From: dgrev (dgrev@iinet.net.au)
Date: Tue Apr 12 2005 - 00:13:30 PDT
David
> I hate to break the news to everyone but the biggest issue with Windows is
> the Hardware, and other software. Think of it this way, Mac makes the OS,
> and the Hardware and things work great. But the PC is well, anyone can
> build it, from just about a billion different manufactures of hardware.
> Garbage in Garbage out.
That is a valid point. However, if MS didn't rig XP so that you had to
have software specifically "certified" (that means pay MS money I think)
then it won't be stable. There is a name for that sort of thing in law....
> Now to add info to the whole Boeing and Airbus thing. When I worked at
> Boeing, I always heard that a pilot on a Boeing plane had the last say over
> the computer, it could complain but not override the pilots control. "Look
> at the barrel role over Lake Washington 707 I believe" I also heard that
> Airbus was exactly the opposite,
Which was my point. The software was undoubtedly written by some nerd
who wouldn't know an airplane if it bit him. They hadn't allowed for
a go round (lets see, I think that was the 2nd thing they taught me
in pilot training after "height is safety"). So, the excuse was
"we didn't think of that", these people are building airliners and
made no provision for a go round, nor did they discover it missing
in all the simulator and flight testing???? Result, a very public
display of how to use a brand new airliner as a gigantic tree mower,
a big black cloud of smoke and a lot of dead people.
The issue was something very basic, because the plane was dirty (flaps
and undercart hanging out) the computer wouldn't accept pilot inputs
from engine controls and primary flight controls for the go round.
Basic flying is that in a go round you get the power on, get it
climbing and then clean it up - the very scenario that they had
left out of the programming.
Perhaps it comes down to the fact that Boeing is a major military
contractor and can think in terms of "unusual" flight situations
whereas Airbus is primarily a people hauler?
Personally, I have always prefered Boeing products and your comments
only reinforce that.
I regard it as very disappointing that Qantas
has just ordered the new Mega Airbus' to replace all those 747s that
have served so well. An insider told me that Boeing was just too darn
hard to deal with, the attitude being "we make the best, you will
do what we say". They have apparently lost sight of the fact that
the customer is the one with the money. Which does explain why Boeing
is loosing market share to Airbus. Qantas evidently tried very hard
to stay with Boeing but in the end walked away frustrated. Now they
will have all the incompatibility issues to get over that they
wouldn't have if they had stayed with Boeing.
Regards
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:42:54 PDT