Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Don't forget the spin (Score 5, Informative) 389

Nonsense. The air is thin but not THAT thin. B-29 Superfortresses routinely flew at that height, via human piloting. You don't "need" an autopilot.

Firstly, the B-29 had the wings of a glider and cruised at 220 knots. The Airbus by contrast has swept wings optimized for cruise at .82 mach. What makes you think your intuition about the B29 is worth anything given the differences between those aircraft?

Secondly, the B29 was flown by autopilot in cruise. Preview "Bringing the Thunder" on Google books, page 155, for the memoirs of a B-29 pilot.

That said, this is not even an autopilot issue. The true source of this problem is the flight control system of the Airbus, which features a "self protection" system that intends to prevent the aircraft from stalling at any expense, and in this case, actively threatens the safety of the aircraft itself.

The truly frightening thing about this is that the air data computer clearly resumed normal operation at some point during the dive, and the aircraft was recoverable. Had this been a permanent failure of the air data computer, an airbus pilot has no way to override the aircraft's intentions and recover from the dive. An airbus pilot can only watch, as the airplane says, "No, really, I'm stalling, I have to hold the nose down and pick up airspeed!". With a failed ADC computer constantly and erroneously telling flight controls that the aircraft is in stall, an Airbus would dive, trying to recover, until it impacts the ground.

By contrast, A pilot of a Boeing aircraft can tell his aircraft that it's worldview is wrong and fly it by hand in any circumstance.

This represents a fundamental difference in philosophy. Airbus trusts the computer and the system more than it trusts the pilot -- It says that the probability of a systems failure causing incorrect control commands and threatening the aircraft is less than the probability of a confused, tired, or impaired pilot losing control of the aircraft. Boeing, by contrast, trusts the pilot more than it trusts the system.

There have been aircraft accidents where an Airbus aircraft has crashed in situations where a Boeing aircraft would have been flyable by a human pilot.

There have also been aircraft accidents where a Boeing aircraft has crashed due to incorrect pilot procedures which could have been overridden by an Airbus aircraft's flight control system.

Each philosophy has its risks and rewards.

Security

Submission + - EvE Online responds to source leak.

Nobo writes: As seen in the CCP Announcements RDF feed, CCP has formally responded to the (alleged) source leak. In summary: The code is not a leak, but rather is decompiled python client code. The server is designed to distrust clients and sanity-check data to and from the client with the intent of ensuring no exploitability, even in light of known client source. The official client is digitally signed. And finally, despite widespread rumors, no mass banning has occurred as punishment for possession or downloading of the 'leaked' source.
PC Games (Games)

Submission + - CCP's EVE-Online patch overwrites boot.ini 1

Nobo writes: CCP's latest major patch to the EVE-Online client, Trinity, comes with an optional DX9-enhanced graphics patch which dramatically improves the visual quality of the in-game graphics through remade models, textures, and HDR. It also has an unfortunate bug. Due to the incredibly stupid choice of boot.ini as a game configuration file, coupled with an errant extra backslash in the installer configuration, anyone who installs the enhanced graphics patch overwrites the windows XP c:\boot.ini file with the EVE client configuration file, bricking the machine on the next boot. Discussion on the forums is becoming understandably heated.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Working...