<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_28_0858238</id>
	<title>Investigators Suspect Computers Doomed Air France Jet</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246190460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:DesScorp@@@Gmail...com" rel="nofollow">DesScorp</a> writes <i>"Investigators working with the wreckage of Air France flight 447 believe the aircraft suffered <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124605948270463623.html">cascading system failures with the on-board computers</a>, eliminating the automation the aircraft needed to stay aloft. 'Relying on backup instruments, the Air France pilots apparently struggled to restart flight-management computers even as their plane may have begun breaking up from excessive speed,' reports the Wall Street Journal. Computer malfunctions may not be an isolated incident on the Airbus A330, as the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0627/p02s01-usgn.html">NTSB is now investigating two other flights</a> 'in which airspeed and altitude indications in the cockpits of Airbus A330 aircraft may have malfunctioned.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DesScorp writes " Investigators working with the wreckage of Air France flight 447 believe the aircraft suffered cascading system failures with the on-board computers , eliminating the automation the aircraft needed to stay aloft .
'Relying on backup instruments , the Air France pilots apparently struggled to restart flight-management computers even as their plane may have begun breaking up from excessive speed, ' reports the Wall Street Journal .
Computer malfunctions may not be an isolated incident on the Airbus A330 , as the NTSB is now investigating two other flights 'in which airspeed and altitude indications in the cockpits of Airbus A330 aircraft may have malfunctioned .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DesScorp writes "Investigators working with the wreckage of Air France flight 447 believe the aircraft suffered cascading system failures with the on-board computers, eliminating the automation the aircraft needed to stay aloft.
'Relying on backup instruments, the Air France pilots apparently struggled to restart flight-management computers even as their plane may have begun breaking up from excessive speed,' reports the Wall Street Journal.
Computer malfunctions may not be an isolated incident on the Airbus A330, as the NTSB is now investigating two other flights 'in which airspeed and altitude indications in the cockpits of Airbus A330 aircraft may have malfunctioned.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504143</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are a couple of aspects about the A330 problems that amaze me:</p><p>1. How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow? I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight? What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?<br>2. If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well? At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.<br>3. In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct. Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.</p></div><p>Disclaimer:  I am a pilot, but not an airline pilot.  I know enough about airliners to be a hazard, so to speak, but my take on these 3 questions:</p><p>1.  Because more robust designs weigh more and cost more to operate.  Therefore, the most important computer in this equation is the one that figures out how likely something like this is to happen and what it's going to cost vs. doing it this way and accepting the risk.  In other words, and without knowledge of what actually happened here, many industrial accidents of all sorts begin on finance people's spreadsheets.</p><p>2.  Ultimately because aviation authorities don't require it.  However, I can also see pilots not liking it very much for good reason.  Humans aren't perfect, and our lack of perfection is usually made up for in other ways.  I've made mistakes and corrected them while flying.  If every one was recorded in great detail, I can imagine what employers and insurance companies would do with that were I a professional pilot.  What we'd need to do is get it codified into law that this data could only be used in accident investigations.  Given the world's record on data privacy generally, I don't see this being easy to do.</p><p>3.  Having flown light planes with glass cockpits, I can just say that you have no idea...  They do change your way of thinking and reacting.  The things I fly at least I can turn the computers off and the plane will still perform normally.  Not the case in many things that fly these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a couple of aspects about the A330 problems that amaze me : 1 .
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow ?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls , but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight ?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete ? 2 .
If the airplane can send fault messages home , why do n't blackbox data streams get sent as well ?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.3 .
In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you can not tell if the software is correct .
Essentially , if the computer says it is so then it is , and you either survive or not.Disclaimer : I am a pilot , but not an airline pilot .
I know enough about airliners to be a hazard , so to speak , but my take on these 3 questions : 1 .
Because more robust designs weigh more and cost more to operate .
Therefore , the most important computer in this equation is the one that figures out how likely something like this is to happen and what it 's going to cost vs. doing it this way and accepting the risk .
In other words , and without knowledge of what actually happened here , many industrial accidents of all sorts begin on finance people 's spreadsheets.2 .
Ultimately because aviation authorities do n't require it .
However , I can also see pilots not liking it very much for good reason .
Humans are n't perfect , and our lack of perfection is usually made up for in other ways .
I 've made mistakes and corrected them while flying .
If every one was recorded in great detail , I can imagine what employers and insurance companies would do with that were I a professional pilot .
What we 'd need to do is get it codified into law that this data could only be used in accident investigations .
Given the world 's record on data privacy generally , I do n't see this being easy to do.3 .
Having flown light planes with glass cockpits , I can just say that you have no idea... They do change your way of thinking and reacting .
The things I fly at least I can turn the computers off and the plane will still perform normally .
Not the case in many things that fly these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a couple of aspects about the A330 problems that amaze me:1.
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?2.
If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.3.
In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct.
Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.Disclaimer:  I am a pilot, but not an airline pilot.
I know enough about airliners to be a hazard, so to speak, but my take on these 3 questions:1.
Because more robust designs weigh more and cost more to operate.
Therefore, the most important computer in this equation is the one that figures out how likely something like this is to happen and what it's going to cost vs. doing it this way and accepting the risk.
In other words, and without knowledge of what actually happened here, many industrial accidents of all sorts begin on finance people's spreadsheets.2.
Ultimately because aviation authorities don't require it.
However, I can also see pilots not liking it very much for good reason.
Humans aren't perfect, and our lack of perfection is usually made up for in other ways.
I've made mistakes and corrected them while flying.
If every one was recorded in great detail, I can imagine what employers and insurance companies would do with that were I a professional pilot.
What we'd need to do is get it codified into law that this data could only be used in accident investigations.
Given the world's record on data privacy generally, I don't see this being easy to do.3.
Having flown light planes with glass cockpits, I can just say that you have no idea...  They do change your way of thinking and reacting.
The things I fly at least I can turn the computers off and the plane will still perform normally.
Not the case in many things that fly these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507577</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1246188540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The downside of electric, is the complicated backup systems IE the emergency energy storage.  With hydraulic systems you use compressed air: it is simple to check what volume of air? at what pressure? thats the energy you have available.  With electric, battery chemistry is too complicated for any simple check to know with 100\% certainty what amount of energy you have.  Sure you can inspect a battery for buildup on the plates, specific gravity, etc, etc and do a offline check, and have some certainty for a period of time.  So I am sure it can work for aviation, but no where near as easy of check-out as hydraulics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The downside of electric , is the complicated backup systems IE the emergency energy storage .
With hydraulic systems you use compressed air : it is simple to check what volume of air ?
at what pressure ?
thats the energy you have available .
With electric , battery chemistry is too complicated for any simple check to know with 100 \ % certainty what amount of energy you have .
Sure you can inspect a battery for buildup on the plates , specific gravity , etc , etc and do a offline check , and have some certainty for a period of time .
So I am sure it can work for aviation , but no where near as easy of check-out as hydraulics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The downside of electric, is the complicated backup systems IE the emergency energy storage.
With hydraulic systems you use compressed air: it is simple to check what volume of air?
at what pressure?
thats the energy you have available.
With electric, battery chemistry is too complicated for any simple check to know with 100\% certainty what amount of energy you have.
Sure you can inspect a battery for buildup on the plates, specific gravity, etc, etc and do a offline check, and have some certainty for a period of time.
So I am sure it can work for aviation, but no where near as easy of check-out as hydraulics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503547</id>
	<title>Re:No manual control?</title>
	<author>Poingggg</author>
	<datestamp>1246202040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did RTFA, and from what i understand of it it was impossible to get a reliable reading from the instruments in the cockpit, because the computers were failing and the airspeed-detector was unreliable (what seemed to be the primary cause of the failing of the computers). Manual control is fine, IF you know your altitude, airspeed etc. Try driving a car with blinded windows and a defective speedometer and an unreliable rev-meter.<br>I am not a pilot, but even I can understand that for manual control one has to have reliable data on what the plane is doing, which is exactly what was missing in this case (if the theory we are talking about is right).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did RTFA , and from what i understand of it it was impossible to get a reliable reading from the instruments in the cockpit , because the computers were failing and the airspeed-detector was unreliable ( what seemed to be the primary cause of the failing of the computers ) .
Manual control is fine , IF you know your altitude , airspeed etc .
Try driving a car with blinded windows and a defective speedometer and an unreliable rev-meter.I am not a pilot , but even I can understand that for manual control one has to have reliable data on what the plane is doing , which is exactly what was missing in this case ( if the theory we are talking about is right ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did RTFA, and from what i understand of it it was impossible to get a reliable reading from the instruments in the cockpit, because the computers were failing and the airspeed-detector was unreliable (what seemed to be the primary cause of the failing of the computers).
Manual control is fine, IF you know your altitude, airspeed etc.
Try driving a car with blinded windows and a defective speedometer and an unreliable rev-meter.I am not a pilot, but even I can understand that for manual control one has to have reliable data on what the plane is doing, which is exactly what was missing in this case (if the theory we are talking about is right).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503315</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246200240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was modded down here multiple times for saying just this earlier. What is funny is that this issue is already KNOWN amongst commercial pilots. Just the idiots around that do not know, but want to mod ppl down because they support Airbus.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was modded down here multiple times for saying just this earlier .
What is funny is that this issue is already KNOWN amongst commercial pilots .
Just the idiots around that do not know , but want to mod ppl down because they support Airbus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was modded down here multiple times for saying just this earlier.
What is funny is that this issue is already KNOWN amongst commercial pilots.
Just the idiots around that do not know, but want to mod ppl down because they support Airbus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502961</id>
	<title>Re:Holy shit!</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1246196760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Investigators Suspect Computers Doomed Air France Jet</p></div></blockquote><p>We've had some crazy scare-mongering headlines here before, but this one is definitely up there with the best.</p><p>It makes me think "I, Robot" or three evil islamonaziliberal Apple IIs gaining sentience.</p><p>Maybe "software causes crash" or "automated systems cause crash" but "<i>computers</i> doomed jet"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Investigators Suspect Computers Doomed Air France JetWe 've had some crazy scare-mongering headlines here before , but this one is definitely up there with the best.It makes me think " I , Robot " or three evil islamonaziliberal Apple IIs gaining sentience.Maybe " software causes crash " or " automated systems cause crash " but " computers doomed jet " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Investigators Suspect Computers Doomed Air France JetWe've had some crazy scare-mongering headlines here before, but this one is definitely up there with the best.It makes me think "I, Robot" or three evil islamonaziliberal Apple IIs gaining sentience.Maybe "software causes crash" or "automated systems cause crash" but "computers doomed jet"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509473</id>
	<title>Re:Two things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246207140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would still wager that a computer would statistically be <b>cheaper</b> than a human overall</p></div></blockquote><p>Corrected that for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would still wager that a computer would statistically be cheaper than a human overallCorrected that for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would still wager that a computer would statistically be cheaper than a human overallCorrected that for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502805</id>
	<title>Holy shit!</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1246194900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A bug in software! This is like the article about how RMS has the same opinion he had a month ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A bug in software !
This is like the article about how RMS has the same opinion he had a month ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bug in software!
This is like the article about how RMS has the same opinion he had a month ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503963</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246205580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why isn't there a <i>-i lolwut</i> mod?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't there a -i lolwut mod ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't there a -i lolwut mod?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504057</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) The margin of safety is there -- 1.5 positive G and 1.2 negative G for civil airliners.  Of course, you run into issues such as flutter, wave drag, and so on.  It seems as if the computer failure put massive stresses on the airframe which were only made much worse by the intense thunderstorms in the area.</p><p>2) I don't know -- time for you to start a company doing just that? =)</p><p>3) Except in the case of a calculator, you just move it aside when you know it's wrong.  Here, if your plane has started to disintegrate, you have very little time to take over, and the plane you get back may be completely unflyable anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The margin of safety is there -- 1.5 positive G and 1.2 negative G for civil airliners .
Of course , you run into issues such as flutter , wave drag , and so on .
It seems as if the computer failure put massive stresses on the airframe which were only made much worse by the intense thunderstorms in the area.2 ) I do n't know -- time for you to start a company doing just that ?
= ) 3 ) Except in the case of a calculator , you just move it aside when you know it 's wrong .
Here , if your plane has started to disintegrate , you have very little time to take over , and the plane you get back may be completely unflyable anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The margin of safety is there -- 1.5 positive G and 1.2 negative G for civil airliners.
Of course, you run into issues such as flutter, wave drag, and so on.
It seems as if the computer failure put massive stresses on the airframe which were only made much worse by the intense thunderstorms in the area.2) I don't know -- time for you to start a company doing just that?
=)3) Except in the case of a calculator, you just move it aside when you know it's wrong.
Here, if your plane has started to disintegrate, you have very little time to take over, and the plane you get back may be completely unflyable anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504407</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are plenty examples of human philosophy errors, such as how it wasn't until the early 1990's that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo over his observation the earth revolved around the sun.</p></div><p>That is a popular prejudice. Fact is, Galileo was in the dock because of a slanderous book, calling the Pope an idiot.<br>The heliocentric astronomical system has already been formulated by Copernicus, an Catholic cleric, in in 1543 in a book dedicated to the Pope. The Catholic church never opposed Helicentrism because it has no relevance for theology.<br>Fact is, the Catholic Church had some of the best astronomers of it's time and did not only reform the calendar of the western world, but that of China as well.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>My pet peeve of the computer industry, the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol(s),</p> </div><p>That isn't a combination of 0 and 1, but an graphic abstraction of an old fashioned electrical switch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are plenty examples of human philosophy errors , such as how it was n't until the early 1990 's that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo over his observation the earth revolved around the sun.That is a popular prejudice .
Fact is , Galileo was in the dock because of a slanderous book , calling the Pope an idiot.The heliocentric astronomical system has already been formulated by Copernicus , an Catholic cleric , in in 1543 in a book dedicated to the Pope .
The Catholic church never opposed Helicentrism because it has no relevance for theology.Fact is , the Catholic Church had some of the best astronomers of it 's time and did not only reform the calendar of the western world , but that of China as well.My pet peeve of the computer industry , the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol ( s ) , That is n't a combination of 0 and 1 , but an graphic abstraction of an old fashioned electrical switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are plenty examples of human philosophy errors, such as how it wasn't until the early 1990's that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo over his observation the earth revolved around the sun.That is a popular prejudice.
Fact is, Galileo was in the dock because of a slanderous book, calling the Pope an idiot.The heliocentric astronomical system has already been formulated by Copernicus, an Catholic cleric, in in 1543 in a book dedicated to the Pope.
The Catholic church never opposed Helicentrism because it has no relevance for theology.Fact is, the Catholic Church had some of the best astronomers of it's time and did not only reform the calendar of the western world, but that of China as well.My pet peeve of the computer industry, the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol(s), That isn't a combination of 0 and 1, but an graphic abstraction of an old fashioned electrical switch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503267</id>
	<title>Speculation</title>
	<author>ironicsky</author>
	<datestamp>1246199880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I checked the air france black box recorder hasn't been located let alone pulled out of the ocean. Without having the black box how can the NTSB be making speculations as to the cause of the downed flight?  Others are speculating things like the <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0619/p02s01-usgn.html" title="csmonitor.com">Rudder</a> [csmonitor.com] had problems, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6407081.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">Turbulence</a> [timesonline.co.uk], this <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124605948270463623.html" title="wsj.com">computer bug</a> [wsj.com]. <br>
<br>
Until they know what the actual cause is they should avoid speculation because it does absolutely nothing other then fill media headlines with non-sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked the air france black box recorder has n't been located let alone pulled out of the ocean .
Without having the black box how can the NTSB be making speculations as to the cause of the downed flight ?
Others are speculating things like the Rudder [ csmonitor.com ] had problems , Turbulence [ timesonline.co.uk ] , this computer bug [ wsj.com ] .
Until they know what the actual cause is they should avoid speculation because it does absolutely nothing other then fill media headlines with non-sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked the air france black box recorder hasn't been located let alone pulled out of the ocean.
Without having the black box how can the NTSB be making speculations as to the cause of the downed flight?
Others are speculating things like the Rudder [csmonitor.com] had problems, Turbulence [timesonline.co.uk], this computer bug [wsj.com].
Until they know what the actual cause is they should avoid speculation because it does absolutely nothing other then fill media headlines with non-sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505793</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246217400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?"</p></div><p>Because it won't fly otherwise.  The design margins are like 110\%, otherwise the plane is too heavy to take off.  And at such high speeds, control surfaces that could survive full-deflection without destruction would be either too heavy or too small to be useful in other flight conditions like takeoff and landing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"If the airplane can send fault messages back home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well?"</p></div><p>That would be a lot more data, too much bandwidth considering the number of planes in the sky at any given moment.  And in 99.9999\% of the time, the data wouldn't be useful--- and it would be crowding out the other<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.00001\%.  Now, you could argue that a system that senses a severe set of failures could step up its data broadcasts... if the hardware will facilitate that.  I'm guessing that they already transmit as much as they can.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators"</p></div><p>Yes, and no.  The pilots in the cockpit understand the basic physics behind flight pretty well.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  In a cascade of failures, however, they might get overwhelmed with conflicting information and be able to sort out how to respond to the problem--- if a successful response is even available.</p><p>Remember RFK's crash in 1999?  Had he merely turned ON and USED his autopilot, all aboard would have survived the flight.  Automation is a double-edged sword.  Not to be dismissed lightly, but not to be used without justification, either.  For a variety of reasons, today's planes need it and are getting a lot of benefit from it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow ?
" Because it wo n't fly otherwise .
The design margins are like 110 \ % , otherwise the plane is too heavy to take off .
And at such high speeds , control surfaces that could survive full-deflection without destruction would be either too heavy or too small to be useful in other flight conditions like takeoff and landing .
" If the airplane can send fault messages back home , why do n't blackbox data streams get sent as well ?
" That would be a lot more data , too much bandwidth considering the number of planes in the sky at any given moment .
And in 99.9999 \ % of the time , the data would n't be useful--- and it would be crowding out the other .00001 \ % .
Now , you could argue that a system that senses a severe set of failures could step up its data broadcasts... if the hardware will facilitate that .
I 'm guessing that they already transmit as much as they can .
" In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators " Yes , and no .
The pilots in the cockpit understand the basic physics behind flight pretty well .
: ) In a cascade of failures , however , they might get overwhelmed with conflicting information and be able to sort out how to respond to the problem--- if a successful response is even available.Remember RFK 's crash in 1999 ?
Had he merely turned ON and USED his autopilot , all aboard would have survived the flight .
Automation is a double-edged sword .
Not to be dismissed lightly , but not to be used without justification , either .
For a variety of reasons , today 's planes need it and are getting a lot of benefit from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?
"Because it won't fly otherwise.
The design margins are like 110\%, otherwise the plane is too heavy to take off.
And at such high speeds, control surfaces that could survive full-deflection without destruction would be either too heavy or too small to be useful in other flight conditions like takeoff and landing.
"If the airplane can send fault messages back home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well?
"That would be a lot more data, too much bandwidth considering the number of planes in the sky at any given moment.
And in 99.9999\% of the time, the data wouldn't be useful--- and it would be crowding out the other .00001\%.
Now, you could argue that a system that senses a severe set of failures could step up its data broadcasts... if the hardware will facilitate that.
I'm guessing that they already transmit as much as they can.
"In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators"Yes, and no.
The pilots in the cockpit understand the basic physics behind flight pretty well.
:)  In a cascade of failures, however, they might get overwhelmed with conflicting information and be able to sort out how to respond to the problem--- if a successful response is even available.Remember RFK's crash in 1999?
Had he merely turned ON and USED his autopilot, all aboard would have survived the flight.
Automation is a double-edged sword.
Not to be dismissed lightly, but not to be used without justification, either.
For a variety of reasons, today's planes need it and are getting a lot of benefit from it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28540885</id>
	<title>Re:No manual control?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1246455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even given all that, something more must have happened.  The usual procedure in that case is to set the throttles to a reasonably safe value and fly level-ish by the seat of your pants until the situation can be resolved.</p><p>Sort of like in your car analogy, you don't know exactly where you need the accelerator, but you do know that all the way up or on the floor isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even given all that , something more must have happened .
The usual procedure in that case is to set the throttles to a reasonably safe value and fly level-ish by the seat of your pants until the situation can be resolved.Sort of like in your car analogy , you do n't know exactly where you need the accelerator , but you do know that all the way up or on the floor is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even given all that, something more must have happened.
The usual procedure in that case is to set the throttles to a reasonably safe value and fly level-ish by the seat of your pants until the situation can be resolved.Sort of like in your car analogy, you don't know exactly where you need the accelerator, but you do know that all the way up or on the floor isn't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505341</id>
	<title>Re:Two things</title>
	<author>DieByWire</author>
	<datestamp>1246214640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... It used to be up to the pilot to take off and land, and the autopilot would fly the bit in the middle in good conditions. Now the autopilot takes off and lands too.</p></div><p>The 'used to be' part is right, the 'now' part is pure and utter bollocks. Airliners <b>never</b> take off on autopilot. In fact, there are minimum altitudes/times aloft  for autopilot engagement.</p><p>As far as landings, autolandings are still the exception, not the norm, even after 25+ years of autolands being a normal part of civil aviation. Autolands are accomplished when the visibility is too low for pilots to land visually, or in good weather at a specified interval to confirm that the autoland system is still performing up to snuff. Pilots can also choose to autoland if they want to, but most resist giving up a landing when there's no good need to. Pilots can also manually land in winds that no one would dare trust to the autopilots.</p><p>Pilots still take off and land and leave the boring stuff to the autopilot.</p><p>DieByWire</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... It used to be up to the pilot to take off and land , and the autopilot would fly the bit in the middle in good conditions .
Now the autopilot takes off and lands too.The 'used to be ' part is right , the 'now ' part is pure and utter bollocks .
Airliners never take off on autopilot .
In fact , there are minimum altitudes/times aloft for autopilot engagement.As far as landings , autolandings are still the exception , not the norm , even after 25 + years of autolands being a normal part of civil aviation .
Autolands are accomplished when the visibility is too low for pilots to land visually , or in good weather at a specified interval to confirm that the autoland system is still performing up to snuff .
Pilots can also choose to autoland if they want to , but most resist giving up a landing when there 's no good need to .
Pilots can also manually land in winds that no one would dare trust to the autopilots.Pilots still take off and land and leave the boring stuff to the autopilot.DieByWire</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... It used to be up to the pilot to take off and land, and the autopilot would fly the bit in the middle in good conditions.
Now the autopilot takes off and lands too.The 'used to be' part is right, the 'now' part is pure and utter bollocks.
Airliners never take off on autopilot.
In fact, there are minimum altitudes/times aloft  for autopilot engagement.As far as landings, autolandings are still the exception, not the norm, even after 25+ years of autolands being a normal part of civil aviation.
Autolands are accomplished when the visibility is too low for pilots to land visually, or in good weather at a specified interval to confirm that the autoland system is still performing up to snuff.
Pilots can also choose to autoland if they want to, but most resist giving up a landing when there's no good need to.
Pilots can also manually land in winds that no one would dare trust to the autopilots.Pilots still take off and land and leave the boring stuff to the autopilot.DieByWire
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504099</id>
	<title>Memo to Airbus Management Re: Travel</title>
	<author>hypnolizard</author>
	<datestamp>1246206540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Company travel is now restricted to the A330 until a solution is found."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Company travel is now restricted to the A330 until a solution is found .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Company travel is now restricted to the A330 until a solution is found.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504061</id>
	<title>Strange.</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1246206300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Recently there was an even more biased article on slashdot about the topic.....

ok a few short thoughts

a) Watch old movies and tell me hoe many people you see in the cockpit in a transatlantic flight. Tell me how many you see today. Automation helps reducing work. You can invest that free work into more safety (e.g. pilots beeing able to look onto the map for the next few hours instead of beeing busy with what is goin on now) or you can redice costs (or both)

b) has it ever occure to the people criticizing the automated systems that these may have opened new limits of where (height) you can operate a airplane for a given cost (e.g. fuel). Without advanded controll systems one should probably avoid unsuitable height os have an additional espeed/ngine controller person

c) Even if you have an engine controller, if you would ask e who is better at maintaining the right engine power, it take the automated system. I seriously doubt that humans having the same sensor data would make a better decistion in average</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently there was an even more biased article on slashdot about the topic.... . ok a few short thoughts a ) Watch old movies and tell me hoe many people you see in the cockpit in a transatlantic flight .
Tell me how many you see today .
Automation helps reducing work .
You can invest that free work into more safety ( e.g .
pilots beeing able to look onto the map for the next few hours instead of beeing busy with what is goin on now ) or you can redice costs ( or both ) b ) has it ever occure to the people criticizing the automated systems that these may have opened new limits of where ( height ) you can operate a airplane for a given cost ( e.g .
fuel ) . Without advanded controll systems one should probably avoid unsuitable height os have an additional espeed/ngine controller person c ) Even if you have an engine controller , if you would ask e who is better at maintaining the right engine power , it take the automated system .
I seriously doubt that humans having the same sensor data would make a better decistion in average</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently there was an even more biased article on slashdot about the topic.....

ok a few short thoughts

a) Watch old movies and tell me hoe many people you see in the cockpit in a transatlantic flight.
Tell me how many you see today.
Automation helps reducing work.
You can invest that free work into more safety (e.g.
pilots beeing able to look onto the map for the next few hours instead of beeing busy with what is goin on now) or you can redice costs (or both)

b) has it ever occure to the people criticizing the automated systems that these may have opened new limits of where (height) you can operate a airplane for a given cost (e.g.
fuel). Without advanded controll systems one should probably avoid unsuitable height os have an additional espeed/ngine controller person

c) Even if you have an engine controller, if you would ask e who is better at maintaining the right engine power, it take the automated system.
I seriously doubt that humans having the same sensor data would make a better decistion in average</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503411</id>
	<title>And the Operating System is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246201080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know???  I'll reserve further comments until this is known.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know ? ? ?
I 'll reserve further comments until this is known .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know???
I'll reserve further comments until this is known.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535</id>
	<title>Broke up from flying 'too fast'?</title>
	<author>Fantastic Lad</author>
	<datestamp>1246201920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay.  That's just silly.</p><p>There is clearly some major pressure to build a presentable story to the public if they're floating ideas like these ones.  If the PR is successful, Official Culture will soon include passenger jets which will break up from 'excessive' flying.</p><p>A significant air blast from one of the increasingly frequent falling rocks from outer space could easily account for this disaster, and could explain some of the more peculiar details.</p><blockquote><div><p>Within a few days of the crash the first piece of evidence that something other than high technology and weather destroyed AF 447 came in.</p><p>A Spanish pilot with Air Comet (which flies from South and Central American countries to Madrid) flying the Lima to Madrid route reported a bright descending light in the region of AF 447's last position:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Suddenly we saw in the distance a bright intense flash of white light that fell straight down and disappeared in six seconds.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; At the time of the sighting, (the copilot and a passenger who was in the front kitchen area of the airplane also saw it), the Air Comet aircraft was located at seven degrees north of the equator and at the 49th meridian West. The estimated location for the A-330-203 until the moment of its disappearance is at the equator and around the 30th meridian West."</p><p>It seems reasonable to suggest that an aircraft would not produce a bright and intense white light for six seconds as it fell from the sky. The many dozens of meteorite and fireball sightings over the past few years however are often seen as bright white flashes of descending light.</p></div></blockquote><p>--Quoted from <a href="http://www.sott.net/articles/show/186672-What-are-they-hiding-Flight-447-and-Tunguska-Type-Events" title="sott.net">this article</a> [sott.net] which digs into the idea of this event being another case of "Is it just me ore do there seem to be a lot more ROCKS FROM SPACE falling around our ears lately?".</p><p>-FL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay .
That 's just silly.There is clearly some major pressure to build a presentable story to the public if they 're floating ideas like these ones .
If the PR is successful , Official Culture will soon include passenger jets which will break up from 'excessive ' flying.A significant air blast from one of the increasingly frequent falling rocks from outer space could easily account for this disaster , and could explain some of the more peculiar details.Within a few days of the crash the first piece of evidence that something other than high technology and weather destroyed AF 447 came in.A Spanish pilot with Air Comet ( which flies from South and Central American countries to Madrid ) flying the Lima to Madrid route reported a bright descending light in the region of AF 447 's last position :         " Suddenly we saw in the distance a bright intense flash of white light that fell straight down and disappeared in six seconds .
        At the time of the sighting , ( the copilot and a passenger who was in the front kitchen area of the airplane also saw it ) , the Air Comet aircraft was located at seven degrees north of the equator and at the 49th meridian West .
The estimated location for the A-330-203 until the moment of its disappearance is at the equator and around the 30th meridian West .
" It seems reasonable to suggest that an aircraft would not produce a bright and intense white light for six seconds as it fell from the sky .
The many dozens of meteorite and fireball sightings over the past few years however are often seen as bright white flashes of descending light.--Quoted from this article [ sott.net ] which digs into the idea of this event being another case of " Is it just me ore do there seem to be a lot more ROCKS FROM SPACE falling around our ears lately ?
" .-FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay.
That's just silly.There is clearly some major pressure to build a presentable story to the public if they're floating ideas like these ones.
If the PR is successful, Official Culture will soon include passenger jets which will break up from 'excessive' flying.A significant air blast from one of the increasingly frequent falling rocks from outer space could easily account for this disaster, and could explain some of the more peculiar details.Within a few days of the crash the first piece of evidence that something other than high technology and weather destroyed AF 447 came in.A Spanish pilot with Air Comet (which flies from South and Central American countries to Madrid) flying the Lima to Madrid route reported a bright descending light in the region of AF 447's last position:
        "Suddenly we saw in the distance a bright intense flash of white light that fell straight down and disappeared in six seconds.
        At the time of the sighting, (the copilot and a passenger who was in the front kitchen area of the airplane also saw it), the Air Comet aircraft was located at seven degrees north of the equator and at the 49th meridian West.
The estimated location for the A-330-203 until the moment of its disappearance is at the equator and around the 30th meridian West.
"It seems reasonable to suggest that an aircraft would not produce a bright and intense white light for six seconds as it fell from the sky.
The many dozens of meteorite and fireball sightings over the past few years however are often seen as bright white flashes of descending light.--Quoted from this article [sott.net] which digs into the idea of this event being another case of "Is it just me ore do there seem to be a lot more ROCKS FROM SPACE falling around our ears lately?
".-FL
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507277</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246186320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow? I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight? What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?</p><p>Because normally, the margin to airframe disintegration is very large. The conditions in which this crash occured weren't in good weather and proper conditions.</p><p>2. If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well? At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.</p><p>If all aircraft started streaming data out, where would it go? Who coordinates it's recording and archival? How much radio spectrum would you require (a lot, most likely)? What happens when the conditions hamper radio transmission?</p><p>I don't know the particulars, but the fault transmissions might have been done through the transponder, a low-bandwidth secondary radar system.</p><p>3. In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct. Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.</p><p>The computer does not *interpret* flight data for the pilot, it presents it to the pilot; the computer monitors flight *inputs* with regard to direct/alternate law in order to maintain a proper flight envelope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow ?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls , but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight ?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete ? Because normally , the margin to airframe disintegration is very large .
The conditions in which this crash occured were n't in good weather and proper conditions.2 .
If the airplane can send fault messages home , why do n't blackbox data streams get sent as well ?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.If all aircraft started streaming data out , where would it go ?
Who coordinates it 's recording and archival ?
How much radio spectrum would you require ( a lot , most likely ) ?
What happens when the conditions hamper radio transmission ? I do n't know the particulars , but the fault transmissions might have been done through the transponder , a low-bandwidth secondary radar system.3 .
In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you can not tell if the software is correct .
Essentially , if the computer says it is so then it is , and you either survive or not.The computer does not * interpret * flight data for the pilot , it presents it to the pilot ; the computer monitors flight * inputs * with regard to direct/alternate law in order to maintain a proper flight envelope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?Because normally, the margin to airframe disintegration is very large.
The conditions in which this crash occured weren't in good weather and proper conditions.2.
If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.If all aircraft started streaming data out, where would it go?
Who coordinates it's recording and archival?
How much radio spectrum would you require (a lot, most likely)?
What happens when the conditions hamper radio transmission?I don't know the particulars, but the fault transmissions might have been done through the transponder, a low-bandwidth secondary radar system.3.
In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct.
Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.The computer does not *interpret* flight data for the pilot, it presents it to the pilot; the computer monitors flight *inputs* with regard to direct/alternate law in order to maintain a proper flight envelope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506987</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246183620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?</p></div></blockquote><p>There are certification bodies in the US, Europe and many other countries that define what that margin is.  The greater the margin the heavier the plane will be, the more fuel it will need and the less load it will be able to carry.  So your question really is asking if all these certification bodies are idiots.  They are not and are definitely better at it than your armchair speculation.  Simple evidence is looking at the rate of crashes and fatalities over time despite the increasing amount of air travel.</p><p>How come you don't walk around always wearing a bulletproof vest?  Why aren't all your house doors, windows and walls armoured?  Because there are costs and benefits and they all have to weighted together to come up with something appropriate.</p><blockquote><div><p>but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight?</p></div></blockquote><p>It would not tear apart in simple level flight within the normal speed range.  It could be torn apart going too fast (ie beyond the certification limits imposed by those national bodies) but even then would not be in level flight but likely dropping.  It was a massive thunderstorm with huge air currents they were going through. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China\_Airlines\_Flight\_006" title="wikipedia.org">This</a> [wikipedia.org] is an example of what planes can survive where the plane looped, parts flew off and the wings got permanently bent.  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe9PVaFGl3o" title="youtube.com">This</a> [youtube.com] is an example of a certification test for wing strength.  FAA regulations require that wings survive 1.5 times (150 percent) of the highest aerodynamic load that the jet could ever be expected to encounter during flight for 3 seconds.  That applies to all airliners.  The pitot tubes keep being mentioned because they tell you how fast you are going relative to the surrounding air.  If they iced over then you don't know and going to slow will result in a stall, going fast increases discomfort and going too fast can result in bits of the plane breaking off.</p><p>But to be clear it required abnormal circumstances to break apart.  Way beyond anything normally or abnormally encountered.  If the circumstances happened with any regularity then you would hear about this kind of accident more often.</p><blockquote><div><p>If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well? At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.</p></div></blockquote><p>The fault messages are generally intended for maintenance so that when the plane arrives they can be repaired as quickly as possible and the plane turned around.  They also help with long term tracking of wear and tear.  Current blackbox recorders record a huge amount of data which would be infeasible to transmit, especially when it has to go via satellite such as when over oceans.  Plane crashes are very rare (that is why they make the news) and it is even rarer to not find the blackboxes.</p><blockquote><div><p>In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct. Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.</p></div></blockquote><p>You overestimate the ability of humans.  We are long gone from the days of the lonesome hero sweating it with the control stick.  A flying plane is a complex mechanism.  You have many control surfaces, air pressures and speeds, centre of gravity, fuel consumption, engine abilities, aerodynamics etc all to take into account.  A computer program can do all of that so many times better than a human which includes being both more economical and reacting quicker.  The people who make planes are not idiots.  Ultimately you have to take the underlying tools you use as is.  For example I don't see you insisting on design your own CPU - you just use whatever is in your computer.  The airplane manufacturers have user (pilot) interaction teams to try and provide the best interfaces possible.  For example the Airbus team decided that the computer could feasibly compute safe flight angles but humans are unlikely to, so a human can pull the stick bar as far as the want but the plane will only obey it as much as is safe.  Boeing provide force feedback on their control sticks in the 777 but that information is synthesized (ie fake).  They also have modes where the computer hands over more control to the pilot such as when the computer is unsure of the readings it is getting or the calculations do not make sense.  (I believe pilots can also manually select these more control to them modes.)</p><p>But if you think humans are so much better look at how many managed to kill themselves in the earlier days of aviation, or at the way people "pilot" cars today.</p><p>If you genuinely care about this sort of stuff then I'd recommend studying and working for the regulators or design companies and seeing what difference you can make.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow ? There are certification bodies in the US , Europe and many other countries that define what that margin is .
The greater the margin the heavier the plane will be , the more fuel it will need and the less load it will be able to carry .
So your question really is asking if all these certification bodies are idiots .
They are not and are definitely better at it than your armchair speculation .
Simple evidence is looking at the rate of crashes and fatalities over time despite the increasing amount of air travel.How come you do n't walk around always wearing a bulletproof vest ?
Why are n't all your house doors , windows and walls armoured ?
Because there are costs and benefits and they all have to weighted together to come up with something appropriate.but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight ? It would not tear apart in simple level flight within the normal speed range .
It could be torn apart going too fast ( ie beyond the certification limits imposed by those national bodies ) but even then would not be in level flight but likely dropping .
It was a massive thunderstorm with huge air currents they were going through .
This [ wikipedia.org ] is an example of what planes can survive where the plane looped , parts flew off and the wings got permanently bent .
This [ youtube.com ] is an example of a certification test for wing strength .
FAA regulations require that wings survive 1.5 times ( 150 percent ) of the highest aerodynamic load that the jet could ever be expected to encounter during flight for 3 seconds .
That applies to all airliners .
The pitot tubes keep being mentioned because they tell you how fast you are going relative to the surrounding air .
If they iced over then you do n't know and going to slow will result in a stall , going fast increases discomfort and going too fast can result in bits of the plane breaking off.But to be clear it required abnormal circumstances to break apart .
Way beyond anything normally or abnormally encountered .
If the circumstances happened with any regularity then you would hear about this kind of accident more often.If the airplane can send fault messages home , why do n't blackbox data streams get sent as well ?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.The fault messages are generally intended for maintenance so that when the plane arrives they can be repaired as quickly as possible and the plane turned around .
They also help with long term tracking of wear and tear .
Current blackbox recorders record a huge amount of data which would be infeasible to transmit , especially when it has to go via satellite such as when over oceans .
Plane crashes are very rare ( that is why they make the news ) and it is even rarer to not find the blackboxes.In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you can not tell if the software is correct .
Essentially , if the computer says it is so then it is , and you either survive or not.You overestimate the ability of humans .
We are long gone from the days of the lonesome hero sweating it with the control stick .
A flying plane is a complex mechanism .
You have many control surfaces , air pressures and speeds , centre of gravity , fuel consumption , engine abilities , aerodynamics etc all to take into account .
A computer program can do all of that so many times better than a human which includes being both more economical and reacting quicker .
The people who make planes are not idiots .
Ultimately you have to take the underlying tools you use as is .
For example I do n't see you insisting on design your own CPU - you just use whatever is in your computer .
The airplane manufacturers have user ( pilot ) interaction teams to try and provide the best interfaces possible .
For example the Airbus team decided that the computer could feasibly compute safe flight angles but humans are unlikely to , so a human can pull the stick bar as far as the want but the plane will only obey it as much as is safe .
Boeing provide force feedback on their control sticks in the 777 but that information is synthesized ( ie fake ) .
They also have modes where the computer hands over more control to the pilot such as when the computer is unsure of the readings it is getting or the calculations do not make sense .
( I believe pilots can also manually select these more control to them modes .
) But if you think humans are so much better look at how many managed to kill themselves in the earlier days of aviation , or at the way people " pilot " cars today.If you genuinely care about this sort of stuff then I 'd recommend studying and working for the regulators or design companies and seeing what difference you can make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?There are certification bodies in the US, Europe and many other countries that define what that margin is.
The greater the margin the heavier the plane will be, the more fuel it will need and the less load it will be able to carry.
So your question really is asking if all these certification bodies are idiots.
They are not and are definitely better at it than your armchair speculation.
Simple evidence is looking at the rate of crashes and fatalities over time despite the increasing amount of air travel.How come you don't walk around always wearing a bulletproof vest?
Why aren't all your house doors, windows and walls armoured?
Because there are costs and benefits and they all have to weighted together to come up with something appropriate.but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight?It would not tear apart in simple level flight within the normal speed range.
It could be torn apart going too fast (ie beyond the certification limits imposed by those national bodies) but even then would not be in level flight but likely dropping.
It was a massive thunderstorm with huge air currents they were going through.
This [wikipedia.org] is an example of what planes can survive where the plane looped, parts flew off and the wings got permanently bent.
This [youtube.com] is an example of a certification test for wing strength.
FAA regulations require that wings survive 1.5 times (150 percent) of the highest aerodynamic load that the jet could ever be expected to encounter during flight for 3 seconds.
That applies to all airliners.
The pitot tubes keep being mentioned because they tell you how fast you are going relative to the surrounding air.
If they iced over then you don't know and going to slow will result in a stall, going fast increases discomfort and going too fast can result in bits of the plane breaking off.But to be clear it required abnormal circumstances to break apart.
Way beyond anything normally or abnormally encountered.
If the circumstances happened with any regularity then you would hear about this kind of accident more often.If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.The fault messages are generally intended for maintenance so that when the plane arrives they can be repaired as quickly as possible and the plane turned around.
They also help with long term tracking of wear and tear.
Current blackbox recorders record a huge amount of data which would be infeasible to transmit, especially when it has to go via satellite such as when over oceans.
Plane crashes are very rare (that is why they make the news) and it is even rarer to not find the blackboxes.In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct.
Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.You overestimate the ability of humans.
We are long gone from the days of the lonesome hero sweating it with the control stick.
A flying plane is a complex mechanism.
You have many control surfaces, air pressures and speeds, centre of gravity, fuel consumption, engine abilities, aerodynamics etc all to take into account.
A computer program can do all of that so many times better than a human which includes being both more economical and reacting quicker.
The people who make planes are not idiots.
Ultimately you have to take the underlying tools you use as is.
For example I don't see you insisting on design your own CPU - you just use whatever is in your computer.
The airplane manufacturers have user (pilot) interaction teams to try and provide the best interfaces possible.
For example the Airbus team decided that the computer could feasibly compute safe flight angles but humans are unlikely to, so a human can pull the stick bar as far as the want but the plane will only obey it as much as is safe.
Boeing provide force feedback on their control sticks in the 777 but that information is synthesized (ie fake).
They also have modes where the computer hands over more control to the pilot such as when the computer is unsure of the readings it is getting or the calculations do not make sense.
(I believe pilots can also manually select these more control to them modes.
)But if you think humans are so much better look at how many managed to kill themselves in the earlier days of aviation, or at the way people "pilot" cars today.If you genuinely care about this sort of stuff then I'd recommend studying and working for the regulators or design companies and seeing what difference you can make.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504589</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246210020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And your post is why pilots make passengers nervous.</p><p>I want the computer to do it. No offense, but you're only human.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And your post is why pilots make passengers nervous.I want the computer to do it .
No offense , but you 're only human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And your post is why pilots make passengers nervous.I want the computer to do it.
No offense, but you're only human.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28512423</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246280100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the design of progressive degradation of function of computerized flight controls is upside-down. I would much rather see computers being more and more "helpful" in emergency situations, where humans simply start lacking capacity due to high mental workload.</p><p>When doing "regular" flying, there's really no need for most of what Airbus's normal flight law provides. Pilots nominally don't fly passenger jets like one would fly a jet fighter, so say load factor limitation isn't such a big deal, same goes for high speed protection and high AOA protection. There should be (and are) audible/visual warnings for that, maybe they should include corrective action suggestions (say "PUSH STICK!" when one is close to stalling). Somehow there were a few generations of jets without any such protections, and people could fly them allright.</p><p>There should be, perhaps, some self-contained overload protections in individual components. Say rudder (yaw) rate and range limiting could be done in absence of any air data, completely locally at the empennage, by putting a few strain gages in strategic locations. So that the pilot won't break off the tail in an emergency, even if the air data computer is dead.</p><p>The problem, to me, becomes when in an emergency situation the system degrades to control laws that provide less and less protection, when in fact the pilot is less likely to protect the plane himself from overloads or stalling.</p><p>I think that the ultimate truth prevails here: when in doubt, fly the damn plane. Apparently they were playing with computers instead of flying, thus overspeeding/overloading the airframe and then things started to break off, as designed. This mucking around instead of flying is a recurrent theme in many glass cockpit/fly by wire accidents.</p><p>If I'm talking out my ass,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the design of progressive degradation of function of computerized flight controls is upside-down .
I would much rather see computers being more and more " helpful " in emergency situations , where humans simply start lacking capacity due to high mental workload.When doing " regular " flying , there 's really no need for most of what Airbus 's normal flight law provides .
Pilots nominally do n't fly passenger jets like one would fly a jet fighter , so say load factor limitation is n't such a big deal , same goes for high speed protection and high AOA protection .
There should be ( and are ) audible/visual warnings for that , maybe they should include corrective action suggestions ( say " PUSH STICK !
" when one is close to stalling ) .
Somehow there were a few generations of jets without any such protections , and people could fly them allright.There should be , perhaps , some self-contained overload protections in individual components .
Say rudder ( yaw ) rate and range limiting could be done in absence of any air data , completely locally at the empennage , by putting a few strain gages in strategic locations .
So that the pilot wo n't break off the tail in an emergency , even if the air data computer is dead.The problem , to me , becomes when in an emergency situation the system degrades to control laws that provide less and less protection , when in fact the pilot is less likely to protect the plane himself from overloads or stalling.I think that the ultimate truth prevails here : when in doubt , fly the damn plane .
Apparently they were playing with computers instead of flying , thus overspeeding/overloading the airframe and then things started to break off , as designed .
This mucking around instead of flying is a recurrent theme in many glass cockpit/fly by wire accidents.If I 'm talking out my ass,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the design of progressive degradation of function of computerized flight controls is upside-down.
I would much rather see computers being more and more "helpful" in emergency situations, where humans simply start lacking capacity due to high mental workload.When doing "regular" flying, there's really no need for most of what Airbus's normal flight law provides.
Pilots nominally don't fly passenger jets like one would fly a jet fighter, so say load factor limitation isn't such a big deal, same goes for high speed protection and high AOA protection.
There should be (and are) audible/visual warnings for that, maybe they should include corrective action suggestions (say "PUSH STICK!
" when one is close to stalling).
Somehow there were a few generations of jets without any such protections, and people could fly them allright.There should be, perhaps, some self-contained overload protections in individual components.
Say rudder (yaw) rate and range limiting could be done in absence of any air data, completely locally at the empennage, by putting a few strain gages in strategic locations.
So that the pilot won't break off the tail in an emergency, even if the air data computer is dead.The problem, to me, becomes when in an emergency situation the system degrades to control laws that provide less and less protection, when in fact the pilot is less likely to protect the plane himself from overloads or stalling.I think that the ultimate truth prevails here: when in doubt, fly the damn plane.
Apparently they were playing with computers instead of flying, thus overspeeding/overloading the airframe and then things started to break off, as designed.
This mucking around instead of flying is a recurrent theme in many glass cockpit/fly by wire accidents.If I'm talking out my ass,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505265</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246214160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not unusual for a plane to be abel to tear itself apart in level flight.</p><p>Most large airplanes have more thrust available from the engines then needed when cruising. If you leave the engines on full thrust on any large commercial airliner at alltitude you will quickly either become a) supersonic or b) fragmented.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not unusual for a plane to be abel to tear itself apart in level flight.Most large airplanes have more thrust available from the engines then needed when cruising .
If you leave the engines on full thrust on any large commercial airliner at alltitude you will quickly either become a ) supersonic or b ) fragmented .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not unusual for a plane to be abel to tear itself apart in level flight.Most large airplanes have more thrust available from the engines then needed when cruising.
If you leave the engines on full thrust on any large commercial airliner at alltitude you will quickly either become a) supersonic or b) fragmented.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503409</id>
	<title>Airbus = Computer Challenged</title>
	<author>Trip6</author>
	<datestamp>1246201080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other Airbus crashes involving computer/human interaction failures:

<a href="http://markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/" title="markpknowles.com" rel="nofollow">http://markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/</a> [markpknowles.com]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_EM0hDchVlY" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_EM0hDchVlY</a> [youtube.com]

These machines are totally fly by wire = no computer, no fly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other Airbus crashes involving computer/human interaction failures : http : //markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/ [ markpknowles.com ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = \ _EM0hDchVlY [ youtube.com ] These machines are totally fly by wire = no computer , no fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other Airbus crashes involving computer/human interaction failures:

http://markpknowles.com/first-airbus-crash-photos/ [markpknowles.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_EM0hDchVlY [youtube.com]

These machines are totally fly by wire = no computer, no fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506099</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>deepestblue</author>
	<datestamp>1246219560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, learn to spell, and then maybe people will take your seriously. "Airbii" only makes you look stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , learn to spell , and then maybe people will take your seriously .
" Airbii " only makes you look stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, learn to spell, and then maybe people will take your seriously.
"Airbii" only makes you look stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502869</id>
	<title>Re:Suspect?....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246195800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes you wonder if they would have been as trigger-happy with their suspicions if it had been a Boeing plane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes you wonder if they would have been as trigger-happy with their suspicions if it had been a Boeing plane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes you wonder if they would have been as trigger-happy with their suspicions if it had been a Boeing plane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505755</id>
	<title>enough battery power...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246217160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from TFA "The recorders are designed to have enough battery power to last for at least 30 days"</p><p>They don't write it to flash????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from TFA " The recorders are designed to have enough battery power to last for at least 30 days " They do n't write it to flash ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from TFA "The recorders are designed to have enough battery power to last for at least 30 days"They don't write it to flash???
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505499</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1246215600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hold that switch for five seconds, and the box will turn off 99.9\% of the time...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold that switch for five seconds , and the box will turn off 99.9 \ % of the time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold that switch for five seconds, and the box will turn off 99.9\% of the time...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457</id>
	<title>Design Philosphy</title>
	<author>Old Sparky</author>
	<datestamp>1246201320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scary stuff.</p><p>The Wall Street Journal article oversimplifies the problem with the Airbus<br>design philosophy. In effect; Too Damn Much reliance on the automated flight<br>control system for basic safety-of-flight.</p><p>A prime example?</p><p>Rudder hinges.</p><p>Airbus has notoriously<br> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Airlines\_Flight\_587" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Airlines\_Flight\_587</a> [wikipedia.org] <br>underbuilt the rudder hinges on the A300 (and, no doubt, the A330) in the<br>interest of lightness and efficiency. They have chosen to rely on the<br>automated flight control system to limit loads on the structure, instead of<br>building the necessary robustness into that structure.</p><p>This is great when flight conditions are all peachy, but in a thunderstorm, at<br>night, with sensors (iced-up pitot tubes?) that are prone to failure, well<br>then you have a failure scenario that the designers never built into their<br>simulations, and the rescue/recovery teams in the south Atlantic find the<br>rudder 37 miles from the rest of the wreckage.</p><p>Forwarded from a colleague (names redacted);</p><p>&gt;&gt; This from a friend and NWA pilot I flew the B-757<br>&gt;&gt; with out of our Tokyo base.........Now obviously on the A-330<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Well, I'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident. I fly<br>&gt;&gt; the same plane, the A330.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;       Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo , a 1700nm<br>&gt;&gt; 4hr. flight, we experienced the same problems Air France had while<br>&gt;&gt; flying thru bad weather.<br>&gt;&gt; I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447. My list is<br>&gt;&gt; almost the same.<br>&gt;&gt; <a href="http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php" title="eurocockpit.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php</a> [eurocockpit.com] <br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;       The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you<br>&gt;&gt; loose your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot, auto<br>&gt;&gt; throttles and rudder limit protection. The rudder limit protection<br>&gt;&gt; keeps you from over stressing the rudder at high speed.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;       Synopsis;<br>&gt;&gt; Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT. Entering Nara Japan<br>&gt;&gt; airspace.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;       FL390 mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain,<br>&gt;&gt; clouds tops about FL410.<br>&gt;&gt; Outside air temperature was -50C TAT -21C (your not supposed to get<br>&gt;&gt; liquid water at these temps). We did.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;       As we were following other aircraft along our route. We<br>&gt;&gt; approached a large area of rain below us. Tilting the weather radar<br>&gt;&gt; down we could see the heavy rain below, displayed in red. At our<br>&gt;&gt; altitude the radar indicated green or light precipitation, most<br>&gt;&gt; likely ice crystals we thought.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;       Entering the cloud tops we experienced just light to moderate<br>&gt;&gt; turbulence. (The winds were around 30kts at altitude.) After about<br>&gt;&gt; 15 sec. we encountered moderate rain. We thought it odd to have<br>&gt;&gt; rain streaming up the windshield at this altitude and the sound of<br>&gt;&gt; the plane getting pelted like an aluminum garage door. It got very<br>&gt;&gt; warm and humid in the cockpit all of a sudden.<br>&gt;&gt; Five seconds later the Captains, First Officers, and standby<br>&gt;&gt; airspeed indicators rolled back to 60kts. The auto pilot and auto<br>&gt;&gt; throttles disengaged. The Master Warning and Master Caution<br>&gt;&gt; flashed, and the sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these<br>&gt;&gt; things were happening.<br>&gt;&gt;       The Capt. hand flew the plane on the shortest<br>&gt;&gt; vector out of the rain. The airspeed indicators briefly came back<br>&gt;&gt; but failed again. The failure lasted for THREE minutes. We flew the<br>&gt;&gt; recommended 83\%N1 power setting. When the airspeed indicators came<br>&gt;&gt; back. we were within 5 knots of our desired</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scary stuff.The Wall Street Journal article oversimplifies the problem with the Airbusdesign philosophy .
In effect ; Too Damn Much reliance on the automated flightcontrol system for basic safety-of-flight.A prime example ? Rudder hinges.Airbus has notoriously http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American \ _Airlines \ _Flight \ _587 [ wikipedia.org ] underbuilt the rudder hinges on the A300 ( and , no doubt , the A330 ) in theinterest of lightness and efficiency .
They have chosen to rely on theautomated flight control system to limit loads on the structure , instead ofbuilding the necessary robustness into that structure.This is great when flight conditions are all peachy , but in a thunderstorm , atnight , with sensors ( iced-up pitot tubes ?
) that are prone to failure , wellthen you have a failure scenario that the designers never built into theirsimulations , and the rescue/recovery teams in the south Atlantic find therudder 37 miles from the rest of the wreckage.Forwarded from a colleague ( names redacted ) ; &gt; &gt; This from a friend and NWA pilot I flew the B-757 &gt; &gt; with out of our Tokyo base.........Now obviously on the A-330 &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Well , I 'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident .
I fly &gt; &gt; the same plane , the A330. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo , a 1700nm &gt; &gt; 4hr .
flight , we experienced the same problems Air France had while &gt; &gt; flying thru bad weather. &gt; &gt; I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447 .
My list is &gt; &gt; almost the same. &gt; &gt; http : //www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php [ eurocockpit.com ] &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you &gt; &gt; loose your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot , auto &gt; &gt; throttles and rudder limit protection .
The rudder limit protection &gt; &gt; keeps you from over stressing the rudder at high speed. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Synopsis ; &gt; &gt; Tuesday 23 , 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT .
Entering Nara Japan &gt; &gt; airspace. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; FL390 mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain , &gt; &gt; clouds tops about FL410. &gt; &gt; Outside air temperature was -50C TAT -21C ( your not supposed to get &gt; &gt; liquid water at these temps ) .
We did. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; As we were following other aircraft along our route .
We &gt; &gt; approached a large area of rain below us .
Tilting the weather radar &gt; &gt; down we could see the heavy rain below , displayed in red .
At our &gt; &gt; altitude the radar indicated green or light precipitation , most &gt; &gt; likely ice crystals we thought. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Entering the cloud tops we experienced just light to moderate &gt; &gt; turbulence .
( The winds were around 30kts at altitude .
) After about &gt; &gt; 15 sec .
we encountered moderate rain .
We thought it odd to have &gt; &gt; rain streaming up the windshield at this altitude and the sound of &gt; &gt; the plane getting pelted like an aluminum garage door .
It got very &gt; &gt; warm and humid in the cockpit all of a sudden. &gt; &gt; Five seconds later the Captains , First Officers , and standby &gt; &gt; airspeed indicators rolled back to 60kts .
The auto pilot and auto &gt; &gt; throttles disengaged .
The Master Warning and Master Caution &gt; &gt; flashed , and the sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these &gt; &gt; things were happening. &gt; &gt; The Capt .
hand flew the plane on the shortest &gt; &gt; vector out of the rain .
The airspeed indicators briefly came back &gt; &gt; but failed again .
The failure lasted for THREE minutes .
We flew the &gt; &gt; recommended 83 \ % N1 power setting .
When the airspeed indicators came &gt; &gt; back .
we were within 5 knots of our desired</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scary stuff.The Wall Street Journal article oversimplifies the problem with the Airbusdesign philosophy.
In effect; Too Damn Much reliance on the automated flightcontrol system for basic safety-of-flight.A prime example?Rudder hinges.Airbus has notoriously http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Airlines\_Flight\_587 [wikipedia.org] underbuilt the rudder hinges on the A300 (and, no doubt, the A330) in theinterest of lightness and efficiency.
They have chosen to rely on theautomated flight control system to limit loads on the structure, instead ofbuilding the necessary robustness into that structure.This is great when flight conditions are all peachy, but in a thunderstorm, atnight, with sensors (iced-up pitot tubes?
) that are prone to failure, wellthen you have a failure scenario that the designers never built into theirsimulations, and the rescue/recovery teams in the south Atlantic find therudder 37 miles from the rest of the wreckage.Forwarded from a colleague (names redacted);&gt;&gt; This from a friend and NWA pilot I flew the B-757&gt;&gt; with out of our Tokyo base.........Now obviously on the A-330&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Well, I'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident.
I fly&gt;&gt; the same plane, the A330.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;       Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo , a 1700nm&gt;&gt; 4hr.
flight, we experienced the same problems Air France had while&gt;&gt; flying thru bad weather.&gt;&gt; I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447.
My list is&gt;&gt; almost the same.&gt;&gt; http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php [eurocockpit.com] &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;       The problem I suspect is the pitot tubes ice over and you&gt;&gt; loose your airspeed indication along with the auto pilot, auto&gt;&gt; throttles and rudder limit protection.
The rudder limit protection&gt;&gt; keeps you from over stressing the rudder at high speed.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;       Synopsis;&gt;&gt; Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT.
Entering Nara Japan&gt;&gt; airspace.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;       FL390 mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain,&gt;&gt; clouds tops about FL410.&gt;&gt; Outside air temperature was -50C TAT -21C (your not supposed to get&gt;&gt; liquid water at these temps).
We did.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;       As we were following other aircraft along our route.
We&gt;&gt; approached a large area of rain below us.
Tilting the weather radar&gt;&gt; down we could see the heavy rain below, displayed in red.
At our&gt;&gt; altitude the radar indicated green or light precipitation, most&gt;&gt; likely ice crystals we thought.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;       Entering the cloud tops we experienced just light to moderate&gt;&gt; turbulence.
(The winds were around 30kts at altitude.
) After about&gt;&gt; 15 sec.
we encountered moderate rain.
We thought it odd to have&gt;&gt; rain streaming up the windshield at this altitude and the sound of&gt;&gt; the plane getting pelted like an aluminum garage door.
It got very&gt;&gt; warm and humid in the cockpit all of a sudden.&gt;&gt; Five seconds later the Captains, First Officers, and standby&gt;&gt; airspeed indicators rolled back to 60kts.
The auto pilot and auto&gt;&gt; throttles disengaged.
The Master Warning and Master Caution&gt;&gt; flashed, and the sounds of chirps and clicks letting us know these&gt;&gt; things were happening.&gt;&gt;       The Capt.
hand flew the plane on the shortest&gt;&gt; vector out of the rain.
The airspeed indicators briefly came back&gt;&gt; but failed again.
The failure lasted for THREE minutes.
We flew the&gt;&gt; recommended 83\%N1 power setting.
When the airspeed indicators came&gt;&gt; back.
we were within 5 knots of our desired</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</id>
	<title>Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1246197360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the way aerospace (life critical and specialized or specific field oriented) software is created, it is highly bug free, quite the opposite of feature creep bloat you see everywhere else, but even at the code level there is avoidance of function calls that can introduce another level of abstraction and complexity and contribute to bugs and failure. It is in this way that using the process of elimination we can come to some conclusions about where error is or can most certainly exist, philosophy.</p><p>On a hardware level, we have redundant backups and check system....</p><p>As such there is one area that neither software nor hardware has but only as a secondary or implimentation of, position.<br>Human error in concepts, beliefs, philosophies, abstraction definition variation, etc... That which exist before the hardware and software and often what hardware and software creation is inspired by, directed by, guide lined by, etc..</p><p>If the philosophy base is wrong then its limitations will manifest through the software and hardware created under such a philosophy and eventually show the limitations, via failure to perform.</p><p>There are plenty examples of human philosophy errors, such as how it wasn't until the early 1990's that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo over his observation the earth revolved around the sun.<br>The Atlanta Centennial park bombing where the 911 system failed because no-one gave the park an address..... or is the philosophy of programming a 911 system to require an address the error? Or is it a good thing that all things needing 911 are at an address?</p><p>My pet peeve of the computer industry, the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol(s), yet over engineering has resulted in the meaning of those symbols to be more than "off &amp; on" and this went further in removing the hard on off switch so that when the software based power switch failed, you have to physically unplug the computer from the wall, or take teh battery out.<br>The correct philosophy for such a switch would be a multi position switch, which the consumer doesn't have to know more than is obvious... And ultimately the motivating philosophy behind the software switch is that of creating an OS that needs a shutdown sequence and time for it. When you think of this "0&amp;1" switch, what better representation of distorting the most basic and fundamental concept of computers with overcomplexifabulocation can there possible be?</p><p>Software and hardware is not where the error lies in this Air France tragedy, even if there is failure or limitations found there in hardware and software, but the failure is in not providing a manual override. And if the technology has been made to complex for manual control.... then let grandma crawl under the desk to unplug the damn computer....shut it down until the real problem is fixed.</p><p>BTW, due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools, there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any "unforseen" risk to others. Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!!</p><p>Don't bow down to the stone image (Stone = computer hardware - Image = software) of the beast of man, for the beast is error prone and his image can be no better. Instead take a closer look at the code.... with many eyes.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the way aerospace ( life critical and specialized or specific field oriented ) software is created , it is highly bug free , quite the opposite of feature creep bloat you see everywhere else , but even at the code level there is avoidance of function calls that can introduce another level of abstraction and complexity and contribute to bugs and failure .
It is in this way that using the process of elimination we can come to some conclusions about where error is or can most certainly exist , philosophy.On a hardware level , we have redundant backups and check system....As such there is one area that neither software nor hardware has but only as a secondary or implimentation of , position.Human error in concepts , beliefs , philosophies , abstraction definition variation , etc... That which exist before the hardware and software and often what hardware and software creation is inspired by , directed by , guide lined by , etc..If the philosophy base is wrong then its limitations will manifest through the software and hardware created under such a philosophy and eventually show the limitations , via failure to perform.There are plenty examples of human philosophy errors , such as how it was n't until the early 1990 's that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo over his observation the earth revolved around the sun.The Atlanta Centennial park bombing where the 911 system failed because no-one gave the park an address..... or is the philosophy of programming a 911 system to require an address the error ?
Or is it a good thing that all things needing 911 are at an address ? My pet peeve of the computer industry , the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol ( s ) , yet over engineering has resulted in the meaning of those symbols to be more than " off &amp; on " and this went further in removing the hard on off switch so that when the software based power switch failed , you have to physically unplug the computer from the wall , or take teh battery out.The correct philosophy for such a switch would be a multi position switch , which the consumer does n't have to know more than is obvious... And ultimately the motivating philosophy behind the software switch is that of creating an OS that needs a shutdown sequence and time for it .
When you think of this " 0&amp;1 " switch , what better representation of distorting the most basic and fundamental concept of computers with overcomplexifabulocation can there possible be ? Software and hardware is not where the error lies in this Air France tragedy , even if there is failure or limitations found there in hardware and software , but the failure is in not providing a manual override .
And if the technology has been made to complex for manual control.... then let grandma crawl under the desk to unplug the damn computer....shut it down until the real problem is fixed.BTW , due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools , there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any " unforseen " risk to others .
Perhaps there is a place for open source software here ! !
! Do n't bow down to the stone image ( Stone = computer hardware - Image = software ) of the beast of man , for the beast is error prone and his image can be no better .
Instead take a closer look at the code.... with many eyes.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the way aerospace (life critical and specialized or specific field oriented) software is created, it is highly bug free, quite the opposite of feature creep bloat you see everywhere else, but even at the code level there is avoidance of function calls that can introduce another level of abstraction and complexity and contribute to bugs and failure.
It is in this way that using the process of elimination we can come to some conclusions about where error is or can most certainly exist, philosophy.On a hardware level, we have redundant backups and check system....As such there is one area that neither software nor hardware has but only as a secondary or implimentation of, position.Human error in concepts, beliefs, philosophies, abstraction definition variation, etc... That which exist before the hardware and software and often what hardware and software creation is inspired by, directed by, guide lined by, etc..If the philosophy base is wrong then its limitations will manifest through the software and hardware created under such a philosophy and eventually show the limitations, via failure to perform.There are plenty examples of human philosophy errors, such as how it wasn't until the early 1990's that the Catholic Church exonerated Galileo over his observation the earth revolved around the sun.The Atlanta Centennial park bombing where the 911 system failed because no-one gave the park an address..... or is the philosophy of programming a 911 system to require an address the error?
Or is it a good thing that all things needing 911 are at an address?My pet peeve of the computer industry, the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol(s), yet over engineering has resulted in the meaning of those symbols to be more than "off &amp; on" and this went further in removing the hard on off switch so that when the software based power switch failed, you have to physically unplug the computer from the wall, or take teh battery out.The correct philosophy for such a switch would be a multi position switch, which the consumer doesn't have to know more than is obvious... And ultimately the motivating philosophy behind the software switch is that of creating an OS that needs a shutdown sequence and time for it.
When you think of this "0&amp;1" switch, what better representation of distorting the most basic and fundamental concept of computers with overcomplexifabulocation can there possible be?Software and hardware is not where the error lies in this Air France tragedy, even if there is failure or limitations found there in hardware and software, but the failure is in not providing a manual override.
And if the technology has been made to complex for manual control.... then let grandma crawl under the desk to unplug the damn computer....shut it down until the real problem is fixed.BTW, due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools, there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any "unforseen" risk to others.
Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!
!Don't bow down to the stone image (Stone = computer hardware - Image = software) of the beast of man, for the beast is error prone and his image can be no better.
Instead take a closer look at the code.... with many eyes.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503485</id>
	<title>Re:Two things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246201500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a former airline pilot, I don't buy this idea at all. I used to fly an all-glass transport jet, so I understand what automation can do for a pilot.</p><p>However, basic airmanship is still taught and required of all professional pilots. When all the computers fail, it's still just an airplane, and these Air France pilot would have been able to fly it. So, this isn't just a simple matter of "Computer fail = crash."</p><p>In my career, I did have one event where a computer failed in a very unexpected manner. Right after V1 and prior to rotation (pretty much like what they do in a simulator!) multiple unrelated systems failed. Partial flight data failure, nosegear failed to retract, one hydralic system fail, and AOA fail. Yes, this was alarming, but we flew the plane and got it back on the ground with no issues. The root cause was determined to be a computer somehow coming loose and having a partial connection to its wiring harness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a former airline pilot , I do n't buy this idea at all .
I used to fly an all-glass transport jet , so I understand what automation can do for a pilot.However , basic airmanship is still taught and required of all professional pilots .
When all the computers fail , it 's still just an airplane , and these Air France pilot would have been able to fly it .
So , this is n't just a simple matter of " Computer fail = crash .
" In my career , I did have one event where a computer failed in a very unexpected manner .
Right after V1 and prior to rotation ( pretty much like what they do in a simulator !
) multiple unrelated systems failed .
Partial flight data failure , nosegear failed to retract , one hydralic system fail , and AOA fail .
Yes , this was alarming , but we flew the plane and got it back on the ground with no issues .
The root cause was determined to be a computer somehow coming loose and having a partial connection to its wiring harness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a former airline pilot, I don't buy this idea at all.
I used to fly an all-glass transport jet, so I understand what automation can do for a pilot.However, basic airmanship is still taught and required of all professional pilots.
When all the computers fail, it's still just an airplane, and these Air France pilot would have been able to fly it.
So, this isn't just a simple matter of "Computer fail = crash.
"In my career, I did have one event where a computer failed in a very unexpected manner.
Right after V1 and prior to rotation (pretty much like what they do in a simulator!
) multiple unrelated systems failed.
Partial flight data failure, nosegear failed to retract, one hydralic system fail, and AOA fail.
Yes, this was alarming, but we flew the plane and got it back on the ground with no issues.
The root cause was determined to be a computer somehow coming loose and having a partial connection to its wiring harness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502981</id>
	<title>The revolution has started`</title>
	<author>Biswalt</author>
	<datestamp>1246196880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So the trains in DC collided because even while the human operator tried applying the breaks the computer overrode the engineer and kept the train moving at a good speed.  And now the investigators of the air france flight are saying computer failures on that flight caused the plane to stay at a high-inoperable speed, despite the pilot's best effort to slow down?  Does it sound to anyone else like the computer revolution from Terminator, the Matrix, nearly every other future sci-fi movie is taking place?  We never should have let them start beating us in chess now the computers are getting all uppity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the trains in DC collided because even while the human operator tried applying the breaks the computer overrode the engineer and kept the train moving at a good speed .
And now the investigators of the air france flight are saying computer failures on that flight caused the plane to stay at a high-inoperable speed , despite the pilot 's best effort to slow down ?
Does it sound to anyone else like the computer revolution from Terminator , the Matrix , nearly every other future sci-fi movie is taking place ?
We never should have let them start beating us in chess now the computers are getting all uppity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the trains in DC collided because even while the human operator tried applying the breaks the computer overrode the engineer and kept the train moving at a good speed.
And now the investigators of the air france flight are saying computer failures on that flight caused the plane to stay at a high-inoperable speed, despite the pilot's best effort to slow down?
Does it sound to anyone else like the computer revolution from Terminator, the Matrix, nearly every other future sci-fi movie is taking place?
We never should have let them start beating us in chess now the computers are getting all uppity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867</id>
	<title>Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember the DC-10 that crashed in IOWA? It took two guys trying to control it without hydraulics. Personally, given the choice of hydraulics OR electric motors, I would take electric motors. Electric is CHEAP AND SAFE to have redundant electrical lines. In addition, losing one, does not mean that you lose the whole aircraft like Walt Lux did in the AA dc-10 that crashed at O'hare.  The problem with the Airbus is that Airbus designed the CPU to take control of the craft. If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT. Since it still does not know the speed, it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart. Sadly, this has happened on MULTIPLE issues with the plane, and had it all blamed on "PILOT ERROR". When this is done, I think that AA and several other companies will be suing the pants off Airbus for their design as well as hiding facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember the DC-10 that crashed in IOWA ?
It took two guys trying to control it without hydraulics .
Personally , given the choice of hydraulics OR electric motors , I would take electric motors .
Electric is CHEAP AND SAFE to have redundant electrical lines .
In addition , losing one , does not mean that you lose the whole aircraft like Walt Lux did in the AA dc-10 that crashed at O'hare .
The problem with the Airbus is that Airbus designed the CPU to take control of the craft .
If the pitot tubes are blocked , the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT .
Since it still does not know the speed , it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart .
Sadly , this has happened on MULTIPLE issues with the plane , and had it all blamed on " PILOT ERROR " .
When this is done , I think that AA and several other companies will be suing the pants off Airbus for their design as well as hiding facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember the DC-10 that crashed in IOWA?
It took two guys trying to control it without hydraulics.
Personally, given the choice of hydraulics OR electric motors, I would take electric motors.
Electric is CHEAP AND SAFE to have redundant electrical lines.
In addition, losing one, does not mean that you lose the whole aircraft like Walt Lux did in the AA dc-10 that crashed at O'hare.
The problem with the Airbus is that Airbus designed the CPU to take control of the craft.
If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT.
Since it still does not know the speed, it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart.
Sadly, this has happened on MULTIPLE issues with the plane, and had it all blamed on "PILOT ERROR".
When this is done, I think that AA and several other companies will be suing the pants off Airbus for their design as well as hiding facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503433</id>
	<title>R2 SHUT DOWN ALL THE TRASH COMPACTORS ON THE ...</title>
	<author>j-stroy</author>
	<datestamp>1246201140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the pilots shut down the flight computers in an effort to get the controls to respond appropriately?  Professional Pilots are "do-ers", and right or wrong, they ALWAYS have a reason for their choices.<br> <br>

Did the flight computer failure mode fail to (dis)engage?  I've heard about the manual control levels that an Airbus flight system degrades through. It looks like the computer wouldn't get out of the way soon enough, so the flight crew kicked it in the head.<br> <br>They received the airplane in a un-recoverable, un-flyable, disintegrating condition from mach turbulence destroying lift and ultimately the aircraft. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin\_corner\_(aviation)" title="wikipedia.org">coffin corner</a> [wikipedia.org])<br>
Cascading failures generally occur from a synergy of multiple causes. In this case:<br>
  - A narrow flight envelope due to altitude and varying wind-speed in the storm. (had they climbed, trying to avoid the storm?)<br>
  - Pilot over-reliance on automated flight assist in marginal conditions.<br>
  - Failure of physical airspeed instruments due to severe icing from a massive updraft.<br>
  - Increased thrust from engines ingesting water contained in the 100mph updraft. (coffin corner!)<br>
  - Altitude increase from 100 mph updraft. (coffin corner!)<br>
  - Inappropriate computer control responses, destabilizing flight dynamics, leading to overspeed and unrecoverable loss of lift (mach stall).<br>
  - Turbulence and chaos of a severe storm masking the initial flight computer deviations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the pilots shut down the flight computers in an effort to get the controls to respond appropriately ?
Professional Pilots are " do-ers " , and right or wrong , they ALWAYS have a reason for their choices .
Did the flight computer failure mode fail to ( dis ) engage ?
I 've heard about the manual control levels that an Airbus flight system degrades through .
It looks like the computer would n't get out of the way soon enough , so the flight crew kicked it in the head .
They received the airplane in a un-recoverable , un-flyable , disintegrating condition from mach turbulence destroying lift and ultimately the aircraft .
( coffin corner [ wikipedia.org ] ) Cascading failures generally occur from a synergy of multiple causes .
In this case : - A narrow flight envelope due to altitude and varying wind-speed in the storm .
( had they climbed , trying to avoid the storm ?
) - Pilot over-reliance on automated flight assist in marginal conditions .
- Failure of physical airspeed instruments due to severe icing from a massive updraft .
- Increased thrust from engines ingesting water contained in the 100mph updraft .
( coffin corner !
) - Altitude increase from 100 mph updraft .
( coffin corner !
) - Inappropriate computer control responses , destabilizing flight dynamics , leading to overspeed and unrecoverable loss of lift ( mach stall ) .
- Turbulence and chaos of a severe storm masking the initial flight computer deviations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the pilots shut down the flight computers in an effort to get the controls to respond appropriately?
Professional Pilots are "do-ers", and right or wrong, they ALWAYS have a reason for their choices.
Did the flight computer failure mode fail to (dis)engage?
I've heard about the manual control levels that an Airbus flight system degrades through.
It looks like the computer wouldn't get out of the way soon enough, so the flight crew kicked it in the head.
They received the airplane in a un-recoverable, un-flyable, disintegrating condition from mach turbulence destroying lift and ultimately the aircraft.
(coffin corner [wikipedia.org])
Cascading failures generally occur from a synergy of multiple causes.
In this case:
  - A narrow flight envelope due to altitude and varying wind-speed in the storm.
(had they climbed, trying to avoid the storm?
)
  - Pilot over-reliance on automated flight assist in marginal conditions.
- Failure of physical airspeed instruments due to severe icing from a massive updraft.
- Increased thrust from engines ingesting water contained in the 100mph updraft.
(coffin corner!
)
  - Altitude increase from 100 mph updraft.
(coffin corner!
)
  - Inappropriate computer control responses, destabilizing flight dynamics, leading to overspeed and unrecoverable loss of lift (mach stall).
- Turbulence and chaos of a severe storm masking the initial flight computer deviations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502981</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503311</id>
	<title>Re:Unintended effects</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1246200180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nah.  This is all about designing to handle faults you can imagine, and failing to handle faults you can't.  Imagining roll-over or stalls are easy.  Imagining everything that could go wrong in a wind storm, probably not so much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nah .
This is all about designing to handle faults you can imagine , and failing to handle faults you ca n't .
Imagining roll-over or stalls are easy .
Imagining everything that could go wrong in a wind storm , probably not so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nah.
This is all about designing to handle faults you can imagine, and failing to handle faults you can't.
Imagining roll-over or stalls are easy.
Imagining everything that could go wrong in a wind storm, probably not so much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508603</id>
	<title>Re:Two things</title>
	<author>icebrain</author>
	<datestamp>1246197900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now the autopilot takes off and lands too. The pilot is there in case of emergencies. But I would still wager that a computer would statistically be better than a human overall, otherwise the airlines wouldn't deploy this.</p></div><p>How does this get +4 informative?</p><p>The airplane does not fly itself.  Autopilots are not intelligent.  All they do is take a <b>pilot-input</b> path (whether just a simple altitude-and-heading hold, or a complete VNAV profile with a 3D flight path across various positions, and speed commands throughout), and try to make the airplane follow it. Imagine a control system for a car that commands the cruise control speed and follows a purple line down the middle of the road. That's all the autoflight system does, no more.  The job of this autopilot is to relieve the pilots of the "low-order" tasks like keeping the wings level and holding a constant airspeed so they can concentrate on "higher-order" stuff like navigation, systems monitoring, ATC compliance, traffic avoidance, weather-avoidance, etc.  Autopilots also have the advantage of being able to fly more precisely <b>within their design parameters <i>and</i> when everything is working correctly</b>.  It will fly more smoothly under normal conditions than a human pilot will, primarily because its feedback response is faster and has more resolution.  But in the <b>abnormal</b> situations, the human has the advantage, because humans can assimilate, anticipate, or at least respond to the unexpected, unpredictable, and unanticipated things you run into in an emergency.</p><p>Also note that pilots overwhelmingly choose to make landings manually; they only make autolandings when required to do so by weather conditions or to maintain currency requirements (pilots and aircraft are required to make an autolanding every so often).  And the autopilots are very closely monitored during those times.</p><p>Some background on autopilots:</p><p>Autoflight systems systems are generally divided into two parts which are completely and totally separate from the flight control computer (if any): the flight director (FD), and the autopilot.</p><p>The flight director is the "brains" of the system (though I hate using that term). It looks at the aircraft's present position, heading, and speed, compares that to the desired flight path, and spits out the pitch, roll, and speed required to get from where it is to where it should be. This is then displayed on the pilots' instruments and fed to the autopilot. Note that the FD does not actually fly the airplane--it just spits out a suggestion, if you will.</p><p>All the autopilot does is try to follow the outputs of the FD, usually by means of mechanical servos connected to the manual controls in the cockpit. It need not be active--indeed, the pilots can choose to fly with only the FD engaged, and follow its outputs manually rather than let the autopilot do it. They can also choose to fly without either of them.  To my knowledge, this holds true for all civil aircraft, fly-by-wire or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the autopilot takes off and lands too .
The pilot is there in case of emergencies .
But I would still wager that a computer would statistically be better than a human overall , otherwise the airlines would n't deploy this.How does this get + 4 informative ? The airplane does not fly itself .
Autopilots are not intelligent .
All they do is take a pilot-input path ( whether just a simple altitude-and-heading hold , or a complete VNAV profile with a 3D flight path across various positions , and speed commands throughout ) , and try to make the airplane follow it .
Imagine a control system for a car that commands the cruise control speed and follows a purple line down the middle of the road .
That 's all the autoflight system does , no more .
The job of this autopilot is to relieve the pilots of the " low-order " tasks like keeping the wings level and holding a constant airspeed so they can concentrate on " higher-order " stuff like navigation , systems monitoring , ATC compliance , traffic avoidance , weather-avoidance , etc .
Autopilots also have the advantage of being able to fly more precisely within their design parameters and when everything is working correctly .
It will fly more smoothly under normal conditions than a human pilot will , primarily because its feedback response is faster and has more resolution .
But in the abnormal situations , the human has the advantage , because humans can assimilate , anticipate , or at least respond to the unexpected , unpredictable , and unanticipated things you run into in an emergency.Also note that pilots overwhelmingly choose to make landings manually ; they only make autolandings when required to do so by weather conditions or to maintain currency requirements ( pilots and aircraft are required to make an autolanding every so often ) .
And the autopilots are very closely monitored during those times.Some background on autopilots : Autoflight systems systems are generally divided into two parts which are completely and totally separate from the flight control computer ( if any ) : the flight director ( FD ) , and the autopilot.The flight director is the " brains " of the system ( though I hate using that term ) .
It looks at the aircraft 's present position , heading , and speed , compares that to the desired flight path , and spits out the pitch , roll , and speed required to get from where it is to where it should be .
This is then displayed on the pilots ' instruments and fed to the autopilot .
Note that the FD does not actually fly the airplane--it just spits out a suggestion , if you will.All the autopilot does is try to follow the outputs of the FD , usually by means of mechanical servos connected to the manual controls in the cockpit .
It need not be active--indeed , the pilots can choose to fly with only the FD engaged , and follow its outputs manually rather than let the autopilot do it .
They can also choose to fly without either of them .
To my knowledge , this holds true for all civil aircraft , fly-by-wire or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the autopilot takes off and lands too.
The pilot is there in case of emergencies.
But I would still wager that a computer would statistically be better than a human overall, otherwise the airlines wouldn't deploy this.How does this get +4 informative?The airplane does not fly itself.
Autopilots are not intelligent.
All they do is take a pilot-input path (whether just a simple altitude-and-heading hold, or a complete VNAV profile with a 3D flight path across various positions, and speed commands throughout), and try to make the airplane follow it.
Imagine a control system for a car that commands the cruise control speed and follows a purple line down the middle of the road.
That's all the autoflight system does, no more.
The job of this autopilot is to relieve the pilots of the "low-order" tasks like keeping the wings level and holding a constant airspeed so they can concentrate on "higher-order" stuff like navigation, systems monitoring, ATC compliance, traffic avoidance, weather-avoidance, etc.
Autopilots also have the advantage of being able to fly more precisely within their design parameters and when everything is working correctly.
It will fly more smoothly under normal conditions than a human pilot will, primarily because its feedback response is faster and has more resolution.
But in the abnormal situations, the human has the advantage, because humans can assimilate, anticipate, or at least respond to the unexpected, unpredictable, and unanticipated things you run into in an emergency.Also note that pilots overwhelmingly choose to make landings manually; they only make autolandings when required to do so by weather conditions or to maintain currency requirements (pilots and aircraft are required to make an autolanding every so often).
And the autopilots are very closely monitored during those times.Some background on autopilots:Autoflight systems systems are generally divided into two parts which are completely and totally separate from the flight control computer (if any): the flight director (FD), and the autopilot.The flight director is the "brains" of the system (though I hate using that term).
It looks at the aircraft's present position, heading, and speed, compares that to the desired flight path, and spits out the pitch, roll, and speed required to get from where it is to where it should be.
This is then displayed on the pilots' instruments and fed to the autopilot.
Note that the FD does not actually fly the airplane--it just spits out a suggestion, if you will.All the autopilot does is try to follow the outputs of the FD, usually by means of mechanical servos connected to the manual controls in the cockpit.
It need not be active--indeed, the pilots can choose to fly with only the FD engaged, and follow its outputs manually rather than let the autopilot do it.
They can also choose to fly without either of them.
To my knowledge, this holds true for all civil aircraft, fly-by-wire or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28514029</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246290420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT.</em> </p><p>Only in the hightly improbable case where all three of the pitot tubes fail at exactly the same moment.</p><p>Otherwise, as has already been determined in the case of Flight 447, the inconistent speed readings will cause a change to Alternate Law. This hands over more direct control to the pilot and prevents exactly the situation you describe.</p><p>This has already been widely discussed on Slashdot and in many of the articles about Flight 447.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the pitot tubes are blocked , the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT .
Only in the hightly improbable case where all three of the pitot tubes fail at exactly the same moment.Otherwise , as has already been determined in the case of Flight 447 , the inconistent speed readings will cause a change to Alternate Law .
This hands over more direct control to the pilot and prevents exactly the situation you describe.This has already been widely discussed on Slashdot and in many of the articles about Flight 447 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT.
Only in the hightly improbable case where all three of the pitot tubes fail at exactly the same moment.Otherwise, as has already been determined in the case of Flight 447, the inconistent speed readings will cause a change to Alternate Law.
This hands over more direct control to the pilot and prevents exactly the situation you describe.This has already been widely discussed on Slashdot and in many of the articles about Flight 447.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503273</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>Rich0</author>
	<datestamp>1246199880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with some of what you say - I don't buy it fully.</p><p>Ok, I'm making a smartphone.  It should have a simple on-off button - not a 3-way toggle where you get data corruption if you switch it to the 3rd position.  It should be hard to bypass the proper shutdown routine (removing the battery counts).  So, then the counterproposal is - get rid of the need to do a proper shutdown.  Sure, we can do that - no write cache and everything is transaction isolated so that corruptions are impossible.  Now the thing needs 3X the hardware horsepower to have the same effective performance, which means the battery has to be 3X bigger to supply power, which means your smartphone is the size of a brick.</p><p>Likewise - something like an A320 is a complex beast - it depends on all kinds of machinery to make it work.  Computers are just one more machine.  It all needs to be properly engineered, but you can't just go back to pulling strings to warp the wings.</p><p>Now, I do think that primary instruments need to be operable in the absense of the computers/gyros/etc.  At least the backup instruments.  There should never be a question as to what the aircraft's speed, altitude, attitude, and heading are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with some of what you say - I do n't buy it fully.Ok , I 'm making a smartphone .
It should have a simple on-off button - not a 3-way toggle where you get data corruption if you switch it to the 3rd position .
It should be hard to bypass the proper shutdown routine ( removing the battery counts ) .
So , then the counterproposal is - get rid of the need to do a proper shutdown .
Sure , we can do that - no write cache and everything is transaction isolated so that corruptions are impossible .
Now the thing needs 3X the hardware horsepower to have the same effective performance , which means the battery has to be 3X bigger to supply power , which means your smartphone is the size of a brick.Likewise - something like an A320 is a complex beast - it depends on all kinds of machinery to make it work .
Computers are just one more machine .
It all needs to be properly engineered , but you ca n't just go back to pulling strings to warp the wings.Now , I do think that primary instruments need to be operable in the absense of the computers/gyros/etc .
At least the backup instruments .
There should never be a question as to what the aircraft 's speed , altitude , attitude , and heading are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with some of what you say - I don't buy it fully.Ok, I'm making a smartphone.
It should have a simple on-off button - not a 3-way toggle where you get data corruption if you switch it to the 3rd position.
It should be hard to bypass the proper shutdown routine (removing the battery counts).
So, then the counterproposal is - get rid of the need to do a proper shutdown.
Sure, we can do that - no write cache and everything is transaction isolated so that corruptions are impossible.
Now the thing needs 3X the hardware horsepower to have the same effective performance, which means the battery has to be 3X bigger to supply power, which means your smartphone is the size of a brick.Likewise - something like an A320 is a complex beast - it depends on all kinds of machinery to make it work.
Computers are just one more machine.
It all needs to be properly engineered, but you can't just go back to pulling strings to warp the wings.Now, I do think that primary instruments need to be operable in the absense of the computers/gyros/etc.
At least the backup instruments.
There should never be a question as to what the aircraft's speed, altitude, attitude, and heading are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509979</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1246211700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what if you make a mistake but the computer doesn't? Let me guess, you never make mistakes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what if you make a mistake but the computer does n't ?
Let me guess , you never make mistakes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what if you make a mistake but the computer doesn't?
Let me guess, you never make mistakes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508159</id>
	<title>You Sure?? Re:Broke up from flying 'too fast'?</title>
	<author>hostguy2004</author>
	<datestamp>1246194120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually... Aircraft can break apart due to excess speed, or more importantly "high speed buffeting"
Commercial Airliners fly at a very narrow range. Known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin\_corner\_(aviation)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Coffin Corner</a> [wikipedia.org] Where the aircraft is neither low-speed or high speed buffeting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually... Aircraft can break apart due to excess speed , or more importantly " high speed buffeting " Commercial Airliners fly at a very narrow range .
Known as Coffin Corner [ wikipedia.org ] Where the aircraft is neither low-speed or high speed buffeting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually... Aircraft can break apart due to excess speed, or more importantly "high speed buffeting"
Commercial Airliners fly at a very narrow range.
Known as Coffin Corner [wikipedia.org] Where the aircraft is neither low-speed or high speed buffeting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503181</id>
	<title>Held to a higher standard</title>
	<author>wandazulu</author>
	<datestamp>1246199100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post reminded me of <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/writestuff.html" title="fastcompany.com">an article</a> [fastcompany.com] that was written a couple years ago about the people who program the space shuttle. I couldn't find a link to it, but I recall a similar article about the software on the Boeing 777; essentially the pilots are sitting in front of a computer screen that they can bring up any piece of data about the airplane, and how these systems must all co-exist without interfering in any way with the flight systems, etc. Pretty interesting reads.</p><p>Frankly, the pressure in such an environment has got to be *beyond* intense; you're being asked to write software to, in some cases, cheat physics, and if you get it wrong, everybody dies. I have great sympathy for pilots who have to use the software, knowing that you can train to handle just so much, but I also have sympathy for the developers who have to write the programs that have to handle so much more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post reminded me of an article [ fastcompany.com ] that was written a couple years ago about the people who program the space shuttle .
I could n't find a link to it , but I recall a similar article about the software on the Boeing 777 ; essentially the pilots are sitting in front of a computer screen that they can bring up any piece of data about the airplane , and how these systems must all co-exist without interfering in any way with the flight systems , etc .
Pretty interesting reads.Frankly , the pressure in such an environment has got to be * beyond * intense ; you 're being asked to write software to , in some cases , cheat physics , and if you get it wrong , everybody dies .
I have great sympathy for pilots who have to use the software , knowing that you can train to handle just so much , but I also have sympathy for the developers who have to write the programs that have to handle so much more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post reminded me of an article [fastcompany.com] that was written a couple years ago about the people who program the space shuttle.
I couldn't find a link to it, but I recall a similar article about the software on the Boeing 777; essentially the pilots are sitting in front of a computer screen that they can bring up any piece of data about the airplane, and how these systems must all co-exist without interfering in any way with the flight systems, etc.
Pretty interesting reads.Frankly, the pressure in such an environment has got to be *beyond* intense; you're being asked to write software to, in some cases, cheat physics, and if you get it wrong, everybody dies.
I have great sympathy for pilots who have to use the software, knowing that you can train to handle just so much, but I also have sympathy for the developers who have to write the programs that have to handle so much more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502783</id>
	<title>Moral of the story...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246194600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Don't trust Windows with your life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Do n't trust Windows with your life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Don't trust Windows with your life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927</id>
	<title>Two things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246196340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, the article is mainly about whether the breakup was ultimately caused by over-reliance on automation leaving pilots insufficiently equipped to handle emergencies in manual mode. This business of excessive automation is getting general. As a simple example, my car has front and rear parking sensors. The other day I was parking in a tight space when suddenly I remembered I was in someone else's car, just a few inches from a steel barrier. My parking habits are now quite conditioned to the bleep patterns from front and rear, and switching back to manual mode slowed me right down. On the other hand, I can moor my boat, entirely by eye and feel, in a fifteen-knot sidewind without a bow thruster. It's purely a matter of experience and conditioning.<p>Second, the US announcement of the two computer failures, neither of which caused an accident, presumably has nothing at all to do with Boeing's recent embarrassment over continuing delays and cancellations to the Dreamliner, and a desire to damage Airbus?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the article is mainly about whether the breakup was ultimately caused by over-reliance on automation leaving pilots insufficiently equipped to handle emergencies in manual mode .
This business of excessive automation is getting general .
As a simple example , my car has front and rear parking sensors .
The other day I was parking in a tight space when suddenly I remembered I was in someone else 's car , just a few inches from a steel barrier .
My parking habits are now quite conditioned to the bleep patterns from front and rear , and switching back to manual mode slowed me right down .
On the other hand , I can moor my boat , entirely by eye and feel , in a fifteen-knot sidewind without a bow thruster .
It 's purely a matter of experience and conditioning.Second , the US announcement of the two computer failures , neither of which caused an accident , presumably has nothing at all to do with Boeing 's recent embarrassment over continuing delays and cancellations to the Dreamliner , and a desire to damage Airbus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, the article is mainly about whether the breakup was ultimately caused by over-reliance on automation leaving pilots insufficiently equipped to handle emergencies in manual mode.
This business of excessive automation is getting general.
As a simple example, my car has front and rear parking sensors.
The other day I was parking in a tight space when suddenly I remembered I was in someone else's car, just a few inches from a steel barrier.
My parking habits are now quite conditioned to the bleep patterns from front and rear, and switching back to manual mode slowed me right down.
On the other hand, I can moor my boat, entirely by eye and feel, in a fifteen-knot sidewind without a bow thruster.
It's purely a matter of experience and conditioning.Second, the US announcement of the two computer failures, neither of which caused an accident, presumably has nothing at all to do with Boeing's recent embarrassment over continuing delays and cancellations to the Dreamliner, and a desire to damage Airbus?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</id>
	<title>A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246199280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a couple of aspects about the A330 problems that amaze me:</p><p>1. How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow? I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight? What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?<br>2. If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well? At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.<br>3. In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct. Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a couple of aspects about the A330 problems that amaze me : 1 .
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow ?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls , but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight ?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete ? 2 .
If the airplane can send fault messages home , why do n't blackbox data streams get sent as well ?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.3 .
In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you can not tell if the software is correct .
Essentially , if the computer says it is so then it is , and you either survive or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a couple of aspects about the A330 problems that amaze me:1.
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?2.
If the airplane can send fault messages home, why don't blackbox data streams get sent as well?
At least that way there would be some situation info available as opposed to none.3.
In some ways reliance on flight computers is like reliance on spreadsheets or calculators -- if you do not understand what is going on and are not capable of doing it yourself then you cannot tell if the software is correct.
Essentially, if the computer says it is so then it is, and you either survive or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504101</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>plutoXL</author>
	<datestamp>1246206540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1. How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow? I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight? What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?</p></div><p>
The load limits for A330 (and i believe for all other modern big passenger aircraft) are from -1g to +2.5g.
<br> <br>
The ultimate loads, leading to rupture, are 1.5 times the load factor limits. Same for Boeing. Yes you might increase it to 2.0, or 3.0. Same as you could drive a tank instead of a car - costs and risks would probably outweigh the benefits.
<br> <br>
If the aircraft stalled because of significant overspeed and consequent loss of lift, the loads might cross the ultimate load limits. Not so in normal flight conditions, specially because A330 computers restrict the aircraft load within -1g to +2.5 limits. Even with full pilot input, the load would not cross those limits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow ?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls , but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight ?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete ?
The load limits for A330 ( and i believe for all other modern big passenger aircraft ) are from -1g to + 2.5g .
The ultimate loads , leading to rupture , are 1.5 times the load factor limits .
Same for Boeing .
Yes you might increase it to 2.0 , or 3.0 .
Same as you could drive a tank instead of a car - costs and risks would probably outweigh the benefits .
If the aircraft stalled because of significant overspeed and consequent loss of lift , the loads might cross the ultimate load limits .
Not so in normal flight conditions , specially because A330 computers restrict the aircraft load within -1g to + 2.5 limits .
Even with full pilot input , the load would not cross those limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
How can an airplane be allowed to carry passengers when the margin to airframe disintegration is so narrow?
I can understand falling out of the sky if it stalls, but to be able to tear the airplane apart in level flight?
What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?
The load limits for A330 (and i believe for all other modern big passenger aircraft) are from -1g to +2.5g.
The ultimate loads, leading to rupture, are 1.5 times the load factor limits.
Same for Boeing.
Yes you might increase it to 2.0, or 3.0.
Same as you could drive a tank instead of a car - costs and risks would probably outweigh the benefits.
If the aircraft stalled because of significant overspeed and consequent loss of lift, the loads might cross the ultimate load limits.
Not so in normal flight conditions, specially because A330 computers restrict the aircraft load within -1g to +2.5 limits.
Even with full pilot input, the load would not cross those limits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503021</id>
	<title>It&#226;(TM)s quite obvious</title>
	<author>MicrosoftElitist</author>
	<datestamp>1246197480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The aircraft must have been running Linux. That's what you get when you use a free operating system, written by a bunch of hobbyist coders. Linux can't even compete in the same category as Windows. Windows is far superior. Linux doesn't even have an easy means for DACL manipulation and the list goes on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The aircraft must have been running Linux .
That 's what you get when you use a free operating system , written by a bunch of hobbyist coders .
Linux ca n't even compete in the same category as Windows .
Windows is far superior .
Linux does n't even have an easy means for DACL manipulation and the list goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The aircraft must have been running Linux.
That's what you get when you use a free operating system, written by a bunch of hobbyist coders.
Linux can't even compete in the same category as Windows.
Windows is far superior.
Linux doesn't even have an easy means for DACL manipulation and the list goes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28513407</id>
	<title>Re:Suspect?....</title>
	<author>jcouvret</author>
	<datestamp>1246287120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dunno, the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything.  They usually don't make statements about suspicion of what may have happened without specific evidence.  This seems like an unusual announcement from them, not their usual style.  I wonder if they are compelled to state a truth that they fell won't be properly addressed otherwise.  After all, Airbus is built in Europe not the US.</p></div><p>Um, isn't the NTSB an American agency?  Why would they have anything to say about a flight from Brazil to France on a French carrier?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything .
They usually do n't make statements about suspicion of what may have happened without specific evidence .
This seems like an unusual announcement from them , not their usual style .
I wonder if they are compelled to state a truth that they fell wo n't be properly addressed otherwise .
After all , Airbus is built in Europe not the US.Um , is n't the NTSB an American agency ?
Why would they have anything to say about a flight from Brazil to France on a French carrier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything.
They usually don't make statements about suspicion of what may have happened without specific evidence.
This seems like an unusual announcement from them, not their usual style.
I wonder if they are compelled to state a truth that they fell won't be properly addressed otherwise.
After all, Airbus is built in Europe not the US.Um, isn't the NTSB an American agency?
Why would they have anything to say about a flight from Brazil to France on a French carrier?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504493</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246209360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are aware that all Boeing designs from the 777 and on are also fly-by-wire, right? And if you have a look as the incidents, Boeing planes just have as many. So perhaps you are an airline pilot but i doubt you fly on Boeing/Airbus given what you say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are aware that all Boeing designs from the 777 and on are also fly-by-wire , right ?
And if you have a look as the incidents , Boeing planes just have as many .
So perhaps you are an airline pilot but i doubt you fly on Boeing/Airbus given what you say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are aware that all Boeing designs from the 777 and on are also fly-by-wire, right?
And if you have a look as the incidents, Boeing planes just have as many.
So perhaps you are an airline pilot but i doubt you fly on Boeing/Airbus given what you say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505243</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246214040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really hope that you are not an airline pilot.  This kind of cowboy mentality, that you know better how to fly the plane than the people who designed it, is what caused the loss of Continental 3407.  (the stick shaker is going mad, but I think I'll pull the nose higher anyway...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really hope that you are not an airline pilot .
This kind of cowboy mentality , that you know better how to fly the plane than the people who designed it , is what caused the loss of Continental 3407 .
( the stick shaker is going mad , but I think I 'll pull the nose higher anyway... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really hope that you are not an airline pilot.
This kind of cowboy mentality, that you know better how to fly the plane than the people who designed it, is what caused the loss of Continental 3407.
(the stick shaker is going mad, but I think I'll pull the nose higher anyway...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503851</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1246204740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?</p></div></blockquote><p>A guy I knew is an airplane constructor. He told me once that in the airplane body construction there are no safety margins but rather failure margins (meaning that after so and so many flight hours the body will fail) because if they would build an airplane with a safety margin it wouldn't lift off because of the excessive weight.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete ? A guy I knew is an airplane constructor .
He told me once that in the airplane body construction there are no safety margins but rather failure margins ( meaning that after so and so many flight hours the body will fail ) because if they would build an airplane with a safety margin it would n't lift off because of the excessive weight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to margin of safety in airframe construction -- or is that whole concept now obsolete?A guy I knew is an airplane constructor.
He told me once that in the airplane body construction there are no safety margins but rather failure margins (meaning that after so and so many flight hours the body will fail) because if they would build an airplane with a safety margin it wouldn't lift off because of the excessive weight.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503199</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246199340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One problem I see with the philosophy of software is the way it is tested. You create a nice, coherent application. Then testers raise 1000 bugs on it. Each of these bugs goes to a developer who changes something to fix the bug. Now you have a complete mess. Much less maintainable than the original one and quite likely with more bugs than you started out with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem I see with the philosophy of software is the way it is tested .
You create a nice , coherent application .
Then testers raise 1000 bugs on it .
Each of these bugs goes to a developer who changes something to fix the bug .
Now you have a complete mess .
Much less maintainable than the original one and quite likely with more bugs than you started out with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem I see with the philosophy of software is the way it is tested.
You create a nice, coherent application.
Then testers raise 1000 bugs on it.
Each of these bugs goes to a developer who changes something to fix the bug.
Now you have a complete mess.
Much less maintainable than the original one and quite likely with more bugs than you started out with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503097</id>
	<title>Re:Two things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246198320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Airbus has taken enough damage from their delays with the A400M - Boing hardly needs to heap on.  Not to mention that your conspiracy-theory train of thought it beyond absurd.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus has taken enough damage from their delays with the A400M - Boing hardly needs to heap on .
Not to mention that your conspiracy-theory train of thought it beyond absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus has taken enough damage from their delays with the A400M - Boing hardly needs to heap on.
Not to mention that your conspiracy-theory train of thought it beyond absurd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505487</id>
	<title>DC Metro Crash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It also turns out that computers probably caused the DC Metro crash killing nine last weeks.  Coincidence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It also turns out that computers probably caused the DC Metro crash killing nine last weeks .
Coincidence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It also turns out that computers probably caused the DC Metro crash killing nine last weeks.
Coincidence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506391</id>
	<title>Re:Speculation</title>
	<author>artg</author>
	<datestamp>1246221720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:

"Crews commanding a flotilla of specially-equipped vessels are still trolling an area with a radius of at least 50 miles for the recorders."

So I guess they're out there in the deep blue sea, provoking the fishes in the hope they'll get mad tell us where they hid the tapes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : " Crews commanding a flotilla of specially-equipped vessels are still trolling an area with a radius of at least 50 miles for the recorders .
" So I guess they 're out there in the deep blue sea , provoking the fishes in the hope they 'll get mad tell us where they hid the tapes . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:

"Crews commanding a flotilla of specially-equipped vessels are still trolling an area with a radius of at least 50 miles for the recorders.
"

So I guess they're out there in the deep blue sea, provoking the fishes in the hope they'll get mad tell us where they hid the tapes ..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502901</id>
	<title>Short version:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246196040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's like with users and computers. Instead of teaching people how a computer works and how you interact with one, they learn the exact sequence of steps they have to follow to make something happen.<p>
That works fine when everything's okay, when not, they click yes to "do you want to format your hard drive" because they always click yes on those little window with buttons thingies. Then they call IT who has to get the backups. Oh wait, that's where flying a commercial airliner is unlike a PEBKAC.</p><p>
Airlines aren't interested in the best pilots money can buy. They want the cheapest pilots that are allowed to fly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like with users and computers .
Instead of teaching people how a computer works and how you interact with one , they learn the exact sequence of steps they have to follow to make something happen .
That works fine when everything 's okay , when not , they click yes to " do you want to format your hard drive " because they always click yes on those little window with buttons thingies .
Then they call IT who has to get the backups .
Oh wait , that 's where flying a commercial airliner is unlike a PEBKAC .
Airlines are n't interested in the best pilots money can buy .
They want the cheapest pilots that are allowed to fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like with users and computers.
Instead of teaching people how a computer works and how you interact with one, they learn the exact sequence of steps they have to follow to make something happen.
That works fine when everything's okay, when not, they click yes to "do you want to format your hard drive" because they always click yes on those little window with buttons thingies.
Then they call IT who has to get the backups.
Oh wait, that's where flying a commercial airliner is unlike a PEBKAC.
Airlines aren't interested in the best pilots money can buy.
They want the cheapest pilots that are allowed to fly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505645</id>
	<title>Hmm, sounds familiar</title>
	<author>CityZen</author>
	<datestamp>1246216500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane\_5\_Flight\_501" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane\_5\_Flight\_501</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane \ _5 \ _Flight \ _501 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane\_5\_Flight\_501 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505197</id>
	<title>Re:Broke up from flying 'too fast'?</title>
	<author>hplus</author>
	<datestamp>1246213680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So a plane was flying through a storm and experienced sensor failures, and you blame the crash a falling meteor?  Occam would like a word with you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So a plane was flying through a storm and experienced sensor failures , and you blame the crash a falling meteor ?
Occam would like a word with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a plane was flying through a storm and experienced sensor failures, and you blame the crash a falling meteor?
Occam would like a word with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508733</id>
	<title>Re:Good luck with that</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1246199340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT. Since it still does not know the speed, it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart.</i></p><p>You mean like <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19960206-0" title="aviation-safety.net" rel="nofollow">this</a> [aviation-safety.net]? Or like <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19961002-0" title="aviation-safety.net" rel="nofollow">this</a> [aviation-safety.net]? This is why partial panel training and a little understanding of basic physics is so critical. Pilots get confused too. The DC-10 in Iowa was controlled by the guy working the throttles. Control input was completely futile. As was an Airbus that was hit by a missile and lost all hydraulics in Iraq. Fly by wire sounds scary, but control system failures are much rarer now. Composites on the other hand...well that's another story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the pitot tubes are blocked , the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT .
Since it still does not know the speed , it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart.You mean like this [ aviation-safety.net ] ?
Or like this [ aviation-safety.net ] ?
This is why partial panel training and a little understanding of basic physics is so critical .
Pilots get confused too .
The DC-10 in Iowa was controlled by the guy working the throttles .
Control input was completely futile .
As was an Airbus that was hit by a missile and lost all hydraulics in Iraq .
Fly by wire sounds scary , but control system failures are much rarer now .
Composites on the other hand...well that 's another story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the pitot tubes are blocked, the sensor will think that the aircraft is moving at 0 knots and will DIVE IT.
Since it still does not know the speed, it will continue to dive it faster and faster until stress ripped the plane apart.You mean like this [aviation-safety.net]?
Or like this [aviation-safety.net]?
This is why partial panel training and a little understanding of basic physics is so critical.
Pilots get confused too.
The DC-10 in Iowa was controlled by the guy working the throttles.
Control input was completely futile.
As was an Airbus that was hit by a missile and lost all hydraulics in Iraq.
Fly by wire sounds scary, but control system failures are much rarer now.
Composites on the other hand...well that's another story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503841</id>
	<title>Oh no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246204680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh god<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O</p><p>I'm working with computers right now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O</p><p>There's a whole rack of servers right next to me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O</p><p>If I don't post again, tell my wife and kids I love them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh god : OI 'm working with computers right now : OThere 's a whole rack of servers right next to me .
: OIf I do n't post again , tell my wife and kids I love them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh god :OI'm working with computers right now :OThere's a whole rack of servers right next to me.
:OIf I don't post again, tell my wife and kids I love them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504431</id>
	<title>Re:Design Philosphy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pitot, AOA, and other such sensors should</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; \_\_NEVER\_\_</p><p>ice over, and heating them properly has been basic aircraft design practice for many years. The weather doesn't matter, because sensor heat should be easily capable of keeping them clear under any condition.</p><p>Airbus fucked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pitot , AOA , and other such sensors should                                                                                 \ _ \ _NEVER \ _ \ _ice over , and heating them properly has been basic aircraft design practice for many years .
The weather does n't matter , because sensor heat should be easily capable of keeping them clear under any condition.Airbus fucked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pitot, AOA, and other such sensors should
                                                                                \_\_NEVER\_\_ice over, and heating them properly has been basic aircraft design practice for many years.
The weather doesn't matter, because sensor heat should be easily capable of keeping them clear under any condition.Airbus fucked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503287</id>
	<title>Outsourcing kills people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246200060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at this resume and what it implies:<br>http://www.linkedin.com/pub/parul-goyal/b/b57/a</p><p>The instruction was probably "thank you rebooted systems" instead of "please reboot system"</p><p>I'm never getting on an Airbus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at this resume and what it implies : http : //www.linkedin.com/pub/parul-goyal/b/b57/aThe instruction was probably " thank you rebooted systems " instead of " please reboot system " I 'm never getting on an Airbus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at this resume and what it implies:http://www.linkedin.com/pub/parul-goyal/b/b57/aThe instruction was probably "thank you rebooted systems" instead of "please reboot system"I'm never getting on an Airbus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507025</id>
	<title>Re:Suspect?....</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1246183980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF has the NTSB to do with a Brazilian/French air crash ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF has the NTSB to do with a Brazilian/French air crash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF has the NTSB to do with a Brazilian/French air crash ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503281</id>
	<title>Timely as ever, Slashdot</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1246199940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Investigators suspected the computers a good 3 weeks ago, so I'm not sure how this qualifies as news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Investigators suspected the computers a good 3 weeks ago , so I 'm not sure how this qualifies as news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Investigators suspected the computers a good 3 weeks ago, so I'm not sure how this qualifies as news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503271</id>
	<title>Re:Suspect?....</title>
	<author>sphealey</author>
	<datestamp>1246199880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I dunno, the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything.<br>&gt; They usually don't make statements about suspicion of what may have<br>&gt; happened without specific evidence.</p><p>The United States' NTSB conducts extremely thorough and detailed investigations, with careful intermediate releases of information and preliminary conclusions prior to the issuance of a complete final report.  It very deliberately does not leap to conclusions since first impressions and quick conclusions are often wrong.  It makes mistakes, as all human institutions do, but it is the best technical investigation resource we have.</p><p>All of which is a bit beside the point, since the primary investigative agency in this incident is the French aviation authority with some parts of the investigation being conducted by the Brazilian authority.  The US NTSB and FAA are observing, but have no investigatory role in this case.</p><p>sPh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I dunno , the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything. &gt; They usually do n't make statements about suspicion of what may have &gt; happened without specific evidence.The United States ' NTSB conducts extremely thorough and detailed investigations , with careful intermediate releases of information and preliminary conclusions prior to the issuance of a complete final report .
It very deliberately does not leap to conclusions since first impressions and quick conclusions are often wrong .
It makes mistakes , as all human institutions do , but it is the best technical investigation resource we have.All of which is a bit beside the point , since the primary investigative agency in this incident is the French aviation authority with some parts of the investigation being conducted by the Brazilian authority .
The US NTSB and FAA are observing , but have no investigatory role in this case.sPh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I dunno, the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything.&gt; They usually don't make statements about suspicion of what may have&gt; happened without specific evidence.The United States' NTSB conducts extremely thorough and detailed investigations, with careful intermediate releases of information and preliminary conclusions prior to the issuance of a complete final report.
It very deliberately does not leap to conclusions since first impressions and quick conclusions are often wrong.
It makes mistakes, as all human institutions do, but it is the best technical investigation resource we have.All of which is a bit beside the point, since the primary investigative agency in this incident is the French aviation authority with some parts of the investigation being conducted by the Brazilian authority.
The US NTSB and FAA are observing, but have no investigatory role in this case.sPh</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503067</id>
	<title>Overheard at the Annual Bug of the Year Awards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246197960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>

<p> "So you're nominated because you crashed Word 2007 three times in 20 minutes?  Pussy. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So you 're nominated because you crashed Word 2007 three times in 20 minutes ?
Pussy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

 "So you're nominated because you crashed Word 2007 three times in 20 minutes?
Pussy. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505691</id>
	<title>Re:Moral of the story...</title>
	<author>Lally Singh</author>
	<datestamp>1246216740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bill Gates is out on the wing, tearing apart the plane!<br>( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare\_at\_20,000\_Feet" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare\_at\_20,000\_Feet</a> [wikipedia.org] )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bill Gates is out on the wing , tearing apart the plane !
( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare \ _at \ _20,000 \ _Feet [ wikipedia.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bill Gates is out on the wing, tearing apart the plane!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare\_at\_20,000\_Feet [wikipedia.org] )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503929</id>
	<title>turnOffAutoPilotWhenEnteringStorm();</title>
	<author>aoheno</author>
	<datestamp>1246205340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hold the outsourcer accountable - the method name invoked is in a local dialect which stymied European developers. They believed "A330.greenDam()" meant "turn on auto-pilot when entering storm", instead of "turn off auto-pilot when entering storm".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hold the outsourcer accountable - the method name invoked is in a local dialect which stymied European developers .
They believed " A330.greenDam ( ) " meant " turn on auto-pilot when entering storm " , instead of " turn off auto-pilot when entering storm " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hold the outsourcer accountable - the method name invoked is in a local dialect which stymied European developers.
They believed "A330.greenDam()" meant "turn on auto-pilot when entering storm", instead of "turn off auto-pilot when entering storm".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504245</id>
	<title>Re:Design Philosphy</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1246207800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are actually contradict yourself. You write that "They have chosen to rely on the automated flight control system to limit loads on the structure, instead of building the necessary robustness into that structure" but in this case the crash you link to would never have happened - the system would limit rudder movements to sane values. Airbus A300 has got - except of the autopilot - no automated flight control systems whatsoever. It uses conventional mechanical flight controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are actually contradict yourself .
You write that " They have chosen to rely on the automated flight control system to limit loads on the structure , instead of building the necessary robustness into that structure " but in this case the crash you link to would never have happened - the system would limit rudder movements to sane values .
Airbus A300 has got - except of the autopilot - no automated flight control systems whatsoever .
It uses conventional mechanical flight controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are actually contradict yourself.
You write that "They have chosen to rely on the automated flight control system to limit loads on the structure, instead of building the necessary robustness into that structure" but in this case the crash you link to would never have happened - the system would limit rudder movements to sane values.
Airbus A300 has got - except of the autopilot - no automated flight control systems whatsoever.
It uses conventional mechanical flight controls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503193</id>
	<title>A good Investigation Report</title>
	<author>betasam</author>
	<datestamp>1246199220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot\_tubes" title="wikipedia.org">Pitot tubes</a> [wikipedia.org] were invented in the 1700s by the French Engineer Henry Pitot and later modified for airspeed measurements. They are also used to measure aerodynamic speed in Formula racing cars too among other uses. Here is a comprehensive article following the crash investigation that is <a href="http://open.salon.com/blog/gonzoid/2009/06/08/new\_information\_on\_the\_airbus\_a330\_there\_was\_a\_problem" title="salon.com">informative with photographs</a> [salon.com] and the timeline of theories. <br> <br>
I read both the articles posted. They do not qualify as the best investigation reports. They seem to be building "What if" scenarios from all data that is available. Other A330 failures (no recent crashes reported) and Other places where ice in Pitot tubes led to failure (The Wikipedia article has a lot of information on this and planes which had problems notably, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-31" title="wikipedia.org">X31</a> [wikipedia.org].) The investigators are clearly under pressure to say what they have found and they are unable to report "nothing" to the press. With no luck in recovering the Black Box, the investigators (like they talk about Pilots not good at flying aircraft without the aid of in-flight safety systems) have to do it the old forensic way (reminds me of Crichton's Airframe). That is going to take time and the press, the Aircraft companies using A330s are impatient to know why.<br> <br>
Clearly no recent theory has come close to deducing the true reason for the crash. As I remember the first news item that appeared on the AF447 was that the <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/01/air.france.brazil/index.html" title="cnn.com">plane "vanished"</a> [cnn.com] from Radar and was sought for by the Brazilian Air Force before the crash site was positively identified. The last exchanges between the <a href="http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/01/Horror\_as\_Flight\_AF447\_vanishes/" title="wn.com">Pilot and the Aircraft tower followed by an automated message from the aircraft</a> [wn.com] remain the main clues apart from the debris in this horrific accident.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pitot tubes [ wikipedia.org ] were invented in the 1700s by the French Engineer Henry Pitot and later modified for airspeed measurements .
They are also used to measure aerodynamic speed in Formula racing cars too among other uses .
Here is a comprehensive article following the crash investigation that is informative with photographs [ salon.com ] and the timeline of theories .
I read both the articles posted .
They do not qualify as the best investigation reports .
They seem to be building " What if " scenarios from all data that is available .
Other A330 failures ( no recent crashes reported ) and Other places where ice in Pitot tubes led to failure ( The Wikipedia article has a lot of information on this and planes which had problems notably , the X31 [ wikipedia.org ] .
) The investigators are clearly under pressure to say what they have found and they are unable to report " nothing " to the press .
With no luck in recovering the Black Box , the investigators ( like they talk about Pilots not good at flying aircraft without the aid of in-flight safety systems ) have to do it the old forensic way ( reminds me of Crichton 's Airframe ) .
That is going to take time and the press , the Aircraft companies using A330s are impatient to know why .
Clearly no recent theory has come close to deducing the true reason for the crash .
As I remember the first news item that appeared on the AF447 was that the plane " vanished " [ cnn.com ] from Radar and was sought for by the Brazilian Air Force before the crash site was positively identified .
The last exchanges between the Pilot and the Aircraft tower followed by an automated message from the aircraft [ wn.com ] remain the main clues apart from the debris in this horrific accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pitot tubes [wikipedia.org] were invented in the 1700s by the French Engineer Henry Pitot and later modified for airspeed measurements.
They are also used to measure aerodynamic speed in Formula racing cars too among other uses.
Here is a comprehensive article following the crash investigation that is informative with photographs [salon.com] and the timeline of theories.
I read both the articles posted.
They do not qualify as the best investigation reports.
They seem to be building "What if" scenarios from all data that is available.
Other A330 failures (no recent crashes reported) and Other places where ice in Pitot tubes led to failure (The Wikipedia article has a lot of information on this and planes which had problems notably, the X31 [wikipedia.org].
) The investigators are clearly under pressure to say what they have found and they are unable to report "nothing" to the press.
With no luck in recovering the Black Box, the investigators (like they talk about Pilots not good at flying aircraft without the aid of in-flight safety systems) have to do it the old forensic way (reminds me of Crichton's Airframe).
That is going to take time and the press, the Aircraft companies using A330s are impatient to know why.
Clearly no recent theory has come close to deducing the true reason for the crash.
As I remember the first news item that appeared on the AF447 was that the plane "vanished" [cnn.com] from Radar and was sought for by the Brazilian Air Force before the crash site was positively identified.
The last exchanges between the Pilot and the Aircraft tower followed by an automated message from the aircraft [wn.com] remain the main clues apart from the debris in this horrific accident.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503905</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>Digicrat</author>
	<datestamp>1246205160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BTW, due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools, there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any "unforseen" risk to others. Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!!</p></div><p>Open source is starting to make it's inroads in aerospace as well.  VxWorks is still the proprietary king of embedded (flight) software, but there is increasing interest in <a href="http://remts.com/" title="remts.com" rel="nofollow">RTEMS</a> [remts.com], a FOSS derived alternative from the Unix/Linux world.  Separately from that, there's also a growing interest in using re-usable/open-source components in such embedded software, though there are other (non-technical) obstacles with that as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools , there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any " unforseen " risk to others .
Perhaps there is a place for open source software here ! !
! Open source is starting to make it 's inroads in aerospace as well .
VxWorks is still the proprietary king of embedded ( flight ) software , but there is increasing interest in RTEMS [ remts.com ] , a FOSS derived alternative from the Unix/Linux world .
Separately from that , there 's also a growing interest in using re-usable/open-source components in such embedded software , though there are other ( non-technical ) obstacles with that as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools, there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any "unforseen" risk to others.
Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!
!Open source is starting to make it's inroads in aerospace as well.
VxWorks is still the proprietary king of embedded (flight) software, but there is increasing interest in RTEMS [remts.com], a FOSS derived alternative from the Unix/Linux world.
Separately from that, there's also a growing interest in using re-usable/open-source components in such embedded software, though there are other (non-technical) obstacles with that as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</id>
	<title>This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246199520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I really want any airplane I'm flying to LISTEN to me, not argue with me... At no point should a computer be able to override pilot input. Also, i want a solid mechanical link between the controls I'm pushing on and the control surfaces on the wings... That way, even if EVERY computer on the plane dies, I can still control the damn thing...</p><p>And yes IAAAP... (I Am An Airline Pilot)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I really want any airplane I 'm flying to LISTEN to me , not argue with me... At no point should a computer be able to override pilot input .
Also , i want a solid mechanical link between the controls I 'm pushing on and the control surfaces on the wings... That way , even if EVERY computer on the plane dies , I can still control the damn thing...And yes IAAAP... ( I Am An Airline Pilot )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I really want any airplane I'm flying to LISTEN to me, not argue with me... At no point should a computer be able to override pilot input.
Also, i want a solid mechanical link between the controls I'm pushing on and the control surfaces on the wings... That way, even if EVERY computer on the plane dies, I can still control the damn thing...And yes IAAAP... (I Am An Airline Pilot)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504463</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246209180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather have something actually able to really controll the airplane in charge. Like the computer. Remember the hudson landing? Dunno if it would've worked out so great if the pilot couldn't have relied on the computer preventing the airplaine from stalling during the landing. A computer can actually consider all the data coming from the airplane while a human pilot has to focus on certain aspects.</p><p>And about the mechanical link...you are kidding right? This is not a cessna...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have something actually able to really controll the airplane in charge .
Like the computer .
Remember the hudson landing ?
Dunno if it would 've worked out so great if the pilot could n't have relied on the computer preventing the airplaine from stalling during the landing .
A computer can actually consider all the data coming from the airplane while a human pilot has to focus on certain aspects.And about the mechanical link...you are kidding right ?
This is not a cessna.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have something actually able to really controll the airplane in charge.
Like the computer.
Remember the hudson landing?
Dunno if it would've worked out so great if the pilot couldn't have relied on the computer preventing the airplaine from stalling during the landing.
A computer can actually consider all the data coming from the airplane while a human pilot has to focus on certain aspects.And about the mechanical link...you are kidding right?
This is not a cessna...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505531</id>
	<title>Re:Design Philosphy</title>
	<author>Colin Douglas Howell</author>
	<datestamp>1246215720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The parent's story appears to be the second of the two incidents mentioned in <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0627/p02s01-usgn.html" title="csmonitor.com" rel="nofollow">the Christian Science Monitor article</a> [csmonitor.com] linked to in the summary.  From the CSMonitor article:<blockquote><div><p>There's less detail about the second incident. The safety board said it "became aware of another possibly similar incident" that occurred on a June 23 Northwest A330 flight between Hong Kong and Tokyo.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

From the parent post:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>&gt;&gt; This from a friend and NWA pilot I flew the B-757<br>&gt;&gt; with out of our Tokyo base.........Now obviously on the A-330<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Well, I'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident. I fly<br>&gt;&gt; the same plane, the A330.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo , a 1700nm<br>&gt;&gt; 4hr. flight, we experienced the same problems Air France had while<br>&gt;&gt; flying thru bad weather.<br>&gt;&gt; I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447. My list is<br>&gt;&gt; almost the same.<br>&gt;&gt; http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php<br> <br>[...]<br> <br>&gt;&gt; Synopsis;<br>&gt;&gt; Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT. Entering Nara Japan<br>&gt;&gt; airspace.</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The parent 's story appears to be the second of the two incidents mentioned in the Christian Science Monitor article [ csmonitor.com ] linked to in the summary .
From the CSMonitor article : There 's less detail about the second incident .
The safety board said it " became aware of another possibly similar incident " that occurred on a June 23 Northwest A330 flight between Hong Kong and Tokyo .
From the parent post : &gt; &gt; This from a friend and NWA pilot I flew the B-757 &gt; &gt; with out of our Tokyo base.........Now obviously on the A-330 &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Well , I 'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident .
I fly &gt; &gt; the same plane , the A330. &gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo , a 1700nm &gt; &gt; 4hr .
flight , we experienced the same problems Air France had while &gt; &gt; flying thru bad weather. &gt; &gt; I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447 .
My list is &gt; &gt; almost the same. &gt; &gt; http : //www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php [ ... ] &gt; &gt; Synopsis ; &gt; &gt; Tuesday 23 , 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT .
Entering Nara Japan &gt; &gt; airspace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The parent's story appears to be the second of the two incidents mentioned in the Christian Science Monitor article [csmonitor.com] linked to in the summary.
From the CSMonitor article:There's less detail about the second incident.
The safety board said it "became aware of another possibly similar incident" that occurred on a June 23 Northwest A330 flight between Hong Kong and Tokyo.
From the parent post: &gt;&gt; This from a friend and NWA pilot I flew the B-757&gt;&gt; with out of our Tokyo base.........Now obviously on the A-330&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Well, I'm sure you have all heard of the Air France accident.
I fly&gt;&gt; the same plane, the A330.&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Yesterday while coming up from Hong Kong to Tokyo , a 1700nm&gt;&gt; 4hr.
flight, we experienced the same problems Air France had while&gt;&gt; flying thru bad weather.&gt;&gt; I have a link to the failures that occurred on AF 447.
My list is&gt;&gt; almost the same.&gt;&gt; http://www.eurocockpit.com/images/acars447.php [...] &gt;&gt; Synopsis;&gt;&gt; Tuesday 23, 2009 10am enroute HKG to NRT.
Entering Nara Japan&gt;&gt; airspace. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504749</id>
	<title>Re:Short version:</title>
	<author>Beretta Vexe</author>
	<datestamp>1246210920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's like with users and computers. Instead of teaching people how a computer works and how you interact with one, they learn the exact sequence of steps they have to follow to make something happen.</p></div><p>I don't know for airplane pilot but in many life critical task assisted by computer, accidental behavior is the core of the training. Most of them use the "state based approach" developed by the nuclear industries after the Three Mile Island accident. Identify the actual state of yours devices, start by the worst scenario, do the associated procedure, iterate until it's in a safe state. You usually don't have enough time, global picture and cool head to analyze the situation.<br>Pilot are not robot executing blindly the procedure, the procedure only help them to focus and chose what's must be done first.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like with users and computers .
Instead of teaching people how a computer works and how you interact with one , they learn the exact sequence of steps they have to follow to make something happen.I do n't know for airplane pilot but in many life critical task assisted by computer , accidental behavior is the core of the training .
Most of them use the " state based approach " developed by the nuclear industries after the Three Mile Island accident .
Identify the actual state of yours devices , start by the worst scenario , do the associated procedure , iterate until it 's in a safe state .
You usually do n't have enough time , global picture and cool head to analyze the situation.Pilot are not robot executing blindly the procedure , the procedure only help them to focus and chose what 's must be done first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like with users and computers.
Instead of teaching people how a computer works and how you interact with one, they learn the exact sequence of steps they have to follow to make something happen.I don't know for airplane pilot but in many life critical task assisted by computer, accidental behavior is the core of the training.
Most of them use the "state based approach" developed by the nuclear industries after the Three Mile Island accident.
Identify the actual state of yours devices, start by the worst scenario, do the associated procedure, iterate until it's in a safe state.
You usually don't have enough time, global picture and cool head to analyze the situation.Pilot are not robot executing blindly the procedure, the procedure only help them to focus and chose what's must be done first.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503481</id>
	<title>Still human error.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1246201500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like any other part of the plane, the computer is just another instrument designed and manufactured by people. Blame the programmer, the tester, the lack of analysis. The cause of this accident has nothing to do with computers. They just do what we tell them to. Leave them alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like any other part of the plane , the computer is just another instrument designed and manufactured by people .
Blame the programmer , the tester , the lack of analysis .
The cause of this accident has nothing to do with computers .
They just do what we tell them to .
Leave them alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like any other part of the plane, the computer is just another instrument designed and manufactured by people.
Blame the programmer, the tester, the lack of analysis.
The cause of this accident has nothing to do with computers.
They just do what we tell them to.
Leave them alone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28518285</id>
	<title>Solder Whiskers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246307760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU has mandated the elimination of lead from solder, rendering it it vulnerable to whisker production.<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker\_(metallurgy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU has mandated the elimination of lead from solder , rendering it it vulnerable to whisker production.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker \ _ ( metallurgy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU has mandated the elimination of lead from solder, rendering it it vulnerable to whisker production.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker\_(metallurgy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28518551</id>
	<title>Re:Moral of the story...</title>
	<author>lavalamp70</author>
	<datestamp>1246308900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't trust a 'fly-by-wire' aircraft. If the FLCC goes tits up, you're hosed. There is no dead sticking one in....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't trust a 'fly-by-wire ' aircraft .
If the FLCC goes tits up , you 're hosed .
There is no dead sticking one in... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't trust a 'fly-by-wire' aircraft.
If the FLCC goes tits up, you're hosed.
There is no dead sticking one in....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504801</id>
	<title>Another Java EE Failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246211160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is Java to blame.</p><p>They had a crappy Websphere-based onboard system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is Java to blame.They had a crappy Websphere-based onboard system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is Java to blame.They had a crappy Websphere-based onboard system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505935</id>
	<title>Its the sound barrier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246218360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Building planes to pass the sound barrier is fundamentally different from building them for sub-sonic speeds.  The reason that it is called the sound barrier is that passing through your own sound wave is like flying into a wall. Planes that can do this are very sturdy, which means that they are very heavy.  This makes them impractical (uses lots of fuel and does not have much cargo space) for virtually any civilian application.
<br> <br>
On the other hand, planes that fly below mach 1 need to have motors strong enough accelerate the vehicle rather quickly from a stop in order to take off.  If you leave the motors revved up once you hit cruising speed, the plane will keep accelerating until it hits the sound barrier and falls apart.
<br> <br>
How a broken airspeed indicator could cause this should be obvious: if the air speed indicator is clogged, the computer (or pilot) will think the plane is going too slow and push more juice to the engines.  Eventually the engines will push the plane into the sound barrier and destroy it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Building planes to pass the sound barrier is fundamentally different from building them for sub-sonic speeds .
The reason that it is called the sound barrier is that passing through your own sound wave is like flying into a wall .
Planes that can do this are very sturdy , which means that they are very heavy .
This makes them impractical ( uses lots of fuel and does not have much cargo space ) for virtually any civilian application .
On the other hand , planes that fly below mach 1 need to have motors strong enough accelerate the vehicle rather quickly from a stop in order to take off .
If you leave the motors revved up once you hit cruising speed , the plane will keep accelerating until it hits the sound barrier and falls apart .
How a broken airspeed indicator could cause this should be obvious : if the air speed indicator is clogged , the computer ( or pilot ) will think the plane is going too slow and push more juice to the engines .
Eventually the engines will push the plane into the sound barrier and destroy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Building planes to pass the sound barrier is fundamentally different from building them for sub-sonic speeds.
The reason that it is called the sound barrier is that passing through your own sound wave is like flying into a wall.
Planes that can do this are very sturdy, which means that they are very heavy.
This makes them impractical (uses lots of fuel and does not have much cargo space) for virtually any civilian application.
On the other hand, planes that fly below mach 1 need to have motors strong enough accelerate the vehicle rather quickly from a stop in order to take off.
If you leave the motors revved up once you hit cruising speed, the plane will keep accelerating until it hits the sound barrier and falls apart.
How a broken airspeed indicator could cause this should be obvious: if the air speed indicator is clogged, the computer (or pilot) will think the plane is going too slow and push more juice to the engines.
Eventually the engines will push the plane into the sound barrier and destroy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504093</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a passenger, I don't want you to have any of those things.  If <em>every</em> computer on the plane dies, you won't be controlling anything.  You'll be one of the dead computers.  The issue that I have is that you're not the best computer for the job to begin with, any more.  Even if you didn't spend half your time in flight school drinking and pretending to be Tom Cruise.*</p><p>*hint to potential future pilots: If you're not a <em>naval</em> aviator, <em>Top Gun</em> isn't about you.  You look like someone repeating a joke that everyone else gets but you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a passenger , I do n't want you to have any of those things .
If every computer on the plane dies , you wo n't be controlling anything .
You 'll be one of the dead computers .
The issue that I have is that you 're not the best computer for the job to begin with , any more .
Even if you did n't spend half your time in flight school drinking and pretending to be Tom Cruise .
* * hint to potential future pilots : If you 're not a naval aviator , Top Gun is n't about you .
You look like someone repeating a joke that everyone else gets but you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a passenger, I don't want you to have any of those things.
If every computer on the plane dies, you won't be controlling anything.
You'll be one of the dead computers.
The issue that I have is that you're not the best computer for the job to begin with, any more.
Even if you didn't spend half your time in flight school drinking and pretending to be Tom Cruise.
**hint to potential future pilots: If you're not a naval aviator, Top Gun isn't about you.
You look like someone repeating a joke that everyone else gets but you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071</id>
	<title>Re:Two things</title>
	<author>squidinkcalligraphy</author>
	<datestamp>1246197960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flights are getting more and more automated. It used to be up to the pilot to take off and land, and the autopilot would fly the bit in the middle in good conditions. Now the autopilot takes off and lands too. The pilot is there in case of emergencies. But I would still wager that a computer would statistically be better than a human overall, otherwise the airlines  wouldn't deploy this.</p><p>This case is of a plane travelling at such high speed and altitude that it only has a tiny window of opportunity between breaking up, stalling, or falling into the tempest below. If the computer systems keeping it in that window fail, then the pilot has little chance of actually fixing things. The alternative is to fly a lot more conservatively, with bigger margins of error. That would mean flying slower, and at lower altitude. Which means longer flights, that burn more fuel, hence cost more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flights are getting more and more automated .
It used to be up to the pilot to take off and land , and the autopilot would fly the bit in the middle in good conditions .
Now the autopilot takes off and lands too .
The pilot is there in case of emergencies .
But I would still wager that a computer would statistically be better than a human overall , otherwise the airlines would n't deploy this.This case is of a plane travelling at such high speed and altitude that it only has a tiny window of opportunity between breaking up , stalling , or falling into the tempest below .
If the computer systems keeping it in that window fail , then the pilot has little chance of actually fixing things .
The alternative is to fly a lot more conservatively , with bigger margins of error .
That would mean flying slower , and at lower altitude .
Which means longer flights , that burn more fuel , hence cost more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flights are getting more and more automated.
It used to be up to the pilot to take off and land, and the autopilot would fly the bit in the middle in good conditions.
Now the autopilot takes off and lands too.
The pilot is there in case of emergencies.
But I would still wager that a computer would statistically be better than a human overall, otherwise the airlines  wouldn't deploy this.This case is of a plane travelling at such high speed and altitude that it only has a tiny window of opportunity between breaking up, stalling, or falling into the tempest below.
If the computer systems keeping it in that window fail, then the pilot has little chance of actually fixing things.
The alternative is to fly a lot more conservatively, with bigger margins of error.
That would mean flying slower, and at lower altitude.
Which means longer flights, that burn more fuel, hence cost more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504399</id>
	<title>Why black boxes ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246208760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The black box concept looks like a huge anachronism to me. It wouldn't be insanely expensive to uplink the data in real time. But I guess they'll be offering hispeed Internet to business class passengers long before they'll think of using same radio links to stream safety relevant data that is currently recorded to the black box or not at all. Even if the plane had only squaked its GPS posit, heading and speed every second or so, this would have cut days off the initial search for the wreckage. Add vital plane health stats to that info, and you take days or weeks off the investigation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The black box concept looks like a huge anachronism to me .
It would n't be insanely expensive to uplink the data in real time .
But I guess they 'll be offering hispeed Internet to business class passengers long before they 'll think of using same radio links to stream safety relevant data that is currently recorded to the black box or not at all .
Even if the plane had only squaked its GPS posit , heading and speed every second or so , this would have cut days off the initial search for the wreckage .
Add vital plane health stats to that info , and you take days or weeks off the investigation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The black box concept looks like a huge anachronism to me.
It wouldn't be insanely expensive to uplink the data in real time.
But I guess they'll be offering hispeed Internet to business class passengers long before they'll think of using same radio links to stream safety relevant data that is currently recorded to the black box or not at all.
Even if the plane had only squaked its GPS posit, heading and speed every second or so, this would have cut days off the initial search for the wreckage.
Add vital plane health stats to that info, and you take days or weeks off the investigation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507681</id>
	<title>Re:No manual control?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246189320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought pilots were trained to fly that way, in case of emergency. Are they not? I mean there were planes without anything else than a airspeed indicator (which you can live without), and they flew them without problems. Of course a big jet is different. But as long as you can see the horizon and maybe the sun, you know how to steer to get it in a normal position. And then you land, in very slow descend, on the next airport.<br>I think you would even be able to do it, after you flew the machine in a flight simulator, for some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought pilots were trained to fly that way , in case of emergency .
Are they not ?
I mean there were planes without anything else than a airspeed indicator ( which you can live without ) , and they flew them without problems .
Of course a big jet is different .
But as long as you can see the horizon and maybe the sun , you know how to steer to get it in a normal position .
And then you land , in very slow descend , on the next airport.I think you would even be able to do it , after you flew the machine in a flight simulator , for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought pilots were trained to fly that way, in case of emergency.
Are they not?
I mean there were planes without anything else than a airspeed indicator (which you can live without), and they flew them without problems.
Of course a big jet is different.
But as long as you can see the horizon and maybe the sun, you know how to steer to get it in a normal position.
And then you land, in very slow descend, on the next airport.I think you would even be able to do it, after you flew the machine in a flight simulator, for some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508563</id>
	<title>Re:Suspect?....</title>
	<author>Celeritas 5k</author>
	<datestamp>1246197600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And is also an incredibly complex piece of equipment that relies on thousands of parts (some of which can fail silently and lead to incorrect output), has zero common sense or reasoning capability, and is only as good as the program it's running.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And is also an incredibly complex piece of equipment that relies on thousands of parts ( some of which can fail silently and lead to incorrect output ) , has zero common sense or reasoning capability , and is only as good as the program it 's running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And is also an incredibly complex piece of equipment that relies on thousands of parts (some of which can fail silently and lead to incorrect output), has zero common sense or reasoning capability, and is only as good as the program it's running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502909</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503135</id>
	<title>you fail it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246198740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GAY NIGGERS FROM being GAY NIGGERS. dying. See? It's</htmltext>
<tokenext>GAY NIGGERS FROM being GAY NIGGERS .
dying. See ?
It 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GAY NIGGERS FROM being GAY NIGGERS.
dying. See?
It's</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504501</id>
	<title>Re:No manual control?</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1246209480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Airbus' can have direct (ie' 'manual') control, no problem. Just flip a couple of switches.
<br> <br>
Thing is, it wouldn't help. At 31000 feet there's only a 25 knot difference between 'stall' and 'supersonic' (both are bad) so you really really really need to know your airspeed (this applies to any aircraft, not just fly-by wire).
<br> <br>
If weather conditions were so bad that all three airspeed measuring devices failed then maybe it *was* a bad idea to fly through the middle of a massive thundercloud.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Airbus ' can have direct ( ie ' 'manual ' ) control , no problem .
Just flip a couple of switches .
Thing is , it would n't help .
At 31000 feet there 's only a 25 knot difference between 'stall ' and 'supersonic ' ( both are bad ) so you really really really need to know your airspeed ( this applies to any aircraft , not just fly-by wire ) .
If weather conditions were so bad that all three airspeed measuring devices failed then maybe it * was * a bad idea to fly through the middle of a massive thundercloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Airbus' can have direct (ie' 'manual') control, no problem.
Just flip a couple of switches.
Thing is, it wouldn't help.
At 31000 feet there's only a 25 knot difference between 'stall' and 'supersonic' (both are bad) so you really really really need to know your airspeed (this applies to any aircraft, not just fly-by wire).
If weather conditions were so bad that all three airspeed measuring devices failed then maybe it *was* a bad idea to fly through the middle of a massive thundercloud.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503111</id>
	<title>default</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246198500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the default mode if all computers go down (if there are even any)?</p><p>Are you completely SOL in a fly-by-wire setup?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the default mode if all computers go down ( if there are even any ) ? Are you completely SOL in a fly-by-wire setup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the default mode if all computers go down (if there are even any)?Are you completely SOL in a fly-by-wire setup?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28510053</id>
	<title>Re:No manual control?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246212300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because that means you can exceed the flight envelope. Do you really want the ability to have your foot slip in heavy turbulence and damage the rudder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because that means you can exceed the flight envelope .
Do you really want the ability to have your foot slip in heavy turbulence and damage the rudder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because that means you can exceed the flight envelope.
Do you really want the ability to have your foot slip in heavy turbulence and damage the rudder?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502919</id>
	<title>I accidentally the whole airbus.</title>
	<author>JumperCable</author>
	<datestamp>1246196280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I this is true, I bet the software testers feel bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I this is true , I bet the software testers feel bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I this is true, I bet the software testers feel bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28511303</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246268280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why I really want any airplane I'm flying to LISTEN to me, not argue with me.</p></div><p>Crashes have been caused by this - collision-avoidance system says one thing, pilot overrides it and crashes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I really want any airplane I 'm flying to LISTEN to me , not argue with me.Crashes have been caused by this - collision-avoidance system says one thing , pilot overrides it and crashes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I really want any airplane I'm flying to LISTEN to me, not argue with me.Crashes have been caused by this - collision-avoidance system says one thing, pilot overrides it and crashes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28511695</id>
	<title>just to put things into perspective ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246272780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this will piss off 'professional pilots' especially the ones with raybans, but the number accidents of accidents - even remotely - related to computer failures pale in front of plain pilot stupidity.  I am not talking about pilot error / training<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/skills<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/judgement, I am talking about stupidity.  Like flying to the ground while chatting in the cockpit, or having no idea where the plane is and where it is going while scratching their balls.</p><p>a small list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled\_flight\_into\_terrain</p><p>just to put things into perspective</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this will piss off 'professional pilots ' especially the ones with raybans , but the number accidents of accidents - even remotely - related to computer failures pale in front of plain pilot stupidity .
I am not talking about pilot error / training /skills /judgement , I am talking about stupidity .
Like flying to the ground while chatting in the cockpit , or having no idea where the plane is and where it is going while scratching their balls.a small list : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled \ _flight \ _into \ _terrainjust to put things into perspective</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this will piss off 'professional pilots' especially the ones with raybans, but the number accidents of accidents - even remotely - related to computer failures pale in front of plain pilot stupidity.
I am not talking about pilot error / training /skills /judgement, I am talking about stupidity.
Like flying to the ground while chatting in the cockpit, or having no idea where the plane is and where it is going while scratching their balls.a small list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled\_flight\_into\_terrainjust to put things into perspective</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507541</id>
	<title>Re:Broke up from flying 'too fast'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246188120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh huh. So, previous accidents where aircraft broke up through excessive speed, or attempts to recover while travelling at excessive speed, were actually down to meteors?</p><p>How about the 1991 Lauda Air 767 disaster, in which an uncommanded reverser deployment caused partial stall of the left wing, resulting in a roll and dive where the airspeed rapidly exceeded VNE, followed by failure of the fin due to airloads, which in turn struck and tore off the horizontal stabilzer, which in turn caused the nose to tuck down with such violence that both wings tore off.</p><p>Of course, there would be no point in mentioning this as proof that going too fast can break a jet, as no computers flew the aircraft into the ground against the wishes of the pilots, the reverser deployment was caused by a combination of electrical and hydraulic faults with no computer involved, and there were no, repeat, no little green men shooting at the aircraft. Oh, and it was a Boeing, so no good for all the burn Airbus at the stake crowd spouting their nonsense on this forum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh huh .
So , previous accidents where aircraft broke up through excessive speed , or attempts to recover while travelling at excessive speed , were actually down to meteors ? How about the 1991 Lauda Air 767 disaster , in which an uncommanded reverser deployment caused partial stall of the left wing , resulting in a roll and dive where the airspeed rapidly exceeded VNE , followed by failure of the fin due to airloads , which in turn struck and tore off the horizontal stabilzer , which in turn caused the nose to tuck down with such violence that both wings tore off.Of course , there would be no point in mentioning this as proof that going too fast can break a jet , as no computers flew the aircraft into the ground against the wishes of the pilots , the reverser deployment was caused by a combination of electrical and hydraulic faults with no computer involved , and there were no , repeat , no little green men shooting at the aircraft .
Oh , and it was a Boeing , so no good for all the burn Airbus at the stake crowd spouting their nonsense on this forum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh huh.
So, previous accidents where aircraft broke up through excessive speed, or attempts to recover while travelling at excessive speed, were actually down to meteors?How about the 1991 Lauda Air 767 disaster, in which an uncommanded reverser deployment caused partial stall of the left wing, resulting in a roll and dive where the airspeed rapidly exceeded VNE, followed by failure of the fin due to airloads, which in turn struck and tore off the horizontal stabilzer, which in turn caused the nose to tuck down with such violence that both wings tore off.Of course, there would be no point in mentioning this as proof that going too fast can break a jet, as no computers flew the aircraft into the ground against the wishes of the pilots, the reverser deployment was caused by a combination of electrical and hydraulic faults with no computer involved, and there were no, repeat, no little green men shooting at the aircraft.
Oh, and it was a Boeing, so no good for all the burn Airbus at the stake crowd spouting their nonsense on this forum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509519</id>
	<title>Re:No manual control?</title>
	<author>Poingggg</author>
	<datestamp>1246207500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But as long as you can see the horizon and maybe the sun, you know how to steer to get it in a normal position.</p></div><p>And there you have just the two missing factors: The airspeed indicator (and the rest) went defective at night (so not much sun there, maybe that's different where you live), above the ocean (which happens to be sort of sky-colored seen from above, but not visible here by lack of sun), in a storm (so probably lots of rain and clouds, conditions not known for improvement of sight). No airspeed indicator means you don't know if your airspeed is too high (so the plane will fall apart) or too low (which means it is impossible to maintain hight).</p><p>If you want to comment, please RTFA first so you know what you are talking about.</p><p>Oh, and just for good measure: I agree with you that *under normal circumstances* a pilot should be able to fly manually, but in this case circumstances were far from normal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But as long as you can see the horizon and maybe the sun , you know how to steer to get it in a normal position.And there you have just the two missing factors : The airspeed indicator ( and the rest ) went defective at night ( so not much sun there , maybe that 's different where you live ) , above the ocean ( which happens to be sort of sky-colored seen from above , but not visible here by lack of sun ) , in a storm ( so probably lots of rain and clouds , conditions not known for improvement of sight ) .
No airspeed indicator means you do n't know if your airspeed is too high ( so the plane will fall apart ) or too low ( which means it is impossible to maintain hight ) .If you want to comment , please RTFA first so you know what you are talking about.Oh , and just for good measure : I agree with you that * under normal circumstances * a pilot should be able to fly manually , but in this case circumstances were far from normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But as long as you can see the horizon and maybe the sun, you know how to steer to get it in a normal position.And there you have just the two missing factors: The airspeed indicator (and the rest) went defective at night (so not much sun there, maybe that's different where you live), above the ocean (which happens to be sort of sky-colored seen from above, but not visible here by lack of sun), in a storm (so probably lots of rain and clouds, conditions not known for improvement of sight).
No airspeed indicator means you don't know if your airspeed is too high (so the plane will fall apart) or too low (which means it is impossible to maintain hight).If you want to comment, please RTFA first so you know what you are talking about.Oh, and just for good measure: I agree with you that *under normal circumstances* a pilot should be able to fly manually, but in this case circumstances were far from normal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507681</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502923</id>
	<title>Unintended effects</title>
	<author>dangle</author>
	<datestamp>1246196280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be ironic if the flight computers contributed to the accident, given the focus on designing them to prevent humans from contributing to accidents.

Interesting video showing an A320 "refusing" to be crashed:

At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees. At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6\_d6yck" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6\_d6yck</a> [youtube.com] [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be ironic if the flight computers contributed to the accident , given the focus on designing them to prevent humans from contributing to accidents .
Interesting video showing an A320 " refusing " to be crashed : At about 3 minutes , the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees .
At about 4 : 30 , an attempt is made to stall the aircraft , at which time the software overrides the throttle settings .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = LO5l6 \ _d6yck [ youtube.com ] [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be ironic if the flight computers contributed to the accident, given the focus on designing them to prevent humans from contributing to accidents.
Interesting video showing an A320 "refusing" to be crashed:

At about 3 minutes, the software prevents roll beyond 67 degrees.
At about 4:30, an attempt is made to stall the aircraft, at which time the software overrides the throttle settings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO5l6\_d6yck [youtube.com] [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28510399</id>
	<title>Computers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246215540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pilots would not have shut down the computers because that would have almost totaly debilitated the aircraft. These aircraft have glass cockpits with electronic displays and only vital backup instruments. A large modern airplane ususaly needs a computer do do some calculations or the pilot would be overwhelmed. I fly small aircraft and some have systems evan more advances than these. We use glass cockpits and if we shut down our computers we would have very little information (pitch, airspeed, compass, and altitude) and almost no navigation, and from my understanding this accident occured at night which would leave them with just there last location since shuting down computers and there direction. Trust me it is very difficult to fly with just those instruments. It can evan be difficult flying a night with all of the instruments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pilots would not have shut down the computers because that would have almost totaly debilitated the aircraft .
These aircraft have glass cockpits with electronic displays and only vital backup instruments .
A large modern airplane ususaly needs a computer do do some calculations or the pilot would be overwhelmed .
I fly small aircraft and some have systems evan more advances than these .
We use glass cockpits and if we shut down our computers we would have very little information ( pitch , airspeed , compass , and altitude ) and almost no navigation , and from my understanding this accident occured at night which would leave them with just there last location since shuting down computers and there direction .
Trust me it is very difficult to fly with just those instruments .
It can evan be difficult flying a night with all of the instruments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pilots would not have shut down the computers because that would have almost totaly debilitated the aircraft.
These aircraft have glass cockpits with electronic displays and only vital backup instruments.
A large modern airplane ususaly needs a computer do do some calculations or the pilot would be overwhelmed.
I fly small aircraft and some have systems evan more advances than these.
We use glass cockpits and if we shut down our computers we would have very little information (pitch, airspeed, compass, and altitude) and almost no navigation, and from my understanding this accident occured at night which would leave them with just there last location since shuting down computers and there direction.
Trust me it is very difficult to fly with just those instruments.
It can evan be difficult flying a night with all of the instruments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505063</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>My pet peeve of the computer industry, the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol(s), yet over engineering has resulted in the meaning of those symbols to be more than "off &amp; on" and this went further in removing the hard on off switch so that when the software based power switch failed, you have to physically unplug the computer from the wall, or take teh battery out.</i></p><p>Jesus Christ, how long have you used a computer? Have you ever read the instructions? Let me explain.</p><p>Back in the dark ages (1980s), computers had on/off physical power switches. These were often red, leading to the expression Big Red Switch when a computer crashes.</p><p>BUT, many people would just hit the Big Red Switch to shut off the computer (during normal operation), which would often cause files to be lost/damaged, depending on what the computer was doing when the user hit the Big Red Switch. Instructions would say not to do this, but most people ignored them.</p><p>So, the Big Red Switch was changed to a "please turn off" button. It sends a signal to the OS &amp; applications that the user wants to shut down, so prompt the user on screen for any last minute information, close any files in use, finish your disk writes, and shutdown gracefully. This avoids the file damage problem.</p><p>Ok, but what if the OS has crashed so badly that it ignores the "please turn off" signal? A moron would just pull the power cable. Someone who read the instructions knows that if you press &amp; hold the "please turn off" button for 10 seconds, it turns back into the Big Red Switch and cuts off the power.</p><p>So you get the best of both worlds.</p><p><i>The correct philosophy for such a switch would be a multi position switch, which the consumer doesn't have to know more than is obvious</i></p><p>In fact, that is what they currently do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My pet peeve of the computer industry , the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol ( s ) , yet over engineering has resulted in the meaning of those symbols to be more than " off &amp; on " and this went further in removing the hard on off switch so that when the software based power switch failed , you have to physically unplug the computer from the wall , or take teh battery out.Jesus Christ , how long have you used a computer ?
Have you ever read the instructions ?
Let me explain.Back in the dark ages ( 1980s ) , computers had on/off physical power switches .
These were often red , leading to the expression Big Red Switch when a computer crashes.BUT , many people would just hit the Big Red Switch to shut off the computer ( during normal operation ) , which would often cause files to be lost/damaged , depending on what the computer was doing when the user hit the Big Red Switch .
Instructions would say not to do this , but most people ignored them.So , the Big Red Switch was changed to a " please turn off " button .
It sends a signal to the OS &amp; applications that the user wants to shut down , so prompt the user on screen for any last minute information , close any files in use , finish your disk writes , and shutdown gracefully .
This avoids the file damage problem.Ok , but what if the OS has crashed so badly that it ignores the " please turn off " signal ?
A moron would just pull the power cable .
Someone who read the instructions knows that if you press &amp; hold the " please turn off " button for 10 seconds , it turns back into the Big Red Switch and cuts off the power.So you get the best of both worlds.The correct philosophy for such a switch would be a multi position switch , which the consumer does n't have to know more than is obviousIn fact , that is what they currently do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My pet peeve of the computer industry, the button on the front of the computer marked with a 0 &amp; 1 symbol(s), yet over engineering has resulted in the meaning of those symbols to be more than "off &amp; on" and this went further in removing the hard on off switch so that when the software based power switch failed, you have to physically unplug the computer from the wall, or take teh battery out.Jesus Christ, how long have you used a computer?
Have you ever read the instructions?
Let me explain.Back in the dark ages (1980s), computers had on/off physical power switches.
These were often red, leading to the expression Big Red Switch when a computer crashes.BUT, many people would just hit the Big Red Switch to shut off the computer (during normal operation), which would often cause files to be lost/damaged, depending on what the computer was doing when the user hit the Big Red Switch.
Instructions would say not to do this, but most people ignored them.So, the Big Red Switch was changed to a "please turn off" button.
It sends a signal to the OS &amp; applications that the user wants to shut down, so prompt the user on screen for any last minute information, close any files in use, finish your disk writes, and shutdown gracefully.
This avoids the file damage problem.Ok, but what if the OS has crashed so badly that it ignores the "please turn off" signal?
A moron would just pull the power cable.
Someone who read the instructions knows that if you press &amp; hold the "please turn off" button for 10 seconds, it turns back into the Big Red Switch and cuts off the power.So you get the best of both worlds.The correct philosophy for such a switch would be a multi position switch, which the consumer doesn't have to know more than is obviousIn fact, that is what they currently do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506001</id>
	<title>Re:Broke up from flying 'too fast'?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246218840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are not more meteors, we are just better at detecting them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are not more meteors , we are just better at detecting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are not more meteors, we are just better at detecting them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502909</id>
	<title>Re:Suspect?....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246196100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not in the hands of a drunkard pilot, you're in the hands of a computer that knows no stress, no fear, doesn't get sleepy, never get bored and has reaction times infinitely smaller than humans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not in the hands of a drunkard pilot , you 're in the hands of a computer that knows no stress , no fear , does n't get sleepy , never get bored and has reaction times infinitely smaller than humans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not in the hands of a drunkard pilot, you're in the hands of a computer that knows no stress, no fear, doesn't get sleepy, never get bored and has reaction times infinitely smaller than humans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28512547</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>voop</author>
	<datestamp>1246281180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> i want a solid mechanical link between the controls I'm pushing on and the control surfaces on the wings... That way, even if EVERY computer on the plane dies, I can still control the damn thing...</p><p>And yes IAAAP... (I Am An Airline Pilot)</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you by "mechanical link" mean "hydraulic link", by any chance? I am personally not convinced that hydraulic control of surfaces is any less prone to problems than are electric control using localized actuators and possibly disjoint/redundant electric linkage through the fuselage. FBW is not my greatest worry a - a hydraulic failure/leak is hard[er] to recover from than is a computer failure [where you have redundant computers and channels, and possibly various restart options].</p><p>It's true, however, that the automatization of the flight deck has radically changed the role of a pilot -- I still haven't made up my mind if that's for better or for worse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>i want a solid mechanical link between the controls I 'm pushing on and the control surfaces on the wings... That way , even if EVERY computer on the plane dies , I can still control the damn thing...And yes IAAAP... ( I Am An Airline Pilot ) Do you by " mechanical link " mean " hydraulic link " , by any chance ?
I am personally not convinced that hydraulic control of surfaces is any less prone to problems than are electric control using localized actuators and possibly disjoint/redundant electric linkage through the fuselage .
FBW is not my greatest worry a - a hydraulic failure/leak is hard [ er ] to recover from than is a computer failure [ where you have redundant computers and channels , and possibly various restart options ] .It 's true , however , that the automatization of the flight deck has radically changed the role of a pilot -- I still have n't made up my mind if that 's for better or for worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> i want a solid mechanical link between the controls I'm pushing on and the control surfaces on the wings... That way, even if EVERY computer on the plane dies, I can still control the damn thing...And yes IAAAP... (I Am An Airline Pilot)Do you by "mechanical link" mean "hydraulic link", by any chance?
I am personally not convinced that hydraulic control of surfaces is any less prone to problems than are electric control using localized actuators and possibly disjoint/redundant electric linkage through the fuselage.
FBW is not my greatest worry a - a hydraulic failure/leak is hard[er] to recover from than is a computer failure [where you have redundant computers and channels, and possibly various restart options].It's true, however, that the automatization of the flight deck has radically changed the role of a pilot -- I still haven't made up my mind if that's for better or for worse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504425</id>
	<title>Re:A330 -- No Margin for Error</title>
	<author>phageman</author>
	<datestamp>1246208940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The airliner can't generate enough airspeed "in level flight" to cause structural failure of the airframe or control surfaces.  The most likely scenario presented by TFA is that the incorrect airspeed readings caused the pilots to throttle up, nose down, or both, as an attempt to remedy a phantom problem.  While falling out of of the sky under full power, any plane can easily exceed its design limits.  As posted above, increasing the safety margin means flying lower and slower, both of which cost time and money, or over-designing the aircraft to the point that it is no longer practically or economically feasible to build and operate.  Realize that flying is an inherently dangerous activity (just like driving), but we have made the decision that the benefits are not outweighed by the estimated risk.  The laws of probability must eventually strike, and some number of random individuals pay the price.  If you're not comfortable with that trade-off, I hear the Amish have a pretty good risk-avoidance record.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The airliner ca n't generate enough airspeed " in level flight " to cause structural failure of the airframe or control surfaces .
The most likely scenario presented by TFA is that the incorrect airspeed readings caused the pilots to throttle up , nose down , or both , as an attempt to remedy a phantom problem .
While falling out of of the sky under full power , any plane can easily exceed its design limits .
As posted above , increasing the safety margin means flying lower and slower , both of which cost time and money , or over-designing the aircraft to the point that it is no longer practically or economically feasible to build and operate .
Realize that flying is an inherently dangerous activity ( just like driving ) , but we have made the decision that the benefits are not outweighed by the estimated risk .
The laws of probability must eventually strike , and some number of random individuals pay the price .
If you 're not comfortable with that trade-off , I hear the Amish have a pretty good risk-avoidance record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The airliner can't generate enough airspeed "in level flight" to cause structural failure of the airframe or control surfaces.
The most likely scenario presented by TFA is that the incorrect airspeed readings caused the pilots to throttle up, nose down, or both, as an attempt to remedy a phantom problem.
While falling out of of the sky under full power, any plane can easily exceed its design limits.
As posted above, increasing the safety margin means flying lower and slower, both of which cost time and money, or over-designing the aircraft to the point that it is no longer practically or economically feasible to build and operate.
Realize that flying is an inherently dangerous activity (just like driving), but we have made the decision that the benefits are not outweighed by the estimated risk.
The laws of probability must eventually strike, and some number of random individuals pay the price.
If you're not comfortable with that trade-off, I hear the Amish have a pretty good risk-avoidance record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504393</id>
	<title>Re:Aerospace systems are made by humans, but...</title>
	<author>not-my-real-name</author>
	<datestamp>1246208700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>BTW, due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools, there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any "unforseen" risk to others. Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!!</p></div><p>I think that most open source software developers would rather gnaw a their own arm off rather than work in the aerospace software development environment.  It's all about documentation.  It doesn't matter how good the software is, if you don't have documentation to prove it.  Everything has to be documented and tested and then documented some more.  You also can't just slap in a quick fix for a bug and release it.  Your quick fix has to be tested and documented.  In many cases it's better to leave a bug in and document the bug than to try and fix it at the last minute.</p><p>Software development in the aerospace industry is very different than most other software development.  I suppose that the FDA has similar regulations, but I'm not familiar with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools , there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any " unforseen " risk to others .
Perhaps there is a place for open source software here ! !
! I think that most open source software developers would rather gnaw a their own arm off rather than work in the aerospace software development environment .
It 's all about documentation .
It does n't matter how good the software is , if you do n't have documentation to prove it .
Everything has to be documented and tested and then documented some more .
You also ca n't just slap in a quick fix for a bug and release it .
Your quick fix has to be tested and documented .
In many cases it 's better to leave a bug in and document the bug than to try and fix it at the last minute.Software development in the aerospace industry is very different than most other software development .
I suppose that the FDA has similar regulations , but I 'm not familiar with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, due to the competitive commercial nature of aerospace software development tools, there is a level of incompatibility between them and as such there is also motive for playing the lockin game regardless of any "unforseen" risk to others.
Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!
!I think that most open source software developers would rather gnaw a their own arm off rather than work in the aerospace software development environment.
It's all about documentation.
It doesn't matter how good the software is, if you don't have documentation to prove it.
Everything has to be documented and tested and then documented some more.
You also can't just slap in a quick fix for a bug and release it.
Your quick fix has to be tested and documented.
In many cases it's better to leave a bug in and document the bug than to try and fix it at the last minute.Software development in the aerospace industry is very different than most other software development.
I suppose that the FDA has similar regulations, but I'm not familiar with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503697</id>
	<title>Thank you!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246203360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for being honest about this.  Seems like the majority of the posts are Airbus propaganda... It's not like they wouldn't have the money to pay people to preach what they want, and it's one company that I wouldn't put it past them either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for being honest about this .
Seems like the majority of the posts are Airbus propaganda... It 's not like they would n't have the money to pay people to preach what they want , and it 's one company that I would n't put it past them either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for being honest about this.
Seems like the majority of the posts are Airbus propaganda... It's not like they wouldn't have the money to pay people to preach what they want, and it's one company that I wouldn't put it past them either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506389</id>
	<title>Black Box Stat Data to Satellites?</title>
	<author>kencf0618</author>
	<datestamp>1246221720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may be a dumb question, but would it at all be technically feasible for flight data recorders to uplink, say, an encrypted data-stream to some available satellite whenever things start to go pear-shaped?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may be a dumb question , but would it at all be technically feasible for flight data recorders to uplink , say , an encrypted data-stream to some available satellite whenever things start to go pear-shaped ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may be a dumb question, but would it at all be technically feasible for flight data recorders to uplink, say, an encrypted data-stream to some available satellite whenever things start to go pear-shaped?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504451</id>
	<title>Re:No manual control?</title>
	<author>kidgenius</author>
	<datestamp>1246209120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you are talking about is sometimes called "Direct Mode".   No computers are getting in there and calculating anything.  Nothing is preventing you from rolling the plane if you wanted to.  It's just you, the stick, and the surfaces.  All electric signals.  Granted, there is still a "computer", but all it is doing is passing your inputs to the system.  They have this in the big jets, and have had it for years.  Heck, the pilots even have a switch that allows them to turn off the computers and switch into direct mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are talking about is sometimes called " Direct Mode " .
No computers are getting in there and calculating anything .
Nothing is preventing you from rolling the plane if you wanted to .
It 's just you , the stick , and the surfaces .
All electric signals .
Granted , there is still a " computer " , but all it is doing is passing your inputs to the system .
They have this in the big jets , and have had it for years .
Heck , the pilots even have a switch that allows them to turn off the computers and switch into direct mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are talking about is sometimes called "Direct Mode".
No computers are getting in there and calculating anything.
Nothing is preventing you from rolling the plane if you wanted to.
It's just you, the stick, and the surfaces.
All electric signals.
Granted, there is still a "computer", but all it is doing is passing your inputs to the system.
They have this in the big jets, and have had it for years.
Heck, the pilots even have a switch that allows them to turn off the computers and switch into direct mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799</id>
	<title>Suspect?....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246194780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dunno, the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything.  They usually don't make statements about suspicion of what may have happened without specific evidence.  This seems like an unusual announcement from them, not their usual style.  I wonder if they are compelled to state a truth that they fell won't be properly addressed otherwise.  After all, Airbus is built in Europe not the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything .
They usually do n't make statements about suspicion of what may have happened without specific evidence .
This seems like an unusual announcement from them , not their usual style .
I wonder if they are compelled to state a truth that they fell wo n't be properly addressed otherwise .
After all , Airbus is built in Europe not the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, the NTSB usually drags their feet before stating anything.
They usually don't make statements about suspicion of what may have happened without specific evidence.
This seems like an unusual announcement from them, not their usual style.
I wonder if they are compelled to state a truth that they fell won't be properly addressed otherwise.
After all, Airbus is built in Europe not the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504091</id>
	<title>Re:Speculation</title>
	<author>brianc</author>
	<datestamp>1246206480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Without having the black box how can the NTSB be making speculations as to the cause of the downed flight?</p> </div><p>FTFA-</p><p>"Based on initial physical evidence and information from automatic maintenance messages sent by the aircraft..."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without having the black box how can the NTSB be making speculations as to the cause of the downed flight ?
FTFA- " Based on initial physical evidence and information from automatic maintenance messages sent by the aircraft... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without having the black box how can the NTSB be making speculations as to the cause of the downed flight?
FTFA-"Based on initial physical evidence and information from automatic maintenance messages sent by the aircraft..."
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319</id>
	<title>No manual control?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246200240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about, you know... <em>manual control</em>?<br>Sure there are no mechanic cables anymore, but a wire controls the low-level hardware.<br>But at least it has to have just as basic piece of electronics that has no software or big complexity, and that allows you to manually steer the plane.<br>(No, that is not too hard to do, even on such big jets. You just have to be more careful about quick actions, stalling the plane &amp; co.)</p><p>A piece of electronics that is so simple, that the only thing killing it, is an electric shock right into its mainboard.</p><p>Electronics failure is never a cause! (Because: What would that be?)<br>The reason usually is a software error, that electric shock, or some other external source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about , you know... manual control ? Sure there are no mechanic cables anymore , but a wire controls the low-level hardware.But at least it has to have just as basic piece of electronics that has no software or big complexity , and that allows you to manually steer the plane .
( No , that is not too hard to do , even on such big jets .
You just have to be more careful about quick actions , stalling the plane &amp; co. ) A piece of electronics that is so simple , that the only thing killing it , is an electric shock right into its mainboard.Electronics failure is never a cause !
( Because : What would that be ?
) The reason usually is a software error , that electric shock , or some other external source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about, you know... manual control?Sure there are no mechanic cables anymore, but a wire controls the low-level hardware.But at least it has to have just as basic piece of electronics that has no software or big complexity, and that allows you to manually steer the plane.
(No, that is not too hard to do, even on such big jets.
You just have to be more careful about quick actions, stalling the plane &amp; co.)A piece of electronics that is so simple, that the only thing killing it, is an electric shock right into its mainboard.Electronics failure is never a cause!
(Because: What would that be?
)The reason usually is a software error, that electric shock, or some other external source.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503965</id>
	<title>Re:This is why airbii make pilots nervous.</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1246205580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is why I really want any airplane I'm flying to LISTEN to me, not argue with me.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Are you really sure about that? What about American Airlines flight 587: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American\_Airlines\_Flight\_587" title="wikipedia.org"> National Transportation Safety Board, which instead attributed the disaster to the first officer's overuse of rudder controls.</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>
However, if you RTFA, it suggests that the flight computer would have stopped controlling the throttles in this case before the plane broke up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I really want any airplane I 'm flying to LISTEN to me , not argue with me .
Are you really sure about that ?
What about American Airlines flight 587 : National Transportation Safety Board , which instead attributed the disaster to the first officer 's overuse of rudder controls .
[ wikipedia.org ] However , if you RTFA , it suggests that the flight computer would have stopped controlling the throttles in this case before the plane broke up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I really want any airplane I'm flying to LISTEN to me, not argue with me.
Are you really sure about that?
What about American Airlines flight 587:  National Transportation Safety Board, which instead attributed the disaster to the first officer's overuse of rudder controls.
[wikipedia.org] 
However, if you RTFA, it suggests that the flight computer would have stopped controlling the throttles in this case before the plane broke up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505291</id>
	<title>Which version of Windows were they running?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246214220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inquiring minds want to know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inquiring minds want to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inquiring minds want to know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504555</id>
	<title>Re:Design Philosphy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246209780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.  The A300 rudder failed at over 150\% normal load, and the A300 isn't even a fly by wire aircraft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
The A300 rudder failed at over 150 \ % normal load , and the A300 is n't even a fly by wire aircraft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
The A300 rudder failed at over 150\% normal load, and the A300 isn't even a fly by wire aircraft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503083</id>
	<title>ObJoke...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246198080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.heise.de/ct/schlagseite/03/01/gross.jpg" title="heise.de" rel="nofollow">It's in german...</a> [heise.de], but you'll understand it anyway....</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's in german... [ heise.de ] , but you 'll understand it anyway... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's in german... [heise.de], but you'll understand it anyway....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506631</id>
	<title>Re:Suspect?....</title>
	<author>Marcos Eliziario</author>
	<datestamp>1246180500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's perfectly rational to let pilots and companies know that there can be a chance of such thing happening, so they can be at least aware of this possibility.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's perfectly rational to let pilots and companies know that there can be a chance of such thing happening , so they can be at least aware of this possibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's perfectly rational to let pilots and companies know that there can be a chance of such thing happening, so they can be at least aware of this possibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503945</id>
	<title>revelations</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1246205520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the philosophy base is wrong then its limitations will manifest through the software and hardware created under such a philosophy and eventually show the limitations....</p><p>Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!!</p><p>Don't bow down to the stone image (Stone = computer hardware - Image = software) of the beast of man, for the beast is error prone and his image can be no better. Instead take a closer look at the code.... with many eyes.....</p></div><p>And the invisible, virginal Spirit rejoiced over the light which came forth, that which was brought forth first by the first power of his forethought, which is Richard Stallman.  For Open Source is the richness of the light; the remembrance of the pleroma.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the philosophy base is wrong then its limitations will manifest through the software and hardware created under such a philosophy and eventually show the limitations....Perhaps there is a place for open source software here ! !
! Do n't bow down to the stone image ( Stone = computer hardware - Image = software ) of the beast of man , for the beast is error prone and his image can be no better .
Instead take a closer look at the code.... with many eyes.....And the invisible , virginal Spirit rejoiced over the light which came forth , that which was brought forth first by the first power of his forethought , which is Richard Stallman .
For Open Source is the richness of the light ; the remembrance of the pleroma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the philosophy base is wrong then its limitations will manifest through the software and hardware created under such a philosophy and eventually show the limitations....Perhaps there is a place for open source software here!!
!Don't bow down to the stone image (Stone = computer hardware - Image = software) of the beast of man, for the beast is error prone and his image can be no better.
Instead take a closer look at the code.... with many eyes.....And the invisible, virginal Spirit rejoiced over the light which came forth, that which was brought forth first by the first power of his forethought, which is Richard Stallman.
For Open Source is the richness of the light; the remembrance of the pleroma.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28512547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28512423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28513407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28510053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28511303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502981
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28514029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505793
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502909
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28540885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28518551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507681
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_28_0858238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509473
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28518551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28513407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28512423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503411
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28510053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503547
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507681
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28540885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508733
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28514029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28509979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28511303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28512547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504463
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28504589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28502923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28505197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28508159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28506001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28507541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_28_0858238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_28_0858238.28503067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
