Return to the archive index

Re: Youth and the wearable

I hate to go off subject here (maybe not, making pilots use wearables
might increase safety!)
but if a pilot doesnt look out the window to see if the runway lights and
strobes are blinking in their face (in dense fog you can see the strobes
almost 1/2 mile out.. I 've been there) then the pilots have no right to
be in the seats! a 747-200 can land it's self and too many pilots rely on
the technology than what common sense would tell you... I dread the day
when autopilots get into automotive markets... too many morons have
drivers licenses!  But here's a place that a wearable would help.... if
the basic information is in front of their eyes all the time (and a simple
"look out the window you moron!" blinking in their face) safety would be
increased!  Wearables to the rescue!

On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Mark Willis wrote:

> There's a publication somewhere (I read it while working as a
> contracter at Sunstrand, on the "Mark 7" Windshear/Ground-Proximity box)
> - titled something like "101 commercial aviation flights into or
> near-into terrain".  Read it if you want to be paranoid for a while
> about commercial aviation.
> 
>   Some crashes, the tower's talking to the aircrew, "Guys, you're at
> least 10 miles short of the end of the runway, DO NOT attempt to land!",
> the aircrew's telling the tower "Naah, can't be, we're just about to
> touch down."  And they did - in the water, 10 miles from the end of the
> runway.  Killing all aboard.
> 
>   Reading this, tended to make folks on our project aware of HOW bad
> things could go wrong, & the consequences.  (I have a print copy,
> somewhere, I think.)  Flying an aircraft, it's indeed good to be
> over-safe (you can't exactly park when you need to!)  But paranoia can
> be over-done...  We made darn sure we were careful to test the software
> we were using, rather thoroughly...
> 
>   Easy enough to figure out what the max safe emissions levels are, and
> relax the emissions, but remember the FAA is in there for the airlines &
> the aircraft makers & the passengers - not us computer users.
> 
>   Mark Willis, 
> 
> Timothy D. Gray wrote:
> > 
> > Ok, this thread is getting out of hand.....
> > 
> > Here's some info for thought...
> > 90% of aircraft flying today are decrepid old antiques built in 1960's and
> > 1970's(and a little in the 80's before anyone was considering the portable
> > LP player and the pocket
> > disco strobe light, Let alone a laptop computer,cdplayer,or small spy
> > sattelite... New aircraft such as the 777 are shielded against such
> > things.. BUT, the rules are made by the FCC and the FCC is a government
> > agency that is prone to overreaction and to never remove a rule from their
> > books...
> > 
> > Also, aircraft, espically commercial aircraft are hugely-over complex, and
> > usually built to save precious weight and expensive materials. wheras
> > laptops are usually built to make the companies that sell them the largest
> > amount of money and the first thing that usually get's skimped on is
> > shielding.
> > 
> > makes you wonder about pilot ability if they cant handle a wild artificial
> > horizon or incorrect GPS reading during takeoff.
> > 
> > On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Jason R. Pascucci wrote:
> > 
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > At 01:25 AM 6/5/98 -0400, Edward Keyes wrote:
> > > >>Then, maybe, take the fight to the
> > > >>'take-off' and 'landing' issue, which I've long felt was demented: what the
> > > >>hell are people doing flying using insufficiently shielded electronics on
> > > >>board? And whose Pentium computer (or, worse, CD player?) is going to
> > > >>interfere with telemetry broadcasts?
> > > >
> > > >The main problem with planes and computers, as I understand it, is not
> > > >any interference with telemetry broadcasts, but interference with the
> > > >miles and miles of electrical wiring going all throughout the airplane.
> > > >If you've see the videos of people using wearables to lay out cable
> > > >trees for 747's, you know how hideously complex (and therefore perhaps
> > > >delicate in unpredicable ways) the wiring system is.
> > >
> > > The 'insufficiently shielded electronics' meant to cover this idea, I
> > > wasn't clear.
> > >
> > > I'm still a little fuzzy, but two things occur to me: 1) why is crosstalk
> > > between wires right next to each other sufficiently shielded against, but
> > > broadcasts from a <20watt computing device at least 5 feet away through
> > > whatever layers (including those on the laptop) isn't? And what about those
> > > humongo generators which supply all the power, there's got to be lots of
> > > interference there.
> > >
> > > Aren't laptops UL listed moderately highly? Maybe they took information
> > > from those old big-ass clunkers from the early 80s? The 60lb 'portable'
> > > computers, with the 9 hand-wired CPU boards and CRT, and multiplied them by
> > > the number of people on a plane.
> > >
> > > Does field-strength sufficiently increase to interference levels even if
> > > everybody has a modern-day computing device? Today's noise is
> > > higher-frequency, certainly, but is there more of it? Regardless, why do
> > > they insist on CD players being turned off, they put off way way way less
> > > noise than a computer?
> > >
> > > 2) If I even stand a slim chance of causing a plane to crash by bringing on
> > > board a made-up electronic gizmo, why are people worrying about bombs? That
> > > would be way more efficient. Or, spending millions recalling planes for
> > > some minor potential wiring shielding problem which given seven other
> > > unlikely conditions may cause a spark? In comparison, it's a major
> > > engineering flaw.
> > >
> > > >Basically, they are not really sure what actually is going on, but there
> > > >is enough empirical evidence that interference happens to warrant the
> > > >rule.
> > >
> > > This implies someone somewhere said, "I know, let's make a new rule where
> > > people have to be on their honor or else the plane will crash, killing them
> > > and anybody unlucky enough to sit near them." I find this just a bit scary.
> > >
> > > I guess it's going to be a question in many walks of life. I envision
> > > myself walking down a hospital ward with a large black hooded cape and
> > > every door I pass the 'beeeeeeep' sound starts because my wearable is
> > > interfering with someone's life-support. While it would be cool the first
> > > time it happened, someone somewhere would have to make a rule about it, and
> > > ruin it for everybody.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, like all such technological questions, they will initially
> > > be answered the 'wrong way', unless we are terribly sophisticated in our
> > > modus operandi in introducing the wearable into society. The more sane
> > > alternative, however, is that we take the 'wrong way' judgements of society
> > > for granted, and simply resort to education and paying off senators to in
> > > the end, get the right thing done, like everybody else in Washington.
> > >
> > > - -JRP
> > >
> > > Jason R. Pascucci
> > > 
> > > PGP public key: http://www.tiac.net/users/pascucci
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.2
> > >
> > > iQA/AwUBNXeMx3cnhRHUhh3HEQIDKgCgkCys9yoJYWx0M9wI93FsG9ZguD4An2zV
> > > ZbB13jpTTdfFWDFK1g25XZ98
> > > =zHXM
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> 

From Wear-Hard Mailing list Archive (WH)
Maintained by R. Paul McCarty

Archive created with babymail