s - he brought aluminium to its limits in the design of high performance gliders. Composites also have other advantages - you can make much more efficient shapes with them too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A very badly informed comment though - it 's actually so wrong it is n't even wrong.Boeing use both fly by wire and composites .
The B777 is full fly by wire , just like the Airbus ( The B777 is a great aircraft - very reliable , with no fatal crashes to date - only one has crashed - no one was seriously hurt - due to fuel contamination ) .
The B787 , which is Boeing 's next model , is almost * entirely * composite - it 's the first airliner to be primarily composite construction .
It is due to enter service in 2010 ( and has suffered some delays ) .
Oh , and it 's fly by wire too , naturally.Composites are also much stronger than aluminium - it is no accident that high performance gliders have been made from composites since the 1970s - you ca n't make gliders with such a slender wing as something like any open class glider - huge long 25 meter plus wingspans , with very little chord - with aluminium .
The best aluminium gliders were the designs by Richard Schreider in the late 1960s - he brought aluminium to its limits in the design of high performance gliders .
Composites also have other advantages - you can make much more efficient shapes with them too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A very badly informed comment though - it's actually so wrong it isn't even wrong.Boeing use both fly by wire and composites.
The B777 is full fly by wire, just like the Airbus (The B777 is a great aircraft -  very reliable, with no fatal crashes to date - only one has crashed - no one was seriously hurt - due to fuel contamination).
The B787, which is Boeing's next model, is almost *entirely* composite - it's the first airliner to be primarily composite construction.
It is due to enter service in 2010 (and has suffered some delays).
Oh, and it's fly by wire too, naturally.Composites are also much stronger than aluminium - it is no accident that high performance gliders have been made from composites since the 1970s - you can't make gliders with such a slender wing as something like any open class glider - huge long 25 meter plus wingspans, with very little chord - with aluminium.
The best aluminium gliders were the designs by Richard Schreider in the late 1960s - he brought aluminium to its limits in the design of high performance gliders.
Composites also have other advantages - you can make much more efficient shapes with them too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260491</id>
	<title>If the systems were taken out....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems like the storm took out the computer systems and with the systems down, there was no way for the pilots to reassume manual control of the plane.</p><p>I can imagine the pilots bashing away frantically at the controls while the plane dived and belly flopped into the ocean, smashing to bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the storm took out the computer systems and with the systems down , there was no way for the pilots to reassume manual control of the plane.I can imagine the pilots bashing away frantically at the controls while the plane dived and belly flopped into the ocean , smashing to bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the storm took out the computer systems and with the systems down, there was no way for the pilots to reassume manual control of the plane.I can imagine the pilots bashing away frantically at the controls while the plane dived and belly flopped into the ocean, smashing to bits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262657</id>
	<title>Choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244538300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]<br>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer<br>[/quote]<br>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the rookie, overworked pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer [ /quote ] As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the rookie , overworked pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer[/quote]As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the rookie, overworked pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264111</id>
	<title>computers key</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244554800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i heard the pilot wanted to take over but he had to find the blue key first.</p><p>american vs european planes. such bullshit. why dont ya start writing about comets hitting the earth. this is the worst peice of crap i have ever read here. if you are that bored try leaving the house or masturbating, not writing complete and utter turd juice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i heard the pilot wanted to take over but he had to find the blue key first.american vs european planes .
such bullshit .
why dont ya start writing about comets hitting the earth .
this is the worst peice of crap i have ever read here .
if you are that bored try leaving the house or masturbating , not writing complete and utter turd juice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i heard the pilot wanted to take over but he had to find the blue key first.american vs european planes.
such bullshit.
why dont ya start writing about comets hitting the earth.
this is the worst peice of crap i have ever read here.
if you are that bored try leaving the house or masturbating, not writing complete and utter turd juice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260549</id>
	<title>They only do what you tell them</title>
	<author>dirtyundies</author>
	<datestamp>1244475360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Computers only do what you tell them, give them bad info and they might do bad things.  A boeing 757 flew into the ocean because someone taped over the static sensor and it was getting bad intel on what the altitude was.
If the pitot tubes were faulty, then the computers might think the plane is flying to slow and speed up.  fly to fast into turbulence and you will over stress the plane and crack-o-la, off come the wings.

it's way to early to know what happened here and probably too early for this dipshit to make such an assumption..and yes i am an american..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Computers only do what you tell them , give them bad info and they might do bad things .
A boeing 757 flew into the ocean because someone taped over the static sensor and it was getting bad intel on what the altitude was .
If the pitot tubes were faulty , then the computers might think the plane is flying to slow and speed up .
fly to fast into turbulence and you will over stress the plane and crack-o-la , off come the wings .
it 's way to early to know what happened here and probably too early for this dipshit to make such an assumption..and yes i am an american. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Computers only do what you tell them, give them bad info and they might do bad things.
A boeing 757 flew into the ocean because someone taped over the static sensor and it was getting bad intel on what the altitude was.
If the pitot tubes were faulty, then the computers might think the plane is flying to slow and speed up.
fly to fast into turbulence and you will over stress the plane and crack-o-la, off come the wings.
it's way to early to know what happened here and probably too early for this dipshit to make such an assumption..and yes i am an american..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261665</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1244483700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, and more fatal Airbus crashes have happened whilst in manual override (on test flights and airshow demos) than have happened while the computer was in control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , and more fatal Airbus crashes have happened whilst in manual override ( on test flights and airshow demos ) than have happened while the computer was in control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, and more fatal Airbus crashes have happened whilst in manual override (on test flights and airshow demos) than have happened while the computer was in control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261757</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1244484840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On the flip side this shows what happens when you have a experienced pilot with a computer that overrides him.</p></div></blockquote><p>

This incident was a combination of pilot misjudgement and a faulty altimeter which Air France was warned about but the pilot had not been informed.  From TFL:

<b>The Captain's Version</b>
</p><p>
Captain Asseline flew the aircraft manually.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the flip side this shows what happens when you have a experienced pilot with a computer that overrides him .
This incident was a combination of pilot misjudgement and a faulty altimeter which Air France was warned about but the pilot had not been informed .
From TFL : The Captain 's Version Captain Asseline flew the aircraft manually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the flip side this shows what happens when you have a experienced pilot with a computer that overrides him.
This incident was a combination of pilot misjudgement and a faulty altimeter which Air France was warned about but the pilot had not been informed.
From TFL:

The Captain's Version

Captain Asseline flew the aircraft manually.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264963</id>
	<title>The Right To Deplane</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1244559240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.</p></div><p>
I don't know how everyone else is buying their tickets; but when I book my tickets online I always see at least an indication of what plane will be flying the route I am about to pay for; usually I get to pick my seat on a map of that plane as well.  Certainly if I don't like the plane that will be flying that route, I could choose another route or another carrier until I get a plane that I like.<br> <br>
In other words, by the time you made it to the plane, you already consented to fly on that aircraft.  If you don't like it when you get on it, you should have paid more attention when you bought your ticket.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer .
I do n't know how everyone else is buying their tickets ; but when I book my tickets online I always see at least an indication of what plane will be flying the route I am about to pay for ; usually I get to pick my seat on a map of that plane as well .
Certainly if I do n't like the plane that will be flying that route , I could choose another route or another carrier until I get a plane that I like .
In other words , by the time you made it to the plane , you already consented to fly on that aircraft .
If you do n't like it when you get on it , you should have paid more attention when you bought your ticket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.
I don't know how everyone else is buying their tickets; but when I book my tickets online I always see at least an indication of what plane will be flying the route I am about to pay for; usually I get to pick my seat on a map of that plane as well.
Certainly if I don't like the plane that will be flying that route, I could choose another route or another carrier until I get a plane that I like.
In other words, by the time you made it to the plane, you already consented to fly on that aircraft.
If you don't like it when you get on it, you should have paid more attention when you bought your ticket.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265203</id>
	<title>A PIHILOSOPHICAL DIVIDE?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244560380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not. It's not a design flaw -- it's a philosophical divide."</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This sort on mentality is really a FOOLosophical divide.</p><p>I mean computers never do wrong do they, no not at all HAL.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; When I fly I make every attempt to stay off of the fly by wire, computer ruled and soon to be pilotless Airbus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations , Airbus planes do not .
It 's not a design flaw -- it 's a philosophical divide .
"       This sort on mentality is really a FOOLosophical divide.I mean computers never do wrong do they , no not at all HAL .
      When I fly I make every attempt to stay off of the fly by wire , computer ruled and soon to be pilotless Airbus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not.
It's not a design flaw -- it's a philosophical divide.
"
      This sort on mentality is really a FOOLosophical divide.I mean computers never do wrong do they, no not at all HAL.
      When I fly I make every attempt to stay off of the fly by wire, computer ruled and soon to be pilotless Airbus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260705</id>
	<title>Counterexample</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244476200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to bring up a stark example, but the Colgan plane that crashed on approach to Buffalo a few months ago, killing 50 people or something, stalled because the pilot pulled back on the stick when he was going too slow. If that plane had been an Airbus, the flight computers would detect the impending stall, apply maximum engine power, and limit the pitch up to achieve the best possible climb performance. Those poor people would very likely be alive today. On the other hand there is no evidence that the autoflight systems had any responsibility for the Air France crash yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to bring up a stark example , but the Colgan plane that crashed on approach to Buffalo a few months ago , killing 50 people or something , stalled because the pilot pulled back on the stick when he was going too slow .
If that plane had been an Airbus , the flight computers would detect the impending stall , apply maximum engine power , and limit the pitch up to achieve the best possible climb performance .
Those poor people would very likely be alive today .
On the other hand there is no evidence that the autoflight systems had any responsibility for the Air France crash yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to bring up a stark example, but the Colgan plane that crashed on approach to Buffalo a few months ago, killing 50 people or something, stalled because the pilot pulled back on the stick when he was going too slow.
If that plane had been an Airbus, the flight computers would detect the impending stall, apply maximum engine power, and limit the pitch up to achieve the best possible climb performance.
Those poor people would very likely be alive today.
On the other hand there is no evidence that the autoflight systems had any responsibility for the Air France crash yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261027</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>AdamHaun</author>
	<datestamp>1244478120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The headline is "Computers Key to Air France Crash", which says that it's about a plane crash, but you can already guess anyway -- when you hear the name of a specific flight in the news, it's almost invariably about a crash.</p><p>As to why it's important, plane crashes are rare enough and the investigations technical enough that it seems like suitable Slashdot fodder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The headline is " Computers Key to Air France Crash " , which says that it 's about a plane crash , but you can already guess anyway -- when you hear the name of a specific flight in the news , it 's almost invariably about a crash.As to why it 's important , plane crashes are rare enough and the investigations technical enough that it seems like suitable Slashdot fodder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The headline is "Computers Key to Air France Crash", which says that it's about a plane crash, but you can already guess anyway -- when you hear the name of a specific flight in the news, it's almost invariably about a crash.As to why it's important, plane crashes are rare enough and the investigations technical enough that it seems like suitable Slashdot fodder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261449</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>cptdondo</author>
	<datestamp>1244481480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm an engineer and I've designed and built things that aren't anywhere near as complex as an aircraft, and I can't tell you how many times I've looked at one of my designs, and thought "What fucking dumbshit designed that?"</p><p>Heck, I *know* that engineers, for all our foresight and training, overlook the obvious.  Still, I trust airplanes more than, say, cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm an engineer and I 've designed and built things that are n't anywhere near as complex as an aircraft , and I ca n't tell you how many times I 've looked at one of my designs , and thought " What fucking dumbshit designed that ?
" Heck , I * know * that engineers , for all our foresight and training , overlook the obvious .
Still , I trust airplanes more than , say , cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm an engineer and I've designed and built things that aren't anywhere near as complex as an aircraft, and I can't tell you how many times I've looked at one of my designs, and thought "What fucking dumbshit designed that?
"Heck, I *know* that engineers, for all our foresight and training, overlook the obvious.
Still, I trust airplanes more than, say, cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264053</id>
	<title>Progress</title>
	<author>J4</author>
	<datestamp>1244554320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't blame it on the computers. Maybe the programmers or engineers, but realize code in avionics is actually<br>held to standards and rigorously tested. Airbus != 7 series beemer.</p><p>Also, the computers on an Airbus dynamically govern how much allowable travel there is in control surfaces relative to airspeed.<br>According to the manufacturer, if the rudder moves outside of it's prescribed envelope@V then the whole damn vertical stabilizer<br>snaps off. What then? Taking off/landing you'll end up like the Airbus that went down in NY after 9/11/01. If you're cruising, the Sioux City DC-10 crash from the 80's comes to mind, but the only reason they made it to the airport was they just happened to have a passenger that was one of M/D's engineers sitting in on throttles.</p><p>Anyway, if I'm onboard an aircraft that's so finely engineered it need computers to keep from ripping apart in \_good\_ weather,<br>I'd rather the pilot not even have a stick &amp; pedals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't blame it on the computers .
Maybe the programmers or engineers , but realize code in avionics is actuallyheld to standards and rigorously tested .
Airbus ! = 7 series beemer.Also , the computers on an Airbus dynamically govern how much allowable travel there is in control surfaces relative to airspeed.According to the manufacturer , if the rudder moves outside of it 's prescribed envelope @ V then the whole damn vertical stabilizersnaps off .
What then ?
Taking off/landing you 'll end up like the Airbus that went down in NY after 9/11/01 .
If you 're cruising , the Sioux City DC-10 crash from the 80 's comes to mind , but the only reason they made it to the airport was they just happened to have a passenger that was one of M/D 's engineers sitting in on throttles.Anyway , if I 'm onboard an aircraft that 's so finely engineered it need computers to keep from ripping apart in \ _good \ _ weather,I 'd rather the pilot not even have a stick &amp; pedals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't blame it on the computers.
Maybe the programmers or engineers, but realize code in avionics is actuallyheld to standards and rigorously tested.
Airbus != 7 series beemer.Also, the computers on an Airbus dynamically govern how much allowable travel there is in control surfaces relative to airspeed.According to the manufacturer, if the rudder moves outside of it's prescribed envelope@V then the whole damn vertical stabilizersnaps off.
What then?
Taking off/landing you'll end up like the Airbus that went down in NY after 9/11/01.
If you're cruising, the Sioux City DC-10 crash from the 80's comes to mind, but the only reason they made it to the airport was they just happened to have a passenger that was one of M/D's engineers sitting in on throttles.Anyway, if I'm onboard an aircraft that's so finely engineered it need computers to keep from ripping apart in \_good\_ weather,I'd rather the pilot not even have a stick &amp; pedals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260541</id>
	<title>First time BA 747 Pilots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first time a pilot flies a 747 for BA, it will be with passengers on board.</p><p>Battle hardened. He may have flown other aircraft, but not a 747.</p><p>Do we ask for the resume of our pilots before flying the aircraft????</p><p>Maybe...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time a pilot flies a 747 for BA , it will be with passengers on board.Battle hardened .
He may have flown other aircraft , but not a 747.Do we ask for the resume of our pilots before flying the aircraft ? ? ?
? Maybe.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time a pilot flies a 747 for BA, it will be with passengers on board.Battle hardened.
He may have flown other aircraft, but not a 747.Do we ask for the resume of our pilots before flying the aircraft???
?Maybe...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263459</id>
	<title>Re:Overrides for when computers go mad.</title>
	<author>IamTheRealMike</author>
	<datestamp>1244548320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm. Sounds like the real problem  here is that autopilots are not built to explain their decisions? I mean, what if there was a reason for the auto-pilot to be doing those things that made sense, you just didn't know what they were? Wasn't one of the air disasters mentioned earlier in the discussion where the auto-pilot dived to maintain speed after there was ice on the plane, and the pilot overrode it because he didn't understand why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
Sounds like the real problem here is that autopilots are not built to explain their decisions ?
I mean , what if there was a reason for the auto-pilot to be doing those things that made sense , you just did n't know what they were ?
Was n't one of the air disasters mentioned earlier in the discussion where the auto-pilot dived to maintain speed after there was ice on the plane , and the pilot overrode it because he did n't understand why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
Sounds like the real problem  here is that autopilots are not built to explain their decisions?
I mean, what if there was a reason for the auto-pilot to be doing those things that made sense, you just didn't know what they were?
Wasn't one of the air disasters mentioned earlier in the discussion where the auto-pilot dived to maintain speed after there was ice on the plane, and the pilot overrode it because he didn't understand why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261035</id>
	<title>So</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, I know, I'm an AC, I don't care, too lazy to log in. Fact of the matter is that whether you want a human or a computer in control is 100\% conditional, and the best we can hope for is that the designers of the plane try to cover all the possible bases they know of. Whether it's better to put a human or a computer in control is moot... frankly I doubt there's a computer in existence currently that could have set a plane down in a river. By that same token, a computer never falls asleep, is never drunk, and unless it's programming is crap will never make any sort of "Beginner" or "stress" mistake. So the whole EU vs. America crap... Yeah... Thank you kdawson for turning this site into another digg or other crap news site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , I know , I 'm an AC , I do n't care , too lazy to log in .
Fact of the matter is that whether you want a human or a computer in control is 100 \ % conditional , and the best we can hope for is that the designers of the plane try to cover all the possible bases they know of .
Whether it 's better to put a human or a computer in control is moot... frankly I doubt there 's a computer in existence currently that could have set a plane down in a river .
By that same token , a computer never falls asleep , is never drunk , and unless it 's programming is crap will never make any sort of " Beginner " or " stress " mistake .
So the whole EU vs. America crap... Yeah... Thank you kdawson for turning this site into another digg or other crap news site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, I know, I'm an AC, I don't care, too lazy to log in.
Fact of the matter is that whether you want a human or a computer in control is 100\% conditional, and the best we can hope for is that the designers of the plane try to cover all the possible bases they know of.
Whether it's better to put a human or a computer in control is moot... frankly I doubt there's a computer in existence currently that could have set a plane down in a river.
By that same token, a computer never falls asleep, is never drunk, and unless it's programming is crap will never make any sort of "Beginner" or "stress" mistake.
So the whole EU vs. America crap... Yeah... Thank you kdawson for turning this site into another digg or other crap news site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260941</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Waste55</author>
	<datestamp>1244477520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. So full of wrong. The computures are what SAVED this flight!<br> <br>

The Auxiliary Power Unit took control when the engine was not generating power which allowed the pilot to land the plan. As others posters have said this was an Airbus plane.<br> <br>

<a href="http://minnov8.com/2009/01/26/honeywell-backup-system-is-said-to-have-saved-usair-flight-1549/" title="minnov8.com" rel="nofollow">http://minnov8.com/2009/01/26/honeywell-backup-system-is-said-to-have-saved-usair-flight-1549/</a> [minnov8.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
So full of wrong .
The computures are what SAVED this flight !
The Auxiliary Power Unit took control when the engine was not generating power which allowed the pilot to land the plan .
As others posters have said this was an Airbus plane .
http : //minnov8.com/2009/01/26/honeywell-backup-system-is-said-to-have-saved-usair-flight-1549/ [ minnov8.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
So full of wrong.
The computures are what SAVED this flight!
The Auxiliary Power Unit took control when the engine was not generating power which allowed the pilot to land the plan.
As others posters have said this was an Airbus plane.
http://minnov8.com/2009/01/26/honeywell-backup-system-is-said-to-have-saved-usair-flight-1549/ [minnov8.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267429</id>
	<title>747</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244568780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>747 comments!  woot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>747 comments !
woot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>747 comments!
woot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264369</id>
	<title>errare humanum est</title>
	<author>uiuyhn8i8</author>
	<datestamp>1244556540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gosh yes I would like my pilot to be a handsome, square jawed silverback with war medals all over his broad manly chest but in the end it turns out that he/she is a normal human being with all these god damn bugs that is inherant in that design. Reminds me of the Aeroflot Flight 593 where the pilot thought it was a good idea to let a kid sit at the controls, and he managed to disable parts of the autopilot. All aboard died.</p><p>

Then again people are also designing the software to control the planes... So damn if this once again is a problem that isn't just black and white and has an easy solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh yes I would like my pilot to be a handsome , square jawed silverback with war medals all over his broad manly chest but in the end it turns out that he/she is a normal human being with all these god damn bugs that is inherant in that design .
Reminds me of the Aeroflot Flight 593 where the pilot thought it was a good idea to let a kid sit at the controls , and he managed to disable parts of the autopilot .
All aboard died .
Then again people are also designing the software to control the planes... So damn if this once again is a problem that is n't just black and white and has an easy solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh yes I would like my pilot to be a handsome, square jawed silverback with war medals all over his broad manly chest but in the end it turns out that he/she is a normal human being with all these god damn bugs that is inherant in that design.
Reminds me of the Aeroflot Flight 593 where the pilot thought it was a good idea to let a kid sit at the controls, and he managed to disable parts of the autopilot.
All aboard died.
Then again people are also designing the software to control the planes... So damn if this once again is a problem that isn't just black and white and has an easy solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260405</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ummmm Flight 1549 was an Airbus 320.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ummmm Flight 1549 was an Airbus 320 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ummmm Flight 1549 was an Airbus 320.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260825</id>
	<title>An old saying</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1244476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it ain't Boeing,<br>
Then I ain't going.<br> <br>
Yeah, while ppl will point to the storm, it simply was not that bad. OTH, Airbus has had a KNOWN issue with the CPU's taking control and literally diving the aircraft a 1000 ft+. THe reason is that some logic appears to have issues with how it handles errors, in particular, how it handles the laminar air flow sensors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it ai n't Boeing , Then I ai n't going .
Yeah , while ppl will point to the storm , it simply was not that bad .
OTH , Airbus has had a KNOWN issue with the CPU 's taking control and literally diving the aircraft a 1000 ft + .
THe reason is that some logic appears to have issues with how it handles errors , in particular , how it handles the laminar air flow sensors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it ain't Boeing,
Then I ain't going.
Yeah, while ppl will point to the storm, it simply was not that bad.
OTH, Airbus has had a KNOWN issue with the CPU's taking control and literally diving the aircraft a 1000 ft+.
THe reason is that some logic appears to have issues with how it handles errors, in particular, how it handles the laminar air flow sensors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264435</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1244556840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Building planes IS a business, not an altruistic profession.  Crazy things happen sometimes and i'd like to have a seasoned pilot be able to override anything in the plane if he needs to.  But that's just personal preference.  I honestly keep a set of maps(and compass) in my pack to go along with the GPS... to do otherwise is tempting fate.  I can't see how planes would be any different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Building planes IS a business , not an altruistic profession .
Crazy things happen sometimes and i 'd like to have a seasoned pilot be able to override anything in the plane if he needs to .
But that 's just personal preference .
I honestly keep a set of maps ( and compass ) in my pack to go along with the GPS... to do otherwise is tempting fate .
I ca n't see how planes would be any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building planes IS a business, not an altruistic profession.
Crazy things happen sometimes and i'd like to have a seasoned pilot be able to override anything in the plane if he needs to.
But that's just personal preference.
I honestly keep a set of maps(and compass) in my pack to go along with the GPS... to do otherwise is tempting fate.
I can't see how planes would be any different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260473</id>
	<title>over-simplistic FUD</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1244475060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that someone is trying to push their dogma through fear.  I am not saying the computer did not cause the plane to crash, or that the pilot might have been able to do something to stop it if there was an option 'to have full control of the plane', whatever that means.  What I am saying is that we really do not know all the circumstances, and it might be a bit early start pointing fingers.
<p>
First, I would say it naive to think that computers are somehow at fault, and that they do not have a net benefit.  The main reason to use digital solid state computers is that they often reduce discrete component count, which usually increases reliability.  In a system that is supposed to nearly 100\% reliability, like an aircraft, component count must be kept to a minimum.  That has traditionally mean fly by wire, and the more fly by wire, the better.  My understanding is that Airbus reduces complexity significantly assuming a complete fly by wire profile.  One could, for instance, install backup hydraulics, which I assume is not done, but this would reduce reliability.
</p><p>
There is not simple solution.  Things do not increase security and reliability simply because we feel better.  For instance, Many people feel safer in big trucks but many studies have shown that one is safer in a full size sedan.  Likewise, one thing that makes a large truck, especially an SUV safe is the electronic stability control, which can countermand any driver instruction.  Large planes are already computer controlled. Long haul flying of large planes is in no way a trivial task.  I agree with the blog mentioned in the article that people who have no experience have no basis to make any useful comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that someone is trying to push their dogma through fear .
I am not saying the computer did not cause the plane to crash , or that the pilot might have been able to do something to stop it if there was an option 'to have full control of the plane ' , whatever that means .
What I am saying is that we really do not know all the circumstances , and it might be a bit early start pointing fingers .
First , I would say it naive to think that computers are somehow at fault , and that they do not have a net benefit .
The main reason to use digital solid state computers is that they often reduce discrete component count , which usually increases reliability .
In a system that is supposed to nearly 100 \ % reliability , like an aircraft , component count must be kept to a minimum .
That has traditionally mean fly by wire , and the more fly by wire , the better .
My understanding is that Airbus reduces complexity significantly assuming a complete fly by wire profile .
One could , for instance , install backup hydraulics , which I assume is not done , but this would reduce reliability .
There is not simple solution .
Things do not increase security and reliability simply because we feel better .
For instance , Many people feel safer in big trucks but many studies have shown that one is safer in a full size sedan .
Likewise , one thing that makes a large truck , especially an SUV safe is the electronic stability control , which can countermand any driver instruction .
Large planes are already computer controlled .
Long haul flying of large planes is in no way a trivial task .
I agree with the blog mentioned in the article that people who have no experience have no basis to make any useful comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that someone is trying to push their dogma through fear.
I am not saying the computer did not cause the plane to crash, or that the pilot might have been able to do something to stop it if there was an option 'to have full control of the plane', whatever that means.
What I am saying is that we really do not know all the circumstances, and it might be a bit early start pointing fingers.
First, I would say it naive to think that computers are somehow at fault, and that they do not have a net benefit.
The main reason to use digital solid state computers is that they often reduce discrete component count, which usually increases reliability.
In a system that is supposed to nearly 100\% reliability, like an aircraft, component count must be kept to a minimum.
That has traditionally mean fly by wire, and the more fly by wire, the better.
My understanding is that Airbus reduces complexity significantly assuming a complete fly by wire profile.
One could, for instance, install backup hydraulics, which I assume is not done, but this would reduce reliability.
There is not simple solution.
Things do not increase security and reliability simply because we feel better.
For instance, Many people feel safer in big trucks but many studies have shown that one is safer in a full size sedan.
Likewise, one thing that makes a large truck, especially an SUV safe is the electronic stability control, which can countermand any driver instruction.
Large planes are already computer controlled.
Long haul flying of large planes is in no way a trivial task.
I agree with the blog mentioned in the article that people who have no experience have no basis to make any useful comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237</id>
	<title>Summary?</title>
	<author>Stiletto</author>
	<datestamp>1244474100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would it hurt to include a single sentence in the summary about what "Air France Flight 447" is and why anyone cares?  Even just a link?  Before launching into an editorial tirade?  I bet some find this topic interesting, but without context...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it hurt to include a single sentence in the summary about what " Air France Flight 447 " is and why anyone cares ?
Even just a link ?
Before launching into an editorial tirade ?
I bet some find this topic interesting , but without context.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it hurt to include a single sentence in the summary about what "Air France Flight 447" is and why anyone cares?
Even just a link?
Before launching into an editorial tirade?
I bet some find this topic interesting, but without context...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260509</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1244475240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with your post is simply this, one can allow for all forseeable events. It is the unforeseeable ones that kill people. Then the skill of a real pilot is the only thing that will save you.</p><p>Frankly, engineers are the last people I would want trying to save my life in an emergency!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with your post is simply this , one can allow for all forseeable events .
It is the unforeseeable ones that kill people .
Then the skill of a real pilot is the only thing that will save you.Frankly , engineers are the last people I would want trying to save my life in an emergency !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with your post is simply this, one can allow for all forseeable events.
It is the unforeseeable ones that kill people.
Then the skill of a real pilot is the only thing that will save you.Frankly, engineers are the last people I would want trying to save my life in an emergency!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263149</id>
	<title>Both sides can be wrong..</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1244544060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airbus had events where the software took a wrong decision, Boeing had situations where pilot error endangered or took out the plane.</p><p>If their suspicions about the cause is correct it is immaterial if it was a Boeing or an Airbus as either pilot or system would have been operating on incorrect information.</p><p>Let's not forget that this plane was also heading into some seriously bad weather - until enough is found for a reconstruction it's still speculation as to what happened and what caused it.  We may never know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus had events where the software took a wrong decision , Boeing had situations where pilot error endangered or took out the plane.If their suspicions about the cause is correct it is immaterial if it was a Boeing or an Airbus as either pilot or system would have been operating on incorrect information.Let 's not forget that this plane was also heading into some seriously bad weather - until enough is found for a reconstruction it 's still speculation as to what happened and what caused it .
We may never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus had events where the software took a wrong decision, Boeing had situations where pilot error endangered or took out the plane.If their suspicions about the cause is correct it is immaterial if it was a Boeing or an Airbus as either pilot or system would have been operating on incorrect information.Let's not forget that this plane was also heading into some seriously bad weather - until enough is found for a reconstruction it's still speculation as to what happened and what caused it.
We may never know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28268135</id>
	<title>Re:something interesting about the airbus</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1244571660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, let's see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan\_Airlines\_Flight\_123" title="wikipedia.org">how much more reliable Boeing's hydraulics is.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>About 12 minutes after takeoff, as the aircraft reached cruising altitude over Sagami Bay, the rear pressure bulkhead failed. The resulting explosive decompression tore the vertical stabilizer from the aircraft and severed all four of the aircraft's hydraulic systems.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let 's see how much more reliable Boeing 's hydraulics is .
[ wikipedia.org ] About 12 minutes after takeoff , as the aircraft reached cruising altitude over Sagami Bay , the rear pressure bulkhead failed .
The resulting explosive decompression tore the vertical stabilizer from the aircraft and severed all four of the aircraft 's hydraulic systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let's see how much more reliable Boeing's hydraulics is.
[wikipedia.org] About 12 minutes after takeoff, as the aircraft reached cruising altitude over Sagami Bay, the rear pressure bulkhead failed.
The resulting explosive decompression tore the vertical stabilizer from the aircraft and severed all four of the aircraft's hydraulic systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28266301</id>
	<title>Scott Crossfield</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1244564940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the most experienced test pilots flying a Cesssna 210.  This is a small airplane with fully manual controls build by an American company.</p><p>He flew the plan into a thunderstorm and it came out in pieces.</p><p>It doesn't matter what you're flying.  Stay away from thunderstorms.  Don't even try and fly over them unless you're in a space shuttle or maybe a SR-71 or U-2.</p><p>Thunderstorms can have some ferocious up and down drafts that in addition to tearing your plane apart can kick hail up and out over quite an area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the most experienced test pilots flying a Cesssna 210 .
This is a small airplane with fully manual controls build by an American company.He flew the plan into a thunderstorm and it came out in pieces.It does n't matter what you 're flying .
Stay away from thunderstorms .
Do n't even try and fly over them unless you 're in a space shuttle or maybe a SR-71 or U-2.Thunderstorms can have some ferocious up and down drafts that in addition to tearing your plane apart can kick hail up and out over quite an area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the most experienced test pilots flying a Cesssna 210.
This is a small airplane with fully manual controls build by an American company.He flew the plan into a thunderstorm and it came out in pieces.It doesn't matter what you're flying.
Stay away from thunderstorms.
Don't even try and fly over them unless you're in a space shuttle or maybe a SR-71 or U-2.Thunderstorms can have some ferocious up and down drafts that in addition to tearing your plane apart can kick hail up and out over quite an area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267771</id>
	<title>Re:Statistics</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1244570160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do human errors cause more accidents (when flying planes) or computer glitches?</p></div></blockquote><p>Human errors are responsible for 50\%+ of all aviation mishaps. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do human errors cause more accidents ( when flying planes ) or computer glitches ? Human errors are responsible for 50 \ % + of all aviation mishaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do human errors cause more accidents (when flying planes) or computer glitches?Human errors are responsible for 50\%+ of all aviation mishaps. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261975</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244487180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The plane that landed on the Hudson was an Airbus A320, which is completely controlled through the complete fly-by-wire system.  In other words, the computer control didn't prevent an experienced pilot from saving the day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plane that landed on the Hudson was an Airbus A320 , which is completely controlled through the complete fly-by-wire system .
In other words , the computer control did n't prevent an experienced pilot from saving the day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plane that landed on the Hudson was an Airbus A320, which is completely controlled through the complete fly-by-wire system.
In other words, the computer control didn't prevent an experienced pilot from saving the day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263443</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1244548020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sully was a very experienced glider pilot( Including a CFI instrutor rating, as was the captain of the Gimli glider.</p></div><p>I wonder whether landing on water will form part of future pilot training and computer control scenarios. After all, they've now got some good data on how to do it right...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sully was a very experienced glider pilot ( Including a CFI instrutor rating , as was the captain of the Gimli glider.I wonder whether landing on water will form part of future pilot training and computer control scenarios .
After all , they 've now got some good data on how to do it right.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sully was a very experienced glider pilot( Including a CFI instrutor rating, as was the captain of the Gimli glider.I wonder whether landing on water will form part of future pilot training and computer control scenarios.
After all, they've now got some good data on how to do it right...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260301</id>
	<title>Misleading, at best.</title>
	<author>actionbastard</author>
	<datestamp>1244474280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Modern commercial jets are designed to fly within a very narrow area of their performance envelope -defined by speed, thrust, lift, and fuel economy. It's called the 'coffin corner'. What the situation is with this incident is a confluence of circumstance. No more, no less. Weather, engineering decisions, and plain bad luck is what brought this plane down. God help those who who made the bad engineering decisions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern commercial jets are designed to fly within a very narrow area of their performance envelope -defined by speed , thrust , lift , and fuel economy .
It 's called the 'coffin corner' .
What the situation is with this incident is a confluence of circumstance .
No more , no less .
Weather , engineering decisions , and plain bad luck is what brought this plane down .
God help those who who made the bad engineering decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern commercial jets are designed to fly within a very narrow area of their performance envelope -defined by speed, thrust, lift, and fuel economy.
It's called the 'coffin corner'.
What the situation is with this incident is a confluence of circumstance.
No more, no less.
Weather, engineering decisions, and plain bad luck is what brought this plane down.
God help those who who made the bad engineering decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262431</id>
	<title>It Seems...</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1244578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That many crashes attributable to automated systems are caused due to the pilot not understanding how the vehicle is designed to work. If the operator reacts in a manner inconsistent with the design of the vehicle, the automated systems and the operator end up fighting with each other. This is easily as true of anti-lock brakes and traction control devices in cars as it is in automated piloting devices in aircraft.
<p>
Faith that those automated systems will correct our mistakes is no substitute for adequate training in the operation of the vehicle in question. Or... to put it another way... just because you put several billion dollars of engineering into the automated systems on your aircraft doesn't mean that you can hire chimpanzees to fly it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That many crashes attributable to automated systems are caused due to the pilot not understanding how the vehicle is designed to work .
If the operator reacts in a manner inconsistent with the design of the vehicle , the automated systems and the operator end up fighting with each other .
This is easily as true of anti-lock brakes and traction control devices in cars as it is in automated piloting devices in aircraft .
Faith that those automated systems will correct our mistakes is no substitute for adequate training in the operation of the vehicle in question .
Or... to put it another way... just because you put several billion dollars of engineering into the automated systems on your aircraft does n't mean that you can hire chimpanzees to fly it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That many crashes attributable to automated systems are caused due to the pilot not understanding how the vehicle is designed to work.
If the operator reacts in a manner inconsistent with the design of the vehicle, the automated systems and the operator end up fighting with each other.
This is easily as true of anti-lock brakes and traction control devices in cars as it is in automated piloting devices in aircraft.
Faith that those automated systems will correct our mistakes is no substitute for adequate training in the operation of the vehicle in question.
Or... to put it another way... just because you put several billion dollars of engineering into the automated systems on your aircraft doesn't mean that you can hire chimpanzees to fly it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260483</id>
	<title>Terrible summary</title>
	<author>thejoelpatrol</author>
	<datestamp>1244475120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boeing's use of hydraulics instead of fly-by-wire technology has nothing to do with American individualism. And Airbus's use of electronics isn't due to Europeans' greater trust in computers. It's because Airbus's only popular designs are newer than most of Boeing's. Newer technology really is better here, sorry. Remember that American jet that landed safely in the Hudson river recently? It was a lot easier to pull that one off due to its flight controls.
<br> <br>
Here's an entertaining and actually informative take on that incident:
<a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us\_airways200906" title="vanityfair.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us\_airways200906</a> [vanityfair.com]
<br> <br>
Feel free to get off any Airbus jet you don't trust, but as someone learning to fly pretty old planes, I'll ride the new ones, thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boeing 's use of hydraulics instead of fly-by-wire technology has nothing to do with American individualism .
And Airbus 's use of electronics is n't due to Europeans ' greater trust in computers .
It 's because Airbus 's only popular designs are newer than most of Boeing 's .
Newer technology really is better here , sorry .
Remember that American jet that landed safely in the Hudson river recently ?
It was a lot easier to pull that one off due to its flight controls .
Here 's an entertaining and actually informative take on that incident : http : //www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us \ _airways200906 [ vanityfair.com ] Feel free to get off any Airbus jet you do n't trust , but as someone learning to fly pretty old planes , I 'll ride the new ones , thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boeing's use of hydraulics instead of fly-by-wire technology has nothing to do with American individualism.
And Airbus's use of electronics isn't due to Europeans' greater trust in computers.
It's because Airbus's only popular designs are newer than most of Boeing's.
Newer technology really is better here, sorry.
Remember that American jet that landed safely in the Hudson river recently?
It was a lot easier to pull that one off due to its flight controls.
Here's an entertaining and actually informative take on that incident:
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us\_airways200906 [vanityfair.com]
 
Feel free to get off any Airbus jet you don't trust, but as someone learning to fly pretty old planes, I'll ride the new ones, thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247</id>
	<title>Computers and People</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well it's quite simple really.  Boeing doesn't expect anybody to be flying one of their big jets without years of experience.  If you have a mechanical failure do you really want to have a machine, that may be getting fed bad data, trying to figure out what to do next.  (Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it 's quite simple really .
Boeing does n't expect anybody to be flying one of their big jets without years of experience .
If you have a mechanical failure do you really want to have a machine , that may be getting fed bad data , trying to figure out what to do next .
( Also does n't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it's quite simple really.
Boeing doesn't expect anybody to be flying one of their big jets without years of experience.
If you have a mechanical failure do you really want to have a machine, that may be getting fed bad data, trying to figure out what to do next.
(Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260587</id>
	<title>parachute not included</title>
	<author>sams67</author>
	<datestamp>1244475600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer"</p><p>
Would you like to purchase a parachute, sir?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer " Would you like to purchase a parachute , sir ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer"
Would you like to purchase a parachute, sir?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261691</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244483940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I trust an engineer's years of study...</i></p><p>That's all well and good, but let's not forget that engineer has a manager.  Probably a pointy-haired one.  I'd trust a pilot whose life is on the line a whole lot more than an overworked engineer whose  boss is willing to second guess him in order to ship early and get a bonus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust an engineer 's years of study...That 's all well and good , but let 's not forget that engineer has a manager .
Probably a pointy-haired one .
I 'd trust a pilot whose life is on the line a whole lot more than an overworked engineer whose boss is willing to second guess him in order to ship early and get a bonus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust an engineer's years of study...That's all well and good, but let's not forget that engineer has a manager.
Probably a pointy-haired one.
I'd trust a pilot whose life is on the line a whole lot more than an overworked engineer whose  boss is willing to second guess him in order to ship early and get a bonus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260143</id>
	<title>Irresponsible headline, summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244473560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. </i>

</p><p>How fond Americans are of reductionist dualities that are unhelpful, misleading and frequently downright dangerous: American pilot with The Right Stuff in an American plane would have saved everyone; dangerous European plane and computer killed hundreds. Oversimplified sniping, or childish fantasy?

</p><p>If I want real facts on flying, instead of wild-assed pseudo-political trollery, I'll go read Peter Ladkin or <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2009/06/08/storm/index.html" title="salon.com" rel="nofollow">Patrick Smith</a> [salon.com]:<i>
 "The gist of the accident appears pretty clear: Air France Flight 447 was victimized by a terrible storm."
</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems .
How fond Americans are of reductionist dualities that are unhelpful , misleading and frequently downright dangerous : American pilot with The Right Stuff in an American plane would have saved everyone ; dangerous European plane and computer killed hundreds .
Oversimplified sniping , or childish fantasy ?
If I want real facts on flying , instead of wild-assed pseudo-political trollery , I 'll go read Peter Ladkin or Patrick Smith [ salon.com ] : " The gist of the accident appears pretty clear : Air France Flight 447 was victimized by a terrible storm .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
How fond Americans are of reductionist dualities that are unhelpful, misleading and frequently downright dangerous: American pilot with The Right Stuff in an American plane would have saved everyone; dangerous European plane and computer killed hundreds.
Oversimplified sniping, or childish fantasy?
If I want real facts on flying, instead of wild-assed pseudo-political trollery, I'll go read Peter Ladkin or Patrick Smith [salon.com]:
 "The gist of the accident appears pretty clear: Air France Flight 447 was victimized by a terrible storm.
"
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262467</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/WarsawWB.html<br>Yes, but engineers can be wrong.   If the engineer cannot envisage some circumstance, then the designed logic can be fatal.</p><p>"......On 14 September 1993, a Lufthansa Airbus A320 landed at Warsaw airport in a thunderstorm. Upon landing, none of the braking systems (air brakes, thrust reverse, wheel brakes) functioned for about nine seconds: the wheel brakes only started to function after about thirteen seconds. The aircraft ran off the end of the runway, collided with an earth bank and started to burn. Primarily because of the superb behavior of the crew, only two people died: one pilot, who died when the aircraft hit the bank, and one passenger, who was unconscious in the front corner and unnoticed in the evacuation as the cabin filled with smoke, and was asphyxiated. It became clear that the logic of the braking systems was indeed a reason why the braking systems hadn't functioned as expected. However, many commentators focused upon this factor as the main cause of the accident, which is probably incorrect. There were many other necessary causal factors (1). The final report itself ascribed pilot decisions and behavior as `probable cause'. But what criteria are being used to determine this? The final report and commentary may be found in (LadCOMP, The A320 Accident in Warsaw)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,...."</p><p>"... Der<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Spiegel, in issue 47 (22/11/93) reported on the `deadly logic' of the A320<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; braking systems. Der Spiegel this week (issue 48, 29/11/93) reported that<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Lufthansa was talking with Airbus on a change in the braking logic to reduce<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the weight-on-wheels load criterion from 12 metric tons to 2 metric tons, and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; claimed that this was the first time that Airbus had to `convert their<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; machines' because of an accident (`ihre Maschinen nach einem Unglueck<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; umruesten muessen')......"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/WarsawWB.htmlYes , but engineers can be wrong .
If the engineer can not envisage some circumstance , then the designed logic can be fatal .
" ......On 14 September 1993 , a Lufthansa Airbus A320 landed at Warsaw airport in a thunderstorm .
Upon landing , none of the braking systems ( air brakes , thrust reverse , wheel brakes ) functioned for about nine seconds : the wheel brakes only started to function after about thirteen seconds .
The aircraft ran off the end of the runway , collided with an earth bank and started to burn .
Primarily because of the superb behavior of the crew , only two people died : one pilot , who died when the aircraft hit the bank , and one passenger , who was unconscious in the front corner and unnoticed in the evacuation as the cabin filled with smoke , and was asphyxiated .
It became clear that the logic of the braking systems was indeed a reason why the braking systems had n't functioned as expected .
However , many commentators focused upon this factor as the main cause of the accident , which is probably incorrect .
There were many other necessary causal factors ( 1 ) .
The final report itself ascribed pilot decisions and behavior as ` probable cause' .
But what criteria are being used to determine this ?
The final report and commentary may be found in ( LadCOMP , The A320 Accident in Warsaw ) ,.... " " ... Der           Spiegel , in issue 47 ( 22/11/93 ) reported on the ` deadly logic ' of the A320           braking systems .
Der Spiegel this week ( issue 48 , 29/11/93 ) reported that           Lufthansa was talking with Airbus on a change in the braking logic to reduce           the weight-on-wheels load criterion from 12 metric tons to 2 metric tons , and           claimed that this was the first time that Airbus had to ` convert their           machines ' because of an accident ( ` ihre Maschinen nach einem Unglueck           umruesten muessen ' ) ...... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Reports/WarsawWB.htmlYes, but engineers can be wrong.
If the engineer cannot envisage some circumstance, then the designed logic can be fatal.
"......On 14 September 1993, a Lufthansa Airbus A320 landed at Warsaw airport in a thunderstorm.
Upon landing, none of the braking systems (air brakes, thrust reverse, wheel brakes) functioned for about nine seconds: the wheel brakes only started to function after about thirteen seconds.
The aircraft ran off the end of the runway, collided with an earth bank and started to burn.
Primarily because of the superb behavior of the crew, only two people died: one pilot, who died when the aircraft hit the bank, and one passenger, who was unconscious in the front corner and unnoticed in the evacuation as the cabin filled with smoke, and was asphyxiated.
It became clear that the logic of the braking systems was indeed a reason why the braking systems hadn't functioned as expected.
However, many commentators focused upon this factor as the main cause of the accident, which is probably incorrect.
There were many other necessary causal factors (1).
The final report itself ascribed pilot decisions and behavior as `probable cause'.
But what criteria are being used to determine this?
The final report and commentary may be found in (LadCOMP, The A320 Accident in Warsaw) ,....""... Der
          Spiegel, in issue 47 (22/11/93) reported on the `deadly logic' of the A320
          braking systems.
Der Spiegel this week (issue 48, 29/11/93) reported that
          Lufthansa was talking with Airbus on a change in the braking logic to reduce
          the weight-on-wheels load criterion from 12 metric tons to 2 metric tons, and
          claimed that this was the first time that Airbus had to `convert their
          machines' because of an accident (`ihre Maschinen nach einem Unglueck
          umruesten muessen')......"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261009</id>
	<title>Unrealistic Expectations</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1244477940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The airlines market air travel as safe to get people to use. The fact is it is not. You take a decided risk by flying. The computer and the human both have their own advantages, but planes now a days are sophisticated enough that anything short of catastrophic failure would not make the headlines. There are likely to be thousands of contributing factors that caused the airbus to crash. Unfortunately someone will get the blame even though they were only a small part of the big picture. I think we should learn from our mistakes. Least the sacrifice of the passengers be wasted. When they can save others.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The airlines market air travel as safe to get people to use .
The fact is it is not .
You take a decided risk by flying .
The computer and the human both have their own advantages , but planes now a days are sophisticated enough that anything short of catastrophic failure would not make the headlines .
There are likely to be thousands of contributing factors that caused the airbus to crash .
Unfortunately someone will get the blame even though they were only a small part of the big picture .
I think we should learn from our mistakes .
Least the sacrifice of the passengers be wasted .
When they can save others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The airlines market air travel as safe to get people to use.
The fact is it is not.
You take a decided risk by flying.
The computer and the human both have their own advantages, but planes now a days are sophisticated enough that anything short of catastrophic failure would not make the headlines.
There are likely to be thousands of contributing factors that caused the airbus to crash.
Unfortunately someone will get the blame even though they were only a small part of the big picture.
I think we should learn from our mistakes.
Least the sacrifice of the passengers be wasted.
When they can save others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262333</id>
	<title>Cheers</title>
	<author>lcs</author>
	<datestamp>1244491080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Battle-tested"? You mean <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/23/national/main515937.shtml" title="cbsnews.com" rel="nofollow">"drunk"</a> [cbsnews.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Battle-tested " ?
You mean " drunk " [ cbsnews.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Battle-tested"?
You mean "drunk" [cbsnews.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260597</id>
	<title>Socialism vs Libertarianism</title>
	<author>PortHaven</author>
	<datestamp>1244475660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state, the institution, etc knows better than the individual.  Boeing was (or at least used to be) built by free thinking capitalists who believe in individuality.</p><p>This is just a small example of why I dislike socialist philosophy. Because in the end...it'll kill ya! (or your neighbors)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state , the institution , etc knows better than the individual .
Boeing was ( or at least used to be ) built by free thinking capitalists who believe in individuality.This is just a small example of why I dislike socialist philosophy .
Because in the end...it 'll kill ya !
( or your neighbors )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state, the institution, etc knows better than the individual.
Boeing was (or at least used to be) built by free thinking capitalists who believe in individuality.This is just a small example of why I dislike socialist philosophy.
Because in the end...it'll kill ya!
(or your neighbors)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260619</id>
	<title>"Battle Tested" Pilots?</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1244475720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most recent bad accident before the recent one--the one we actually know the cause of--was caused by pilots overriding their computerized safety systems:
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124212789938210353.html" title="wsj.com" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124212789938210353.html</a> [wsj.com] </p><p>The plane iced up and lost speed, and the computer sent the plane into a dive to regain the critical speed.  The pilots responded by thinking "Down? We don't want to go down!" and pulled up, which meant they lost the acceleration, the ability to stay airborne, and fifty-some passengers.  The transcripts are chilling and gruesome.
</p><p>Human nature apparently makes people more willing to trust human judgment than machines.  I very much *don't* want to give the public, who may be perfectly sensible and intelligent in their areas of expertise but who are utterly ignorant of modern aircraft the right to override actual, scientific determination of what the safest way is to handle a specific emergency.  Which is exactly what will happen if airlines need to pander to passengers going by zero knowledge and a ton of gut instinct about what makes them feel good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most recent bad accident before the recent one--the one we actually know the cause of--was caused by pilots overriding their computerized safety systems : http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB124212789938210353.html [ wsj.com ] The plane iced up and lost speed , and the computer sent the plane into a dive to regain the critical speed .
The pilots responded by thinking " Down ?
We do n't want to go down !
" and pulled up , which meant they lost the acceleration , the ability to stay airborne , and fifty-some passengers .
The transcripts are chilling and gruesome .
Human nature apparently makes people more willing to trust human judgment than machines .
I very much * do n't * want to give the public , who may be perfectly sensible and intelligent in their areas of expertise but who are utterly ignorant of modern aircraft the right to override actual , scientific determination of what the safest way is to handle a specific emergency .
Which is exactly what will happen if airlines need to pander to passengers going by zero knowledge and a ton of gut instinct about what makes them feel good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most recent bad accident before the recent one--the one we actually know the cause of--was caused by pilots overriding their computerized safety systems:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124212789938210353.html [wsj.com] The plane iced up and lost speed, and the computer sent the plane into a dive to regain the critical speed.
The pilots responded by thinking "Down?
We don't want to go down!
" and pulled up, which meant they lost the acceleration, the ability to stay airborne, and fifty-some passengers.
The transcripts are chilling and gruesome.
Human nature apparently makes people more willing to trust human judgment than machines.
I very much *don't* want to give the public, who may be perfectly sensible and intelligent in their areas of expertise but who are utterly ignorant of modern aircraft the right to override actual, scientific determination of what the safest way is to handle a specific emergency.
Which is exactly what will happen if airlines need to pander to passengers going by zero knowledge and a ton of gut instinct about what makes them feel good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263221</id>
	<title>lets be realistic</title>
	<author>jonscilz</author>
	<datestamp>1244544900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>whether or not you would prefer a computer or a human to respond in emergency situations is irrelevant here. the simple fact today is that commercial pilots rarely do any manual flying and havent done so in a long time. literally from the minute of throttle up on departure to hitting the brakes on arrival - just about every system on a commercial airline is automated. if i had prepared and skilled pilots in the cockpit i would personally prefer them to respond but the fact is that most of these pilots are so dependent on these automated systems lately that they would likely respond poorly in the event of an emergency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>whether or not you would prefer a computer or a human to respond in emergency situations is irrelevant here .
the simple fact today is that commercial pilots rarely do any manual flying and havent done so in a long time .
literally from the minute of throttle up on departure to hitting the brakes on arrival - just about every system on a commercial airline is automated .
if i had prepared and skilled pilots in the cockpit i would personally prefer them to respond but the fact is that most of these pilots are so dependent on these automated systems lately that they would likely respond poorly in the event of an emergency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whether or not you would prefer a computer or a human to respond in emergency situations is irrelevant here.
the simple fact today is that commercial pilots rarely do any manual flying and havent done so in a long time.
literally from the minute of throttle up on departure to hitting the brakes on arrival - just about every system on a commercial airline is automated.
if i had prepared and skilled pilots in the cockpit i would personally prefer them to respond but the fact is that most of these pilots are so dependent on these automated systems lately that they would likely respond poorly in the event of an emergency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28274837</id>
	<title>USAir 1549: impossible without computers?</title>
	<author>grogo</author>
	<datestamp>1244565060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The converse is also interesting to ask about USAIr 1549: is it likely that the spectacular water landing with two dead engines was only possible because a computer was really in charge?  I.e. would a human have screwed it up at the last minute with the computer's intervention?  I wondered that once I found out that USAir 1549 was an AirBus 320.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The converse is also interesting to ask about USAIr 1549 : is it likely that the spectacular water landing with two dead engines was only possible because a computer was really in charge ?
I.e. would a human have screwed it up at the last minute with the computer 's intervention ?
I wondered that once I found out that USAir 1549 was an AirBus 320 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The converse is also interesting to ask about USAIr 1549: is it likely that the spectacular water landing with two dead engines was only possible because a computer was really in charge?
I.e. would a human have screwed it up at the last minute with the computer's intervention?
I wondered that once I found out that USAir 1549 was an AirBus 320.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260697</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244476080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have worked side-by-side writing code with hundreds of engineers from various companies and in my experience I wouldn't trust their code to cook my bagel.</p><p>Engineers make horrible, horrible programmers yet they all seem to want to do it.  They seem to be particularly bad at handling edge cases <i>or</i> they handle only the edge cases very well and everything else poorly.  Awful programming in any case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have worked side-by-side writing code with hundreds of engineers from various companies and in my experience I would n't trust their code to cook my bagel.Engineers make horrible , horrible programmers yet they all seem to want to do it .
They seem to be particularly bad at handling edge cases or they handle only the edge cases very well and everything else poorly .
Awful programming in any case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have worked side-by-side writing code with hundreds of engineers from various companies and in my experience I wouldn't trust their code to cook my bagel.Engineers make horrible, horrible programmers yet they all seem to want to do it.
They seem to be particularly bad at handling edge cases or they handle only the edge cases very well and everything else poorly.
Awful programming in any case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261589</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1244482860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;A computer controlled system might have nosed down to get airspeed and saved 50 lives.</p><p>On a related note, Airbus has since patched the speed sensors on the A330. So it's not always a win to have computers running in hazardous situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; A computer controlled system might have nosed down to get airspeed and saved 50 lives.On a related note , Airbus has since patched the speed sensors on the A330 .
So it 's not always a win to have computers running in hazardous situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;A computer controlled system might have nosed down to get airspeed and saved 50 lives.On a related note, Airbus has since patched the speed sensors on the A330.
So it's not always a win to have computers running in hazardous situations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262207</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Brandano</author>
	<datestamp>1244489640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the plane that landed in the Hudson was an Airbus A320, something that people seem to keep on ignoring. Not only a fly by wire design, but also the first (and only?) commercial plane controlled with a sidestick instead of the classic control column ( <a href="http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=on&amp;q=airbus+a320+cockpit" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=on&amp;q=airbus+a320+cockpit</a> [google.com] ). So, if the computer was fighting the pilot (which is not true) how did the pilot manage to land the plane?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the plane that landed in the Hudson was an Airbus A320 , something that people seem to keep on ignoring .
Not only a fly by wire design , but also the first ( and only ?
) commercial plane controlled with a sidestick instead of the classic control column ( http : //images.google.com/images ? hl = en&amp;safe = on&amp;q = airbus + a320 + cockpit [ google.com ] ) .
So , if the computer was fighting the pilot ( which is not true ) how did the pilot manage to land the plane ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the plane that landed in the Hudson was an Airbus A320, something that people seem to keep on ignoring.
Not only a fly by wire design, but also the first (and only?
) commercial plane controlled with a sidestick instead of the classic control column ( http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;safe=on&amp;q=airbus+a320+cockpit [google.com] ).
So, if the computer was fighting the pilot (which is not true) how did the pilot manage to land the plane?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262977</id>
	<title>Dune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Butlerian revolt anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Butlerian revolt anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Butlerian revolt anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261837</id>
	<title>Infinitely faster?</title>
	<author>whereiswaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1244485560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information.</i></p><p>Assuming they meant "vastly" rather than "infinitely", I still take issue with that comparison.  Humans can react instantaneously to complex information that a computer would have difficulty dealing with.  Of course, in certain situations computers do react much more quickly, but I say it depends on the context.  It also depends on how you present the information to the human for them to process and react to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's essentially a question of what do you trust most : a human being 's ingenuity or a computer 's infinitely faster access and reaction to information.Assuming they meant " vastly " rather than " infinitely " , I still take issue with that comparison .
Humans can react instantaneously to complex information that a computer would have difficulty dealing with .
Of course , in certain situations computers do react much more quickly , but I say it depends on the context .
It also depends on how you present the information to the human for them to process and react to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information.Assuming they meant "vastly" rather than "infinitely", I still take issue with that comparison.
Humans can react instantaneously to complex information that a computer would have difficulty dealing with.
Of course, in certain situations computers do react much more quickly, but I say it depends on the context.
It also depends on how you present the information to the human for them to process and react to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263161</id>
	<title>Re:Computers and People</title>
	<author>stjobe</author>
	<datestamp>1244544360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).</p></div><p>It might SEEM that way, but the FACTS state that Boeing have had quite a few more crashes than Airbus over the last five years and a lot more if we go back even further.</p><p>A simple Google query would have told you this.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Also does n't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years ) .It might SEEM that way , but the FACTS state that Boeing have had quite a few more crashes than Airbus over the last five years and a lot more if we go back even further.A simple Google query would have told you this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).It might SEEM that way, but the FACTS state that Boeing have had quite a few more crashes than Airbus over the last five years and a lot more if we go back even further.A simple Google query would have told you this.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28270461</id>
	<title>rubbish introduction</title>
	<author>wilf</author>
	<datestamp>1244580120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>most offensive story introduction ever.   Please<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. do some editing before hitting that Post button.</p><p>"It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. "</p><p>what a load of rubbish.   do something about it !!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>most offensive story introduction ever .
Please / .
do some editing before hitting that Post button .
" It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems .
" what a load of rubbish .
do something about it !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most offensive story introduction ever.
Please /.
do some editing before hitting that Post button.
"It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
"what a load of rubbish.
do something about it !
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261923</id>
	<title>Re: Manual Overrides</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1244486520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like quite a few people are making the assumption that Boeing does include manual over ride but Airbus does not.<br>Having worked in the Aerospace industry for a while, I can tell you two things:<br>1- Aircraft have to adhere to certain rules which are almost (but not quite 100\%) identical across the world. So much so, that since the late 80s or early 90s, everyone seems to have renamed and restructured their regulations to be inline:<br>for example, FAR 23 is the same as JAR 23 (even up to the same sub paragraph). In general as well, if an aircraft is certified under FAR23 it is usually a formality to re-certify under JAR23 and vica versa.<br>2- Safety, redundancy and overrides are some of the most stringent requirements that can't be bypassed, so those putting forward the argument don't know jack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like quite a few people are making the assumption that Boeing does include manual over ride but Airbus does not.Having worked in the Aerospace industry for a while , I can tell you two things : 1- Aircraft have to adhere to certain rules which are almost ( but not quite 100 \ % ) identical across the world .
So much so , that since the late 80s or early 90s , everyone seems to have renamed and restructured their regulations to be inline : for example , FAR 23 is the same as JAR 23 ( even up to the same sub paragraph ) .
In general as well , if an aircraft is certified under FAR23 it is usually a formality to re-certify under JAR23 and vica versa.2- Safety , redundancy and overrides are some of the most stringent requirements that ca n't be bypassed , so those putting forward the argument do n't know jack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like quite a few people are making the assumption that Boeing does include manual over ride but Airbus does not.Having worked in the Aerospace industry for a while, I can tell you two things:1- Aircraft have to adhere to certain rules which are almost (but not quite 100\%) identical across the world.
So much so, that since the late 80s or early 90s, everyone seems to have renamed and restructured their regulations to be inline:for example, FAR 23 is the same as JAR 23 (even up to the same sub paragraph).
In general as well, if an aircraft is certified under FAR23 it is usually a formality to re-certify under JAR23 and vica versa.2- Safety, redundancy and overrides are some of the most stringent requirements that can't be bypassed, so those putting forward the argument don't know jack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267145</id>
	<title>Never trust a computer...</title>
	<author>micromuncher</author>
	<datestamp>1244567760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've known too many software developers; even with redundant systems written to the same requirements, I'd never trust the requirements were complete, and I'd never trust that the testing covered "the negative case."  Many requirements are missed, and most test cases are to a postive case (so you only have a subset of known inputs and outputs for simple, selected execution paths.)</p><p>Also, a plane that is breaking up in the air will send in interesting results via automated systems... totally off topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've known too many software developers ; even with redundant systems written to the same requirements , I 'd never trust the requirements were complete , and I 'd never trust that the testing covered " the negative case .
" Many requirements are missed , and most test cases are to a postive case ( so you only have a subset of known inputs and outputs for simple , selected execution paths .
) Also , a plane that is breaking up in the air will send in interesting results via automated systems... totally off topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've known too many software developers; even with redundant systems written to the same requirements, I'd never trust the requirements were complete, and I'd never trust that the testing covered "the negative case.
"  Many requirements are missed, and most test cases are to a postive case (so you only have a subset of known inputs and outputs for simple, selected execution paths.
)Also, a plane that is breaking up in the air will send in interesting results via automated systems... totally off topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262011</id>
	<title>Unnecessary Euro-bashing</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1244487600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems."</p><p>It's not surprising that kdawson is an inconsistent bigot either. Bash Microsoft (or similar) one minute for being anti-personal freedom (hint: The EU are the ones forcing them to change), then turn around and say that a European company is less likely to be pro-individual-freedom the next. The doctor could help with that inflamed bile duct if you would just get your foot out of your damn mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems .
" It 's not surprising that kdawson is an inconsistent bigot either .
Bash Microsoft ( or similar ) one minute for being anti-personal freedom ( hint : The EU are the ones forcing them to change ) , then turn around and say that a European company is less likely to be pro-individual-freedom the next .
The doctor could help with that inflamed bile duct if you would just get your foot out of your damn mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
"It's not surprising that kdawson is an inconsistent bigot either.
Bash Microsoft (or similar) one minute for being anti-personal freedom (hint: The EU are the ones forcing them to change), then turn around and say that a European company is less likely to be pro-individual-freedom the next.
The doctor could help with that inflamed bile duct if you would just get your foot out of your damn mouth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261187</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the flip side <a href="http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/airbus-a320-crashes-into-trees/17817204" title="mefeedia.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [mefeedia.com] shows what happens when you have a experienced pilot with a computer that overrides him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the flip side this [ mefeedia.com ] shows what happens when you have a experienced pilot with a computer that overrides him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the flip side this [mefeedia.com] shows what happens when you have a experienced pilot with a computer that overrides him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262193</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244489520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe you should read about the Turkish Airlines 737 crash earlier this year in amsterdam if you think Boeing has that easy manual override.</p><p>When the 737 captain noticed being too low, he pulled full throttle - and the autothrottle dutifully pulled the engine power back down.</p><p>Different philosophy airbus and boeing had 20 years ago, but these the differences are betting very academical. Both use fly-by-wire, integrated displays, and so on. Airbus just did that 20 years earlier. Wether it was wise to be a pioneer in computers at the time is good question, but statistics show that FBW airplane models are actually more safe that traditional "manual" airplanes.</p><p>The main safety problem on modern airliners (airbus 320 and newer, the boeing 777 and new 737) is that the c omputerized systems are so reliable that pilots don't get enough experience on manual flying to survive when a malfunction eventually happens and the computers switch of all the automation...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you should read about the Turkish Airlines 737 crash earlier this year in amsterdam if you think Boeing has that easy manual override.When the 737 captain noticed being too low , he pulled full throttle - and the autothrottle dutifully pulled the engine power back down.Different philosophy airbus and boeing had 20 years ago , but these the differences are betting very academical .
Both use fly-by-wire , integrated displays , and so on .
Airbus just did that 20 years earlier .
Wether it was wise to be a pioneer in computers at the time is good question , but statistics show that FBW airplane models are actually more safe that traditional " manual " airplanes.The main safety problem on modern airliners ( airbus 320 and newer , the boeing 777 and new 737 ) is that the c omputerized systems are so reliable that pilots do n't get enough experience on manual flying to survive when a malfunction eventually happens and the computers switch of all the automation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you should read about the Turkish Airlines 737 crash earlier this year in amsterdam if you think Boeing has that easy manual override.When the 737 captain noticed being too low, he pulled full throttle - and the autothrottle dutifully pulled the engine power back down.Different philosophy airbus and boeing had 20 years ago, but these the differences are betting very academical.
Both use fly-by-wire, integrated displays, and so on.
Airbus just did that 20 years earlier.
Wether it was wise to be a pioneer in computers at the time is good question, but statistics show that FBW airplane models are actually more safe that traditional "manual" airplanes.The main safety problem on modern airliners (airbus 320 and newer, the boeing 777 and new 737) is that the c omputerized systems are so reliable that pilots don't get enough experience on manual flying to survive when a malfunction eventually happens and the computers switch of all the automation...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28275377</id>
	<title>Human Pilot vs. Human who Programmed Computer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244569800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see it as human vs. computer, but human vs. other human who programmed computer -- one human has his life on the line, and if experienced will remain calm and make sound decisions, the other human programmed a computer to make decisions for a finite number of situations-- both have strengths and weaknesses, but I would prefer an experienced pilot be able to override the autopilot.  I am an anonymous coward without an accout.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see it as human vs. computer , but human vs. other human who programmed computer -- one human has his life on the line , and if experienced will remain calm and make sound decisions , the other human programmed a computer to make decisions for a finite number of situations-- both have strengths and weaknesses , but I would prefer an experienced pilot be able to override the autopilot .
I am an anonymous coward without an accout .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see it as human vs. computer, but human vs. other human who programmed computer -- one human has his life on the line, and if experienced will remain calm and make sound decisions, the other human programmed a computer to make decisions for a finite number of situations-- both have strengths and weaknesses, but I would prefer an experienced pilot be able to override the autopilot.
I am an anonymous coward without an accout.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262139</id>
	<title>Re:Overrides for when computers go mad.</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1244488980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As an ex airline pilot and current software developer</p></div><p>Isn't airline pilot a pretty decent and well paying occupation that requires lots of very expensive training or time spent flying in the military to get? If so, then why give that up to become a software developer? I am a fairly decent software developer, but if I had a commercial aviation license for multi-engine jets then I would probably be (or remain) a pilot instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an ex airline pilot and current software developerIs n't airline pilot a pretty decent and well paying occupation that requires lots of very expensive training or time spent flying in the military to get ?
If so , then why give that up to become a software developer ?
I am a fairly decent software developer , but if I had a commercial aviation license for multi-engine jets then I would probably be ( or remain ) a pilot instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an ex airline pilot and current software developerIsn't airline pilot a pretty decent and well paying occupation that requires lots of very expensive training or time spent flying in the military to get?
If so, then why give that up to become a software developer?
I am a fairly decent software developer, but if I had a commercial aviation license for multi-engine jets then I would probably be (or remain) a pilot instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260545</id>
	<title>If that's true why pilots needed at all ?</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1244475360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If plane pilots can only sit and watch how plane crashes than why it's necessary keep them on plane ?
- to make longer the list of dead people ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If plane pilots can only sit and watch how plane crashes than why it 's necessary keep them on plane ?
- to make longer the list of dead people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If plane pilots can only sit and watch how plane crashes than why it's necessary keep them on plane ?
- to make longer the list of dead people ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262389</id>
	<title>Just for once,  use your brain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244578260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.</p></div><p>Are you really so stupid that you think that computers are self-generated? Don't you know that before beeing allowed to flight a plane must be certified by several authorities (FAA in the US).
And do you know how these pilots have been trained and evaluated? Right, on a simulator. A computer that is supposed to act like a real plane.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not.</p></div><p>Don't you think that it may comes of how these limites are defined?
Maybe Airbus actually fixes these limits according to the physical limits of the plane while Boeing uses the passengers tolerance?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Computers Key To Air France Crash</p></div><p>And by the way, who are you to say something like this? Are you involved in the investigation or did you just read this on the Internet?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer.Are you really so stupid that you think that computers are self-generated ?
Do n't you know that before beeing allowed to flight a plane must be certified by several authorities ( FAA in the US ) .
And do you know how these pilots have been trained and evaluated ?
Right , on a simulator .
A computer that is supposed to act like a real plane.Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations , Airbus planes do not.Do n't you think that it may comes of how these limites are defined ?
Maybe Airbus actually fixes these limits according to the physical limits of the plane while Boeing uses the passengers tolerance ? Computers Key To Air France CrashAnd by the way , who are you to say something like this ?
Are you involved in the investigation or did you just read this on the Internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.Are you really so stupid that you think that computers are self-generated?
Don't you know that before beeing allowed to flight a plane must be certified by several authorities (FAA in the US).
And do you know how these pilots have been trained and evaluated?
Right, on a simulator.
A computer that is supposed to act like a real plane.Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not.Don't you think that it may comes of how these limites are defined?
Maybe Airbus actually fixes these limits according to the physical limits of the plane while Boeing uses the passengers tolerance?Computers Key To Air France CrashAnd by the way, who are you to say something like this?
Are you involved in the investigation or did you just read this on the Internet?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262769</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>MadnessASAP</author>
	<datestamp>1244539500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Theres a good reason for this, I'm sure you can guess it so I'll give you a few seconds to come up with it.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>.<br>Got it? No? Oh well then let me tell you.  It's because you're not supposed to disable it... ever.... at all... under any circumstance.<br>The computer is designed to let you push the plane to the limits of it's safe operational envelope and no further.  In the very unlikely case that the computer/hardware faults it will automatically switch itself to a series of fallbacks all the way to the closest you can reasonably get to a manual direct link control and it will inform the pilot that it has done so.  Believe me these systems are designed by large teams of engineers who have studies this far more then you, I or just about anybody else on Slashdot and they do not fuck around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Theres a good reason for this , I 'm sure you can guess it so I 'll give you a few seconds to come up with it........Got it ?
No ? Oh well then let me tell you .
It 's because you 're not supposed to disable it... ever.... at all... under any circumstance.The computer is designed to let you push the plane to the limits of it 's safe operational envelope and no further .
In the very unlikely case that the computer/hardware faults it will automatically switch itself to a series of fallbacks all the way to the closest you can reasonably get to a manual direct link control and it will inform the pilot that it has done so .
Believe me these systems are designed by large teams of engineers who have studies this far more then you , I or just about anybody else on Slashdot and they do not fuck around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theres a good reason for this, I'm sure you can guess it so I'll give you a few seconds to come up with it........Got it?
No? Oh well then let me tell you.
It's because you're not supposed to disable it... ever.... at all... under any circumstance.The computer is designed to let you push the plane to the limits of it's safe operational envelope and no further.
In the very unlikely case that the computer/hardware faults it will automatically switch itself to a series of fallbacks all the way to the closest you can reasonably get to a manual direct link control and it will inform the pilot that it has done so.
Believe me these systems are designed by large teams of engineers who have studies this far more then you, I or just about anybody else on Slashdot and they do not fuck around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260531</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that Flight 1549 actually \_was\_ an Airbus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that Flight 1549 actually \ _was \ _ an Airbus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that Flight 1549 actually \_was\_ an Airbus?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263013</id>
	<title>Re:Computers and People</title>
	<author>fbjon</author>
	<datestamp>1244542560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Faulty data from sensors has already been anticipated by the designers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Faulty data from sensors has already been anticipated by the designers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Faulty data from sensors has already been anticipated by the designers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260817</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Chuck Chunder</author>
	<datestamp>1244476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't know what Air France Flight 447 is then you should probably pay a bit more attention to the world at large.

That said, the summary has nothing to do with Air France flight 447 other than using it as a convenient jumping off point for his diatribe. At the current time there very little known about what happened to the plane so blaming it on the autopilot is ridiculous.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't know what Air France Flight 447 is then you should probably pay a bit more attention to the world at large .
That said , the summary has nothing to do with Air France flight 447 other than using it as a convenient jumping off point for his diatribe .
At the current time there very little known about what happened to the plane so blaming it on the autopilot is ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't know what Air France Flight 447 is then you should probably pay a bit more attention to the world at large.
That said, the summary has nothing to do with Air France flight 447 other than using it as a convenient jumping off point for his diatribe.
At the current time there very little known about what happened to the plane so blaming it on the autopilot is ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263595</id>
	<title>Amazing troll here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244549820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tabloid for nerds... sensationalistic bullshit, no science or facts here.<br>It is disgusting trying to attract traffic that way, I don't understand how this was posted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tabloid for nerds... sensationalistic bullshit , no science or facts here.It is disgusting trying to attract traffic that way , I do n't understand how this was posted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tabloid for nerds... sensationalistic bullshit, no science or facts here.It is disgusting trying to attract traffic that way, I don't understand how this was posted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264651</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244557920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you even read that link?  There is a manual override only if the computer or some input fails.  It's not<br>a button that the pilot can press, so it's not actually an override.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you even read that link ?
There is a manual override only if the computer or some input fails .
It 's nota button that the pilot can press , so it 's not actually an override .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you even read that link?
There is a manual override only if the computer or some input fails.
It's nota button that the pilot can press, so it's not actually an override.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262779</id>
	<title>Solar winds can be one possible cause</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244539620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost every air crash investigation reveals that the cause is human error. This also includes technical failures, as a result of faulty maintenance. I think failures as a result of computer errors is nearly non-existent, which raises the question how this could happen. Planes should be able to withstand very bad weather, especially the computer systems within the plane, and I hardly believe there is a bug that is able to take the entire plane down. One possibility is actually solar winds. Computer systems are highly vulnerable to this phenomenon, and the current magnetic field that protects us from this is very weak west of Brazil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every air crash investigation reveals that the cause is human error .
This also includes technical failures , as a result of faulty maintenance .
I think failures as a result of computer errors is nearly non-existent , which raises the question how this could happen .
Planes should be able to withstand very bad weather , especially the computer systems within the plane , and I hardly believe there is a bug that is able to take the entire plane down .
One possibility is actually solar winds .
Computer systems are highly vulnerable to this phenomenon , and the current magnetic field that protects us from this is very weak west of Brazil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every air crash investigation reveals that the cause is human error.
This also includes technical failures, as a result of faulty maintenance.
I think failures as a result of computer errors is nearly non-existent, which raises the question how this could happen.
Planes should be able to withstand very bad weather, especially the computer systems within the plane, and I hardly believe there is a bug that is able to take the entire plane down.
One possibility is actually solar winds.
Computer systems are highly vulnerable to this phenomenon, and the current magnetic field that protects us from this is very weak west of Brazil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261491</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>InFire</author>
	<datestamp>1244481780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call BS on this post. I know from personal experience that no one gets even a private pilots license without demonstrating multiple times that he can perform the proper response to a stall. I have done it successfully and unsuccessfully (with an instructor along to catch mistakes) and the issue is whether or not you can override the natural instinct in a panic situation where everything inside you is screaming "pull up" or similar completely wrong messages.</p><p>On the other hand, I have also had an air traffic controller clear me for solo takeoff on a runway that he had seconds before cleared another pilot to land on from the other direction. This is an obvious error to any pilot when your runway number plus (or minus) 18 equals the other pilots runway number but as an inexperienced pilot I assumed that I had heard something wrong. Fortunately, the other pilot was an experienced CFI and corrected ATC on the problem before it could become life threatening.</p><p>Some things are experience. Some things are guts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call BS on this post .
I know from personal experience that no one gets even a private pilots license without demonstrating multiple times that he can perform the proper response to a stall .
I have done it successfully and unsuccessfully ( with an instructor along to catch mistakes ) and the issue is whether or not you can override the natural instinct in a panic situation where everything inside you is screaming " pull up " or similar completely wrong messages.On the other hand , I have also had an air traffic controller clear me for solo takeoff on a runway that he had seconds before cleared another pilot to land on from the other direction .
This is an obvious error to any pilot when your runway number plus ( or minus ) 18 equals the other pilots runway number but as an inexperienced pilot I assumed that I had heard something wrong .
Fortunately , the other pilot was an experienced CFI and corrected ATC on the problem before it could become life threatening.Some things are experience .
Some things are guts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call BS on this post.
I know from personal experience that no one gets even a private pilots license without demonstrating multiple times that he can perform the proper response to a stall.
I have done it successfully and unsuccessfully (with an instructor along to catch mistakes) and the issue is whether or not you can override the natural instinct in a panic situation where everything inside you is screaming "pull up" or similar completely wrong messages.On the other hand, I have also had an air traffic controller clear me for solo takeoff on a runway that he had seconds before cleared another pilot to land on from the other direction.
This is an obvious error to any pilot when your runway number plus (or minus) 18 equals the other pilots runway number but as an inexperienced pilot I assumed that I had heard something wrong.
Fortunately, the other pilot was an experienced CFI and corrected ATC on the problem before it could become life threatening.Some things are experience.
Some things are guts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260307</id>
	<title>This isn't a political decision</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1244474340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom...</i>

</p><p>Eh?  You mean the freedom to work under-paid pilots 14-16 hours a day like Colgan Air?  And the FAA let them slide because Colgan had friends in that office?  Some of their pilots could make more flipping burgers.  Like the pair that were tired, under-paid and not paying attention who turned Continential flight 3407 into a giant lawn dart.

</p><p>This isn't political.  I don't care if it's human, machine or a trained goat. Whatever gets the aircraft down in one piece is what I want managing the control surfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom.. . Eh ? You mean the freedom to work under-paid pilots 14-16 hours a day like Colgan Air ?
And the FAA let them slide because Colgan had friends in that office ?
Some of their pilots could make more flipping burgers .
Like the pair that were tired , under-paid and not paying attention who turned Continential flight 3407 into a giant lawn dart .
This is n't political .
I do n't care if it 's human , machine or a trained goat .
Whatever gets the aircraft down in one piece is what I want managing the control surfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom...

Eh?  You mean the freedom to work under-paid pilots 14-16 hours a day like Colgan Air?
And the FAA let them slide because Colgan had friends in that office?
Some of their pilots could make more flipping burgers.
Like the pair that were tired, under-paid and not paying attention who turned Continential flight 3407 into a giant lawn dart.
This isn't political.
I don't care if it's human, machine or a trained goat.
Whatever gets the aircraft down in one piece is what I want managing the control surfaces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261445</id>
	<title>Boeing vs. Airbus, not US vs. France</title>
	<author>identity0</author>
	<datestamp>1244481420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad the trolling/ignorant summary runined this discussion. However it's based partly on fact.

It's common knowledge among pilots that Boeing planes generally cater to pilot's wishes for control more than Airbus, but that has more to do with company attitudes rather than country.

From <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us\_airways200906?currentPage=6" title="vanityfair.com">this article on the crash of US Airways 1549 (an Airbus 320) and the history behind Airbus</a> [vanityfair.com]:

<i>a charismatic French test and fighter pilot named Bernard Ziegler, now retired, who must stand as one of the great engineers of our time. He was (and is) despised within the French airline-pilots' union, because he openly discussed designing an airplane so easy to fly and crash-resistant that it would be nearly pilot-proof. He did not say "idiot-proof," but his attitude was undiplomatic in a country where pilots still wear their uniforms proudly, and it was also unwise, because, as the record has repeatedly shown, if you emphasize to pilots that they are flying a safe design, they will go to great lengths to prove you wrong. In any case, Ziegler had to live under police protection because emotions grew so strong.</i>

So clearly, the French take the idea of pilot control just as seriously as Americans do, but Airbus opted to go a different route. I have no idea what the other American and French companies (some now defunct) like Lockheed, Aerospatiale, etc are like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad the trolling/ignorant summary runined this discussion .
However it 's based partly on fact .
It 's common knowledge among pilots that Boeing planes generally cater to pilot 's wishes for control more than Airbus , but that has more to do with company attitudes rather than country .
From this article on the crash of US Airways 1549 ( an Airbus 320 ) and the history behind Airbus [ vanityfair.com ] : a charismatic French test and fighter pilot named Bernard Ziegler , now retired , who must stand as one of the great engineers of our time .
He was ( and is ) despised within the French airline-pilots ' union , because he openly discussed designing an airplane so easy to fly and crash-resistant that it would be nearly pilot-proof .
He did not say " idiot-proof , " but his attitude was undiplomatic in a country where pilots still wear their uniforms proudly , and it was also unwise , because , as the record has repeatedly shown , if you emphasize to pilots that they are flying a safe design , they will go to great lengths to prove you wrong .
In any case , Ziegler had to live under police protection because emotions grew so strong .
So clearly , the French take the idea of pilot control just as seriously as Americans do , but Airbus opted to go a different route .
I have no idea what the other American and French companies ( some now defunct ) like Lockheed , Aerospatiale , etc are like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad the trolling/ignorant summary runined this discussion.
However it's based partly on fact.
It's common knowledge among pilots that Boeing planes generally cater to pilot's wishes for control more than Airbus, but that has more to do with company attitudes rather than country.
From this article on the crash of US Airways 1549 (an Airbus 320) and the history behind Airbus [vanityfair.com]:

a charismatic French test and fighter pilot named Bernard Ziegler, now retired, who must stand as one of the great engineers of our time.
He was (and is) despised within the French airline-pilots' union, because he openly discussed designing an airplane so easy to fly and crash-resistant that it would be nearly pilot-proof.
He did not say "idiot-proof," but his attitude was undiplomatic in a country where pilots still wear their uniforms proudly, and it was also unwise, because, as the record has repeatedly shown, if you emphasize to pilots that they are flying a safe design, they will go to great lengths to prove you wrong.
In any case, Ziegler had to live under police protection because emotions grew so strong.
So clearly, the French take the idea of pilot control just as seriously as Americans do, but Airbus opted to go a different route.
I have no idea what the other American and French companies (some now defunct) like Lockheed, Aerospatiale, etc are like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262303</id>
	<title>Re:Boeing vs. Airbus, not US vs. France</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1244490780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the F-117 (Lockheed) is so difficult to fly that it must be stabilized by a computer with four sensors placed at the nose... they're the thingies you see sticking out.</p><p>There would not be, and SHOULD NOT BE any way for the pilot to override the computer entirely, and fly completely by hand... as this would all but guarantee a crash.</p><p>Commercial airliners however should not be designed in the same way.  Military planes are often built for maneuverability, which ACTUALLY means that the plane is unstable, and has to receive constant input to remain stable, and level.</p><p>Commercial airliners in general should never be making such maneuvers that it would need such a design choice, and they should be designed to fly as stable and level as possible.  This means that the plane will be unable to perform certain aerodynamic acts that a more agile cousin might be able to do, however again, a commercial airliner should never have need for those acts.</p><p>Fundamentally, just like the design choice philosophy of agile vs stable, this design choice of autopilot has to recognize something important... no design choice will ever avoid all accidents.  The more you attempt to prevent computer errors by manual overrides, the more you're likely to cause catastrophic pilot errors.  The more you attempt to prevent pilot errors, the more likely you are to cause catastrophic computer errors.</p><p>At some point, it all comes down to luck, because straight up, you're going to crash.  The landing in the Hudson is a particularly stark example of this.  A computer would have been unable to handle the situation, and the pilot made the choice to land in the Hudson... before that crash, <b>no one</b> had ever survived a water landing.  The ATC notes that when he was told that they were going to be in the Hudson, that he thought they were all dead effective the moment of that statement.  The pilots didn't think they would make it, and no one experienced in the airspace industry would have expected them to make it... they just crazy lucked out.</p><p>So, the first design principle to take is: at some point, this will fail.  What can be reasonably be done to prepare for that event? or will such an event simply mean failure without possibility of recovery?  For instance, there are a number of items of planes that if they fail, it will mean crash, regardless of who is "in charge".  For instance, if the plane loses both wings, it will be crashing... period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the F-117 ( Lockheed ) is so difficult to fly that it must be stabilized by a computer with four sensors placed at the nose... they 're the thingies you see sticking out.There would not be , and SHOULD NOT BE any way for the pilot to override the computer entirely , and fly completely by hand... as this would all but guarantee a crash.Commercial airliners however should not be designed in the same way .
Military planes are often built for maneuverability , which ACTUALLY means that the plane is unstable , and has to receive constant input to remain stable , and level.Commercial airliners in general should never be making such maneuvers that it would need such a design choice , and they should be designed to fly as stable and level as possible .
This means that the plane will be unable to perform certain aerodynamic acts that a more agile cousin might be able to do , however again , a commercial airliner should never have need for those acts.Fundamentally , just like the design choice philosophy of agile vs stable , this design choice of autopilot has to recognize something important... no design choice will ever avoid all accidents .
The more you attempt to prevent computer errors by manual overrides , the more you 're likely to cause catastrophic pilot errors .
The more you attempt to prevent pilot errors , the more likely you are to cause catastrophic computer errors.At some point , it all comes down to luck , because straight up , you 're going to crash .
The landing in the Hudson is a particularly stark example of this .
A computer would have been unable to handle the situation , and the pilot made the choice to land in the Hudson... before that crash , no one had ever survived a water landing .
The ATC notes that when he was told that they were going to be in the Hudson , that he thought they were all dead effective the moment of that statement .
The pilots did n't think they would make it , and no one experienced in the airspace industry would have expected them to make it... they just crazy lucked out.So , the first design principle to take is : at some point , this will fail .
What can be reasonably be done to prepare for that event ?
or will such an event simply mean failure without possibility of recovery ?
For instance , there are a number of items of planes that if they fail , it will mean crash , regardless of who is " in charge " .
For instance , if the plane loses both wings , it will be crashing... period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the F-117 (Lockheed) is so difficult to fly that it must be stabilized by a computer with four sensors placed at the nose... they're the thingies you see sticking out.There would not be, and SHOULD NOT BE any way for the pilot to override the computer entirely, and fly completely by hand... as this would all but guarantee a crash.Commercial airliners however should not be designed in the same way.
Military planes are often built for maneuverability, which ACTUALLY means that the plane is unstable, and has to receive constant input to remain stable, and level.Commercial airliners in general should never be making such maneuvers that it would need such a design choice, and they should be designed to fly as stable and level as possible.
This means that the plane will be unable to perform certain aerodynamic acts that a more agile cousin might be able to do, however again, a commercial airliner should never have need for those acts.Fundamentally, just like the design choice philosophy of agile vs stable, this design choice of autopilot has to recognize something important... no design choice will ever avoid all accidents.
The more you attempt to prevent computer errors by manual overrides, the more you're likely to cause catastrophic pilot errors.
The more you attempt to prevent pilot errors, the more likely you are to cause catastrophic computer errors.At some point, it all comes down to luck, because straight up, you're going to crash.
The landing in the Hudson is a particularly stark example of this.
A computer would have been unable to handle the situation, and the pilot made the choice to land in the Hudson... before that crash, no one had ever survived a water landing.
The ATC notes that when he was told that they were going to be in the Hudson, that he thought they were all dead effective the moment of that statement.
The pilots didn't think they would make it, and no one experienced in the airspace industry would have expected them to make it... they just crazy lucked out.So, the first design principle to take is: at some point, this will fail.
What can be reasonably be done to prepare for that event?
or will such an event simply mean failure without possibility of recovery?
For instance, there are a number of items of planes that if they fail, it will mean crash, regardless of who is "in charge".
For instance, if the plane loses both wings, it will be crashing... period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260579</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244475480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In an Airbus, if the pilot tries to perform such an action, the computer will say "I'm sorry Dave. I don't think I can do that."</p></div><p>[citation please]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In an Airbus , if the pilot tries to perform such an action , the computer will say " I 'm sorry Dave .
I do n't think I can do that .
" [ citation please ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In an Airbus, if the pilot tries to perform such an action, the computer will say "I'm sorry Dave.
I don't think I can do that.
"[citation please]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263639</id>
	<title>To the mods</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1244550600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A troll my ass. It was meant to be funny. That saying was out in the 60's when my Dad was flying DC-7 for American Airlines. I had not thought of it in decades until my Dad reminded me of it when we were discussing this issue. That was when he told me that Airbus has had the same problem (the airflow sensor) across ALL OF THEIR AIRCRAFT. Every 6 months or so, an aircraft takes a 200-1000' plunge. It is just that it was kept by all the aircraft regulators, but is known amongst the airlines pilot. This behavior is no different than crash of an Air France 296 when a SENIOR CAPTAIN with many 1000's of hour said that the 320 took control and dropped the nose it at an airshow (taking the craft into the trees ultimately killing several passengers).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A troll my ass .
It was meant to be funny .
That saying was out in the 60 's when my Dad was flying DC-7 for American Airlines .
I had not thought of it in decades until my Dad reminded me of it when we were discussing this issue .
That was when he told me that Airbus has had the same problem ( the airflow sensor ) across ALL OF THEIR AIRCRAFT .
Every 6 months or so , an aircraft takes a 200-1000 ' plunge .
It is just that it was kept by all the aircraft regulators , but is known amongst the airlines pilot .
This behavior is no different than crash of an Air France 296 when a SENIOR CAPTAIN with many 1000 's of hour said that the 320 took control and dropped the nose it at an airshow ( taking the craft into the trees ultimately killing several passengers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A troll my ass.
It was meant to be funny.
That saying was out in the 60's when my Dad was flying DC-7 for American Airlines.
I had not thought of it in decades until my Dad reminded me of it when we were discussing this issue.
That was when he told me that Airbus has had the same problem (the airflow sensor) across ALL OF THEIR AIRCRAFT.
Every 6 months or so, an aircraft takes a 200-1000' plunge.
It is just that it was kept by all the aircraft regulators, but is known amongst the airlines pilot.
This behavior is no different than crash of an Air France 296 when a SENIOR CAPTAIN with many 1000's of hour said that the 320 took control and dropped the nose it at an airshow (taking the craft into the trees ultimately killing several passengers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264603</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1244557620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've often wondered why a commercial flight certificate doesn't require glider time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've often wondered why a commercial flight certificate does n't require glider time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've often wondered why a commercial flight certificate doesn't require glider time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261469</id>
	<title>Re:Summary?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244481600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It disappeared last week somewhere off the coast of brazil while on its way to paris.  They found some wreckage and a few bodies several days later.  Everyone on board (228 people) are believed to have died.</p><p>Don't you get news in Amerika?  Just comments about superior ingenuity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It disappeared last week somewhere off the coast of brazil while on its way to paris .
They found some wreckage and a few bodies several days later .
Everyone on board ( 228 people ) are believed to have died.Do n't you get news in Amerika ?
Just comments about superior ingenuity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It disappeared last week somewhere off the coast of brazil while on its way to paris.
They found some wreckage and a few bodies several days later.
Everyone on board (228 people) are believed to have died.Don't you get news in Amerika?
Just comments about superior ingenuity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263787</id>
	<title>Redundancy, folks.</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1244552100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People fail. Systems fail. These things are parts of life. But they do not often fail for the same reasons, and thus, they do not always fail at the same time. Just as there are systems to take over in case the pilot fails, so to does the pilot need to be able to take over in case the systems fail. Is this a guarantee of safety or success? Of course not. But it another level of redundancy in case something goes wrong, and it does so in a way whatever took out either the pilot or systems is unlikely to be able to immediately take out the other. Manual override is, in a sense, the other half of fly-by-wire.</p><p>Would this have saved the Air France flight? I don't know. Nobody does for sure, and given the difficulty of locating the black box in this case we may never know for sure. But the number of plausible scenarios is finite, and certainly in some of them a manual override could have at least given the plane a better chance. There are also some in which manual override wouldn't have changed the outcome. Given what we know about this particular incident, it is very unlikely that manual override could have made it worse.</p><p>Either way, if Airbus doesn't currently allow for manual override, it needs to start. Pilots also need to be trained in its proper use, which includes not using it unnecessarily. Many or even most pilots may never need to use a manual override, but that doesn't matter: manual override is not there for most pilots. It's there for those rare but critical points when nothing else will do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People fail .
Systems fail .
These things are parts of life .
But they do not often fail for the same reasons , and thus , they do not always fail at the same time .
Just as there are systems to take over in case the pilot fails , so to does the pilot need to be able to take over in case the systems fail .
Is this a guarantee of safety or success ?
Of course not .
But it another level of redundancy in case something goes wrong , and it does so in a way whatever took out either the pilot or systems is unlikely to be able to immediately take out the other .
Manual override is , in a sense , the other half of fly-by-wire.Would this have saved the Air France flight ?
I do n't know .
Nobody does for sure , and given the difficulty of locating the black box in this case we may never know for sure .
But the number of plausible scenarios is finite , and certainly in some of them a manual override could have at least given the plane a better chance .
There are also some in which manual override would n't have changed the outcome .
Given what we know about this particular incident , it is very unlikely that manual override could have made it worse.Either way , if Airbus does n't currently allow for manual override , it needs to start .
Pilots also need to be trained in its proper use , which includes not using it unnecessarily .
Many or even most pilots may never need to use a manual override , but that does n't matter : manual override is not there for most pilots .
It 's there for those rare but critical points when nothing else will do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People fail.
Systems fail.
These things are parts of life.
But they do not often fail for the same reasons, and thus, they do not always fail at the same time.
Just as there are systems to take over in case the pilot fails, so to does the pilot need to be able to take over in case the systems fail.
Is this a guarantee of safety or success?
Of course not.
But it another level of redundancy in case something goes wrong, and it does so in a way whatever took out either the pilot or systems is unlikely to be able to immediately take out the other.
Manual override is, in a sense, the other half of fly-by-wire.Would this have saved the Air France flight?
I don't know.
Nobody does for sure, and given the difficulty of locating the black box in this case we may never know for sure.
But the number of plausible scenarios is finite, and certainly in some of them a manual override could have at least given the plane a better chance.
There are also some in which manual override wouldn't have changed the outcome.
Given what we know about this particular incident, it is very unlikely that manual override could have made it worse.Either way, if Airbus doesn't currently allow for manual override, it needs to start.
Pilots also need to be trained in its proper use, which includes not using it unnecessarily.
Many or even most pilots may never need to use a manual override, but that doesn't matter: manual override is not there for most pilots.
It's there for those rare but critical points when nothing else will do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260317</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroper\%C3\%BA\_Flight\_603" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Boeing's</a> [wikipedia.org] manual mode causes 100\% fatality when the pitot tubes are blocked, too.</p><p>What a shitty article considering that took me 30 seconds to research and wasn't mentioned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boeing 's [ wikipedia.org ] manual mode causes 100 \ % fatality when the pitot tubes are blocked , too.What a shitty article considering that took me 30 seconds to research and was n't mentioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boeing's [wikipedia.org] manual mode causes 100\% fatality when the pitot tubes are blocked, too.What a shitty article considering that took me 30 seconds to research and wasn't mentioned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</id>
	<title>Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I trust an engineer's years or study and careful planning over a pilot's hastily considered last-second decisions.  It's not that I don't trust the pilots, it's just that an engineer has had more time to put together a solution and implement it in the computer.  They know the limits of their craft intimately and I trust them to know how to keep them in the air.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust an engineer 's years or study and careful planning over a pilot 's hastily considered last-second decisions .
It 's not that I do n't trust the pilots , it 's just that an engineer has had more time to put together a solution and implement it in the computer .
They know the limits of their craft intimately and I trust them to know how to keep them in the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust an engineer's years or study and careful planning over a pilot's hastily considered last-second decisions.
It's not that I don't trust the pilots, it's just that an engineer has had more time to put together a solution and implement it in the computer.
They know the limits of their craft intimately and I trust them to know how to keep them in the air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262131</id>
	<title>Statistics</title>
	<author>mseeger</author>
	<datestamp>1244488920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi,
</p><p>my personal opinion is, that it comes down to statistics. Do human errors cause more accidents (when flying planes) or computer glitches? Does the manual override prevent crashes or does it help the pilots to cause more? Without claiming to be an authority on the topic, my impression is, that the statistics are clearly on the side of the computers.
</p><p>I would rather take a 0,0001\% probabilty to be killed by a computer glitch than 0,0002\% probability to be killed by human error (figures are no real numbers, they just serve as an example). Be aware that an override doesn't just work for the genius pilot with catlike reflexes and 10.000 hours of flight experience. It also works for the rookie, inattentive or ill trained one (example for such an accident probably caused by its crew is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental\_3407" title="wikipedia.org">Colgan Air 3407</a> [wikipedia.org]).
</p><p>Most people will have emotional problems of trusting a computer that may have a glitch. But you have to be aware that you're trusting your live regularely to other people who are drunk, bleary-eyed or working beyond their capability (not alwa
</p><p>Sincerely yours, Martin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , my personal opinion is , that it comes down to statistics .
Do human errors cause more accidents ( when flying planes ) or computer glitches ?
Does the manual override prevent crashes or does it help the pilots to cause more ?
Without claiming to be an authority on the topic , my impression is , that the statistics are clearly on the side of the computers .
I would rather take a 0,0001 \ % probabilty to be killed by a computer glitch than 0,0002 \ % probability to be killed by human error ( figures are no real numbers , they just serve as an example ) .
Be aware that an override does n't just work for the genius pilot with catlike reflexes and 10.000 hours of flight experience .
It also works for the rookie , inattentive or ill trained one ( example for such an accident probably caused by its crew is Colgan Air 3407 [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Most people will have emotional problems of trusting a computer that may have a glitch .
But you have to be aware that you 're trusting your live regularely to other people who are drunk , bleary-eyed or working beyond their capability ( not alwa Sincerely yours , Martin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi,
my personal opinion is, that it comes down to statistics.
Do human errors cause more accidents (when flying planes) or computer glitches?
Does the manual override prevent crashes or does it help the pilots to cause more?
Without claiming to be an authority on the topic, my impression is, that the statistics are clearly on the side of the computers.
I would rather take a 0,0001\% probabilty to be killed by a computer glitch than 0,0002\% probability to be killed by human error (figures are no real numbers, they just serve as an example).
Be aware that an override doesn't just work for the genius pilot with catlike reflexes and 10.000 hours of flight experience.
It also works for the rookie, inattentive or ill trained one (example for such an accident probably caused by its crew is Colgan Air 3407 [wikipedia.org]).
Most people will have emotional problems of trusting a computer that may have a glitch.
But you have to be aware that you're trusting your live regularely to other people who are drunk, bleary-eyed or working beyond their capability (not alwa
Sincerely yours, Martin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261443</id>
	<title>Do your homework before you step on the plane</title>
	<author>Xaximus</author>
	<datestamp>1244481420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer."</p></div></blockquote><p>

Rights this, rights that... if it's really such a big deal to  you, do your homework before you step on the bloody plane.  Who told you that you don't have these rights?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer .
" Rights this , rights that... if it 's really such a big deal to you , do your homework before you step on the bloody plane .
Who told you that you do n't have these rights ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.
"

Rights this, rights that... if it's really such a big deal to  you, do your homework before you step on the bloody plane.
Who told you that you don't have these rights?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265911</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244563380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should know that the plane that landed in the Hudson was an Airbus, and yes, the computer did play a major role in that landing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should know that the plane that landed in the Hudson was an Airbus , and yes , the computer did play a major role in that landing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should know that the plane that landed in the Hudson was an Airbus, and yes, the computer did play a major role in that landing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28276405</id>
	<title>A collection for KDawson</title>
	<author>Insipid Trunculance</author>
	<datestamp>1244665920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please donate generously for a fund to send KDawson for a basic journalism course where he can be taught a bit about Editorial role and requirements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please donate generously for a fund to send KDawson for a basic journalism course where he can be taught a bit about Editorial role and requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please donate generously for a fund to send KDawson for a basic journalism course where he can be taught a bit about Editorial role and requirements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264831</id>
	<title>Re:Overrides for when computers go mad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244558640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod this guy +1 Frightening.</p><p>Many of us here are software engineers, and any of us in the business knows that the majority of software systems suck. I don't care how rigorous the testing of flight control systems are. Eventually bugs WILL get into production. Without someone to keep an eye on things, (and sometimes even when there are) disasters WILL happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod this guy + 1 Frightening.Many of us here are software engineers , and any of us in the business knows that the majority of software systems suck .
I do n't care how rigorous the testing of flight control systems are .
Eventually bugs WILL get into production .
Without someone to keep an eye on things , ( and sometimes even when there are ) disasters WILL happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod this guy +1 Frightening.Many of us here are software engineers, and any of us in the business knows that the majority of software systems suck.
I don't care how rigorous the testing of flight control systems are.
Eventually bugs WILL get into production.
Without someone to keep an eye on things, (and sometimes even when there are) disasters WILL happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262867</id>
	<title>Oh how opinions have reversed</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1244540640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was not that long ago when the scandal of drunk airline pilots was still fresh in our minds. Now after the amazing actions of "Sully" the pilot now all pilots are potential heroes in the eyes of the public. Next time people die due to pilot error instead of computer error will we demand more failsafes on the pilots? My is the public every so fickle.</p><p>Overall I must say, I've lost far more friends on the highways than in the skyways. I believe that is because the people behind the wheel of a car are far less capable than a pilot, or it could just be statistics. But they are all just human, and mistakes will happen, and some cases people will die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was not that long ago when the scandal of drunk airline pilots was still fresh in our minds .
Now after the amazing actions of " Sully " the pilot now all pilots are potential heroes in the eyes of the public .
Next time people die due to pilot error instead of computer error will we demand more failsafes on the pilots ?
My is the public every so fickle.Overall I must say , I 've lost far more friends on the highways than in the skyways .
I believe that is because the people behind the wheel of a car are far less capable than a pilot , or it could just be statistics .
But they are all just human , and mistakes will happen , and some cases people will die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was not that long ago when the scandal of drunk airline pilots was still fresh in our minds.
Now after the amazing actions of "Sully" the pilot now all pilots are potential heroes in the eyes of the public.
Next time people die due to pilot error instead of computer error will we demand more failsafes on the pilots?
My is the public every so fickle.Overall I must say, I've lost far more friends on the highways than in the skyways.
I believe that is because the people behind the wheel of a car are far less capable than a pilot, or it could just be statistics.
But they are all just human, and mistakes will happen, and some cases people will die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262535</id>
	<title>Small traces of truth in a heaping pile of crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244579880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IAABP. IAAAP. Yes, Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies. The rest of the article is crap.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's been well established that Air France Flight 447 went down because on-board computers received conflicting information from sensors on the outside of the plane.</p></div><p>Pure bullshit. Iced over pitot tubes <i>may</i> be responsible for the ADIRU faults that led to autothrust and autopilot disconnects, and may indeed have started the failure chain. It's not a well established fact that happened or caused the crash.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>the more substantive issue is that the pilots of Flight 447 never had a fighting chance because their airplane's controls were never in their hands</p></div><p>Pure, steaming, heaping bullshit. This guy knows nothing about  fly-by-wire or how the control laws degrade. The next to last step is 'direct law', where the stick acts just like any old cable-hydraulic aircraft. The controls <i>were</i> in their hands. The authors implication that fly-by-wire run amok was the cause shows his fear of technology he clearly doesn't understand.</p><p>The pitot tubes were being replaced because of a hand full previous incidents, all of which landed safely. If the pitot tubes were the start of the failure chain we'll have to wait for the investigation to find out why this ended differently. Upset due to severe turbulence in the vicinity of a thunderstorm at night with bad air data is a real possibility, but not a known cause yet. </p><p>Yeah, Boeing and Airbus have  different philosophies, and I've been known to curse French engineers for making easy things hard. But fly-by-wire wasn't this flight's problem.</p><p>For the only intelligent discussion I've seen on the net: <a href="http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/airbus-expert-weather-not-single-cause-of-crash/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/airbus-expert-weather-not-single-cause-of-crash/</a> [cnn.com]  </p><p>posting anon for 'job security.'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>IAABP .
IAAAP. Yes , Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies .
The rest of the article is crap.It 's been well established that Air France Flight 447 went down because on-board computers received conflicting information from sensors on the outside of the plane.Pure bullshit .
Iced over pitot tubes may be responsible for the ADIRU faults that led to autothrust and autopilot disconnects , and may indeed have started the failure chain .
It 's not a well established fact that happened or caused the crash.the more substantive issue is that the pilots of Flight 447 never had a fighting chance because their airplane 's controls were never in their handsPure , steaming , heaping bullshit .
This guy knows nothing about fly-by-wire or how the control laws degrade .
The next to last step is 'direct law ' , where the stick acts just like any old cable-hydraulic aircraft .
The controls were in their hands .
The authors implication that fly-by-wire run amok was the cause shows his fear of technology he clearly does n't understand.The pitot tubes were being replaced because of a hand full previous incidents , all of which landed safely .
If the pitot tubes were the start of the failure chain we 'll have to wait for the investigation to find out why this ended differently .
Upset due to severe turbulence in the vicinity of a thunderstorm at night with bad air data is a real possibility , but not a known cause yet .
Yeah , Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies , and I 've been known to curse French engineers for making easy things hard .
But fly-by-wire was n't this flight 's problem.For the only intelligent discussion I 've seen on the net : http : //amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/airbus-expert-weather-not-single-cause-of-crash/ [ cnn.com ] posting anon for 'job security .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IAABP.
IAAAP. Yes, Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies.
The rest of the article is crap.It's been well established that Air France Flight 447 went down because on-board computers received conflicting information from sensors on the outside of the plane.Pure bullshit.
Iced over pitot tubes may be responsible for the ADIRU faults that led to autothrust and autopilot disconnects, and may indeed have started the failure chain.
It's not a well established fact that happened or caused the crash.the more substantive issue is that the pilots of Flight 447 never had a fighting chance because their airplane's controls were never in their handsPure, steaming, heaping bullshit.
This guy knows nothing about  fly-by-wire or how the control laws degrade.
The next to last step is 'direct law', where the stick acts just like any old cable-hydraulic aircraft.
The controls were in their hands.
The authors implication that fly-by-wire run amok was the cause shows his fear of technology he clearly doesn't understand.The pitot tubes were being replaced because of a hand full previous incidents, all of which landed safely.
If the pitot tubes were the start of the failure chain we'll have to wait for the investigation to find out why this ended differently.
Upset due to severe turbulence in the vicinity of a thunderstorm at night with bad air data is a real possibility, but not a known cause yet.
Yeah, Boeing and Airbus have  different philosophies, and I've been known to curse French engineers for making easy things hard.
But fly-by-wire wasn't this flight's problem.For the only intelligent discussion I've seen on the net: http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/08/airbus-expert-weather-not-single-cause-of-crash/ [cnn.com]  posting anon for 'job security.
'
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260989</id>
	<title>Americans err on the side of individual freedoms?</title>
	<author>InspectorGadget64</author>
	<datestamp>1244477820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I guess that is the reason why people are having so much fun in Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo....
And in Abu Ghraib....
Oh, well, I guess you will use one of your "battle-tested pilot sitting up front" to enforce those individual freedoms (For as long as those are freedom of Yankee invaders stealing petrol and killing women and children).
Just grow a brain and keep quiet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that is the reason why people are having so much fun in Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo... . And in Abu Ghraib... . Oh , well , I guess you will use one of your " battle-tested pilot sitting up front " to enforce those individual freedoms ( For as long as those are freedom of Yankee invaders stealing petrol and killing women and children ) .
Just grow a brain and keep quiet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I guess that is the reason why people are having so much fun in Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo....
And in Abu Ghraib....
Oh, well, I guess you will use one of your "battle-tested pilot sitting up front" to enforce those individual freedoms (For as long as those are freedom of Yankee invaders stealing petrol and killing women and children).
Just grow a brain and keep quiet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263693</id>
	<title>I think we are ignoring the most likely cause</title>
	<author>wernox1987</author>
	<datestamp>1244551080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the tail found intact, I think it's increasingly more likely that we're seeing a similar set of circumstances to the A300 accident in NYC in November of 2001.  The aircraft lost it's tail, due to turbulance, commanded or uncommanded maximum rudder deflection followed by structural failure.  One of the first ACARS messages received was a Rudder travel limit error.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the tail found intact , I think it 's increasingly more likely that we 're seeing a similar set of circumstances to the A300 accident in NYC in November of 2001 .
The aircraft lost it 's tail , due to turbulance , commanded or uncommanded maximum rudder deflection followed by structural failure .
One of the first ACARS messages received was a Rudder travel limit error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the tail found intact, I think it's increasingly more likely that we're seeing a similar set of circumstances to the A300 accident in NYC in November of 2001.
The aircraft lost it's tail, due to turbulance, commanded or uncommanded maximum rudder deflection followed by structural failure.
One of the first ACARS messages received was a Rudder travel limit error.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260985</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>thejoelpatrol</author>
	<datestamp>1244477760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it would have been a lot harder to pull off if it hadn't been...

<a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us\_airways200906" title="vanityfair.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us\_airways200906</a> [vanityfair.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it would have been a lot harder to pull off if it had n't been.. . http : //www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us \ _airways200906 [ vanityfair.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it would have been a lot harder to pull off if it hadn't been...

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/us\_airways200906 [vanityfair.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260405</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265959</id>
	<title>Re:Overrides for when computers go mad.</title>
	<author>greed</author>
	<datestamp>1244563500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think that what many of us here do is "engineering" in any way, you've been in the same Flavor-Aid that the HR people drink.</p><p>Engineering is, to a large extent, about what goes wrong.  Failure modes and effects; designing systems to fail predictably; identifying critical subsystems; all that sort of thing.  The "is it strong enough" bit is trivial by comparison.</p><p>Most people with a "Software Engineer" title are programmers.  They're not doing the design or analysis on the system.  They aren't held accountable.</p><p>They call me a "Software Engineer" where I work.  I've never done any outside of school, and believe it is actually illegal to call me that in this province.</p><p>Of course, some of that is \_why\_ [many] software systems suck.  Actually engineering a system is slow and expensive, and software is often used as a cheap substitute for hardware.  So what's the point if software becomes expensive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that what many of us here do is " engineering " in any way , you 've been in the same Flavor-Aid that the HR people drink.Engineering is , to a large extent , about what goes wrong .
Failure modes and effects ; designing systems to fail predictably ; identifying critical subsystems ; all that sort of thing .
The " is it strong enough " bit is trivial by comparison.Most people with a " Software Engineer " title are programmers .
They 're not doing the design or analysis on the system .
They are n't held accountable.They call me a " Software Engineer " where I work .
I 've never done any outside of school , and believe it is actually illegal to call me that in this province.Of course , some of that is \ _why \ _ [ many ] software systems suck .
Actually engineering a system is slow and expensive , and software is often used as a cheap substitute for hardware .
So what 's the point if software becomes expensive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that what many of us here do is "engineering" in any way, you've been in the same Flavor-Aid that the HR people drink.Engineering is, to a large extent, about what goes wrong.
Failure modes and effects; designing systems to fail predictably; identifying critical subsystems; all that sort of thing.
The "is it strong enough" bit is trivial by comparison.Most people with a "Software Engineer" title are programmers.
They're not doing the design or analysis on the system.
They aren't held accountable.They call me a "Software Engineer" where I work.
I've never done any outside of school, and believe it is actually illegal to call me that in this province.Of course, some of that is \_why\_ [many] software systems suck.
Actually engineering a system is slow and expensive, and software is often used as a cheap substitute for hardware.
So what's the point if software becomes expensive?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28266973</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244567220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another case: On the first of July 2002, two airplanes collided in Germany, a Boeing and a Tupolev. The reason was that while the automated systems decided to make plane A ascend and plane B descend to avoid each other, the tower traffic manager gave instructions the other way around.</p><p>The Tupolev pilot decided to follow the human instructions and therefore the two planes collided. If the collision avoidance system had completely taken over control, this wouldn't have happened.</p><p>I feel comfortable claiming that less than 50\% of flight hours are being done by pilots that react better to emergency situations than a well tested computer system would. Pilots like Sully are the exceptions that prove the rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another case : On the first of July 2002 , two airplanes collided in Germany , a Boeing and a Tupolev .
The reason was that while the automated systems decided to make plane A ascend and plane B descend to avoid each other , the tower traffic manager gave instructions the other way around.The Tupolev pilot decided to follow the human instructions and therefore the two planes collided .
If the collision avoidance system had completely taken over control , this would n't have happened.I feel comfortable claiming that less than 50 \ % of flight hours are being done by pilots that react better to emergency situations than a well tested computer system would .
Pilots like Sully are the exceptions that prove the rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another case: On the first of July 2002, two airplanes collided in Germany, a Boeing and a Tupolev.
The reason was that while the automated systems decided to make plane A ascend and plane B descend to avoid each other, the tower traffic manager gave instructions the other way around.The Tupolev pilot decided to follow the human instructions and therefore the two planes collided.
If the collision avoidance system had completely taken over control, this wouldn't have happened.I feel comfortable claiming that less than 50\% of flight hours are being done by pilots that react better to emergency situations than a well tested computer system would.
Pilots like Sully are the exceptions that prove the rule.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260493</id>
	<title>1549 was an Airbus A320.  Stop FUDing.</title>
	<author>Behrooz</author>
	<datestamp>1244475120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the Gimli Glider or Flight 1549 had been on an Airbus, there would have been a lot of dead people. When something goes wrong, Rule 1 is FLY THE FUCKING PLANE. Well, if the computers fail on an Airbus, good luck flying it!</i></p><p>Flight 1549 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US\_Airways\_Flight\_1549" title="wikipedia.org"> <i>was</i> an Airbus A320</a> [wikipedia.org].  Don't fall for the FUD, any large passenger airliner is going to be designed to be as survivable as possible in the event of power loss.  This whole article is just another example of irrational hysteria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Gimli Glider or Flight 1549 had been on an Airbus , there would have been a lot of dead people .
When something goes wrong , Rule 1 is FLY THE FUCKING PLANE .
Well , if the computers fail on an Airbus , good luck flying it ! Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 [ wikipedia.org ] .
Do n't fall for the FUD , any large passenger airliner is going to be designed to be as survivable as possible in the event of power loss .
This whole article is just another example of irrational hysteria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Gimli Glider or Flight 1549 had been on an Airbus, there would have been a lot of dead people.
When something goes wrong, Rule 1 is FLY THE FUCKING PLANE.
Well, if the computers fail on an Airbus, good luck flying it!Flight 1549  was an Airbus A320 [wikipedia.org].
Don't fall for the FUD, any large passenger airliner is going to be designed to be as survivable as possible in the event of power loss.
This whole article is just another example of irrational hysteria.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260595</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>d474</author>
	<datestamp>1244475660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I trust an engineer's years or study and careful planning over a pilot's hastily considered last-second decisions. It's not that I don't trust the pilots, it's just that an engineer has had more time to put together a solution and implement it in the computer. They know the limits of their craft intimately and I trust them to know how to keep them in the air.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's all well and good, but engineers aren't gods.  They can't anticipate everything, nor can they design systems that are full proof (AirFrance 447 case in point).  And when their systems fail, the pilot should have the option of taking over control of the aircraft.  To not provide that to the pilot is nothing short of hubris on the engineer's part, and people died because of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust an engineer 's years or study and careful planning over a pilot 's hastily considered last-second decisions .
It 's not that I do n't trust the pilots , it 's just that an engineer has had more time to put together a solution and implement it in the computer .
They know the limits of their craft intimately and I trust them to know how to keep them in the air.That 's all well and good , but engineers are n't gods .
They ca n't anticipate everything , nor can they design systems that are full proof ( AirFrance 447 case in point ) .
And when their systems fail , the pilot should have the option of taking over control of the aircraft .
To not provide that to the pilot is nothing short of hubris on the engineer 's part , and people died because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust an engineer's years or study and careful planning over a pilot's hastily considered last-second decisions.
It's not that I don't trust the pilots, it's just that an engineer has had more time to put together a solution and implement it in the computer.
They know the limits of their craft intimately and I trust them to know how to keep them in the air.That's all well and good, but engineers aren't gods.
They can't anticipate everything, nor can they design systems that are full proof (AirFrance 447 case in point).
And when their systems fail, the pilot should have the option of taking over control of the aircraft.
To not provide that to the pilot is nothing short of hubris on the engineer's part, and people died because of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264819</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244558580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er wasn't the plane that crashed in the Hudson an Airbus anyway?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er was n't the plane that crashed in the Hudson an Airbus anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er wasn't the plane that crashed in the Hudson an Airbus anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261749</id>
	<title>GIGO</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information.</p><p>No, it's who do you trust most: a human pilot's ingenuity in reacting to a novel situation or a human programmer's foresight in accounting for every possible situation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's essentially a question of what do you trust most : a human being 's ingenuity or a computer 's infinitely faster access and reaction to information.No , it 's who do you trust most : a human pilot 's ingenuity in reacting to a novel situation or a human programmer 's foresight in accounting for every possible situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's essentially a question of what do you trust most: a human being's ingenuity or a computer's infinitely faster access and reaction to information.No, it's who do you trust most: a human pilot's ingenuity in reacting to a novel situation or a human programmer's foresight in accounting for every possible situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1244475000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt a computer controlled system would be able to make a flawless landing in the Hudson.</p><p>Quite so, but your average pilot couldnt either.</p><p>Sully was a very experienced glider pilot( Including a CFI instrutor rating, as was the captain of the Gimli glider.</p><p>When the engines stop, just hope the pilot is experienced in flying without power</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt a computer controlled system would be able to make a flawless landing in the Hudson.Quite so , but your average pilot couldnt either.Sully was a very experienced glider pilot ( Including a CFI instrutor rating , as was the captain of the Gimli glider.When the engines stop , just hope the pilot is experienced in flying without power</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt a computer controlled system would be able to make a flawless landing in the Hudson.Quite so, but your average pilot couldnt either.Sully was a very experienced glider pilot( Including a CFI instrutor rating, as was the captain of the Gimli glider.When the engines stop, just hope the pilot is experienced in flying without power</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260537</id>
	<title>You have a point.</title>
	<author>seebs</author>
	<datestamp>1244475300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the people who were killed recently by an American pilot trying to outsmart his plane so it crashed into a house would have to agree:  We should know whether we're relying on a calm, reasoned, computer, or a "battle-tested" pilot who can't think straight.</p><p>Sheesh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the people who were killed recently by an American pilot trying to outsmart his plane so it crashed into a house would have to agree : We should know whether we 're relying on a calm , reasoned , computer , or a " battle-tested " pilot who ca n't think straight.Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the people who were killed recently by an American pilot trying to outsmart his plane so it crashed into a house would have to agree:  We should know whether we're relying on a calm, reasoned, computer, or a "battle-tested" pilot who can't think straight.Sheesh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265707</id>
	<title>Coffee? Tea? Glue?</title>
	<author>Chonnawonga</author>
	<datestamp>1244562600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is "deplane" a word? Last I checked, "to plane" meant to make something smooth by shaving off tiny amounts of the surface, so I can only assume that "to deplane" means to glue them back on.

When you get off a ship, do you "deship"? What about decar? Detank? Dezeppelin? I'm sad to say that the railways are picking up on this bizarre habit: a few months ago I actually heard "detrain", which sounds like the railway workers plan on making you forget your job-related skills.

What's so bad about the words "deboard" and "disembark"?

OK, OK, I'm way off-topic, but this drives me nuts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is " deplane " a word ?
Last I checked , " to plane " meant to make something smooth by shaving off tiny amounts of the surface , so I can only assume that " to deplane " means to glue them back on .
When you get off a ship , do you " deship " ?
What about decar ?
Detank ? Dezeppelin ?
I 'm sad to say that the railways are picking up on this bizarre habit : a few months ago I actually heard " detrain " , which sounds like the railway workers plan on making you forget your job-related skills .
What 's so bad about the words " deboard " and " disembark " ?
OK , OK , I 'm way off-topic , but this drives me nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is "deplane" a word?
Last I checked, "to plane" meant to make something smooth by shaving off tiny amounts of the surface, so I can only assume that "to deplane" means to glue them back on.
When you get off a ship, do you "deship"?
What about decar?
Detank? Dezeppelin?
I'm sad to say that the railways are picking up on this bizarre habit: a few months ago I actually heard "detrain", which sounds like the railway workers plan on making you forget your job-related skills.
What's so bad about the words "deboard" and "disembark"?
OK, OK, I'm way off-topic, but this drives me nuts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260445</id>
	<title>Two choices does not imply different outcomes.</title>
	<author>Above</author>
	<datestamp>1244474880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The OP seems to think the crash rate might be different between the two choices.  It may, but it may also be the case the rate of crashes is more or less the same; one choice leading to human error crashes, the other leading to computer failure crashes.  Indeed, it seems if one was inherently superior to the other it would have come out by now, with the two major players choosing different paths.  Airline crashes are some of the most studied crashes we have, a difference would have been noticed by now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The OP seems to think the crash rate might be different between the two choices .
It may , but it may also be the case the rate of crashes is more or less the same ; one choice leading to human error crashes , the other leading to computer failure crashes .
Indeed , it seems if one was inherently superior to the other it would have come out by now , with the two major players choosing different paths .
Airline crashes are some of the most studied crashes we have , a difference would have been noticed by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The OP seems to think the crash rate might be different between the two choices.
It may, but it may also be the case the rate of crashes is more or less the same; one choice leading to human error crashes, the other leading to computer failure crashes.
Indeed, it seems if one was inherently superior to the other it would have come out by now, with the two major players choosing different paths.
Airline crashes are some of the most studied crashes we have, a difference would have been noticed by now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265549</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244561880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Individual freedom" vs "system", what a stupid assertion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Individual freedom " vs " system " , what a stupid assertion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Individual freedom" vs "system", what a stupid assertion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260601</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boeing and Airbus have had roughly identical numbers of crashes in recent years. Boeing has had just a fraction more. If one method of flying was better than the other, there would be a difference, right? Since there is no measurable difference, it follows that the differences in a crisis balance out. What is good for one sort of crisis is a disaster in another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boeing and Airbus have had roughly identical numbers of crashes in recent years .
Boeing has had just a fraction more .
If one method of flying was better than the other , there would be a difference , right ?
Since there is no measurable difference , it follows that the differences in a crisis balance out .
What is good for one sort of crisis is a disaster in another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boeing and Airbus have had roughly identical numbers of crashes in recent years.
Boeing has had just a fraction more.
If one method of flying was better than the other, there would be a difference, right?
Since there is no measurable difference, it follows that the differences in a crisis balance out.
What is good for one sort of crisis is a disaster in another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264295</id>
	<title>Key Figures in Global Battle Against Illegal Arms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244556000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Key Figures in Global Battle Against Illegal Arms Trade Lost in Air France Crash<br>http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/07</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Key Figures in Global Battle Against Illegal Arms Trade Lost in Air France Crashhttp : //www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/07</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Key Figures in Global Battle Against Illegal Arms Trade Lost in Air France Crashhttp://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/07</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263071</id>
	<title>Re:Computers and People</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244543220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).</p></div><p>Bullshit. Airbus leads safety statistics by a margin (fatalities per miles flown, passenger miles flown, years in service etc.). Only the 777 has the same level of safety as (FBW) Airbus. The A340 and 777 still have zero pax fatalities and until now, the A330 had it too. The A320 has had a number of crashes but its competitor, the 737 Next Generation that despite being launched 10 years later, has already got worse statistics and the latest crash (Turkish Airlines 1951) is a prime example of why it is better to have the computer save the day when pilots don't. Unless the current theory of the cause changes significantly, it will be yet another example of an accident that could never happen in an Airbus and it shows precisely why computers handle bad data better than pilots do. Pilots cannot monitor all instruments as closely as computers do and a computer would've noticed the discrepancy between the faulty radio altimeter and other instruments. But hey, Boeing did issue a bulletin reminding pilots of the importance of monitoring airspeed and altitude and can soon say that the crash was not their fault but pilot error - instead of doing what Airbus does; actively preventing pilot error. However, with the 787 Boeing is finally doing something and will incorporate similar systems as the A320 had in 1987. I'm happy about it but cannot be proud until they do something even better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Also does n't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years ) .Bullshit .
Airbus leads safety statistics by a margin ( fatalities per miles flown , passenger miles flown , years in service etc. ) .
Only the 777 has the same level of safety as ( FBW ) Airbus .
The A340 and 777 still have zero pax fatalities and until now , the A330 had it too .
The A320 has had a number of crashes but its competitor , the 737 Next Generation that despite being launched 10 years later , has already got worse statistics and the latest crash ( Turkish Airlines 1951 ) is a prime example of why it is better to have the computer save the day when pilots do n't .
Unless the current theory of the cause changes significantly , it will be yet another example of an accident that could never happen in an Airbus and it shows precisely why computers handle bad data better than pilots do .
Pilots can not monitor all instruments as closely as computers do and a computer would 've noticed the discrepancy between the faulty radio altimeter and other instruments .
But hey , Boeing did issue a bulletin reminding pilots of the importance of monitoring airspeed and altitude and can soon say that the crash was not their fault but pilot error - instead of doing what Airbus does ; actively preventing pilot error .
However , with the 787 Boeing is finally doing something and will incorporate similar systems as the A320 had in 1987 .
I 'm happy about it but can not be proud until they do something even better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Also doesn't help airbus that they seem to be having many more crashes then Boeing over the last five years).Bullshit.
Airbus leads safety statistics by a margin (fatalities per miles flown, passenger miles flown, years in service etc.).
Only the 777 has the same level of safety as (FBW) Airbus.
The A340 and 777 still have zero pax fatalities and until now, the A330 had it too.
The A320 has had a number of crashes but its competitor, the 737 Next Generation that despite being launched 10 years later, has already got worse statistics and the latest crash (Turkish Airlines 1951) is a prime example of why it is better to have the computer save the day when pilots don't.
Unless the current theory of the cause changes significantly, it will be yet another example of an accident that could never happen in an Airbus and it shows precisely why computers handle bad data better than pilots do.
Pilots cannot monitor all instruments as closely as computers do and a computer would've noticed the discrepancy between the faulty radio altimeter and other instruments.
But hey, Boeing did issue a bulletin reminding pilots of the importance of monitoring airspeed and altitude and can soon say that the crash was not their fault but pilot error - instead of doing what Airbus does; actively preventing pilot error.
However, with the 787 Boeing is finally doing something and will incorporate similar systems as the A320 had in 1987.
I'm happy about it but cannot be proud until they do something even better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265295</id>
	<title>Prejudice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244560800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of<br>&gt; individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to<br>&gt; favor an approach that relies on systems.</p><p>So, have you ever been our of the US or do you trust your instinctive prejudice?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of &gt; individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to &gt; favor an approach that relies on systems.So , have you ever been our of the US or do you trust your instinctive prejudice ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of&gt; individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to&gt; favor an approach that relies on systems.So, have you ever been our of the US or do you trust your instinctive prejudice?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262507</id>
	<title>Re:Socialism vs Libertarianism</title>
	<author>koiransuklaa</author>
	<datestamp>1244579520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the best Slashdot tradition, lemme fix that for ya:</p><blockquote><div><p>Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state, the institution, etc knows better than the individual. Boeing was (or at least used to be) built by free thinking capitalists who believe corporations know better than the individual.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...how this relates to the discussion at hand, I don't know. But that didn't seem to stop anyone else so why should it stop me?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the best Slashdot tradition , lem me fix that for ya : Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state , the institution , etc knows better than the individual .
Boeing was ( or at least used to be ) built by free thinking capitalists who believe corporations know better than the individual .
...how this relates to the discussion at hand , I do n't know .
But that did n't seem to stop anyone else so why should it stop me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the best Slashdot tradition, lemme fix that for ya:Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state, the institution, etc knows better than the individual.
Boeing was (or at least used to be) built by free thinking capitalists who believe corporations know better than the individual.
...how this relates to the discussion at hand, I don't know.
But that didn't seem to stop anyone else so why should it stop me?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261039</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but that's BS. If an A330 had been running it's systems on power from a ram air turbine it would not be using the "I'm sorry Dave" filtering. These filters and control systems are pointless if you do not have enough power to actually control and regulate the parameters that they are designed to control and regulate. Thus, with the systems automatically turned off, the A330 might have been able to do a forward slip if the pilot would have tried. And by the way, Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but that 's BS .
If an A330 had been running it 's systems on power from a ram air turbine it would not be using the " I 'm sorry Dave " filtering .
These filters and control systems are pointless if you do not have enough power to actually control and regulate the parameters that they are designed to control and regulate .
Thus , with the systems automatically turned off , the A330 might have been able to do a forward slip if the pilot would have tried .
And by the way , Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but that's BS.
If an A330 had been running it's systems on power from a ram air turbine it would not be using the "I'm sorry Dave" filtering.
These filters and control systems are pointless if you do not have enough power to actually control and regulate the parameters that they are designed to control and regulate.
Thus, with the systems automatically turned off, the A330 might have been able to do a forward slip if the pilot would have tried.
And by the way, Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261097</id>
	<title>Battle tested pilots?</title>
	<author>PingXao</author>
	<datestamp>1244478600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you kidding me?  Like the ones with virtually no training that fly commuter planes in and out of Buffalo, New York, in icy conditions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you kidding me ?
Like the ones with virtually no training that fly commuter planes in and out of Buffalo , New York , in icy conditions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you kidding me?
Like the ones with virtually no training that fly commuter planes in and out of Buffalo, New York, in icy conditions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262485</id>
	<title>Re:The article is a load of rubbish...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244579280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No warning alarm?   Bollocks...go read the Airbus FCOM.</p><p>When ever the a/p disengages both pilots receive an alarm...its a bloody great big red, flashing light plus aural alarm</p><p>FFS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No warning alarm ?
Bollocks...go read the Airbus FCOM.When ever the a/p disengages both pilots receive an alarm...its a bloody great big red , flashing light plus aural alarmFFS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No warning alarm?
Bollocks...go read the Airbus FCOM.When ever the a/p disengages both pilots receive an alarm...its a bloody great big red, flashing light plus aural alarmFFS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261515</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244482020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nor will any other pilot ever again.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nor will any other pilot ever again .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nor will any other pilot ever again.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261843</id>
	<title>Poorly Researched</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244485620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article is very poorly researched. Even the briefest bit of research would show that although, yes, airbus planes do generally operate under full fly by wire envelope protection, that is not the full story at all.  Airbus planes have several fall back modes whose level of computer intervention vary depending on the number of the system failures, or by choice of the pilot, meaning that the pilot is free to select any of these modes at will.   One of these, called "Direct Law," gives full and direct control of the flight control surfaces to the pilot, with no computer intervention. There is one additional mode, "Mechanical Law" which gives even lower level control to the pilot.</p><p>In the case of the AF crash the airplane had automatically downgraded its FBW level to "Alternate Law" which is a bit in between "Normal Law" (full FBW) and "Direct Law"</p><p>For more information (this happened to be the first Google search result.. there are plenty more) :<br>http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus\_fltlaws.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is very poorly researched .
Even the briefest bit of research would show that although , yes , airbus planes do generally operate under full fly by wire envelope protection , that is not the full story at all .
Airbus planes have several fall back modes whose level of computer intervention vary depending on the number of the system failures , or by choice of the pilot , meaning that the pilot is free to select any of these modes at will .
One of these , called " Direct Law , " gives full and direct control of the flight control surfaces to the pilot , with no computer intervention .
There is one additional mode , " Mechanical Law " which gives even lower level control to the pilot.In the case of the AF crash the airplane had automatically downgraded its FBW level to " Alternate Law " which is a bit in between " Normal Law " ( full FBW ) and " Direct Law " For more information ( this happened to be the first Google search result.. there are plenty more ) : http : //www.airbusdriver.net/airbus \ _fltlaws.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article is very poorly researched.
Even the briefest bit of research would show that although, yes, airbus planes do generally operate under full fly by wire envelope protection, that is not the full story at all.
Airbus planes have several fall back modes whose level of computer intervention vary depending on the number of the system failures, or by choice of the pilot, meaning that the pilot is free to select any of these modes at will.
One of these, called "Direct Law," gives full and direct control of the flight control surfaces to the pilot, with no computer intervention.
There is one additional mode, "Mechanical Law" which gives even lower level control to the pilot.In the case of the AF crash the airplane had automatically downgraded its FBW level to "Alternate Law" which is a bit in between "Normal Law" (full FBW) and "Direct Law"For more information (this happened to be the first Google search result.. there are plenty more) :http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus\_fltlaws.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261013</id>
	<title>Pure Speculation</title>
	<author>rev\_deaconballs</author>
	<datestamp>1244478000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The entire argument is based on understanding the situation.  The only statement I remember along the lines of understanding was a gut feeling from people who compared two situations being similar and one landed safely.  The other thing is that this situation is an anomaly. Should we make determinant decisions based on one instance? This guy is simply trying to push his opinion on others by creating an emotional response rather than using logic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire argument is based on understanding the situation .
The only statement I remember along the lines of understanding was a gut feeling from people who compared two situations being similar and one landed safely .
The other thing is that this situation is an anomaly .
Should we make determinant decisions based on one instance ?
This guy is simply trying to push his opinion on others by creating an emotional response rather than using logic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire argument is based on understanding the situation.
The only statement I remember along the lines of understanding was a gut feeling from people who compared two situations being similar and one landed safely.
The other thing is that this situation is an anomaly.
Should we make determinant decisions based on one instance?
This guy is simply trying to push his opinion on others by creating an emotional response rather than using logic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262425</id>
	<title>holy fuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy fuck<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... no wonder most of Europe hates the personality of most Americans. Could that summary be any more antagonistic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy fuck ... no wonder most of Europe hates the personality of most Americans .
Could that summary be any more antagonistic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy fuck ... no wonder most of Europe hates the personality of most Americans.
Could that summary be any more antagonistic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260957</id>
	<title>Re:1549 was an Airbus A320. Stop FUDing.</title>
	<author>Waste55</author>
	<datestamp>1244477580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>bah replied to wrong post...</htmltext>
<tokenext>bah replied to wrong post.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bah replied to wrong post...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262285</id>
	<title>Stupid post from a typical chauvinistic illiterate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244490600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; This is one of the dumbest post I've ever seen in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    This is one of the dumbest post I 've ever seen in / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    This is one of the dumbest post I've ever seen in /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260477</id>
	<title>Treating passengers like children?</title>
	<author>adzima</author>
	<datestamp>1244475060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"But it's time the airline industry stopped treating passengers like children and began informing us of what airplanes we're flying on and how they're flown--and allowing us to decide how we're taking our lives in our hands."
Really?

These are complex systems with multiple levels of functionality and are difficult to understand.  From the article, the author clearly lacks knowledge on the subject.  Furthermore, I don't think the average person really wants to know how the plane works anymore than they want to know how CAN communication makes the EFI system in their car work by integrating ECU communication.  As a consumer, I just want the car to start when I turn the key without it blowing up in my face.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But it 's time the airline industry stopped treating passengers like children and began informing us of what airplanes we 're flying on and how they 're flown--and allowing us to decide how we 're taking our lives in our hands .
" Really ?
These are complex systems with multiple levels of functionality and are difficult to understand .
From the article , the author clearly lacks knowledge on the subject .
Furthermore , I do n't think the average person really wants to know how the plane works anymore than they want to know how CAN communication makes the EFI system in their car work by integrating ECU communication .
As a consumer , I just want the car to start when I turn the key without it blowing up in my face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But it's time the airline industry stopped treating passengers like children and began informing us of what airplanes we're flying on and how they're flown--and allowing us to decide how we're taking our lives in our hands.
"
Really?
These are complex systems with multiple levels of functionality and are difficult to understand.
From the article, the author clearly lacks knowledge on the subject.
Furthermore, I don't think the average person really wants to know how the plane works anymore than they want to know how CAN communication makes the EFI system in their car work by integrating ECU communication.
As a consumer, I just want the car to start when I turn the key without it blowing up in my face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263707</id>
	<title>The Pilots Know...</title>
	<author>Daevad</author>
	<datestamp>1244551320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last year I flew to Japan on a Boeing aircraft.  I saw both pilots before they boarded the plane.  Each had a sticker on their briefcase that read:</p><p>If its not Boeing, I'm not going.</p><p>My sentiments exactly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year I flew to Japan on a Boeing aircraft .
I saw both pilots before they boarded the plane .
Each had a sticker on their briefcase that read : If its not Boeing , I 'm not going.My sentiments exactly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year I flew to Japan on a Boeing aircraft.
I saw both pilots before they boarded the plane.
Each had a sticker on their briefcase that read:If its not Boeing, I'm not going.My sentiments exactly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Napoleon The Pig</author>
	<datestamp>1244477580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to get to the manual override mode in an Airbus (IIRC) you have to navigate through several screens on the flight control computer and disable everything via menus. In order to activate the manual override mode on a Boeing plane you just have to move the yoke. In an emergency situation where, for whatever reason, the automated flight controls aren't working or are working improperly the Boeing override implementation is vastly superior to that of the Airbus. Not to say that autopilots and fly-by-wire systems aren't useful, but they aren't infoulable and limiting the pilot's ability to respond to a situation just seems like a really bad idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to get to the manual override mode in an Airbus ( IIRC ) you have to navigate through several screens on the flight control computer and disable everything via menus .
In order to activate the manual override mode on a Boeing plane you just have to move the yoke .
In an emergency situation where , for whatever reason , the automated flight controls are n't working or are working improperly the Boeing override implementation is vastly superior to that of the Airbus .
Not to say that autopilots and fly-by-wire systems are n't useful , but they are n't infoulable and limiting the pilot 's ability to respond to a situation just seems like a really bad idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to get to the manual override mode in an Airbus (IIRC) you have to navigate through several screens on the flight control computer and disable everything via menus.
In order to activate the manual override mode on a Boeing plane you just have to move the yoke.
In an emergency situation where, for whatever reason, the automated flight controls aren't working or are working improperly the Boeing override implementation is vastly superior to that of the Airbus.
Not to say that autopilots and fly-by-wire systems aren't useful, but they aren't infoulable and limiting the pilot's ability to respond to a situation just seems like a really bad idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28277681</id>
	<title>Re:Pick your poison</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1244637780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Landing my ass.   That's called a Ditch!   And it was flawless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Landing my ass .
That 's called a Ditch !
And it was flawless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landing my ass.
That's called a Ditch!
And it was flawless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267257</id>
	<title>fixed it for you</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1244568120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the <i> <b>sober</b></i>  battle-tested pilot sitting up front</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the sober battle-tested pilot sitting up front</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the  sober  battle-tested pilot sitting up front</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263351</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244546880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to get to the manual override mode in an Airbus (IIRC) you have to navigate through several screens on the flight control computer and disable everything via menus. In order to activate the manual override mode on a Boeing plane you just have to move the yoke. In an emergency situation where, for whatever reason, the automated flight controls aren't working or are working improperly the Boeing override implementation is vastly superior to that of the Airbus. Not to say that autopilots and fly-by-wire systems aren't useful, but they aren't infoulable and limiting the pilot's ability to respond to a situation just seems like a really bad idea.</p></div><p>Except that you don't recall correctly and it does seem like a really good idea. In an Airbus you also get control immediately if you move the stick but fortunately the computer still monitors what you do so that you cannot damage the aircraft if you respond to a situation by doing something really stupid. The most typical scenario is of course a pilot stalling the aircraft by pulling back too fast when they urgently need to climb - in other aircraft, you have to look at the airspeed indicator and know your flap configuration whilst in an Airbus you just pull back as hard as you like and the computer figures out how to climb as fast as possible without risking a stall. And don't give me any bs. about faulty instrument scenarios. There is a manual override and the computer even activates it for you, if an instrument failure is detected.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to get to the manual override mode in an Airbus ( IIRC ) you have to navigate through several screens on the flight control computer and disable everything via menus .
In order to activate the manual override mode on a Boeing plane you just have to move the yoke .
In an emergency situation where , for whatever reason , the automated flight controls are n't working or are working improperly the Boeing override implementation is vastly superior to that of the Airbus .
Not to say that autopilots and fly-by-wire systems are n't useful , but they are n't infoulable and limiting the pilot 's ability to respond to a situation just seems like a really bad idea.Except that you do n't recall correctly and it does seem like a really good idea .
In an Airbus you also get control immediately if you move the stick but fortunately the computer still monitors what you do so that you can not damage the aircraft if you respond to a situation by doing something really stupid .
The most typical scenario is of course a pilot stalling the aircraft by pulling back too fast when they urgently need to climb - in other aircraft , you have to look at the airspeed indicator and know your flap configuration whilst in an Airbus you just pull back as hard as you like and the computer figures out how to climb as fast as possible without risking a stall .
And do n't give me any bs .
about faulty instrument scenarios .
There is a manual override and the computer even activates it for you , if an instrument failure is detected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to get to the manual override mode in an Airbus (IIRC) you have to navigate through several screens on the flight control computer and disable everything via menus.
In order to activate the manual override mode on a Boeing plane you just have to move the yoke.
In an emergency situation where, for whatever reason, the automated flight controls aren't working or are working improperly the Boeing override implementation is vastly superior to that of the Airbus.
Not to say that autopilots and fly-by-wire systems aren't useful, but they aren't infoulable and limiting the pilot's ability to respond to a situation just seems like a really bad idea.Except that you don't recall correctly and it does seem like a really good idea.
In an Airbus you also get control immediately if you move the stick but fortunately the computer still monitors what you do so that you cannot damage the aircraft if you respond to a situation by doing something really stupid.
The most typical scenario is of course a pilot stalling the aircraft by pulling back too fast when they urgently need to climb - in other aircraft, you have to look at the airspeed indicator and know your flap configuration whilst in an Airbus you just pull back as hard as you like and the computer figures out how to climb as fast as possible without risking a stall.
And don't give me any bs.
about faulty instrument scenarios.
There is a manual override and the computer even activates it for you, if an instrument failure is detected.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475</id>
	<title>Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summary states:</p><p><i>Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not.</i></p><p>According to <a href="http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus\_fltlaws.htm" title="airbusdriver.net">this link</a> [airbusdriver.net], the Airbus does, in fact, have a manual override mode.</p><p>Which would make the argument as presented a moot point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary states : Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations , Airbus planes do not.According to this link [ airbusdriver.net ] , the Airbus does , in fact , have a manual override mode.Which would make the argument as presented a moot point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary states:Boeing planes allow pilots to take over from computers during emergency situations, Airbus planes do not.According to this link [airbusdriver.net], the Airbus does, in fact, have a manual override mode.Which would make the argument as presented a moot point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262159</id>
	<title>Battle tested, uhuh</title>
	<author>MartijnL</author>
	<datestamp>1244489160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front</i> <br>
<br>

Yeah right, been watching Aircrash Investigations lately? How many crashes are from pilot error like the one near Amsterdam where not two but three of those "battle tested" pilots plowed their plane into the ground because one (of five!) altimeters was broken.</htmltext>
<tokenext>rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front Yeah right , been watching Aircrash Investigations lately ?
How many crashes are from pilot error like the one near Amsterdam where not two but three of those " battle tested " pilots plowed their plane into the ground because one ( of five !
) altimeters was broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front 


Yeah right, been watching Aircrash Investigations lately?
How many crashes are from pilot error like the one near Amsterdam where not two but three of those "battle tested" pilots plowed their plane into the ground because one (of five!
) altimeters was broken.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262627</id>
	<title>Re:Socialism vs Libertarianism</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1244581080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state, the institution, etc knows better than the individual. Boeing was (or at least used to be) built by free thinking capitalists who believe in individuality.</i></p><p><i>This is just a small example of why I dislike socialist philosophy. Because in the end...it'll kill ya! (or your neighbors)</i></p><p>Braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiinz. Braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiinz.</p><p>As a self-proclaimed free thinker you sure act....bloody brainwashed. Take a step back from the indoctrination you received and turn your brain on for a change. And then use it to evaluate hard facts, not the opinions from the IV in the back of your head.</p><p>Oh, as for killing the neighbours...the whole idea of socialism is that if my neighbour happens to lose his job, there's a safety net in place so his kids can keep going to school and don't end up having to mug me in order to get something to eat. And yeah, that safety net comes out of my taxes, and damn am I glad it's there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state , the institution , etc knows better than the individual .
Boeing was ( or at least used to be ) built by free thinking capitalists who believe in individuality.This is just a small example of why I dislike socialist philosophy .
Because in the end...it 'll kill ya !
( or your neighbors ) Braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiinz .
Braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiinz.As a self-proclaimed free thinker you sure act....bloody brainwashed .
Take a step back from the indoctrination you received and turn your brain on for a change .
And then use it to evaluate hard facts , not the opinions from the IV in the back of your head.Oh , as for killing the neighbours...the whole idea of socialism is that if my neighbour happens to lose his job , there 's a safety net in place so his kids can keep going to school and do n't end up having to mug me in order to get something to eat .
And yeah , that safety net comes out of my taxes , and damn am I glad it 's there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus is built by socialists who believe the state, the institution, etc knows better than the individual.
Boeing was (or at least used to be) built by free thinking capitalists who believe in individuality.This is just a small example of why I dislike socialist philosophy.
Because in the end...it'll kill ya!
(or your neighbors)Braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiinz.
Braaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiinz.As a self-proclaimed free thinker you sure act....bloody brainwashed.
Take a step back from the indoctrination you received and turn your brain on for a change.
And then use it to evaluate hard facts, not the opinions from the IV in the back of your head.Oh, as for killing the neighbours...the whole idea of socialism is that if my neighbour happens to lose his job, there's a safety net in place so his kids can keep going to school and don't end up having to mug me in order to get something to eat.
And yeah, that safety net comes out of my taxes, and damn am I glad it's there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262925</id>
	<title>What??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>battle-tested pilot sitting up front</p></div><p>Seriously?? Half of them can't land the fucking plane without autopilot turned on!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>battle-tested pilot sitting up frontSeriously ? ?
Half of them ca n't land the fucking plane without autopilot turned on ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>battle-tested pilot sitting up frontSeriously??
Half of them can't land the fucking plane without autopilot turned on!!
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260303</id>
	<title>sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. "</p><p>This is a troll right? Do I get bonus points?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems .
" This is a troll right ?
Do I get bonus points ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
"This is a troll right?
Do I get bonus points?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263847</id>
	<title>Look at the history of air accidents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244552640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearly all of them have a human factor, and many of which were caused when the pilot took control away from the computer system, which was assuring a safe flight envelope. This probably what makes the difference, and gives the Airbus the marginally better safety record, despite higher sales of Airbus aircraft to some of the more dubious airlines in the world (due to US export restrictions)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly all of them have a human factor , and many of which were caused when the pilot took control away from the computer system , which was assuring a safe flight envelope .
This probably what makes the difference , and gives the Airbus the marginally better safety record , despite higher sales of Airbus aircraft to some of the more dubious airlines in the world ( due to US export restrictions )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly all of them have a human factor, and many of which were caused when the pilot took control away from the computer system, which was assuring a safe flight envelope.
This probably what makes the difference, and gives the Airbus the marginally better safety record, despite higher sales of Airbus aircraft to some of the more dubious airlines in the world (due to US export restrictions)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261871</id>
	<title>Is deplane an actual word?</title>
	<author>CrazyJim1</author>
	<datestamp>1244485860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only time I heard the word deplane used was on Fantasy Island.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only time I heard the word deplane used was on Fantasy Island .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only time I heard the word deplane used was on Fantasy Island.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260485</id>
	<title>Well, what if humans screw up?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1244475120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not exactly a big Euro loving kinda guy, but I think you can give Airbus a bit of slack here.  Yes, we have had one amazing pilot bringing down an aircraft safely and saving all the passengers, but a quick listen to many cockpit voice recorders has pilots making mistakes that wind up being pretty deadly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not exactly a big Euro loving kinda guy , but I think you can give Airbus a bit of slack here .
Yes , we have had one amazing pilot bringing down an aircraft safely and saving all the passengers , but a quick listen to many cockpit voice recorders has pilots making mistakes that wind up being pretty deadly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not exactly a big Euro loving kinda guy, but I think you can give Airbus a bit of slack here.
Yes, we have had one amazing pilot bringing down an aircraft safely and saving all the passengers, but a quick listen to many cockpit voice recorders has pilots making mistakes that wind up being pretty deadly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261159</id>
	<title>What about Skynet?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244479140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You people are all forgeting that without the ability to manually override computers skynet will crash all our airplanes when it becomes sentient.</p><p>I therefore personally vote for Boeing's implementation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You people are all forgeting that without the ability to manually override computers skynet will crash all our airplanes when it becomes sentient.I therefore personally vote for Boeing 's implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You people are all forgeting that without the ability to manually override computers skynet will crash all our airplanes when it becomes sentient.I therefore personally vote for Boeing's implementation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263381</id>
	<title>What came first.... computers of humans?</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1244547240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fundamental question that seems to be getting wrongly answered more and more.</p><p>Failure to realize that computers are made by man and as such are inherently faulty, even in their programmed perfection.</p><p>Programmers are not the gods they may thing they are, though they create and control.</p><p>Atlanta 911 system prevented processing a call because in the effort to do all that was needed for the 1996 Olympics, humans involved in the building of the Olympic related sites, forgot to give the Centennial Park an address and as such the 911 programmed system couldn't handle it. They finally were able to get the bomb threat communicated to officers in the field through old fashion radio, but not in time to stop a bomb and death from happening.</p><p>Airline software is produced by means quite different than other programming as it's inherently got to meet higher QC but its still all done as a product of man.</p><p>Stop bowing down to the stone image of man, the beast..... Its insulting, demeaning, arrogant and just damn stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fundamental question that seems to be getting wrongly answered more and more.Failure to realize that computers are made by man and as such are inherently faulty , even in their programmed perfection.Programmers are not the gods they may thing they are , though they create and control.Atlanta 911 system prevented processing a call because in the effort to do all that was needed for the 1996 Olympics , humans involved in the building of the Olympic related sites , forgot to give the Centennial Park an address and as such the 911 programmed system could n't handle it .
They finally were able to get the bomb threat communicated to officers in the field through old fashion radio , but not in time to stop a bomb and death from happening.Airline software is produced by means quite different than other programming as it 's inherently got to meet higher QC but its still all done as a product of man.Stop bowing down to the stone image of man , the beast..... Its insulting , demeaning , arrogant and just damn stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fundamental question that seems to be getting wrongly answered more and more.Failure to realize that computers are made by man and as such are inherently faulty, even in their programmed perfection.Programmers are not the gods they may thing they are, though they create and control.Atlanta 911 system prevented processing a call because in the effort to do all that was needed for the 1996 Olympics, humans involved in the building of the Olympic related sites, forgot to give the Centennial Park an address and as such the 911 programmed system couldn't handle it.
They finally were able to get the bomb threat communicated to officers in the field through old fashion radio, but not in time to stop a bomb and death from happening.Airline software is produced by means quite different than other programming as it's inherently got to meet higher QC but its still all done as a product of man.Stop bowing down to the stone image of man, the beast..... Its insulting, demeaning, arrogant and just damn stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28277389</id>
	<title>Even for /.</title>
	<author>kaffiene</author>
	<datestamp>1244634060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. this article is embarrassingly stupid.  The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. editors should hang their heads in shame for pushing such utter moronic rubbish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even for / .
this article is embarrassingly stupid .
The / .
editors should hang their heads in shame for pushing such utter moronic rubbish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even for /.
this article is embarrassingly stupid.
The /.
editors should hang their heads in shame for pushing such utter moronic rubbish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260745</id>
	<title>Stop making Americans look like idiots</title>
	<author>pacergh</author>
	<datestamp>1244476320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, Airbus pilots do control their planes.  The difference is between hydraulic controls versus "fly-by-wire" digital controls.  It's not the case that Airbus planes are "flown" by computers.
<br> <br>
The problem is if there is a complete electrical failure.  Fly-by-wire does not work in this case.  Redundant systems reduce this likelihood (I think most Airbus commercial planes have 4 redundant systems plus redundant power supplies, or something like that).
<br> <br>
Another problem is in a malfunction with one of the processors interpreting the wire-based commands.  This is no more or less bad than a malfunction in the hydraulic systems of Boeing planes.
<br> <br>
Second, the America versus Europe bit is ridiculous.  In similarly false logic, you can trust me since I am an American who just finished living in Europe for 8 months.  It is not a philosophical divide between nations, but a philosophical divide amongst airplane manufacturers and designers.  There are already American fly-by-wire planes.  In fact, the first digital fly-by-wire flightbed was a modified NASA F-8 Crusader, which first flew in 1972.  That means those Franco-German Airbus fly-by-wire planes with European philosophies are actually descended from an American.
<br> <br>
Anyway, some of the posters above pointing out the headline fail are right -- computer's didn't cause the crash.
<br> <br>
Perhaps the worst bit of this whole tragedy is that we may never know what caused it, which means we may never be able to fix it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , Airbus pilots do control their planes .
The difference is between hydraulic controls versus " fly-by-wire " digital controls .
It 's not the case that Airbus planes are " flown " by computers .
The problem is if there is a complete electrical failure .
Fly-by-wire does not work in this case .
Redundant systems reduce this likelihood ( I think most Airbus commercial planes have 4 redundant systems plus redundant power supplies , or something like that ) .
Another problem is in a malfunction with one of the processors interpreting the wire-based commands .
This is no more or less bad than a malfunction in the hydraulic systems of Boeing planes .
Second , the America versus Europe bit is ridiculous .
In similarly false logic , you can trust me since I am an American who just finished living in Europe for 8 months .
It is not a philosophical divide between nations , but a philosophical divide amongst airplane manufacturers and designers .
There are already American fly-by-wire planes .
In fact , the first digital fly-by-wire flightbed was a modified NASA F-8 Crusader , which first flew in 1972 .
That means those Franco-German Airbus fly-by-wire planes with European philosophies are actually descended from an American .
Anyway , some of the posters above pointing out the headline fail are right -- computer 's did n't cause the crash .
Perhaps the worst bit of this whole tragedy is that we may never know what caused it , which means we may never be able to fix it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, Airbus pilots do control their planes.
The difference is between hydraulic controls versus "fly-by-wire" digital controls.
It's not the case that Airbus planes are "flown" by computers.
The problem is if there is a complete electrical failure.
Fly-by-wire does not work in this case.
Redundant systems reduce this likelihood (I think most Airbus commercial planes have 4 redundant systems plus redundant power supplies, or something like that).
Another problem is in a malfunction with one of the processors interpreting the wire-based commands.
This is no more or less bad than a malfunction in the hydraulic systems of Boeing planes.
Second, the America versus Europe bit is ridiculous.
In similarly false logic, you can trust me since I am an American who just finished living in Europe for 8 months.
It is not a philosophical divide between nations, but a philosophical divide amongst airplane manufacturers and designers.
There are already American fly-by-wire planes.
In fact, the first digital fly-by-wire flightbed was a modified NASA F-8 Crusader, which first flew in 1972.
That means those Franco-German Airbus fly-by-wire planes with European philosophies are actually descended from an American.
Anyway, some of the posters above pointing out the headline fail are right -- computer's didn't cause the crash.
Perhaps the worst bit of this whole tragedy is that we may never know what caused it, which means we may never be able to fix it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28282825</id>
	<title>Computers and the Air France Catastrophe.</title>
	<author>Leoz4</author>
	<datestamp>1244661600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I concur with the philosophy of giving pilots the option to over ride computers during an emergency. I've just been reading a book about the USA-USSR race to the moon based on the story of Apollo 8. The Soviets were all about control from the ground and considered giving options to their cosmonauts as too dangerous. After one particular tragedy that philosophy prevailed much to the consternation of some cosmonauts who were willing to take the risks necessary to get to the moon.  NASA at the time trusted the judgement of the astronauts and those working on the mission. Apollo 8 crew member James Lovell did have to do some course corrections on the way to the moon manually. These manual over ride skills learned on that voyage would be put to good use when he was a crew member on Apollo 13, saving it from disaster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur with the philosophy of giving pilots the option to over ride computers during an emergency .
I 've just been reading a book about the USA-USSR race to the moon based on the story of Apollo 8 .
The Soviets were all about control from the ground and considered giving options to their cosmonauts as too dangerous .
After one particular tragedy that philosophy prevailed much to the consternation of some cosmonauts who were willing to take the risks necessary to get to the moon .
NASA at the time trusted the judgement of the astronauts and those working on the mission .
Apollo 8 crew member James Lovell did have to do some course corrections on the way to the moon manually .
These manual over ride skills learned on that voyage would be put to good use when he was a crew member on Apollo 13 , saving it from disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur with the philosophy of giving pilots the option to over ride computers during an emergency.
I've just been reading a book about the USA-USSR race to the moon based on the story of Apollo 8.
The Soviets were all about control from the ground and considered giving options to their cosmonauts as too dangerous.
After one particular tragedy that philosophy prevailed much to the consternation of some cosmonauts who were willing to take the risks necessary to get to the moon.
NASA at the time trusted the judgement of the astronauts and those working on the mission.
Apollo 8 crew member James Lovell did have to do some course corrections on the way to the moon manually.
These manual over ride skills learned on that voyage would be put to good use when he was a crew member on Apollo 13, saving it from disaster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262739</id>
	<title>Whatever you do...</title>
	<author>denelson83</author>
	<datestamp>1244539200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't fly an Airbus plane owned by Hawaiian Airlines, with the flight number HAL9000.</p><p>If the pilot of such a flight tries to disengage the autopilot, nothing will happen except for the Bitching Bob saying "I'm sorry, Dave.  I'm afraid I can't do that."</p><p>(Then the pilot will say, "Who's Dave?  My name is Greg.")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't fly an Airbus plane owned by Hawaiian Airlines , with the flight number HAL9000.If the pilot of such a flight tries to disengage the autopilot , nothing will happen except for the Bitching Bob saying " I 'm sorry , Dave .
I 'm afraid I ca n't do that .
" ( Then the pilot will say , " Who 's Dave ?
My name is Greg .
" )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't fly an Airbus plane owned by Hawaiian Airlines, with the flight number HAL9000.If the pilot of such a flight tries to disengage the autopilot, nothing will happen except for the Bitching Bob saying "I'm sorry, Dave.
I'm afraid I can't do that.
"(Then the pilot will say, "Who's Dave?
My name is Greg.
")</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267629</id>
	<title>Wikipedia is your friend</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1244569560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation\_accidents#Causes" title="wikipedia.org">here:</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>A study by Boeing [2] determined the primary cause of Airline hull loss accidents (worldwide commercial jet fleet), from 1996 through 2005, to be:</p><ul>
<li> 55\%: Flight crew error</li><li>17\%: Airplane</li><li>13\%: Weather</li><li>...</li></ul><p>Given that many, many airplanes were already at least partially computer controlled by '96, I think we can take this as evidence that it's not the fact that computers are so new that they're skewing the stats. For what it's worth, the stats from 1950 - present are similar.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From here : [ wikipedia.org ] A study by Boeing [ 2 ] determined the primary cause of Airline hull loss accidents ( worldwide commercial jet fleet ) , from 1996 through 2005 , to be : 55 \ % : Flight crew error17 \ % : Airplane13 \ % : Weather...Given that many , many airplanes were already at least partially computer controlled by '96 , I think we can take this as evidence that it 's not the fact that computers are so new that they 're skewing the stats .
For what it 's worth , the stats from 1950 - present are similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From here: [wikipedia.org] A study by Boeing [2] determined the primary cause of Airline hull loss accidents (worldwide commercial jet fleet), from 1996 through 2005, to be:
 55\%: Flight crew error17\%: Airplane13\%: Weather...Given that many, many airplanes were already at least partially computer controlled by '96, I think we can take this as evidence that it's not the fact that computers are so new that they're skewing the stats.
For what it's worth, the stats from 1950 - present are similar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264217</id>
	<title>Re:I won't fly with a "Battle Hardened" pilot.</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1244555520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I think that in general, you are arguably better off when the pilots are connected to the flight surfaces via manual controls. Even if the power and hydraulics go out with enough strength you may move some control surfaces a little - perhaps enough to control a plane in level flight - maybe even land it.</p><p>But if FBW shits itself - you are TOAST.</p></div></blockquote><p>But you are not connected by manual controls in anything bigger than a 737. Only in smaller airliners, like the Boeing 737, do you have any connection to the flight control surfaces. The B737 is like just a very large GA airplane - it has steel cables going to the control surfaces (except the rudder). The control surfaces are merely hydraulically boosted, a bit like power steering. If the hydraulics fail, you can still fly the plane by tugging on the controls.</p><p>But in anything bigger this is NOT the case. If the hydraulics all fail in a B747 for example, you have NO control of the flight control surfaces (Google for the JAL crash in the 1980s when a B747 lost the vertical stabilizer and all hydraulic systems). Or a DC-10 for that matter - this has happened with the DC-10 (google Sioux City DC-10) when all three hydraulic systems were fractured by the disintegration of a turbine disc in the #2 engine (the one on the tail). The widebody jets are all like this - either hydraulic or fly by wire.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that in general , you are arguably better off when the pilots are connected to the flight surfaces via manual controls .
Even if the power and hydraulics go out with enough strength you may move some control surfaces a little - perhaps enough to control a plane in level flight - maybe even land it.But if FBW shits itself - you are TOAST.But you are not connected by manual controls in anything bigger than a 737 .
Only in smaller airliners , like the Boeing 737 , do you have any connection to the flight control surfaces .
The B737 is like just a very large GA airplane - it has steel cables going to the control surfaces ( except the rudder ) .
The control surfaces are merely hydraulically boosted , a bit like power steering .
If the hydraulics fail , you can still fly the plane by tugging on the controls.But in anything bigger this is NOT the case .
If the hydraulics all fail in a B747 for example , you have NO control of the flight control surfaces ( Google for the JAL crash in the 1980s when a B747 lost the vertical stabilizer and all hydraulic systems ) .
Or a DC-10 for that matter - this has happened with the DC-10 ( google Sioux City DC-10 ) when all three hydraulic systems were fractured by the disintegration of a turbine disc in the # 2 engine ( the one on the tail ) .
The widebody jets are all like this - either hydraulic or fly by wire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that in general, you are arguably better off when the pilots are connected to the flight surfaces via manual controls.
Even if the power and hydraulics go out with enough strength you may move some control surfaces a little - perhaps enough to control a plane in level flight - maybe even land it.But if FBW shits itself - you are TOAST.But you are not connected by manual controls in anything bigger than a 737.
Only in smaller airliners, like the Boeing 737, do you have any connection to the flight control surfaces.
The B737 is like just a very large GA airplane - it has steel cables going to the control surfaces (except the rudder).
The control surfaces are merely hydraulically boosted, a bit like power steering.
If the hydraulics fail, you can still fly the plane by tugging on the controls.But in anything bigger this is NOT the case.
If the hydraulics all fail in a B747 for example, you have NO control of the flight control surfaces (Google for the JAL crash in the 1980s when a B747 lost the vertical stabilizer and all hydraulic systems).
Or a DC-10 for that matter - this has happened with the DC-10 (google Sioux City DC-10) when all three hydraulic systems were fractured by the disintegration of a turbine disc in the #2 engine (the one on the tail).
The widebody jets are all like this - either hydraulic or fly by wire.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260925</id>
	<title>Re:Treating passengers like children?</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1244477460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, airlines DO tell you what kind of Aircraft you're flying on.</p><p>At least BA, American Airlines, Delta, and Virgin Airways do. In fact if you don't know then clearly you aren't checking the seat chart to find the optimal seating position for max leg room, head room, and comfort. But that might be more of an issue for those over 6.1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , airlines DO tell you what kind of Aircraft you 're flying on.At least BA , American Airlines , Delta , and Virgin Airways do .
In fact if you do n't know then clearly you are n't checking the seat chart to find the optimal seating position for max leg room , head room , and comfort .
But that might be more of an issue for those over 6.1 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, airlines DO tell you what kind of Aircraft you're flying on.At least BA, American Airlines, Delta, and Virgin Airways do.
In fact if you don't know then clearly you aren't checking the seat chart to find the optimal seating position for max leg room, head room, and comfort.
But that might be more of an issue for those over 6.1 :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269</id>
	<title>something interesting about the airbus</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1244479920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's all electronic control, rather than hydraulic/ pneumatic controls. meaning its more simple, but it's also more rigid: if your computer goes, so goes your aircraft. yeah, they use triple redundant systems, but how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube?</p><p>learned from this interesting comment:</p><p><a href="http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/06/02/world/europe/02plane.html?s=3" title="nytimes.com">http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/06/02/world/europe/02plane.html?s=3</a> [nytimes.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>I always had concerns about Airbus design of their aircraft. They use fly by wire technology. They have 3 redundant computer systems to control the airplane including flight controls. It is nice on paper and very efficient, except a systemic failure like getting hit by lightning fries all the computers.</p><p>Boeing still uses a combination of mechanical and hydraulics. Take a little more weight and not as efficient... but much more reliable. It goes back to the tradition from WWII with the B-17 Bombers. It would take something like 25 direct hits on the average of 20 mm cannon from German fighters to bring one down. The Germans had to go to the MK-108 30 mm cannon and then it would need 4 direct hits on the average.</p><p>Also there is too much use of composites in the Airbus planes... I am not sure they can stand abnormal stresses as well as metal alloys traditionally used.</p><p>Too many Airbus aircraft have fallen and the EU has been protective. The FAA needs to investigate these issues instead of just giving them a pass.<br>-- Buba2000, USA</p><p>
&nbsp; Recommend Recommended by 277 Readers</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's all electronic control , rather than hydraulic/ pneumatic controls .
meaning its more simple , but it 's also more rigid : if your computer goes , so goes your aircraft .
yeah , they use triple redundant systems , but how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube ? learned from this interesting comment : http : //community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/06/02/world/europe/02plane.html ? s = 3 [ nytimes.com ] I always had concerns about Airbus design of their aircraft .
They use fly by wire technology .
They have 3 redundant computer systems to control the airplane including flight controls .
It is nice on paper and very efficient , except a systemic failure like getting hit by lightning fries all the computers.Boeing still uses a combination of mechanical and hydraulics .
Take a little more weight and not as efficient... but much more reliable .
It goes back to the tradition from WWII with the B-17 Bombers .
It would take something like 25 direct hits on the average of 20 mm cannon from German fighters to bring one down .
The Germans had to go to the MK-108 30 mm cannon and then it would need 4 direct hits on the average.Also there is too much use of composites in the Airbus planes... I am not sure they can stand abnormal stresses as well as metal alloys traditionally used.Too many Airbus aircraft have fallen and the EU has been protective .
The FAA needs to investigate these issues instead of just giving them a pass.-- Buba2000 , USA   Recommend Recommended by 277 Readers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's all electronic control, rather than hydraulic/ pneumatic controls.
meaning its more simple, but it's also more rigid: if your computer goes, so goes your aircraft.
yeah, they use triple redundant systems, but how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube?learned from this interesting comment:http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/06/02/world/europe/02plane.html?s=3 [nytimes.com] I always had concerns about Airbus design of their aircraft.
They use fly by wire technology.
They have 3 redundant computer systems to control the airplane including flight controls.
It is nice on paper and very efficient, except a systemic failure like getting hit by lightning fries all the computers.Boeing still uses a combination of mechanical and hydraulics.
Take a little more weight and not as efficient... but much more reliable.
It goes back to the tradition from WWII with the B-17 Bombers.
It would take something like 25 direct hits on the average of 20 mm cannon from German fighters to bring one down.
The Germans had to go to the MK-108 30 mm cannon and then it would need 4 direct hits on the average.Also there is too much use of composites in the Airbus planes... I am not sure they can stand abnormal stresses as well as metal alloys traditionally used.Too many Airbus aircraft have fallen and the EU has been protective.
The FAA needs to investigate these issues instead of just giving them a pass.-- Buba2000, USA
  Recommend Recommended by 277 Readers
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263017</id>
	<title>But which planes crash the most?</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1244542620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From where I'm sitting, it seems boeings fall out the sky with more often and with more devastating results than Airbuses - <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in\_depth/2008892.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in\_depth/2008892.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</p><p>I particularly liked when the A320 came down in the Hudson how, it was "all thanks to the pilot"...and yes, in part it was, but the minute another airbus falls out the sky and it's fatal this time (as crashes often are) it's clearly because of poor design philosophy?</p><p>Meh, this whole thing stinks of US vs EU chest-bashing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From where I 'm sitting , it seems boeings fall out the sky with more often and with more devastating results than Airbuses - http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in \ _depth/2008892.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] I particularly liked when the A320 came down in the Hudson how , it was " all thanks to the pilot " ...and yes , in part it was , but the minute another airbus falls out the sky and it 's fatal this time ( as crashes often are ) it 's clearly because of poor design philosophy ? Meh , this whole thing stinks of US vs EU chest-bashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From where I'm sitting, it seems boeings fall out the sky with more often and with more devastating results than Airbuses - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in\_depth/2008892.stm [bbc.co.uk]I particularly liked when the A320 came down in the Hudson how, it was "all thanks to the pilot"...and yes, in part it was, but the minute another airbus falls out the sky and it's fatal this time (as crashes often are) it's clearly because of poor design philosophy?Meh, this whole thing stinks of US vs EU chest-bashing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263487</id>
	<title>No simple answer</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1244548740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is essentially a design philosophy - Airbus designs its planes so pilots are not able to fly outside the envelop; Boeing lets pilots have the ultimate choice in what to do.  There are advantages to both approaches - humans can often try things to fix a problem  that a computer would not even consider.  Computers are real good at analyzing large amounts of data and taking defined actions; humans are good at problem solving and developing unique solutions that a designer may never had considered or considered and decided to prevent for what were valid reasons based on the designer's assumptions.</p><p>My experience is the real issue is not the philosophy but the interface between the man and the machine.  Poor or confusing design can lead operators to make erroneous decisions based on what they think the computer is doing and not realize its actual mode of operation.  While the end call is often operator error, as someone who has done incident investigation that over-simplifies the cause and unless you address the underlying causes that lead to the decisions you haven't fixed teh problem.  Highly trained and skilled operators generally do not go stupid all of a sudden; they are generally lead down a path that results in a bad outcome.</p><p>As someone who has operated in fully automatic and totally manual environments, I find automation great; especially for taking many routine burdens off the operator; freeing them to maintain better situational awareness of the entire system.  I also like having the final say - that's what I'm paid to do - make decisions - but I realize I must also be fully aware of what is happening before I take over control.</p><p>Ultimately, designers need to be fully cognizant that a control system is just that a system made up of computer and human actions and interactions between the two and design the system to minimize confusion and the possibility of errors; operators need to understand how the system responds and why to properly diagnose a situation and make informed decisions.  Ideally, both sides are involved in the initial design.  I was involved in a control room design project.  The designers wanted to make digital readouts (easier to see values); thy did not realize that operators wanted traditional needle readouts since they often do not read an indicator - the scan a set of dials and if the needles are where they normally are they don't care what the actual value is and if one is out of whack it is obvious.  You lose that with digital, as well as the ability to read and interpret widely fluctuating values.  A needle provides feedback on range and rate - digital is just flashing numbers.  As a result, we had an all galss display that mimic a traditional layout in many areas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is essentially a design philosophy - Airbus designs its planes so pilots are not able to fly outside the envelop ; Boeing lets pilots have the ultimate choice in what to do .
There are advantages to both approaches - humans can often try things to fix a problem that a computer would not even consider .
Computers are real good at analyzing large amounts of data and taking defined actions ; humans are good at problem solving and developing unique solutions that a designer may never had considered or considered and decided to prevent for what were valid reasons based on the designer 's assumptions.My experience is the real issue is not the philosophy but the interface between the man and the machine .
Poor or confusing design can lead operators to make erroneous decisions based on what they think the computer is doing and not realize its actual mode of operation .
While the end call is often operator error , as someone who has done incident investigation that over-simplifies the cause and unless you address the underlying causes that lead to the decisions you have n't fixed teh problem .
Highly trained and skilled operators generally do not go stupid all of a sudden ; they are generally lead down a path that results in a bad outcome.As someone who has operated in fully automatic and totally manual environments , I find automation great ; especially for taking many routine burdens off the operator ; freeing them to maintain better situational awareness of the entire system .
I also like having the final say - that 's what I 'm paid to do - make decisions - but I realize I must also be fully aware of what is happening before I take over control.Ultimately , designers need to be fully cognizant that a control system is just that a system made up of computer and human actions and interactions between the two and design the system to minimize confusion and the possibility of errors ; operators need to understand how the system responds and why to properly diagnose a situation and make informed decisions .
Ideally , both sides are involved in the initial design .
I was involved in a control room design project .
The designers wanted to make digital readouts ( easier to see values ) ; thy did not realize that operators wanted traditional needle readouts since they often do not read an indicator - the scan a set of dials and if the needles are where they normally are they do n't care what the actual value is and if one is out of whack it is obvious .
You lose that with digital , as well as the ability to read and interpret widely fluctuating values .
A needle provides feedback on range and rate - digital is just flashing numbers .
As a result , we had an all galss display that mimic a traditional layout in many areas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is essentially a design philosophy - Airbus designs its planes so pilots are not able to fly outside the envelop; Boeing lets pilots have the ultimate choice in what to do.
There are advantages to both approaches - humans can often try things to fix a problem  that a computer would not even consider.
Computers are real good at analyzing large amounts of data and taking defined actions; humans are good at problem solving and developing unique solutions that a designer may never had considered or considered and decided to prevent for what were valid reasons based on the designer's assumptions.My experience is the real issue is not the philosophy but the interface between the man and the machine.
Poor or confusing design can lead operators to make erroneous decisions based on what they think the computer is doing and not realize its actual mode of operation.
While the end call is often operator error, as someone who has done incident investigation that over-simplifies the cause and unless you address the underlying causes that lead to the decisions you haven't fixed teh problem.
Highly trained and skilled operators generally do not go stupid all of a sudden; they are generally lead down a path that results in a bad outcome.As someone who has operated in fully automatic and totally manual environments, I find automation great; especially for taking many routine burdens off the operator; freeing them to maintain better situational awareness of the entire system.
I also like having the final say - that's what I'm paid to do - make decisions - but I realize I must also be fully aware of what is happening before I take over control.Ultimately, designers need to be fully cognizant that a control system is just that a system made up of computer and human actions and interactions between the two and design the system to minimize confusion and the possibility of errors; operators need to understand how the system responds and why to properly diagnose a situation and make informed decisions.
Ideally, both sides are involved in the initial design.
I was involved in a control room design project.
The designers wanted to make digital readouts (easier to see values); thy did not realize that operators wanted traditional needle readouts since they often do not read an indicator - the scan a set of dials and if the needles are where they normally are they don't care what the actual value is and if one is out of whack it is obvious.
You lose that with digital, as well as the ability to read and interpret widely fluctuating values.
A needle provides feedback on range and rate - digital is just flashing numbers.
As a result, we had an all galss display that mimic a traditional layout in many areas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260523</id>
	<title>Experience vs Automation</title>
	<author>Crash McBang</author>
	<datestamp>1244475300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone told me that the reason Airbus relies on automation is that it makes their planes easier to sell to airlines that have pilots with less experience.</p><p>Boeing aircraft are designed to be flown by pilots with more experience.</p><p>Anybody know how much flight time you need to drive an Airbus vs Boeing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone told me that the reason Airbus relies on automation is that it makes their planes easier to sell to airlines that have pilots with less experience.Boeing aircraft are designed to be flown by pilots with more experience.Anybody know how much flight time you need to drive an Airbus vs Boeing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone told me that the reason Airbus relies on automation is that it makes their planes easier to sell to airlines that have pilots with less experience.Boeing aircraft are designed to be flown by pilots with more experience.Anybody know how much flight time you need to drive an Airbus vs Boeing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261243</id>
	<title>Star Trek again</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1244479680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Star Trek again has let us explore issues of the future before they actually became reality. The 1968 episode "The Ultimate Computer" allows a computer to control star-ship battle without human intervention with the claim that it can respond faster than humans. Of course, there are problems that raise philosophical questions about how much to trust a computer.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Ultimate\_Computer" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Ultimate\_Computer</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>It would make a pretty cool case-mod too. And it has a gooey GUI.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Star Trek again has let us explore issues of the future before they actually became reality .
The 1968 episode " The Ultimate Computer " allows a computer to control star-ship battle without human intervention with the claim that it can respond faster than humans .
Of course , there are problems that raise philosophical questions about how much to trust a computer.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _Ultimate \ _Computer [ wikipedia.org ] It would make a pretty cool case-mod too .
And it has a gooey GUI .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Star Trek again has let us explore issues of the future before they actually became reality.
The 1968 episode "The Ultimate Computer" allows a computer to control star-ship battle without human intervention with the claim that it can respond faster than humans.
Of course, there are problems that raise philosophical questions about how much to trust a computer.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Ultimate\_Computer [wikipedia.org]It would make a pretty cool case-mod too.
And it has a gooey GUI.
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267693</id>
	<title>Remember Flight 587</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1244569800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Airbus A300 flying from New York to the Dominican Republic. Crashed because the tail is not structurally able to withstand deflecting the rudder from full on one side to full on the opposite side. I don't know about you but I think most pilots including myself would consider that a design flaw. It would not surprise me if this current disaster is something similar.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus A300 flying from New York to the Dominican Republic .
Crashed because the tail is not structurally able to withstand deflecting the rudder from full on one side to full on the opposite side .
I do n't know about you but I think most pilots including myself would consider that a design flaw .
It would not surprise me if this current disaster is something similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus A300 flying from New York to the Dominican Republic.
Crashed because the tail is not structurally able to withstand deflecting the rudder from full on one side to full on the opposite side.
I don't know about you but I think most pilots including myself would consider that a design flaw.
It would not surprise me if this current disaster is something similar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28290707</id>
	<title>For crying out loud, does anyone edit the editors?</title>
	<author>ma11achy</author>
	<datestamp>1244714160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a trainee pilot and this has struck a huge nerve with me.</p><p>There is NO substance in the article mentioned and the summary is basically a troll. Slashdot - please do not descend to the level of a tabloid newspaper reporting on emotions.</p><p>What a stupid, stupid article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a trainee pilot and this has struck a huge nerve with me.There is NO substance in the article mentioned and the summary is basically a troll .
Slashdot - please do not descend to the level of a tabloid newspaper reporting on emotions.What a stupid , stupid article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a trainee pilot and this has struck a huge nerve with me.There is NO substance in the article mentioned and the summary is basically a troll.
Slashdot - please do not descend to the level of a tabloid newspaper reporting on emotions.What a stupid, stupid article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261755</id>
	<title>Internet geeks have questioned Aibus for decades</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244484840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here you thought the Clarinet posting was going to dredge up old school USENET nostalgia? Check out this gem from the comp.risks digest almost 20 years ago:</p><p><i><br>Date: Thu, 24 May 90 02:16:38 -0700<br>From: Nancy Leveson <br>Subject: A320 again</i></p><p><i>The 21 May 90 issue of Newsweek has an article on the A320.  It gibes with the<br>rumors I have heard from people in the aircraft industry (although they have<br>told me about even more suspected control systems problems than are mentioned<br>in this article).</i></p><p><i>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A Bumpy Ride for the Airbus A320:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Northwest's newest fleet comes under scrutiny<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; by Annetta Miller with Karen Springen</i></p><p><i>"It's been one of the more controversial aeronatic introductions since Kitty<br>Hawk.  And last week the highly automated Airbus A320 jetliner bumped up<br>against still more turbulence.  Northwest Airlines, the only U.S.  carrier to<br>operate the planes, acknowledged that it has reported suspected malfunctions of<br>the aircraft's flight control system to the Federal Aviation Administration.<br>The reports come on the heels of two overseas crashes involving the $32 million<br>plane.  While both Northwest and the plane's manufacturer say it is safe to<br>fly, the crashes and the reports to the FAA raise questions about its<br>reliability -- and the limits of technology.  `The controversy is always out<br>there,' says Edwin Arbon of hte Flight Safety Foundation.  `Are we going too<br>far with automation?'"</i></p><p><i>"The official cause of both crashes: pilot error.  .  <b>But some pilots and air-safety<br>experts wonder whether the plane's autothrust system, which controls<br>speed, may have contributed to the disasters.  They charge that radiation<br>from power lines and other sources could interfere with the system -- a<br>serious problem if pilots let their guard down and rely solely on the<br>computer.</b>  Says Ken Plunkett of the Aviation Safety Institute, a nonprofit<br>research group: `People may be becoming overconfident with the airbus.<br>They're not [recognizing] its limitations.'"</i></p><p><i>"Northwest spokesman Doug Miller says passengers have always been safe<br>on the airline's eight plane A320 fleet.  Still, after the Indian<br>Airlines disaster, Northwest issued a bulletin that alerted pilots<br>to possible glitches in the plane's cockpit computer.  In addition,<br>the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported, Northwest filed 39 FAA `service<br>difficulty' reports concerning its fleet.  While many reports involve<br>such minor problems as malfunctioning cabin lights, others are more<br>substantive.  In one case, a pilot disconnected the autopilot because<br>he mistakenly believed he was descending too rapidly."</i></p><p><i>"Both Northwest and the FAA insist the glitches are typical of new planes.<br>Northwest's Miller calls the troubles `teething' problems while the FAA's<br>Mort Edelstein refers to them as `bugs.'  Airline officials say those<br>bugs are well on their way to being eliminated.  In fact, they are betting<br>more than $500 million on the prospect.  The airline plans to add 17 other<br>A320s to its fleet -- and has options to buy 75 more."</i></p><p><i><i><br></i></i></p><p><i>Despite my highlighting that one particular section above, I'm not seriously suggesting that this article has bearing on the recent crash. Who knows, maybe it does, but I Am Not An Aerospace Engineer and make no claims. I just find it fascinating that 20 years down the line, we are still arguing about Airbus design philosophy.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here you thought the Clarinet posting was going to dredge up old school USENET nostalgia ?
Check out this gem from the comp.risks digest almost 20 years ago : Date : Thu , 24 May 90 02 : 16 : 38 -0700From : Nancy Leveson Subject : A320 againThe 21 May 90 issue of Newsweek has an article on the A320 .
It gibes with therumors I have heard from people in the aircraft industry ( although they havetold me about even more suspected control systems problems than are mentionedin this article ) .
                  A Bumpy Ride for the Airbus A320 :           Northwest 's newest fleet comes under scrutiny                 by Annetta Miller with Karen Springen " It 's been one of the more controversial aeronatic introductions since KittyHawk .
And last week the highly automated Airbus A320 jetliner bumped upagainst still more turbulence .
Northwest Airlines , the only U.S. carrier tooperate the planes , acknowledged that it has reported suspected malfunctions ofthe aircraft 's flight control system to the Federal Aviation Administration.The reports come on the heels of two overseas crashes involving the $ 32 millionplane .
While both Northwest and the plane 's manufacturer say it is safe tofly , the crashes and the reports to the FAA raise questions about itsreliability -- and the limits of technology .
` The controversy is always outthere, ' says Edwin Arbon of hte Flight Safety Foundation .
` Are we going toofar with automation ?
' " " The official cause of both crashes : pilot error .
. But some pilots and air-safetyexperts wonder whether the plane 's autothrust system , which controlsspeed , may have contributed to the disasters .
They charge that radiationfrom power lines and other sources could interfere with the system -- aserious problem if pilots let their guard down and rely solely on thecomputer .
Says Ken Plunkett of the Aviation Safety Institute , a nonprofitresearch group : ` People may be becoming overconfident with the airbus.They 're not [ recognizing ] its limitations .
' " " Northwest spokesman Doug Miller says passengers have always been safeon the airline 's eight plane A320 fleet .
Still , after the IndianAirlines disaster , Northwest issued a bulletin that alerted pilotsto possible glitches in the plane 's cockpit computer .
In addition,the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported , Northwest filed 39 FAA ` servicedifficulty ' reports concerning its fleet .
While many reports involvesuch minor problems as malfunctioning cabin lights , others are moresubstantive .
In one case , a pilot disconnected the autopilot becausehe mistakenly believed he was descending too rapidly .
" " Both Northwest and the FAA insist the glitches are typical of new planes.Northwest 's Miller calls the troubles ` teething ' problems while the FAA'sMort Edelstein refers to them as ` bugs .
' Airline officials say thosebugs are well on their way to being eliminated .
In fact , they are bettingmore than $ 500 million on the prospect .
The airline plans to add 17 otherA320s to its fleet -- and has options to buy 75 more .
" Despite my highlighting that one particular section above , I 'm not seriously suggesting that this article has bearing on the recent crash .
Who knows , maybe it does , but I Am Not An Aerospace Engineer and make no claims .
I just find it fascinating that 20 years down the line , we are still arguing about Airbus design philosophy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here you thought the Clarinet posting was going to dredge up old school USENET nostalgia?
Check out this gem from the comp.risks digest almost 20 years ago:Date: Thu, 24 May 90 02:16:38 -0700From: Nancy Leveson Subject: A320 againThe 21 May 90 issue of Newsweek has an article on the A320.
It gibes with therumors I have heard from people in the aircraft industry (although they havetold me about even more suspected control systems problems than are mentionedin this article).
                  A Bumpy Ride for the Airbus A320:
          Northwest's newest fleet comes under scrutiny
                by Annetta Miller with Karen Springen"It's been one of the more controversial aeronatic introductions since KittyHawk.
And last week the highly automated Airbus A320 jetliner bumped upagainst still more turbulence.
Northwest Airlines, the only U.S.  carrier tooperate the planes, acknowledged that it has reported suspected malfunctions ofthe aircraft's flight control system to the Federal Aviation Administration.The reports come on the heels of two overseas crashes involving the $32 millionplane.
While both Northwest and the plane's manufacturer say it is safe tofly, the crashes and the reports to the FAA raise questions about itsreliability -- and the limits of technology.
`The controversy is always outthere,' says Edwin Arbon of hte Flight Safety Foundation.
`Are we going toofar with automation?
'""The official cause of both crashes: pilot error.
.  But some pilots and air-safetyexperts wonder whether the plane's autothrust system, which controlsspeed, may have contributed to the disasters.
They charge that radiationfrom power lines and other sources could interfere with the system -- aserious problem if pilots let their guard down and rely solely on thecomputer.
Says Ken Plunkett of the Aviation Safety Institute, a nonprofitresearch group: `People may be becoming overconfident with the airbus.They're not [recognizing] its limitations.
'""Northwest spokesman Doug Miller says passengers have always been safeon the airline's eight plane A320 fleet.
Still, after the IndianAirlines disaster, Northwest issued a bulletin that alerted pilotsto possible glitches in the plane's cockpit computer.
In addition,the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported, Northwest filed 39 FAA `servicedifficulty' reports concerning its fleet.
While many reports involvesuch minor problems as malfunctioning cabin lights, others are moresubstantive.
In one case, a pilot disconnected the autopilot becausehe mistakenly believed he was descending too rapidly.
""Both Northwest and the FAA insist the glitches are typical of new planes.Northwest's Miller calls the troubles `teething' problems while the FAA'sMort Edelstein refers to them as `bugs.
'  Airline officials say thosebugs are well on their way to being eliminated.
In fact, they are bettingmore than $500 million on the prospect.
The airline plans to add 17 otherA320s to its fleet -- and has options to buy 75 more.
"Despite my highlighting that one particular section above, I'm not seriously suggesting that this article has bearing on the recent crash.
Who knows, maybe it does, but I Am Not An Aerospace Engineer and make no claims.
I just find it fascinating that 20 years down the line, we are still arguing about Airbus design philosophy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262037</id>
	<title>And how many times did the computer save us?</title>
	<author>nekrecart</author>
	<datestamp>1244487900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The question is not if we want to rely solely on computers during flying or not. The question is how many times did a computer corrected a pilot from a fatal error and how many times did the computer made a mistake. The latter is now 1 (for 2009 that is) . The amount of times a computer corrected a pilot from a fatal error we will probably never know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is not if we want to rely solely on computers during flying or not .
The question is how many times did a computer corrected a pilot from a fatal error and how many times did the computer made a mistake .
The latter is now 1 ( for 2009 that is ) .
The amount of times a computer corrected a pilot from a fatal error we will probably never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is not if we want to rely solely on computers during flying or not.
The question is how many times did a computer corrected a pilot from a fatal error and how many times did the computer made a mistake.
The latter is now 1 (for 2009 that is) .
The amount of times a computer corrected a pilot from a fatal error we will probably never know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262801</id>
	<title>Wisdom follows, pay attention!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244539860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop theorizing! It is a known fact that the Air France A330 met a violent end due to human evil. The 4 minutes of automated messaging exactly corresponds to the time it takes for a partially disintegrated airframe to hit the ocean from its original 10km cruising altitude. The loss of cabin pressure message says it all, the aircraft was forcibly breached.</p><p>Either it was a small, but lethal bomb which did not have enough yield to immediately pulverize the large airliner or a jihad commando stormed the cockpit 9/11 style and started sabotaging the equipment. (Missile attack is a remote possibility, because the kind of massive naval SAM missile that can reach a plane flying over 10km high requires at least a frigate or even a destroyer to carry it. That is a larger sized warship which would be easily spotted to be near the A-330 disappearance area. Submarines can carry only MANPADS style air interceptor missiles that cannot reach over 3-4km high.)</p><p>Anyhow, the fact that pilots did not say a single "uh, but..." on the radio during those 4 minutes of automatic transmissions shows that there were no alive or at least conscious humans onboard. That is not something that happens accidentally to an otherwise problem-free airliner.</p><p>The handwaving contest about computer failure which is currently going on in the media is a mere facade to keep up good morals until Obama's european D-Day tour ends. The politicians will then admit to the terrorism scenario and fiscally compensate Airbus EADS Corp. for the face loss it suffered due to the fraudulent accusations of computer failure. Airbus will also be allowed to sell the A-330 tankers to the USAF as a damages award. That is why Airbus is currently cooperating with the computer and pitot-tube bashing choir.</p><p>Currently it is not possible to officially admit the terror scenario, because it would be a PR disaster for Obama and euro politicians. All the orwellian flight security measures since 9/11 are obviously worth nil if a bomb could get onboard that A330 or a kamikaze warrior cohort was able to walk on pretending to be innocent passengers and take over the plane in-flight.</p><p>If you think Airbus A-330 is a bad plane, you are stupid! An A-330 holds the world record for soarplane flight, a few years ago it lost all fuel over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean due to a faulty engine repair job and the silly arrogance of its pilots, who ignored over one hour of ever-escalating computer warnings. Luckily as soon as the plane fell totally silent, the pilots owned up to their mistake and glided the large airliner to a safe airstrip landing on the Azores, hundreds of kilometers travelled on zero power, except for a small windmill generator that gave electricity to a few instruments and a limited set of flight control surfaces. Yes, they were totally lucky, but the precise glide path calculation to allow airstrip landing instead of swim was achived by the on-board Airbus flight computer.</p><p>The A-330 is also well-liked by militaries, who use it as a multi-purpose troop transport, cargo freight and in-flight refueling aircraft. It has a very strong wing, originally designed for 2x2 jet turbines (the A-340 version), but ended up having only 2x1 due to advances in engine manufacture. In military service the empty 2x1 outer pylon locations were used to attach the large inflight refuel tube gondolas to the A-330, without any loss of structural strenght, which is unique. The A-330 plane is smart, reliable, versatile and requires few manhours to keep it running. It is about 15-20 years more advanced than the B-767, which Boeing Corp. offered for the USAF refuel plane competition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop theorizing !
It is a known fact that the Air France A330 met a violent end due to human evil .
The 4 minutes of automated messaging exactly corresponds to the time it takes for a partially disintegrated airframe to hit the ocean from its original 10km cruising altitude .
The loss of cabin pressure message says it all , the aircraft was forcibly breached.Either it was a small , but lethal bomb which did not have enough yield to immediately pulverize the large airliner or a jihad commando stormed the cockpit 9/11 style and started sabotaging the equipment .
( Missile attack is a remote possibility , because the kind of massive naval SAM missile that can reach a plane flying over 10km high requires at least a frigate or even a destroyer to carry it .
That is a larger sized warship which would be easily spotted to be near the A-330 disappearance area .
Submarines can carry only MANPADS style air interceptor missiles that can not reach over 3-4km high .
) Anyhow , the fact that pilots did not say a single " uh , but... " on the radio during those 4 minutes of automatic transmissions shows that there were no alive or at least conscious humans onboard .
That is not something that happens accidentally to an otherwise problem-free airliner.The handwaving contest about computer failure which is currently going on in the media is a mere facade to keep up good morals until Obama 's european D-Day tour ends .
The politicians will then admit to the terrorism scenario and fiscally compensate Airbus EADS Corp. for the face loss it suffered due to the fraudulent accusations of computer failure .
Airbus will also be allowed to sell the A-330 tankers to the USAF as a damages award .
That is why Airbus is currently cooperating with the computer and pitot-tube bashing choir.Currently it is not possible to officially admit the terror scenario , because it would be a PR disaster for Obama and euro politicians .
All the orwellian flight security measures since 9/11 are obviously worth nil if a bomb could get onboard that A330 or a kamikaze warrior cohort was able to walk on pretending to be innocent passengers and take over the plane in-flight.If you think Airbus A-330 is a bad plane , you are stupid !
An A-330 holds the world record for soarplane flight , a few years ago it lost all fuel over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean due to a faulty engine repair job and the silly arrogance of its pilots , who ignored over one hour of ever-escalating computer warnings .
Luckily as soon as the plane fell totally silent , the pilots owned up to their mistake and glided the large airliner to a safe airstrip landing on the Azores , hundreds of kilometers travelled on zero power , except for a small windmill generator that gave electricity to a few instruments and a limited set of flight control surfaces .
Yes , they were totally lucky , but the precise glide path calculation to allow airstrip landing instead of swim was achived by the on-board Airbus flight computer.The A-330 is also well-liked by militaries , who use it as a multi-purpose troop transport , cargo freight and in-flight refueling aircraft .
It has a very strong wing , originally designed for 2x2 jet turbines ( the A-340 version ) , but ended up having only 2x1 due to advances in engine manufacture .
In military service the empty 2x1 outer pylon locations were used to attach the large inflight refuel tube gondolas to the A-330 , without any loss of structural strenght , which is unique .
The A-330 plane is smart , reliable , versatile and requires few manhours to keep it running .
It is about 15-20 years more advanced than the B-767 , which Boeing Corp. offered for the USAF refuel plane competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop theorizing!
It is a known fact that the Air France A330 met a violent end due to human evil.
The 4 minutes of automated messaging exactly corresponds to the time it takes for a partially disintegrated airframe to hit the ocean from its original 10km cruising altitude.
The loss of cabin pressure message says it all, the aircraft was forcibly breached.Either it was a small, but lethal bomb which did not have enough yield to immediately pulverize the large airliner or a jihad commando stormed the cockpit 9/11 style and started sabotaging the equipment.
(Missile attack is a remote possibility, because the kind of massive naval SAM missile that can reach a plane flying over 10km high requires at least a frigate or even a destroyer to carry it.
That is a larger sized warship which would be easily spotted to be near the A-330 disappearance area.
Submarines can carry only MANPADS style air interceptor missiles that cannot reach over 3-4km high.
)Anyhow, the fact that pilots did not say a single "uh, but..." on the radio during those 4 minutes of automatic transmissions shows that there were no alive or at least conscious humans onboard.
That is not something that happens accidentally to an otherwise problem-free airliner.The handwaving contest about computer failure which is currently going on in the media is a mere facade to keep up good morals until Obama's european D-Day tour ends.
The politicians will then admit to the terrorism scenario and fiscally compensate Airbus EADS Corp. for the face loss it suffered due to the fraudulent accusations of computer failure.
Airbus will also be allowed to sell the A-330 tankers to the USAF as a damages award.
That is why Airbus is currently cooperating with the computer and pitot-tube bashing choir.Currently it is not possible to officially admit the terror scenario, because it would be a PR disaster for Obama and euro politicians.
All the orwellian flight security measures since 9/11 are obviously worth nil if a bomb could get onboard that A330 or a kamikaze warrior cohort was able to walk on pretending to be innocent passengers and take over the plane in-flight.If you think Airbus A-330 is a bad plane, you are stupid!
An A-330 holds the world record for soarplane flight, a few years ago it lost all fuel over the middle of the Atlantic Ocean due to a faulty engine repair job and the silly arrogance of its pilots, who ignored over one hour of ever-escalating computer warnings.
Luckily as soon as the plane fell totally silent, the pilots owned up to their mistake and glided the large airliner to a safe airstrip landing on the Azores, hundreds of kilometers travelled on zero power, except for a small windmill generator that gave electricity to a few instruments and a limited set of flight control surfaces.
Yes, they were totally lucky, but the precise glide path calculation to allow airstrip landing instead of swim was achived by the on-board Airbus flight computer.The A-330 is also well-liked by militaries, who use it as a multi-purpose troop transport, cargo freight and in-flight refueling aircraft.
It has a very strong wing, originally designed for 2x2 jet turbines (the A-340 version), but ended up having only 2x1 due to advances in engine manufacture.
In military service the empty 2x1 outer pylon locations were used to attach the large inflight refuel tube gondolas to the A-330, without any loss of structural strenght, which is unique.
The A-330 plane is smart, reliable, versatile and requires few manhours to keep it running.
It is about 15-20 years more advanced than the B-767, which Boeing Corp. offered for the USAF refuel plane competition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262757</id>
	<title>autopilot disengage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244539380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengaged</p></div><p>Why do autopilots ever disengage?</p><p>Isn't it better to have the autopilot scream "I can't figure this out, please take over", but still try to do what best it can, until the pilot presses the disengage button, instead of just throwing the towel in the ring, leaving the controls to an unprepared pilot?</p><p>Also, if I rember correctly, the Continental flight that crashed in Buffalo on the 12th of February was being overiced, so the autopilot applied more and more correction was being applied until the ap disengaged, leaving the plane to an unprepared pilot. Shouldn't the ap be able to analyze and warn for this? "Hey pilot, I have to pull more and more in this stick, something must be wrong. Is there a condor on left wing perhaps?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengagedWhy do autopilots ever disengage ? Is n't it better to have the autopilot scream " I ca n't figure this out , please take over " , but still try to do what best it can , until the pilot presses the disengage button , instead of just throwing the towel in the ring , leaving the controls to an unprepared pilot ? Also , if I rember correctly , the Continental flight that crashed in Buffalo on the 12th of February was being overiced , so the autopilot applied more and more correction was being applied until the ap disengaged , leaving the plane to an unprepared pilot .
Should n't the ap be able to analyze and warn for this ?
" Hey pilot , I have to pull more and more in this stick , something must be wrong .
Is there a condor on left wing perhaps ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengagedWhy do autopilots ever disengage?Isn't it better to have the autopilot scream "I can't figure this out, please take over", but still try to do what best it can, until the pilot presses the disengage button, instead of just throwing the towel in the ring, leaving the controls to an unprepared pilot?Also, if I rember correctly, the Continental flight that crashed in Buffalo on the 12th of February was being overiced, so the autopilot applied more and more correction was being applied until the ap disengaged, leaving the plane to an unprepared pilot.
Shouldn't the ap be able to analyze and warn for this?
"Hey pilot, I have to pull more and more in this stick, something must be wrong.
Is there a condor on left wing perhaps?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264225</id>
	<title>Computer pilot inaugural flight</title>
	<author>rcastro0</author>
	<datestamp>1244555580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome onboard. This is ZX8200-C, your capitain, speaking. Let me congratulate you for being here. This flight marks the beginning of new era in the history of aviation. For the first time, a commercial airplane has no human pilots. This plane will take off, travel to its destination, and land entirelly guided by me, an advanced computer completely free from human error. We are just about to begin our trip. All the doors are sealed, and we are positioning the plane for take off. Drinks will be served shorthly after reaching cruise speed. So please make sure your seats are in the upright position, fasten your seatbelts, relax and enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ladies and Gentlemen , welcome onboard .
This is ZX8200-C , your capitain , speaking .
Let me congratulate you for being here .
This flight marks the beginning of new era in the history of aviation .
For the first time , a commercial airplane has no human pilots .
This plane will take off , travel to its destination , and land entirelly guided by me , an advanced computer completely free from human error .
We are just about to begin our trip .
All the doors are sealed , and we are positioning the plane for take off .
Drinks will be served shorthly after reaching cruise speed .
So please make sure your seats are in the upright position , fasten your seatbelts , relax and enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome onboard.
This is ZX8200-C, your capitain, speaking.
Let me congratulate you for being here.
This flight marks the beginning of new era in the history of aviation.
For the first time, a commercial airplane has no human pilots.
This plane will take off, travel to its destination, and land entirelly guided by me, an advanced computer completely free from human error.
We are just about to begin our trip.
All the doors are sealed, and we are positioning the plane for take off.
Drinks will be served shorthly after reaching cruise speed.
So please make sure your seats are in the upright position, fasten your seatbelts, relax and enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight... enjoy your flight..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262665</id>
	<title>It's worth noting...</title>
	<author>Chris Snook</author>
	<datestamp>1244538360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...that Airbus goes to the extreme effort of formally verifying code used in flight control systems.  Theoretically, this should make the software as close to infallible as anything else on the aircraft.  Unfortunately, as the airspeed indicator defect on the A330 demonstrates, a computer program, however perfect, is only as reliable as the data it receives.  If the flight data recorders are ever recovered, it will be interesting to see if the computer system entered a "should never happen" codepath.  Based on the error messages that were transmitted before the crash, it appears that the instruments were indeed reporting inaccurate information, though it's quite possible that that's simply a result of the same extreme conditions that caused a completely independent failure, rather than a cause of a failure cascade.  At the very least, confusion in the cockpit is never good, regardless of how much ability the pilots have to override the computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...that Airbus goes to the extreme effort of formally verifying code used in flight control systems .
Theoretically , this should make the software as close to infallible as anything else on the aircraft .
Unfortunately , as the airspeed indicator defect on the A330 demonstrates , a computer program , however perfect , is only as reliable as the data it receives .
If the flight data recorders are ever recovered , it will be interesting to see if the computer system entered a " should never happen " codepath .
Based on the error messages that were transmitted before the crash , it appears that the instruments were indeed reporting inaccurate information , though it 's quite possible that that 's simply a result of the same extreme conditions that caused a completely independent failure , rather than a cause of a failure cascade .
At the very least , confusion in the cockpit is never good , regardless of how much ability the pilots have to override the computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that Airbus goes to the extreme effort of formally verifying code used in flight control systems.
Theoretically, this should make the software as close to infallible as anything else on the aircraft.
Unfortunately, as the airspeed indicator defect on the A330 demonstrates, a computer program, however perfect, is only as reliable as the data it receives.
If the flight data recorders are ever recovered, it will be interesting to see if the computer system entered a "should never happen" codepath.
Based on the error messages that were transmitted before the crash, it appears that the instruments were indeed reporting inaccurate information, though it's quite possible that that's simply a result of the same extreme conditions that caused a completely independent failure, rather than a cause of a failure cascade.
At the very least, confusion in the cockpit is never good, regardless of how much ability the pilots have to override the computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260819</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is completely true - the computer in the Airbus can not override the pilot. After the computers overrode the pilot's input at the Paris Air Show, causing the airplane to crash, Airbus added a mode called "direct law" that allows the pilot absolute control over the aircraft. There are several different flight control laws, depending on which of the three redundant flight computers are in operation, and in what mode:</p><p>Normal Law - computer prevents pilot from excessive pitch or bank, excessive speed, stall from insufficient speed, excessive load factor, and augments yaw (rudder) control.</p><p>Alternate Law - Aids in low and high speed stability, and excessive load factor, as well as yaw damping.</p><p>Abnormal Alternate Law - yaw damping and excessive load factor protection only</p><p>Direct Law - No protection, pilot can do anything they want</p><p>Disclaimer: I am a commercial pilot, but I am not an Airbus pilot. I have studied Airbus systems, and have about 10 hours of A320 (full motion) simulator time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is completely true - the computer in the Airbus can not override the pilot .
After the computers overrode the pilot 's input at the Paris Air Show , causing the airplane to crash , Airbus added a mode called " direct law " that allows the pilot absolute control over the aircraft .
There are several different flight control laws , depending on which of the three redundant flight computers are in operation , and in what mode : Normal Law - computer prevents pilot from excessive pitch or bank , excessive speed , stall from insufficient speed , excessive load factor , and augments yaw ( rudder ) control.Alternate Law - Aids in low and high speed stability , and excessive load factor , as well as yaw damping.Abnormal Alternate Law - yaw damping and excessive load factor protection onlyDirect Law - No protection , pilot can do anything they wantDisclaimer : I am a commercial pilot , but I am not an Airbus pilot .
I have studied Airbus systems , and have about 10 hours of A320 ( full motion ) simulator time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is completely true - the computer in the Airbus can not override the pilot.
After the computers overrode the pilot's input at the Paris Air Show, causing the airplane to crash, Airbus added a mode called "direct law" that allows the pilot absolute control over the aircraft.
There are several different flight control laws, depending on which of the three redundant flight computers are in operation, and in what mode:Normal Law - computer prevents pilot from excessive pitch or bank, excessive speed, stall from insufficient speed, excessive load factor, and augments yaw (rudder) control.Alternate Law - Aids in low and high speed stability, and excessive load factor, as well as yaw damping.Abnormal Alternate Law - yaw damping and excessive load factor protection onlyDirect Law - No protection, pilot can do anything they wantDisclaimer: I am a commercial pilot, but I am not an Airbus pilot.
I have studied Airbus systems, and have about 10 hours of A320 (full motion) simulator time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260465</id>
	<title>What really scares me?</title>
	<author>really\_irish\_man</author>
	<datestamp>1244475060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's silly to argue whether or not computers or people are better in a crisis.  To say that a computer can multitask and process more information is an incredibly gross understatement. However note that the general rule of thumb in aviation is to blame the pilot as, in theory, they should have been able to recover from nearly all of the problems

What scares me is does the pilot ever have the option of overriding what the computer thinks it knows?  For example, UA 232 where the bird lost all hydraulics.  There are situations where the software may overreact if it can't assess what exactly is wrong.  Garbage in, garbage out.  Not allowing the pilot to try something that is unorthodox seems foolish.  Keep in mind pilots receive as much training or more training than a surgeon, fortunately their highly trained emergency skills are rarely needed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's silly to argue whether or not computers or people are better in a crisis .
To say that a computer can multitask and process more information is an incredibly gross understatement .
However note that the general rule of thumb in aviation is to blame the pilot as , in theory , they should have been able to recover from nearly all of the problems What scares me is does the pilot ever have the option of overriding what the computer thinks it knows ?
For example , UA 232 where the bird lost all hydraulics .
There are situations where the software may overreact if it ca n't assess what exactly is wrong .
Garbage in , garbage out .
Not allowing the pilot to try something that is unorthodox seems foolish .
Keep in mind pilots receive as much training or more training than a surgeon , fortunately their highly trained emergency skills are rarely needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's silly to argue whether or not computers or people are better in a crisis.
To say that a computer can multitask and process more information is an incredibly gross understatement.
However note that the general rule of thumb in aviation is to blame the pilot as, in theory, they should have been able to recover from nearly all of the problems

What scares me is does the pilot ever have the option of overriding what the computer thinks it knows?
For example, UA 232 where the bird lost all hydraulics.
There are situations where the software may overreact if it can't assess what exactly is wrong.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Not allowing the pilot to try something that is unorthodox seems foolish.
Keep in mind pilots receive as much training or more training than a surgeon, fortunately their highly trained emergency skills are rarely needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260453</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1244474940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the Wikipedia link you cite, Flight 1549 *was* an Airbus A320-214.</p><p>One thing I do recall from a few years ago when I used to commute past LAX was an Airbus with some kind of problem circling for hours to burn off fuel before making a landing because it had no capacity to manually dump the fuel, as a Boeing does.  Good thing they had the time luxury to do that, even though the landing was successful and without risk of fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the Wikipedia link you cite , Flight 1549 * was * an Airbus A320-214.One thing I do recall from a few years ago when I used to commute past LAX was an Airbus with some kind of problem circling for hours to burn off fuel before making a landing because it had no capacity to manually dump the fuel , as a Boeing does .
Good thing they had the time luxury to do that , even though the landing was successful and without risk of fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the Wikipedia link you cite, Flight 1549 *was* an Airbus A320-214.One thing I do recall from a few years ago when I used to commute past LAX was an Airbus with some kind of problem circling for hours to burn off fuel before making a landing because it had no capacity to manually dump the fuel, as a Boeing does.
Good thing they had the time luxury to do that, even though the landing was successful and without risk of fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263367</id>
	<title>FUD from boing, that's all.</title>
	<author>Jump</author>
	<datestamp>1244547060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't know if your pilot today is battle proven, don't you? Having the option to take control from the computer, however, should be possible. I can't believe airbus isn't doing this. The news claims, the autopilot was turned off - so this means human control, no? I'm rather more concerned about having no backup radar on board. It seems strange, that only one radar is there, while a second radar could be in a less exposed position (being less useful for that reason, but for backup purposes).</p><p>It seems somebody is spreading FUD against airbus, and that's something which doesn't surprise me at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't know if your pilot today is battle proven , do n't you ?
Having the option to take control from the computer , however , should be possible .
I ca n't believe airbus is n't doing this .
The news claims , the autopilot was turned off - so this means human control , no ?
I 'm rather more concerned about having no backup radar on board .
It seems strange , that only one radar is there , while a second radar could be in a less exposed position ( being less useful for that reason , but for backup purposes ) .It seems somebody is spreading FUD against airbus , and that 's something which does n't surprise me at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't know if your pilot today is battle proven, don't you?
Having the option to take control from the computer, however, should be possible.
I can't believe airbus isn't doing this.
The news claims, the autopilot was turned off - so this means human control, no?
I'm rather more concerned about having no backup radar on board.
It seems strange, that only one radar is there, while a second radar could be in a less exposed position (being less useful for that reason, but for backup purposes).It seems somebody is spreading FUD against airbus, and that's something which doesn't surprise me at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263583</id>
	<title>Avionics Development</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244549700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a former real-time flight control software developer, I can say that letting the pilot fly the plan is the only possible choice.</p><p>There are circumstances that where it is impossible for the programmers and requirements writers to have guess could occur and program for every possible situation.  Autopilots have "modes" and once in a mode, they do their best to do whatever that mode's purpose is regardless of the pilot inputs.</p><p>Humans tend to forget modes and just grab the yoke or throttles under unusual circumstances to fly the plane and forget what mode they are in. We know this.  Why some companies decided to ignore this is a different question.  Computers are almost always more fuel efficient than humans and the cost of fuel is 3x the cost of the aircraft over the lifespan.</p><p>As a flight software developer, I know that I'm not in the plane. The guys in the cockpit have their lives and the lives of everyone else aboard. They want to do the best job they can, especially during an emergency. I want my software to all them to do it.  It is like the old breakfast/committed joke.  I'm the chicken providing eggs, but the pilot is like the pig providing ham. He is committed, while I care just a little.</p><p>BTW, the Hudson river crash was an Airbus A320, so pilots can manipulate the aircraft "mode" to perform their intention. They just have to think "mode" for what they are trying to accomplish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former real-time flight control software developer , I can say that letting the pilot fly the plan is the only possible choice.There are circumstances that where it is impossible for the programmers and requirements writers to have guess could occur and program for every possible situation .
Autopilots have " modes " and once in a mode , they do their best to do whatever that mode 's purpose is regardless of the pilot inputs.Humans tend to forget modes and just grab the yoke or throttles under unusual circumstances to fly the plane and forget what mode they are in .
We know this .
Why some companies decided to ignore this is a different question .
Computers are almost always more fuel efficient than humans and the cost of fuel is 3x the cost of the aircraft over the lifespan.As a flight software developer , I know that I 'm not in the plane .
The guys in the cockpit have their lives and the lives of everyone else aboard .
They want to do the best job they can , especially during an emergency .
I want my software to all them to do it .
It is like the old breakfast/committed joke .
I 'm the chicken providing eggs , but the pilot is like the pig providing ham .
He is committed , while I care just a little.BTW , the Hudson river crash was an Airbus A320 , so pilots can manipulate the aircraft " mode " to perform their intention .
They just have to think " mode " for what they are trying to accomplish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former real-time flight control software developer, I can say that letting the pilot fly the plan is the only possible choice.There are circumstances that where it is impossible for the programmers and requirements writers to have guess could occur and program for every possible situation.
Autopilots have "modes" and once in a mode, they do their best to do whatever that mode's purpose is regardless of the pilot inputs.Humans tend to forget modes and just grab the yoke or throttles under unusual circumstances to fly the plane and forget what mode they are in.
We know this.
Why some companies decided to ignore this is a different question.
Computers are almost always more fuel efficient than humans and the cost of fuel is 3x the cost of the aircraft over the lifespan.As a flight software developer, I know that I'm not in the plane.
The guys in the cockpit have their lives and the lives of everyone else aboard.
They want to do the best job they can, especially during an emergency.
I want my software to all them to do it.
It is like the old breakfast/committed joke.
I'm the chicken providing eggs, but the pilot is like the pig providing ham.
He is committed, while I care just a little.BTW, the Hudson river crash was an Airbus A320, so pilots can manipulate the aircraft "mode" to perform their intention.
They just have to think "mode" for what they are trying to accomplish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261661</id>
	<title>right now, nothing is well established</title>
	<author>theycallmeB</author>
	<datestamp>1244483700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>And the article author and the summary are both full of it.
<br> <br>
Perhaps not the most diplomatic response, but it is true enough.
<br> <br>
First, there is absolutely nothing conclusive to say about Air France 447 at this point other than it did indeed crash (thus ruling out alien abduction and time travel). There are no conclusions, or even anything that could really be called a theory, just guesses and hunches ranging from informed to wild-arsed. At this point, nobody can even be certain as to whether the mismatches in indicated airspeed happened before or after the aircraft started to break up. As WAG level example, if lightning had damaged the radome at the nose of the aircraft (has been known to happen), then the three pitot probes could report different velocities not because the probes failed, but rather because to aircraft no longer conforms to the aerodynamic profile the pitot probes are calibrated for.
<br> <br>
Also, the difference between Boeing and Airbus is not as stark as the author would like to think. On both manufacturers' most recent aircraft, in normal flight the computers will automatically do a variety of nifty things (like auto-mixing the use aileron/rudder inputs, vertical gust load alleviation, etc, to increase efficiency and comfort) in ways entirely transparent to the crew. The differences are at the extreme limits of the flight control laws. There, if the pilots pull on the controls hard enough, a Boeing plane should accept the input even when the computer thinks the input will cause permanent, or even fatal, damage to the aircraft (it will warn the crew, loudly). An Airbus plane will limit the input so as to avoid such damage (and notify the crew it is doing so). There are legitimate arguments for both configurations, and America vs Europe has nothing to do with it (old dog vs new pup might, if you could go so far as to call Airbus a new pup). At the extreme limits it is not a matter of ingenuity versus information, but more of protecting what you have left right now (an unbroken airplane in danger of crashing), or allowing risks that might let you get to a better place (a damaged, but perhaps un-crashed (for now) airplane).
<br> <br>
In either case, by the time a flight crew encounters the philosophical differences between Boeing's and Airbus' respective control laws, they are already frakked, and in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
<br> <br>
In both cases, part of the flight computers programming is there to monitor itself, and its sensors, for failures that would compromise its function. In a situation where the airspeed indicators no longer agree with each other, the computer should automatically reduce any limiting role it has because the computers' input data is no longer reliable. And as current commercial airliners are reasonably stable in the aerodynamic sense, they can continue to fly even in the event of a total computer failure. Look carefully at cockpit pictures of the shiny new Airbus A380 and you will see a small cluster of old fashioned instruments amongst all the flat panel displays. The computer can fail, and of all the things on an airliner, the computer is the item most aware of this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the article author and the summary are both full of it .
Perhaps not the most diplomatic response , but it is true enough .
First , there is absolutely nothing conclusive to say about Air France 447 at this point other than it did indeed crash ( thus ruling out alien abduction and time travel ) .
There are no conclusions , or even anything that could really be called a theory , just guesses and hunches ranging from informed to wild-arsed .
At this point , nobody can even be certain as to whether the mismatches in indicated airspeed happened before or after the aircraft started to break up .
As WAG level example , if lightning had damaged the radome at the nose of the aircraft ( has been known to happen ) , then the three pitot probes could report different velocities not because the probes failed , but rather because to aircraft no longer conforms to the aerodynamic profile the pitot probes are calibrated for .
Also , the difference between Boeing and Airbus is not as stark as the author would like to think .
On both manufacturers ' most recent aircraft , in normal flight the computers will automatically do a variety of nifty things ( like auto-mixing the use aileron/rudder inputs , vertical gust load alleviation , etc , to increase efficiency and comfort ) in ways entirely transparent to the crew .
The differences are at the extreme limits of the flight control laws .
There , if the pilots pull on the controls hard enough , a Boeing plane should accept the input even when the computer thinks the input will cause permanent , or even fatal , damage to the aircraft ( it will warn the crew , loudly ) .
An Airbus plane will limit the input so as to avoid such damage ( and notify the crew it is doing so ) .
There are legitimate arguments for both configurations , and America vs Europe has nothing to do with it ( old dog vs new pup might , if you could go so far as to call Airbus a new pup ) .
At the extreme limits it is not a matter of ingenuity versus information , but more of protecting what you have left right now ( an unbroken airplane in danger of crashing ) , or allowing risks that might let you get to a better place ( a damaged , but perhaps un-crashed ( for now ) airplane ) .
In either case , by the time a flight crew encounters the philosophical differences between Boeing 's and Airbus ' respective control laws , they are already frakked , and in a damned if you do , damned if you do n't scenario .
In both cases , part of the flight computers programming is there to monitor itself , and its sensors , for failures that would compromise its function .
In a situation where the airspeed indicators no longer agree with each other , the computer should automatically reduce any limiting role it has because the computers ' input data is no longer reliable .
And as current commercial airliners are reasonably stable in the aerodynamic sense , they can continue to fly even in the event of a total computer failure .
Look carefully at cockpit pictures of the shiny new Airbus A380 and you will see a small cluster of old fashioned instruments amongst all the flat panel displays .
The computer can fail , and of all the things on an airliner , the computer is the item most aware of this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the article author and the summary are both full of it.
Perhaps not the most diplomatic response, but it is true enough.
First, there is absolutely nothing conclusive to say about Air France 447 at this point other than it did indeed crash (thus ruling out alien abduction and time travel).
There are no conclusions, or even anything that could really be called a theory, just guesses and hunches ranging from informed to wild-arsed.
At this point, nobody can even be certain as to whether the mismatches in indicated airspeed happened before or after the aircraft started to break up.
As WAG level example, if lightning had damaged the radome at the nose of the aircraft (has been known to happen), then the three pitot probes could report different velocities not because the probes failed, but rather because to aircraft no longer conforms to the aerodynamic profile the pitot probes are calibrated for.
Also, the difference between Boeing and Airbus is not as stark as the author would like to think.
On both manufacturers' most recent aircraft, in normal flight the computers will automatically do a variety of nifty things (like auto-mixing the use aileron/rudder inputs, vertical gust load alleviation, etc, to increase efficiency and comfort) in ways entirely transparent to the crew.
The differences are at the extreme limits of the flight control laws.
There, if the pilots pull on the controls hard enough, a Boeing plane should accept the input even when the computer thinks the input will cause permanent, or even fatal, damage to the aircraft (it will warn the crew, loudly).
An Airbus plane will limit the input so as to avoid such damage (and notify the crew it is doing so).
There are legitimate arguments for both configurations, and America vs Europe has nothing to do with it (old dog vs new pup might, if you could go so far as to call Airbus a new pup).
At the extreme limits it is not a matter of ingenuity versus information, but more of protecting what you have left right now (an unbroken airplane in danger of crashing), or allowing risks that might let you get to a better place (a damaged, but perhaps un-crashed (for now) airplane).
In either case, by the time a flight crew encounters the philosophical differences between Boeing's and Airbus' respective control laws, they are already frakked, and in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
In both cases, part of the flight computers programming is there to monitor itself, and its sensors, for failures that would compromise its function.
In a situation where the airspeed indicators no longer agree with each other, the computer should automatically reduce any limiting role it has because the computers' input data is no longer reliable.
And as current commercial airliners are reasonably stable in the aerodynamic sense, they can continue to fly even in the event of a total computer failure.
Look carefully at cockpit pictures of the shiny new Airbus A380 and you will see a small cluster of old fashioned instruments amongst all the flat panel displays.
The computer can fail, and of all the things on an airliner, the computer is the item most aware of this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28273315</id>
	<title>Submitting DRs to the autopilot developers?</title>
	<author>GPS Pilot</author>
	<datestamp>1244552160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you encountered these flakey autopilot behaviors, did you submit a DR to the aircraft manufacturer?  Is it even possible for a pilot to do this?  Or are there hundreds of pilots independently discovering these flakey behaviors -- with no formal mechanism for submitting feedback to the manufacturer and getting the problem corrected?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you encountered these flakey autopilot behaviors , did you submit a DR to the aircraft manufacturer ?
Is it even possible for a pilot to do this ?
Or are there hundreds of pilots independently discovering these flakey behaviors -- with no formal mechanism for submitting feedback to the manufacturer and getting the problem corrected ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you encountered these flakey autopilot behaviors, did you submit a DR to the aircraft manufacturer?
Is it even possible for a pilot to do this?
Or are there hundreds of pilots independently discovering these flakey behaviors -- with no formal mechanism for submitting feedback to the manufacturer and getting the problem corrected?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260285</id>
	<title>ok, so thats The Big two</title>
	<author>mikerubin</author>
	<datestamp>1244474220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do Embraer,Saab, DeHaviland and Bombardier (others? Sorry) do in those situations?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do Embraer,Saab , DeHaviland and Bombardier ( others ?
Sorry ) do in those situations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do Embraer,Saab, DeHaviland and Bombardier (others?
Sorry) do in those situations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28268023</id>
	<title>Crash?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244571240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For everyone claiming you can always control the Airbus manually, take a look at this video (plane didn't respond to throttle inputs):</p><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU</p><p>It's nice that it has the "laws" it "obeys", but what happens when there's a software bug? Don't assume the logic behind the "laws" is infallible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For everyone claiming you can always control the Airbus manually , take a look at this video ( plane did n't respond to throttle inputs ) : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = -kHa3WNerjUIt 's nice that it has the " laws " it " obeys " , but what happens when there 's a software bug ?
Do n't assume the logic behind the " laws " is infallible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For everyone claiming you can always control the Airbus manually, take a look at this video (plane didn't respond to throttle inputs):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjUIt's nice that it has the "laws" it "obeys", but what happens when there's a software bug?
Don't assume the logic behind the "laws" is infallible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260667</id>
	<title>you can already choose planes if you want</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1244476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary says,</p><blockquote><div><p>As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.</p></div></blockquote><p>But you can already do this yourself, without the self-serving drama of asking while on the plane and then deplaning in some big show. Nearly all airlines show which equipment will be serving your flight prior to purchase. You can look up information on that model of airliner, and choose not to buy the ticket if its properties aren't in accord with your preferences. People do this for all sorts of reasons already, like "god i really hate 737s".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary says,As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer.But you can already do this yourself , without the self-serving drama of asking while on the plane and then deplaning in some big show .
Nearly all airlines show which equipment will be serving your flight prior to purchase .
You can look up information on that model of airliner , and choose not to buy the ticket if its properties are n't in accord with your preferences .
People do this for all sorts of reasons already , like " god i really hate 737s " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary says,As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.But you can already do this yourself, without the self-serving drama of asking while on the plane and then deplaning in some big show.
Nearly all airlines show which equipment will be serving your flight prior to purchase.
You can look up information on that model of airliner, and choose not to buy the ticket if its properties aren't in accord with your preferences.
People do this for all sorts of reasons already, like "god i really hate 737s".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263625</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244550240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suggest you read the stuff above about how Airbus FBW gradually degrades its controls until you get full manual FBW.  It's got references and everything, rather than opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suggest you read the stuff above about how Airbus FBW gradually degrades its controls until you get full manual FBW .
It 's got references and everything , rather than opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suggest you read the stuff above about how Airbus FBW gradually degrades its controls until you get full manual FBW.
It's got references and everything, rather than opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262247</id>
	<title>Computers on a plane</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244490120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is an alternative summary of TFA:</p><p>"I have had it with these motherfucking computers on the motherfucking plane!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an alternative summary of TFA : " I have had it with these motherfucking computers on the motherfucking plane !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an alternative summary of TFA:"I have had it with these motherfucking computers on the motherfucking plane!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260973</id>
	<title>Are they complaining about controls or autopilot?</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1244477640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IANAAE, but, in my understanding, fly-by-wire != autopilot.<br>
Fly-by-wire means electronic controls as opposed to hydraulic or other mechanical controls.<br>  There would often be more sophisticated algorithms using digitally-connected controls to create an output to the planes engines, elevators, rudder, ailerons,etc. from manual inputs stick, etc.) rather than using hydraulics.  But that is not the same as saying you can't turn autopilot off in an emergency. <br> For example, a stealth fighter is unstable and so must be controlled using computer algorithms. But the pilot still uses manual controls to maneuver. The digital systems take care of making sure the plane does what the pilot wants it to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAAE , but , in my understanding , fly-by-wire ! = autopilot .
Fly-by-wire means electronic controls as opposed to hydraulic or other mechanical controls .
There would often be more sophisticated algorithms using digitally-connected controls to create an output to the planes engines , elevators , rudder , ailerons,etc .
from manual inputs stick , etc .
) rather than using hydraulics .
But that is not the same as saying you ca n't turn autopilot off in an emergency .
For example , a stealth fighter is unstable and so must be controlled using computer algorithms .
But the pilot still uses manual controls to maneuver .
The digital systems take care of making sure the plane does what the pilot wants it to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAAE, but, in my understanding, fly-by-wire != autopilot.
Fly-by-wire means electronic controls as opposed to hydraulic or other mechanical controls.
There would often be more sophisticated algorithms using digitally-connected controls to create an output to the planes engines, elevators, rudder, ailerons,etc.
from manual inputs stick, etc.
) rather than using hydraulics.
But that is not the same as saying you can't turn autopilot off in an emergency.
For example, a stealth fighter is unstable and so must be controlled using computer algorithms.
But the pilot still uses manual controls to maneuver.
The digital systems take care of making sure the plane does what the pilot wants it to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471</id>
	<title>The article is a load of rubbish...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>American Aircraft don't always have manual overrides, and EU (UK, German, French) aircraft often don't lack it. In fact Airbus is its own company and as such follows its own principles as far as design goes. Right now they're designing their aircraft to be as simple as possible and want to eliminate a lot of the human element.</p><p>I don't agree with a lot of the discussions Airbus has made over the years:<br>
&nbsp; - Low strength materials in key areas<br>
&nbsp; - No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengaged<br>
&nbsp; - Less manual control in case of system failure</p><p>But then again Boeing has made some HUGE errors and has updated their 747 thousands of times to fix design flaws. People forget that not only is Boeing an older company but a lot of their aircraft designs are up to 40 years old and have been evolving constantly.</p><p>American Vs. EU is complete bs but whatever helps Americans sleep at night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>American Aircraft do n't always have manual overrides , and EU ( UK , German , French ) aircraft often do n't lack it .
In fact Airbus is its own company and as such follows its own principles as far as design goes .
Right now they 're designing their aircraft to be as simple as possible and want to eliminate a lot of the human element.I do n't agree with a lot of the discussions Airbus has made over the years :   - Low strength materials in key areas   - No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengaged   - Less manual control in case of system failureBut then again Boeing has made some HUGE errors and has updated their 747 thousands of times to fix design flaws .
People forget that not only is Boeing an older company but a lot of their aircraft designs are up to 40 years old and have been evolving constantly.American Vs. EU is complete bs but whatever helps Americans sleep at night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>American Aircraft don't always have manual overrides, and EU (UK, German, French) aircraft often don't lack it.
In fact Airbus is its own company and as such follows its own principles as far as design goes.
Right now they're designing their aircraft to be as simple as possible and want to eliminate a lot of the human element.I don't agree with a lot of the discussions Airbus has made over the years:
  - Low strength materials in key areas
  - No warning alarm when auto-pilot is disengaged
  - Less manual control in case of system failureBut then again Boeing has made some HUGE errors and has updated their 747 thousands of times to fix design flaws.
People forget that not only is Boeing an older company but a lot of their aircraft designs are up to 40 years old and have been evolving constantly.American Vs. EU is complete bs but whatever helps Americans sleep at night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28268225</id>
	<title>Re:Boeing vs. Airbus, not US vs. France</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1244571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aerospatiale is actually one of the Airbus consortium founders (as are all other defunct French aircraft manufacturers).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aerospatiale is actually one of the Airbus consortium founders ( as are all other defunct French aircraft manufacturers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aerospatiale is actually one of the Airbus consortium founders (as are all other defunct French aircraft manufacturers).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260495</id>
	<title>Compare the numbers...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1244475120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...of crashes due to computer error and pilot errors in crashes covered in episodes of Air Crash Investigations (Mayday).<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mayday\_episodes" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mayday\_episodes</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Hint: There were no crashes due to computer error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...of crashes due to computer error and pilot errors in crashes covered in episodes of Air Crash Investigations ( Mayday ) .http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _Mayday \ _episodes [ wikipedia.org ] Hint : There were no crashes due to computer error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of crashes due to computer error and pilot errors in crashes covered in episodes of Air Crash Investigations (Mayday).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mayday\_episodes [wikipedia.org]Hint: There were no crashes due to computer error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260423</id>
	<title>Human limits</title>
	<author>hcs\_$reboot</author>
	<datestamp>1244474820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since the AF crash was (likely) due to inaccurate speed sensors readings ([likely] being frozen), computers relying on systems being mistaken cannot take the right decisions.

Question is: are humans eyes able to assess the speed of their engine at such an altitude, with no visual landmark - avoiding the crash?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the AF crash was ( likely ) due to inaccurate speed sensors readings ( [ likely ] being frozen ) , computers relying on systems being mistaken can not take the right decisions .
Question is : are humans eyes able to assess the speed of their engine at such an altitude , with no visual landmark - avoiding the crash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the AF crash was (likely) due to inaccurate speed sensors readings ([likely] being frozen), computers relying on systems being mistaken cannot take the right decisions.
Question is: are humans eyes able to assess the speed of their engine at such an altitude, with no visual landmark - avoiding the crash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263843</id>
	<title>Anime is the answer</title>
	<author>Deathlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1244552640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best example I can give to this, I saw in the Anime Ex Driver.</p><p>For those who know nothing about this Anime, basically, it's about a society that has completely removed the human driver from the road. It works relatively good, except once in a while, the AI for these cars goes nuts and barrels down the road uncontrollably. The government then sends a group of teenage licenced stunt drivers to the scene that uses their driving skills and special weaponery to shoot EM Shilding compound to disable five points of the AI cars navigation system, once this is achieved, the car goes into a safe mode and gently pulls over to the side of the road.</p><p>on the other hand, If they designed the cars with a big red button in the Car that said "STOP" that was a hardwired to these five points, it would basicially do the same thing without the cost of special weaponery, stunt drivers with unreal marksman skills, or fast cars.</p><p>I could go on about how they had to close the entire city down and worry about people starving when a group of 5 rogue drivers use the cities highway system as their personal autobahn, but thats another story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best example I can give to this , I saw in the Anime Ex Driver.For those who know nothing about this Anime , basically , it 's about a society that has completely removed the human driver from the road .
It works relatively good , except once in a while , the AI for these cars goes nuts and barrels down the road uncontrollably .
The government then sends a group of teenage licenced stunt drivers to the scene that uses their driving skills and special weaponery to shoot EM Shilding compound to disable five points of the AI cars navigation system , once this is achieved , the car goes into a safe mode and gently pulls over to the side of the road.on the other hand , If they designed the cars with a big red button in the Car that said " STOP " that was a hardwired to these five points , it would basicially do the same thing without the cost of special weaponery , stunt drivers with unreal marksman skills , or fast cars.I could go on about how they had to close the entire city down and worry about people starving when a group of 5 rogue drivers use the cities highway system as their personal autobahn , but thats another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best example I can give to this, I saw in the Anime Ex Driver.For those who know nothing about this Anime, basically, it's about a society that has completely removed the human driver from the road.
It works relatively good, except once in a while, the AI for these cars goes nuts and barrels down the road uncontrollably.
The government then sends a group of teenage licenced stunt drivers to the scene that uses their driving skills and special weaponery to shoot EM Shilding compound to disable five points of the AI cars navigation system, once this is achieved, the car goes into a safe mode and gently pulls over to the side of the road.on the other hand, If they designed the cars with a big red button in the Car that said "STOP" that was a hardwired to these five points, it would basicially do the same thing without the cost of special weaponery, stunt drivers with unreal marksman skills, or fast cars.I could go on about how they had to close the entire city down and worry about people starving when a group of 5 rogue drivers use the cities highway system as their personal autobahn, but thats another story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28277463</id>
	<title>Re:something interesting about the airbus</title>
	<author>CyberDragon777</author>
	<datestamp>1244635200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube?</p></div><p>You mean a Faraday cage?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also there is too much use of composites in the Airbus planes... I am not sure they can stand abnormal stresses as well as metal alloys traditionally used.</p></div><p>If handling "abnormal stresses" is such an important factor, why isn't it part of the requirements?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube ? You mean a Faraday cage ? Also there is too much use of composites in the Airbus planes... I am not sure they can stand abnormal stresses as well as metal alloys traditionally used.If handling " abnormal stresses " is such an important factor , why is n't it part of the requirements ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many electric surges do you need to take out 3 computer systems in an aluminum tube?You mean a Faraday cage?Also there is too much use of composites in the Airbus planes... I am not sure they can stand abnormal stresses as well as metal alloys traditionally used.If handling "abnormal stresses" is such an important factor, why isn't it part of the requirements?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262941</id>
	<title>Reality Check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244541360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not true that the pilots hands are tied. Fly by wire means actuation commands are transmitted electronically instead of hydraulically or by cables. This might include some filtering of the control inputs, or a more complex mapping to control than would be possible otherwise, but it doesn't mean the computer is flying the plane! The plane is not permanently on autopilot, this would not be allowed or possible (e.g. landing cannot be done on auto-pilot). If a plane went down because of hydraulic failure you could make the exact opposite argument, which would also be laughably ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not true that the pilots hands are tied .
Fly by wire means actuation commands are transmitted electronically instead of hydraulically or by cables .
This might include some filtering of the control inputs , or a more complex mapping to control than would be possible otherwise , but it does n't mean the computer is flying the plane !
The plane is not permanently on autopilot , this would not be allowed or possible ( e.g .
landing can not be done on auto-pilot ) .
If a plane went down because of hydraulic failure you could make the exact opposite argument , which would also be laughably ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not true that the pilots hands are tied.
Fly by wire means actuation commands are transmitted electronically instead of hydraulically or by cables.
This might include some filtering of the control inputs, or a more complex mapping to control than would be possible otherwise, but it doesn't mean the computer is flying the plane!
The plane is not permanently on autopilot, this would not be allowed or possible (e.g.
landing cannot be done on auto-pilot).
If a plane went down because of hydraulic failure you could make the exact opposite argument, which would also be laughably ignorant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28272635</id>
	<title>A dog and a pilot objective</title>
	<author>Siddly</author>
	<datestamp>1244547540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was someone from Airbus who said the ultimate aim was to crew an aeroplane with a dog and a pilot. The pilot's job would be to feed the dog and the dog would be there to bite the pilot if he touched any of the controls.
I think Boeing got it right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was someone from Airbus who said the ultimate aim was to crew an aeroplane with a dog and a pilot .
The pilot 's job would be to feed the dog and the dog would be there to bite the pilot if he touched any of the controls .
I think Boeing got it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was someone from Airbus who said the ultimate aim was to crew an aeroplane with a dog and a pilot.
The pilot's job would be to feed the dog and the dog would be there to bite the pilot if he touched any of the controls.
I think Boeing got it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261323</id>
	<title>Can we try</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1244480400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Capitalist West overworked, underpaid worker crashes you.<br>
In Soviet France plane crashes you.<br>
<br>
The tv series Mayday (also known as Air Emergency in the United States, Air Crash Investigation in the United Kingdom, Australia has listed many of the 'lessons'.<br>
From static ports blocked by tape (Aeroperu Flight 603) to attaching the cockpit window with the wrong screws (British Airways Flight 5390). <br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mayday\_episodes" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mayday\_episodes</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Capitalist West overworked , underpaid worker crashes you .
In Soviet France plane crashes you .
The tv series Mayday ( also known as Air Emergency in the United States , Air Crash Investigation in the United Kingdom , Australia has listed many of the 'lessons' .
From static ports blocked by tape ( Aeroperu Flight 603 ) to attaching the cockpit window with the wrong screws ( British Airways Flight 5390 ) .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _Mayday \ _episodes [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Capitalist West overworked, underpaid worker crashes you.
In Soviet France plane crashes you.
The tv series Mayday (also known as Air Emergency in the United States, Air Crash Investigation in the United Kingdom, Australia has listed many of the 'lessons'.
From static ports blocked by tape (Aeroperu Flight 603) to attaching the cockpit window with the wrong screws (British Airways Flight 5390).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Mayday\_episodes [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265355</id>
	<title>Re:Overrides for when computers go mad.</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1244561040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>and again I had handed control over to the captain while eating</p></div></blockquote><p>
Did you get sideways looks every time you went to have a meal and everything looked ok?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>and again I had handed control over to the captain while eating Did you get sideways looks every time you went to have a meal and everything looked ok ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and again I had handed control over to the captain while eating
Did you get sideways looks every time you went to have a meal and everything looked ok?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243</id>
	<title>Pick your poison</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Continental flight that crashed in Buffalo on the 12th of February crashed because the inexperienced pilot pulled up when the plane stalled.  A computer controlled system might have nosed down to get airspeed and saved 50 lives.  Of course I doubt a computer controlled system would be able to make a flawless landing in the Hudson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Continental flight that crashed in Buffalo on the 12th of February crashed because the inexperienced pilot pulled up when the plane stalled .
A computer controlled system might have nosed down to get airspeed and saved 50 lives .
Of course I doubt a computer controlled system would be able to make a flawless landing in the Hudson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Continental flight that crashed in Buffalo on the 12th of February crashed because the inexperienced pilot pulled up when the plane stalled.
A computer controlled system might have nosed down to get airspeed and saved 50 lives.
Of course I doubt a computer controlled system would be able to make a flawless landing in the Hudson.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263643</id>
	<title>The commonest phrase...</title>
	<author>JerryQ</author>
	<datestamp>1244550600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ignoring the ludicrous US vs EU philosophy in the summary, I still think this is worth noting,

a mate of mine who flew airbus told me once the most common phrase in the cockpit was...

"what the f**k is it doing now?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the ludicrous US vs EU philosophy in the summary , I still think this is worth noting , a mate of mine who flew airbus told me once the most common phrase in the cockpit was.. . " what the f * * k is it doing now ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the ludicrous US vs EU philosophy in the summary, I still think this is worth noting,

a mate of mine who flew airbus told me once the most common phrase in the cockpit was...

"what the f**k is it doing now?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262253</id>
	<title>9/11</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244490180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about 9/11, if there would be computer in Airbus to prevent collision with a building, and Boeing has that too, but with "manual override"? Would manual override still be a great idea?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about 9/11 , if there would be computer in Airbus to prevent collision with a building , and Boeing has that too , but with " manual override " ?
Would manual override still be a great idea ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about 9/11, if there would be computer in Airbus to prevent collision with a building, and Boeing has that too, but with "manual override"?
Would manual override still be a great idea?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261089</id>
	<title>Re:Is summary accurate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244478540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like the system will degrade to a manual mode, but can the human override the computer as needed? It may have helped in this case <a href="http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml" title="airdisaster.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml</a> [airdisaster.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like the system will degrade to a manual mode , but can the human override the computer as needed ?
It may have helped in this case http : //www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml [ airdisaster.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like the system will degrade to a manual mode, but can the human override the computer as needed?
It may have helped in this case http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml [airdisaster.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260603</id>
	<title>Re:Human limits</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244475660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its early days yet. The pitot tube theory is being driven by the ACARS data. As more data is collected different theories may develop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its early days yet .
The pitot tube theory is being driven by the ACARS data .
As more data is collected different theories may develop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its early days yet.
The pitot tube theory is being driven by the ACARS data.
As more data is collected different theories may develop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28276935</id>
	<title>Re:Take over the computer?</title>
	<author>Starker\_Kull</author>
	<datestamp>1244628720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Flying manually without autopilot in the turbulence is like driving at 100mph on icy road without electronic traction control. I still think computer is in a better role in handling that.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Sigh - this is wrong.  Many airlines recommend punching OFF the autopilot and autothrottles in severe turbulence because it will generally try to maintain altitiudes and courses when the best thing to do is minimize thrust and attitude changes to minimize loads on the airframe at the cost of altitude and course deviations.  Similarly, when stuck in icing conditions, particularly in holding, many airlines recommend hand-flying to detect changes in flying qualities that may be occuring as a result of icing accumulation.  The accident at Roselawn, IN lead to this procedure.<br>
<br>
An autopilot is an aid to a human pilot.  It has no decision making ability.  It flies in certain conditions 'better' than a human, and 'worse' than a human in others.  It is, ultimately, controlled by the human with an abstraction layer; instead of 'pull back stick to make nose go higher, which will probably result in a climb', it's 'select level change, set the level-off altitude to 15,000, and let the autopilot pitch and power to get me there'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flying manually without autopilot in the turbulence is like driving at 100mph on icy road without electronic traction control .
I still think computer is in a better role in handling that .
Sigh - this is wrong .
Many airlines recommend punching OFF the autopilot and autothrottles in severe turbulence because it will generally try to maintain altitiudes and courses when the best thing to do is minimize thrust and attitude changes to minimize loads on the airframe at the cost of altitude and course deviations .
Similarly , when stuck in icing conditions , particularly in holding , many airlines recommend hand-flying to detect changes in flying qualities that may be occuring as a result of icing accumulation .
The accident at Roselawn , IN lead to this procedure .
An autopilot is an aid to a human pilot .
It has no decision making ability .
It flies in certain conditions 'better ' than a human , and 'worse ' than a human in others .
It is , ultimately , controlled by the human with an abstraction layer ; instead of 'pull back stick to make nose go higher , which will probably result in a climb ' , it 's 'select level change , set the level-off altitude to 15,000 , and let the autopilot pitch and power to get me there' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flying manually without autopilot in the turbulence is like driving at 100mph on icy road without electronic traction control.
I still think computer is in a better role in handling that.
Sigh - this is wrong.
Many airlines recommend punching OFF the autopilot and autothrottles in severe turbulence because it will generally try to maintain altitiudes and courses when the best thing to do is minimize thrust and attitude changes to minimize loads on the airframe at the cost of altitude and course deviations.
Similarly, when stuck in icing conditions, particularly in holding, many airlines recommend hand-flying to detect changes in flying qualities that may be occuring as a result of icing accumulation.
The accident at Roselawn, IN lead to this procedure.
An autopilot is an aid to a human pilot.
It has no decision making ability.
It flies in certain conditions 'better' than a human, and 'worse' than a human in others.
It is, ultimately, controlled by the human with an abstraction layer; instead of 'pull back stick to make nose go higher, which will probably result in a climb', it's 'select level change, set the level-off altitude to 15,000, and let the autopilot pitch and power to get me there'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265433</id>
	<title>If there is a philosophical difference . . .</title>
	<author>Rambo Tribble</author>
	<datestamp>1244561280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>. . . it is that Continentals tend to trust people in white coats, (Stanley Milgram not withstanding), more than those of a Anglo-Saxon heritage do. Given the historical success of British technology, this cultural difference may have long and deep roots in the collective psyche.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
it is that Continentals tend to trust people in white coats , ( Stanley Milgram not withstanding ) , more than those of a Anglo-Saxon heritage do .
Given the historical success of British technology , this cultural difference may have long and deep roots in the collective psyche .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
it is that Continentals tend to trust people in white coats, (Stanley Milgram not withstanding), more than those of a Anglo-Saxon heritage do.
Given the historical success of British technology, this cultural difference may have long and deep roots in the collective psyche.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28271245</id>
	<title>Authors assertion is irrelevant to accident cause</title>
	<author>clydes</author>
	<datestamp>1244540340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The authors point is irrelevant.  It is not some design "policy" decision difference between Americans and Europeans pertaining to attitudes toward personal freedom.  It is about the design decisions made, the quality of the designers and manufacturers, the quality of aircraft maintenance, pilot traing, etc.  And in some cases just bad luck.  If the accident turns out to be pitot tube icing, then the mode of accident would have been the same for Boeing and Airbus (read example below)

Yes, this is a well known difference between Airbus and Boeing. I for one, prefer Boeings approach. But Boeings approach is, and always has been, to build a more robust aircraft anyway. Airbus builds essentially throw-away aircraft, after 20-30 years they're done. Whereas, you can still find few 707s flying , the last produced in 1979. And look at B-52s, the last was produced in 1962, but all have been re-skinned by now. But Airbus and Boeing are full of computers for many tasks.

To the point here, yes computers take control any from the pilots to an extent - but the failure rate of the fly-by-wire systems are comparable to those of the more traditional hydraulic systems in terms of accidents and casualties.

The leading theory seems to be that the pitot system iced over - essentially failing producing incorrect airspeed measurements - probably caused by icing in bad weather. This did cuase several things to occur, the least of which being confusion on the part of the pilots. The readings probably showed the pilots and the computer low airspeed, indicating to both the danger of a stall. So the pilot would want to increase power, and the computer generally speaking would probably try to get out of autopilot to allow the pilot control. The problem here is that when flying at high altitude control the aircraft is in what aeronautical engineers call a coffin corner in the performance envelope - because of the very low density at altitude the stall speed of the aircraft is much higher than near the ground, and because of the speed the aircraft is also working toward the structural limits of the aircraft.

A good example of potentially a similar accident is Austral L&#195;neas A&#195;&#169;reas Flight 2553, a DC-9 (hydraulic vs. computer). The aircraft diverted to avoid a storm, but shortly thereafter started showing dangerously low airspeed. Pilots reacted by increasing power, but saw no increase in airspeed. At this point the pilots deplyed slats; one of which promptly tore off making the wings assymetric. the aircraft was uncontrolable and crashed vertically into the ground. The culprit was an iced over pitot tube which caused false speed readings. The pilots deployed slats well above safe deployment speed.

The B-1 that crashed on takeoff on Gaum was traced back to the pitot tube system if I remember correctly. The system indicated a higher than actually airspeed so the flight computer rotated the nose up at too low an airspeed causing the aircraft to stalll and crash.

Pitot tube faults (due to maintenance, not icing) have been attributed to two Boeing 757 crashes - Birgenair Flight 301 (189 fatalities) and Aeroper&#195; Flight 603 (70 fatalities).

The difference in Airbus and Boeing is that for the former the limit (flight envelope protection) is determined by the computer, and in the later by the hydraulics. In the Airbus system the computer determines the limits of control; the pilot can increase the limit by selecting and alternate mode. In the Boeing case, the pilot can excede flight envelopes by exerting more force on the flight controls - allowing the pilotto do what the computers do not calculate as correct.

American Flight 587 (Airbus 300) in New York in 2001 is an example of a crash that could have been averted if flight envelope control had been in place. The aircraft was flying at an altitude and airspeed at which the pilot could defelct the rudder enough that the aerodynamic forces exceded the structural limits of the aircraft, eventually causing the tail to break off.

We should not be quick to condemn the computers as the p</htmltext>
<tokenext>The authors point is irrelevant .
It is not some design " policy " decision difference between Americans and Europeans pertaining to attitudes toward personal freedom .
It is about the design decisions made , the quality of the designers and manufacturers , the quality of aircraft maintenance , pilot traing , etc .
And in some cases just bad luck .
If the accident turns out to be pitot tube icing , then the mode of accident would have been the same for Boeing and Airbus ( read example below ) Yes , this is a well known difference between Airbus and Boeing .
I for one , prefer Boeings approach .
But Boeings approach is , and always has been , to build a more robust aircraft anyway .
Airbus builds essentially throw-away aircraft , after 20-30 years they 're done .
Whereas , you can still find few 707s flying , the last produced in 1979 .
And look at B-52s , the last was produced in 1962 , but all have been re-skinned by now .
But Airbus and Boeing are full of computers for many tasks .
To the point here , yes computers take control any from the pilots to an extent - but the failure rate of the fly-by-wire systems are comparable to those of the more traditional hydraulic systems in terms of accidents and casualties .
The leading theory seems to be that the pitot system iced over - essentially failing producing incorrect airspeed measurements - probably caused by icing in bad weather .
This did cuase several things to occur , the least of which being confusion on the part of the pilots .
The readings probably showed the pilots and the computer low airspeed , indicating to both the danger of a stall .
So the pilot would want to increase power , and the computer generally speaking would probably try to get out of autopilot to allow the pilot control .
The problem here is that when flying at high altitude control the aircraft is in what aeronautical engineers call a coffin corner in the performance envelope - because of the very low density at altitude the stall speed of the aircraft is much higher than near the ground , and because of the speed the aircraft is also working toward the structural limits of the aircraft .
A good example of potentially a similar accident is Austral L   neas A     reas Flight 2553 , a DC-9 ( hydraulic vs. computer ) . The aircraft diverted to avoid a storm , but shortly thereafter started showing dangerously low airspeed .
Pilots reacted by increasing power , but saw no increase in airspeed .
At this point the pilots deplyed slats ; one of which promptly tore off making the wings assymetric .
the aircraft was uncontrolable and crashed vertically into the ground .
The culprit was an iced over pitot tube which caused false speed readings .
The pilots deployed slats well above safe deployment speed .
The B-1 that crashed on takeoff on Gaum was traced back to the pitot tube system if I remember correctly .
The system indicated a higher than actually airspeed so the flight computer rotated the nose up at too low an airspeed causing the aircraft to stalll and crash .
Pitot tube faults ( due to maintenance , not icing ) have been attributed to two Boeing 757 crashes - Birgenair Flight 301 ( 189 fatalities ) and Aeroper   Flight 603 ( 70 fatalities ) .
The difference in Airbus and Boeing is that for the former the limit ( flight envelope protection ) is determined by the computer , and in the later by the hydraulics .
In the Airbus system the computer determines the limits of control ; the pilot can increase the limit by selecting and alternate mode .
In the Boeing case , the pilot can excede flight envelopes by exerting more force on the flight controls - allowing the pilotto do what the computers do not calculate as correct .
American Flight 587 ( Airbus 300 ) in New York in 2001 is an example of a crash that could have been averted if flight envelope control had been in place .
The aircraft was flying at an altitude and airspeed at which the pilot could defelct the rudder enough that the aerodynamic forces exceded the structural limits of the aircraft , eventually causing the tail to break off .
We should not be quick to condemn the computers as the p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The authors point is irrelevant.
It is not some design "policy" decision difference between Americans and Europeans pertaining to attitudes toward personal freedom.
It is about the design decisions made, the quality of the designers and manufacturers, the quality of aircraft maintenance, pilot traing, etc.
And in some cases just bad luck.
If the accident turns out to be pitot tube icing, then the mode of accident would have been the same for Boeing and Airbus (read example below)

Yes, this is a well known difference between Airbus and Boeing.
I for one, prefer Boeings approach.
But Boeings approach is, and always has been, to build a more robust aircraft anyway.
Airbus builds essentially throw-away aircraft, after 20-30 years they're done.
Whereas, you can still find few 707s flying , the last produced in 1979.
And look at B-52s, the last was produced in 1962, but all have been re-skinned by now.
But Airbus and Boeing are full of computers for many tasks.
To the point here, yes computers take control any from the pilots to an extent - but the failure rate of the fly-by-wire systems are comparable to those of the more traditional hydraulic systems in terms of accidents and casualties.
The leading theory seems to be that the pitot system iced over - essentially failing producing incorrect airspeed measurements - probably caused by icing in bad weather.
This did cuase several things to occur, the least of which being confusion on the part of the pilots.
The readings probably showed the pilots and the computer low airspeed, indicating to both the danger of a stall.
So the pilot would want to increase power, and the computer generally speaking would probably try to get out of autopilot to allow the pilot control.
The problem here is that when flying at high altitude control the aircraft is in what aeronautical engineers call a coffin corner in the performance envelope - because of the very low density at altitude the stall speed of the aircraft is much higher than near the ground, and because of the speed the aircraft is also working toward the structural limits of the aircraft.
A good example of potentially a similar accident is Austral LÃneas AÃ©reas Flight 2553, a DC-9 (hydraulic vs. computer). The aircraft diverted to avoid a storm, but shortly thereafter started showing dangerously low airspeed.
Pilots reacted by increasing power, but saw no increase in airspeed.
At this point the pilots deplyed slats; one of which promptly tore off making the wings assymetric.
the aircraft was uncontrolable and crashed vertically into the ground.
The culprit was an iced over pitot tube which caused false speed readings.
The pilots deployed slats well above safe deployment speed.
The B-1 that crashed on takeoff on Gaum was traced back to the pitot tube system if I remember correctly.
The system indicated a higher than actually airspeed so the flight computer rotated the nose up at too low an airspeed causing the aircraft to stalll and crash.
Pitot tube faults (due to maintenance, not icing) have been attributed to two Boeing 757 crashes - Birgenair Flight 301 (189 fatalities) and AeroperÃ Flight 603 (70 fatalities).
The difference in Airbus and Boeing is that for the former the limit (flight envelope protection) is determined by the computer, and in the later by the hydraulics.
In the Airbus system the computer determines the limits of control; the pilot can increase the limit by selecting and alternate mode.
In the Boeing case, the pilot can excede flight envelopes by exerting more force on the flight controls - allowing the pilotto do what the computers do not calculate as correct.
American Flight 587 (Airbus 300) in New York in 2001 is an example of a crash that could have been averted if flight envelope control had been in place.
The aircraft was flying at an altitude and airspeed at which the pilot could defelct the rudder enough that the aerodynamic forces exceded the structural limits of the aircraft, eventually causing the tail to break off.
We should not be quick to condemn the computers as the p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262101</id>
	<title>This is very premature..</title>
	<author>DrBuzzo</author>
	<datestamp>1244488500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I share the concerns about how Airbus aircraft and how other critical devices in the world may rely on high level logic that can fail and prevent humans from intervening even when the failure is obvious.   This is the kind of discussion that we should have when and if it is established that this is what caused the crash.  It has not.   All that is known here is that the sensor readings were not consistent.  This could be the cause of the problem or it could be the result of a larger problem.  It could also be that this problem could not have been solved even if the pilot were to have the ability to override the automated systems.   It is even possible that this is unrelated to the crash.
<br> <br>
It's totally irresponsible to start with this wild speculation when the cause has not been clearly established.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I share the concerns about how Airbus aircraft and how other critical devices in the world may rely on high level logic that can fail and prevent humans from intervening even when the failure is obvious .
This is the kind of discussion that we should have when and if it is established that this is what caused the crash .
It has not .
All that is known here is that the sensor readings were not consistent .
This could be the cause of the problem or it could be the result of a larger problem .
It could also be that this problem could not have been solved even if the pilot were to have the ability to override the automated systems .
It is even possible that this is unrelated to the crash .
It 's totally irresponsible to start with this wild speculation when the cause has not been clearly established .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I share the concerns about how Airbus aircraft and how other critical devices in the world may rely on high level logic that can fail and prevent humans from intervening even when the failure is obvious.
This is the kind of discussion that we should have when and if it is established that this is what caused the crash.
It has not.
All that is known here is that the sensor readings were not consistent.
This could be the cause of the problem or it could be the result of a larger problem.
It could also be that this problem could not have been solved even if the pilot were to have the ability to override the automated systems.
It is even possible that this is unrelated to the crash.
It's totally irresponsible to start with this wild speculation when the cause has not been clearly established.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261517</id>
	<title>Gotta ask</title>
	<author>gringofrijolero</author>
	<datestamp>1244482080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would Bruce Dickinson do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would Bruce Dickinson do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would Bruce Dickinson do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261831</id>
	<title>You're all missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244485500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of this informed aeronautical debate is fine but misses the point: any culture that can come up with a word like 'deplane' and use it seriously in a conversation is clearly already morally bankrupt and on its way out.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of this informed aeronautical debate is fine but misses the point : any culture that can come up with a word like 'deplane ' and use it seriously in a conversation is clearly already morally bankrupt and on its way out .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of this informed aeronautical debate is fine but misses the point: any culture that can come up with a word like 'deplane' and use it seriously in a conversation is clearly already morally bankrupt and on its way out.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263951</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244553660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes and no.  First, computers are just high-speed idiots.  Second, Airbus is a brand new company, so that the flaws they have in their systems is yet to be fully realized.  The Boeing planes you speak of are decades old.  Can't wait for the airbus systems to begin aging, and pilots screaming in their seats because they could correct the situation but the computer won't let them: so they must accept their fate and just die with the plane and it's computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and no .
First , computers are just high-speed idiots .
Second , Airbus is a brand new company , so that the flaws they have in their systems is yet to be fully realized .
The Boeing planes you speak of are decades old .
Ca n't wait for the airbus systems to begin aging , and pilots screaming in their seats because they could correct the situation but the computer wo n't let them : so they must accept their fate and just die with the plane and it 's computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and no.
First, computers are just high-speed idiots.
Second, Airbus is a brand new company, so that the flaws they have in their systems is yet to be fully realized.
The Boeing planes you speak of are decades old.
Can't wait for the airbus systems to begin aging, and pilots screaming in their seats because they could correct the situation but the computer won't let them: so they must accept their fate and just die with the plane and it's computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260353</id>
	<title>humans vs robots</title>
	<author>saiha</author>
	<datestamp>1244474520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we get a comparison of the number of crashes caused by humans to the number caused by computers? Hell even this is still human error, the pilots on board should have been able to circumvent the computer enough to fly the plane (not the pilots fault in this case). Nevertheless, the track record is still very good for computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we get a comparison of the number of crashes caused by humans to the number caused by computers ?
Hell even this is still human error , the pilots on board should have been able to circumvent the computer enough to fly the plane ( not the pilots fault in this case ) .
Nevertheless , the track record is still very good for computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we get a comparison of the number of crashes caused by humans to the number caused by computers?
Hell even this is still human error, the pilots on board should have been able to circumvent the computer enough to fly the plane (not the pilots fault in this case).
Nevertheless, the track record is still very good for computers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264881</id>
	<title>Worst... article... this week...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244558880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer."</i>
<br> <br>
You already do. Every ticket-selling web site I've seen lists aircraft type for each flight.  Don't like that particular type?  Don't buy a ticket.
<br> <br>
Then you have another opportunity when they wheel the plane up to the gate.  Don't like the look of the plane?  Don't board.
<br> <br>
Too lazy to learn which Airbus models are full fly-by-wire and want someone to remind you every time you're about to get on an evil French airplane with socialist flight computers instead of one navigated by the pure awesomeness of American rugged individualism?  Die in a plane crash.  Please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer .
" You already do .
Every ticket-selling web site I 've seen lists aircraft type for each flight .
Do n't like that particular type ?
Do n't buy a ticket .
Then you have another opportunity when they wheel the plane up to the gate .
Do n't like the look of the plane ?
Do n't board .
Too lazy to learn which Airbus models are full fly-by-wire and want someone to remind you every time you 're about to get on an evil French airplane with socialist flight computers instead of one navigated by the pure awesomeness of American rugged individualism ?
Die in a plane crash .
Please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.
"
 
You already do.
Every ticket-selling web site I've seen lists aircraft type for each flight.
Don't like that particular type?
Don't buy a ticket.
Then you have another opportunity when they wheel the plane up to the gate.
Don't like the look of the plane?
Don't board.
Too lazy to learn which Airbus models are full fly-by-wire and want someone to remind you every time you're about to get on an evil French airplane with socialist flight computers instead of one navigated by the pure awesomeness of American rugged individualism?
Die in a plane crash.
Please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261171</id>
	<title>Talk to a real pilot</title>
	<author>br4nd0nh3at</author>
	<datestamp>1244479260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I must agree with the original post.  Though it does sound a tad Pro-American. (what's the harm in that?)

It's funny because I was talking to a 767 pilot Sunday about this and he said the same thing about the Airbus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must agree with the original post .
Though it does sound a tad Pro-American .
( what 's the harm in that ?
) It 's funny because I was talking to a 767 pilot Sunday about this and he said the same thing about the Airbus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must agree with the original post.
Though it does sound a tad Pro-American.
(what's the harm in that?
)

It's funny because I was talking to a 767 pilot Sunday about this and he said the same thing about the Airbus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261613</id>
	<title>Take over the computer?</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1244483100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially which limitation you would like to override? It's unclear that if the accident was due to the inability that pilot's unable to override tho computers' limit.</p><p>How about this? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China\_Airlines\_Flight\_006" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China\_Airlines\_Flight\_006</a> [wikipedia.org]. A Boeing flight, which pilot's manoeuver resulted in a 5G load and barely destroy the horizontal stabilizers.
With less luck, it the CA006 might lost the whole stabilizers and could result in JA123 - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan\_Airlines\_Flight\_123" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan\_Airlines\_Flight\_123</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>May be without the 5G manoeuver the plane will be lost, but I doubt if it was an Airbus, could the plane becomes &gt;66 deg bank in the first place (due to the protection of another computer limitation), and hence such 5G manoeuver would not needed.</p><p>From the article,</p><blockquote><div><p>riding around on autopilot all the time pushing buttons does nothing to sharpen your hand flying skills for a possible situation like this when you will need it the most</p></div></blockquote><p>

But I prefer pilots to sharpen and practice the emergency handling skills with simulator...not the real thing.</p><p>Flying manually without autopilot in the turbulence is like driving at 100mph on icy road without electronic traction control.  I still think computer is in a better role in handling that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially which limitation you would like to override ?
It 's unclear that if the accident was due to the inability that pilot 's unable to override tho computers ' limit.How about this ?
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China \ _Airlines \ _Flight \ _006 [ wikipedia.org ] .
A Boeing flight , which pilot 's manoeuver resulted in a 5G load and barely destroy the horizontal stabilizers .
With less luck , it the CA006 might lost the whole stabilizers and could result in JA123 - http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan \ _Airlines \ _Flight \ _123 [ wikipedia.org ] .May be without the 5G manoeuver the plane will be lost , but I doubt if it was an Airbus , could the plane becomes &gt; 66 deg bank in the first place ( due to the protection of another computer limitation ) , and hence such 5G manoeuver would not needed.From the article,riding around on autopilot all the time pushing buttons does nothing to sharpen your hand flying skills for a possible situation like this when you will need it the most But I prefer pilots to sharpen and practice the emergency handling skills with simulator...not the real thing.Flying manually without autopilot in the turbulence is like driving at 100mph on icy road without electronic traction control .
I still think computer is in a better role in handling that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially which limitation you would like to override?
It's unclear that if the accident was due to the inability that pilot's unable to override tho computers' limit.How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China\_Airlines\_Flight\_006 [wikipedia.org].
A Boeing flight, which pilot's manoeuver resulted in a 5G load and barely destroy the horizontal stabilizers.
With less luck, it the CA006 might lost the whole stabilizers and could result in JA123 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan\_Airlines\_Flight\_123 [wikipedia.org].May be without the 5G manoeuver the plane will be lost, but I doubt if it was an Airbus, could the plane becomes &gt;66 deg bank in the first place (due to the protection of another computer limitation), and hence such 5G manoeuver would not needed.From the article,riding around on autopilot all the time pushing buttons does nothing to sharpen your hand flying skills for a possible situation like this when you will need it the most

But I prefer pilots to sharpen and practice the emergency handling skills with simulator...not the real thing.Flying manually without autopilot in the turbulence is like driving at 100mph on icy road without electronic traction control.
I still think computer is in a better role in handling that.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260567</id>
	<title>Re:Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244475420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're joking, right?</p><p>A very similar incident to the Gimli Glider did happen.  I'd refer you to Air Transat flight 236, an Airbus A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic Ocean and glided to a successful landing at Lajes Air Force Base in the Azores.</p><p>And Flight 1549?  That was an Airbus A320.</p><p>As to your last statement, if you understand the Airbus flight control laws you'll know that with the landing gear down in that type of situation, you'll be in direct law, which does not modify any pilot control inputs before being sent to the flight controls.  Even if it had degraded all the way to mechanical backup (none of the 5 computers operational), you'd still have the use of pitch trim and rudder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're joking , right ? A very similar incident to the Gimli Glider did happen .
I 'd refer you to Air Transat flight 236 , an Airbus A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic Ocean and glided to a successful landing at Lajes Air Force Base in the Azores.And Flight 1549 ?
That was an Airbus A320.As to your last statement , if you understand the Airbus flight control laws you 'll know that with the landing gear down in that type of situation , you 'll be in direct law , which does not modify any pilot control inputs before being sent to the flight controls .
Even if it had degraded all the way to mechanical backup ( none of the 5 computers operational ) , you 'd still have the use of pitch trim and rudder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're joking, right?A very similar incident to the Gimli Glider did happen.
I'd refer you to Air Transat flight 236, an Airbus A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic Ocean and glided to a successful landing at Lajes Air Force Base in the Azores.And Flight 1549?
That was an Airbus A320.As to your last statement, if you understand the Airbus flight control laws you'll know that with the landing gear down in that type of situation, you'll be in direct law, which does not modify any pilot control inputs before being sent to the flight controls.
Even if it had degraded all the way to mechanical backup (none of the 5 computers operational), you'd still have the use of pitch trim and rudder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260389</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is, by far, the dumbest thing I have ever seen on slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is , by far , the dumbest thing I have ever seen on slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is, by far, the dumbest thing I have ever seen on slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261899</id>
	<title>Given that human error is responsible for...</title>
	<author>this great guy</author>
	<datestamp>1244486160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...54\% of the fatal accidents (<a href="http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm" title="planecrashinfo.com">total pilot error + other human error, 2000s</a> [planecrashinfo.com]), then logically I would say, yes I would rather trust the autopilot in an emergency situation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...54 \ % of the fatal accidents ( total pilot error + other human error , 2000s [ planecrashinfo.com ] ) , then logically I would say , yes I would rather trust the autopilot in an emergency situation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...54\% of the fatal accidents (total pilot error + other human error, 2000s [planecrashinfo.com]), then logically I would say, yes I would rather trust the autopilot in an emergency situation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260801</id>
	<title>Re:Experience</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244476740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly, you have not written software before.</p><p>I'd prefer the pilot's hastily considered last-second decisions to a engineer's last-second decisions writing software in a cube up on a deadline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly , you have not written software before.I 'd prefer the pilot 's hastily considered last-second decisions to a engineer 's last-second decisions writing software in a cube up on a deadline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly, you have not written software before.I'd prefer the pilot's hastily considered last-second decisions to a engineer's last-second decisions writing software in a cube up on a deadline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262397</id>
	<title>Re:Overrides for when computers go mad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244578440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to spoil your Airbus prejudices but Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 and it is flown with fly-by-wire. And judging from what I read it was quite helpfull in that situation.</p><p>"According to one person familiar with the investigation, Capt. Sullenberger was able to keep the nose of the plane up while flying at a reduced speed partly because his aircraft's so-called fly-by-wire system used computers to prevent the jetliner from stalling, or becoming uncontrollable and falling out of the air. Preliminary data indicate that these computer-controlled safeguards remained fully operational until touchdown, this person said." - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241485664396363.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to spoil your Airbus prejudices but Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 and it is flown with fly-by-wire .
And judging from what I read it was quite helpfull in that situation .
" According to one person familiar with the investigation , Capt .
Sullenberger was able to keep the nose of the plane up while flying at a reduced speed partly because his aircraft 's so-called fly-by-wire system used computers to prevent the jetliner from stalling , or becoming uncontrollable and falling out of the air .
Preliminary data indicate that these computer-controlled safeguards remained fully operational until touchdown , this person said .
" - http : //online.wsj.com/article/SB123241485664396363.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to spoil your Airbus prejudices but Flight 1549 was an Airbus A320 and it is flown with fly-by-wire.
And judging from what I read it was quite helpfull in that situation.
"According to one person familiar with the investigation, Capt.
Sullenberger was able to keep the nose of the plane up while flying at a reduced speed partly because his aircraft's so-called fly-by-wire system used computers to prevent the jetliner from stalling, or becoming uncontrollable and falling out of the air.
Preliminary data indicate that these computer-controlled safeguards remained fully operational until touchdown, this person said.
" - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241485664396363.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261707</id>
	<title>Who has the better hybrid system?</title>
	<author>Arguendo</author>
	<datestamp>1244484300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fundamental inquiry is whether you want a human in the control loop during a crisis.  And I think the answer is unequivocally: it depends on the crisis.  No mystery here.  The answer has got to be a smart hybrid of the two systems.  I have no idea whether Boeing or Airbus has a better hybrid system but would love to know.</p><p>As an aside, I hate the pilot vs. computer characterization.  It's pilot vs. team of engineers.  Let's not anthropomorphize the computer.  It's not "making" decisions.  It's just the difference between a human on the plane with little time to respond versus a team of humans not on the plane with a ton of time to think of various scenarios and simulate outcomes.  It's not clear to me that one will always have the advantage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fundamental inquiry is whether you want a human in the control loop during a crisis .
And I think the answer is unequivocally : it depends on the crisis .
No mystery here .
The answer has got to be a smart hybrid of the two systems .
I have no idea whether Boeing or Airbus has a better hybrid system but would love to know.As an aside , I hate the pilot vs. computer characterization .
It 's pilot vs. team of engineers .
Let 's not anthropomorphize the computer .
It 's not " making " decisions .
It 's just the difference between a human on the plane with little time to respond versus a team of humans not on the plane with a ton of time to think of various scenarios and simulate outcomes .
It 's not clear to me that one will always have the advantage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fundamental inquiry is whether you want a human in the control loop during a crisis.
And I think the answer is unequivocally: it depends on the crisis.
No mystery here.
The answer has got to be a smart hybrid of the two systems.
I have no idea whether Boeing or Airbus has a better hybrid system but would love to know.As an aside, I hate the pilot vs. computer characterization.
It's pilot vs. team of engineers.
Let's not anthropomorphize the computer.
It's not "making" decisions.
It's just the difference between a human on the plane with little time to respond versus a team of humans not on the plane with a ton of time to think of various scenarios and simulate outcomes.
It's not clear to me that one will always have the advantage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261319</id>
	<title>Re:Human limits</title>
	<author>Ummite</author>
	<datestamp>1244480340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer your question, I seriously think a pilot cannot estimate correctly his speed at this altitude.  BUT, in regards with the power sent to the engine (thrust), you know thrusts must not be at maximum since you will overspeed, nor too little or you will stall.  If you take flight simulator for example, putting thrust at 30\% of maximum thrust will give you a decent speed.  A professional pilot will be able to roughly guess his speed from power sent to engines, if his altitude is stable.  For that, if your altitude gives you something very imprecise or simply wrong, you simply need to stay nose on the horizon (in night at this altitude you would normally be able to see stars and horizon, or you simply keep your eyes on the gyroscope in the cockpit that give plane situation in space.  There is some possibility you will slowly climb or going down, but from 35000 feets you have time to make emergency calls.  So with many alerts of false speed and false altitude, an human override reaction would be in my opinion simply to put thrust at something known for a decent speed, and keep nose at horizon.  Having a gps on board for altitude (even a portable one) would give enough precision to keep going up to europe.  Knowing roughly wind speed from air traffic controler for a specific altitude, and speed given from a gps, pilot have enough information to stay in a safe zone (speed/altitude) to be able to finish his route to europe and/or goes back to bresil.  The flight could have taken twice the normal time, but alive maybe...</p><p>In my opinion, pitot tube slowly get stuck with ice, autopilot push thruster more and more to get the right indicated speed, and the plane overspeed.  Probably both pilots didn't disengage autopilot since they were in turbulence and the overspeed vibration was tought as normal turbulence.  Normal behaviour is, especially at night, to beleive your instruments.  Then overspeed comes and the wings breaks or some part of the place breaks and the plane went into a fatal 35000 feet plunge.</p><p>I wonder if overspeed near sound speed would make the front window to explode first, explaining no emergency calls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer your question , I seriously think a pilot can not estimate correctly his speed at this altitude .
BUT , in regards with the power sent to the engine ( thrust ) , you know thrusts must not be at maximum since you will overspeed , nor too little or you will stall .
If you take flight simulator for example , putting thrust at 30 \ % of maximum thrust will give you a decent speed .
A professional pilot will be able to roughly guess his speed from power sent to engines , if his altitude is stable .
For that , if your altitude gives you something very imprecise or simply wrong , you simply need to stay nose on the horizon ( in night at this altitude you would normally be able to see stars and horizon , or you simply keep your eyes on the gyroscope in the cockpit that give plane situation in space .
There is some possibility you will slowly climb or going down , but from 35000 feets you have time to make emergency calls .
So with many alerts of false speed and false altitude , an human override reaction would be in my opinion simply to put thrust at something known for a decent speed , and keep nose at horizon .
Having a gps on board for altitude ( even a portable one ) would give enough precision to keep going up to europe .
Knowing roughly wind speed from air traffic controler for a specific altitude , and speed given from a gps , pilot have enough information to stay in a safe zone ( speed/altitude ) to be able to finish his route to europe and/or goes back to bresil .
The flight could have taken twice the normal time , but alive maybe...In my opinion , pitot tube slowly get stuck with ice , autopilot push thruster more and more to get the right indicated speed , and the plane overspeed .
Probably both pilots did n't disengage autopilot since they were in turbulence and the overspeed vibration was tought as normal turbulence .
Normal behaviour is , especially at night , to beleive your instruments .
Then overspeed comes and the wings breaks or some part of the place breaks and the plane went into a fatal 35000 feet plunge.I wonder if overspeed near sound speed would make the front window to explode first , explaining no emergency calls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer your question, I seriously think a pilot cannot estimate correctly his speed at this altitude.
BUT, in regards with the power sent to the engine (thrust), you know thrusts must not be at maximum since you will overspeed, nor too little or you will stall.
If you take flight simulator for example, putting thrust at 30\% of maximum thrust will give you a decent speed.
A professional pilot will be able to roughly guess his speed from power sent to engines, if his altitude is stable.
For that, if your altitude gives you something very imprecise or simply wrong, you simply need to stay nose on the horizon (in night at this altitude you would normally be able to see stars and horizon, or you simply keep your eyes on the gyroscope in the cockpit that give plane situation in space.
There is some possibility you will slowly climb or going down, but from 35000 feets you have time to make emergency calls.
So with many alerts of false speed and false altitude, an human override reaction would be in my opinion simply to put thrust at something known for a decent speed, and keep nose at horizon.
Having a gps on board for altitude (even a portable one) would give enough precision to keep going up to europe.
Knowing roughly wind speed from air traffic controler for a specific altitude, and speed given from a gps, pilot have enough information to stay in a safe zone (speed/altitude) to be able to finish his route to europe and/or goes back to bresil.
The flight could have taken twice the normal time, but alive maybe...In my opinion, pitot tube slowly get stuck with ice, autopilot push thruster more and more to get the right indicated speed, and the plane overspeed.
Probably both pilots didn't disengage autopilot since they were in turbulence and the overspeed vibration was tought as normal turbulence.
Normal behaviour is, especially at night, to beleive your instruments.
Then overspeed comes and the wings breaks or some part of the place breaks and the plane went into a fatal 35000 feet plunge.I wonder if overspeed near sound speed would make the front window to explode first, explaining no emergency calls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271</id>
	<title>Give the pilot control!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244474160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli\_Glider" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Gimli Glider</a> [wikipedia.org] or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US\_Airways\_Flight\_1549" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Flight 1549</a> [wikipedia.org] had been on an Airbus, there would have been a lot of dead people. When something goes wrong, Rule 1 is FLY THE FUCKING PLANE. Well, if the computers fail on an Airbus, good luck flying it!</p><p>A critical factor in the Gimli Glider situation was that the pilot was able to put the plane into a forward slip - a maneuver that glider pilots routinely use, but is something that would normally Not Be Done in an airliner. In an Airbus, if the pilot tries to perform such an action, the computer will say "I'm sorry Dave. I don't think I can do that."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Gimli Glider [ wikipedia.org ] or Flight 1549 [ wikipedia.org ] had been on an Airbus , there would have been a lot of dead people .
When something goes wrong , Rule 1 is FLY THE FUCKING PLANE .
Well , if the computers fail on an Airbus , good luck flying it ! A critical factor in the Gimli Glider situation was that the pilot was able to put the plane into a forward slip - a maneuver that glider pilots routinely use , but is something that would normally Not Be Done in an airliner .
In an Airbus , if the pilot tries to perform such an action , the computer will say " I 'm sorry Dave .
I do n't think I can do that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Gimli Glider [wikipedia.org] or Flight 1549 [wikipedia.org] had been on an Airbus, there would have been a lot of dead people.
When something goes wrong, Rule 1 is FLY THE FUCKING PLANE.
Well, if the computers fail on an Airbus, good luck flying it!A critical factor in the Gimli Glider situation was that the pilot was able to put the plane into a forward slip - a maneuver that glider pilots routinely use, but is something that would normally Not Be Done in an airliner.
In an Airbus, if the pilot tries to perform such an action, the computer will say "I'm sorry Dave.
I don't think I can do that.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263849</id>
	<title>yeah, right.. 9/11</title>
	<author>orange47</author>
	<datestamp>1244552700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if Americans hadn't used Boeing planes, the 9/11 disaster would never have happened. Because the computers in Airbus would prevent such "human\_being's/battle-tested\_pilot  ingenuity"</htmltext>
<tokenext>if Americans had n't used Boeing planes , the 9/11 disaster would never have happened .
Because the computers in Airbus would prevent such " human \ _being 's/battle-tested \ _pilot ingenuity "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Americans hadn't used Boeing planes, the 9/11 disaster would never have happened.
Because the computers in Airbus would prevent such "human\_being's/battle-tested\_pilot  ingenuity"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264707</id>
	<title>facepalm</title>
	<author>wintermute000</author>
	<datestamp>1244558160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems. As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer."</p><p>Remind me to ask specifically for a European aircraft next time I fly so I don't have to worry about sitting next to the OP, who is a shining stereotype come alive of an ill informed, Team America douchebag</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It 's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems .
As passengers , we should have the right to ask whether we 're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front , and we should have right to deplane if we do n't like the answer .
" Remind me to ask specifically for a European aircraft next time I fly so I do n't have to worry about sitting next to the OP , who is a shining stereotype come alive of an ill informed , Team America douchebag</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It's not surprising that an American company errs on the side of individual freedom while a European company is more inclined to favor an approach that relies on systems.
As passengers, we should have the right to ask whether we're putting our lives in the hands of a computer rather than the battle-tested pilot sitting up front, and we should have right to deplane if we don't like the answer.
"Remind me to ask specifically for a European aircraft next time I fly so I don't have to worry about sitting next to the OP, who is a shining stereotype come alive of an ill informed, Team America douchebag</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261201</id>
	<title>tend to crash</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1244479440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No shit. After a string of fatal crashes, the RAF <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6447105.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">won't let the SAS use its transport choppers</a> [timesonline.co.uk] any more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .
After a string of fatal crashes , the RAF wo n't let the SAS use its transport choppers [ timesonline.co.uk ] any more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.
After a string of fatal crashes, the RAF won't let the SAS use its transport choppers [timesonline.co.uk] any more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263799</id>
	<title>You probably felt safer as a pilot...</title>
	<author>woolio</author>
	<datestamp>1244552160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet the parent poster felt safer as a pilot before seeing how software development takes place!</p><p>I've been in software developer for a while.  While I have no question in my mind that computers can be made to do complex tasks perfectly well [some people doubt this], my faith in developer to do these things has been slightly declining. About 95\% of code I see is flawless and a model of pure perfection.  The other 5\% makes me want to crawl, hide, and start sucking my thumb (well, aside from fixing it).   It is not that it violates formatting standards -- it is often fundamentally flawed and shouldn't work.</p><p>I'm not in aviation software. In my area, most code is deemed good if it "works".  Too many ways for "working" code to be highly flawed.  Sometimes one flaw masks another...   Sometimes code that is fundamentally flawed (e.g. violates first principles) "works" until minor modifications are applied.  [Especially troublesome when it has been in use for 10-20 years in commercial systems!]</p><p>Signal Processing / Control Systems on embedded hardware are sometimes especially difficult to easily verify. (The open-loop frequency response of a control system could be measured, but this is meaningless if the basic filtering code is screwed up and/or a large complex chain of hardware is involved which is not easily tested).   Its not that verification isn't possible, but it isn't often possible in a way that easily integrates into a finished product. [It becomes more of an manual (and one-time executed) engineering test and rather than an automated test-case. ]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet the parent poster felt safer as a pilot before seeing how software development takes place ! I 've been in software developer for a while .
While I have no question in my mind that computers can be made to do complex tasks perfectly well [ some people doubt this ] , my faith in developer to do these things has been slightly declining .
About 95 \ % of code I see is flawless and a model of pure perfection .
The other 5 \ % makes me want to crawl , hide , and start sucking my thumb ( well , aside from fixing it ) .
It is not that it violates formatting standards -- it is often fundamentally flawed and should n't work.I 'm not in aviation software .
In my area , most code is deemed good if it " works " .
Too many ways for " working " code to be highly flawed .
Sometimes one flaw masks another... Sometimes code that is fundamentally flawed ( e.g .
violates first principles ) " works " until minor modifications are applied .
[ Especially troublesome when it has been in use for 10-20 years in commercial systems !
] Signal Processing / Control Systems on embedded hardware are sometimes especially difficult to easily verify .
( The open-loop frequency response of a control system could be measured , but this is meaningless if the basic filtering code is screwed up and/or a large complex chain of hardware is involved which is not easily tested ) .
Its not that verification is n't possible , but it is n't often possible in a way that easily integrates into a finished product .
[ It becomes more of an manual ( and one-time executed ) engineering test and rather than an automated test-case .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet the parent poster felt safer as a pilot before seeing how software development takes place!I've been in software developer for a while.
While I have no question in my mind that computers can be made to do complex tasks perfectly well [some people doubt this], my faith in developer to do these things has been slightly declining.
About 95\% of code I see is flawless and a model of pure perfection.
The other 5\% makes me want to crawl, hide, and start sucking my thumb (well, aside from fixing it).
It is not that it violates formatting standards -- it is often fundamentally flawed and shouldn't work.I'm not in aviation software.
In my area, most code is deemed good if it "works".
Too many ways for "working" code to be highly flawed.
Sometimes one flaw masks another...   Sometimes code that is fundamentally flawed (e.g.
violates first principles) "works" until minor modifications are applied.
[Especially troublesome when it has been in use for 10-20 years in commercial systems!
]Signal Processing / Control Systems on embedded hardware are sometimes especially difficult to easily verify.
(The open-loop frequency response of a control system could be measured, but this is meaningless if the basic filtering code is screwed up and/or a large complex chain of hardware is involved which is not easily tested).
Its not that verification isn't possible, but it isn't often possible in a way that easily integrates into a finished product.
[It becomes more of an manual (and one-time executed) engineering test and rather than an automated test-case.
]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261329</id>
	<title>Re:Computers and People</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244480400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your average autopilot has the benefit of the combined experience of millions of hours of flight time, being programmed in knowledge of that history.  How can a human pilot match that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your average autopilot has the benefit of the combined experience of millions of hours of flight time , being programmed in knowledge of that history .
How can a human pilot match that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your average autopilot has the benefit of the combined experience of millions of hours of flight time, being programmed in knowledge of that history.
How can a human pilot match that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264071</id>
	<title>What an over simplification!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244554440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if this distinction between Airbus and Boeing is true, then it's a shame Aeroflot bought Boeing:</p><p><a href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090603/twl-russian-death-crash-pilot-was-drunk-41f21e0.html" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090603/twl-russian-death-crash-pilot-was-drunk-41f21e0.html</a> [yahoo.com]</p><p>Humans do stupid things sometimes. Computers have bugs. Choose your poison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if this distinction between Airbus and Boeing is true , then it 's a shame Aeroflot bought Boeing : http : //uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090603/twl-russian-death-crash-pilot-was-drunk-41f21e0.html [ yahoo.com ] Humans do stupid things sometimes .
Computers have bugs .
Choose your poison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if this distinction between Airbus and Boeing is true, then it's a shame Aeroflot bought Boeing:http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090603/twl-russian-death-crash-pilot-was-drunk-41f21e0.html [yahoo.com]Humans do stupid things sometimes.
Computers have bugs.
Choose your poison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265403</id>
	<title>thus spoke the viral marketing dept. of Boeing</title>
	<author>k2r</author>
	<datestamp>1244561160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least the wording suggests that the person is way more intelligent than the content suggests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the wording suggests that the person is way more intelligent than the content suggests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the wording suggests that the person is way more intelligent than the content suggests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260677</id>
	<title>To make longer the list of dead people ?</title>
	<author>HollyMolly-1122</author>
	<datestamp>1244476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If plane pilots can only sit and watch how plane crashes than why it's necessary keep them on a plane ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If plane pilots can only sit and watch how plane crashes than why it 's necessary keep them on a plane ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If plane pilots can only sit and watch how plane crashes than why it's necessary keep them on a plane ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28266429</id>
	<title>Re:I won't fly with a "Battle Hardened" pilot.</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1244565600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't my understanding at all. I work for a flight training company and talk to the pilots a bit, so I do have some small (but not direct) knowledge.

</p><p>What I have been told is that the airlines love hiring from the military, due to the large number of hours (experience) the pilots come with. However, it is very true that they prefer to hire military cargo pilots, rather that fighter pilots. The cargo pilots are used to flying the larger planes, and generally aren't as inclined to pull crap like buzzing the control tower upside-down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't my understanding at all .
I work for a flight training company and talk to the pilots a bit , so I do have some small ( but not direct ) knowledge .
What I have been told is that the airlines love hiring from the military , due to the large number of hours ( experience ) the pilots come with .
However , it is very true that they prefer to hire military cargo pilots , rather that fighter pilots .
The cargo pilots are used to flying the larger planes , and generally are n't as inclined to pull crap like buzzing the control tower upside-down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't my understanding at all.
I work for a flight training company and talk to the pilots a bit, so I do have some small (but not direct) knowledge.
What I have been told is that the airlines love hiring from the military, due to the large number of hours (experience) the pilots come with.
However, it is very true that they prefer to hire military cargo pilots, rather that fighter pilots.
The cargo pilots are used to flying the larger planes, and generally aren't as inclined to pull crap like buzzing the control tower upside-down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28268135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28266429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28277463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261027
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28277681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260405
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28266973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28276935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28268225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261201
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28273315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_0035253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28271245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260801
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264881
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28268135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28277463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260817
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264831
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28273315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28265911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28277681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28266973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264819
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28268225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28267629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260405
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28266429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261201
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28264369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28276935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260925
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28262507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_0035253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28260247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28263013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_0035253.28261329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
