Posted by Bill McGonigle
Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:53:00 GMT
It appears now that the plane that went down over Buffalo was covered in ice and on autopilot. The FAA warned against this in 1994, and it was since airline policy not to do so.
A bit of research quickly finds the Smart Icing Systems Project from the
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics Group at UIUC, which has been studying this problem since 1996, and in 2003 developed a set of algorithms to allow autopilot systems to handle icing conditions.
So, that leads then to the following lines of questioning:
- when was that airplane's autopilot system last updated?
- is it updatable?
- does the airline do updates, if it is?
- has the manufacturer implemented ice-condition algorithms?
- how is icing reliably detected?
- how can I know, as a customer of an airline, if the plane I'm going to be on has the best possible autopilot? (without market demand the tendency is towards cost minimization)
- should incorporating best practices into air flight software be mandated by certification bodies or governments?
In general, automatic systems do better than human pilots. The navy has automated landing systems for aircraft carriers that can hit the cable on the deck under full steam in high seas. They do better than the Navy's human pilots do, so I think I'd rather have that system landing me at O'Hare than a human. Collisions often happen when pilots ignore warning systems. The latest fighter jets can't even fly without computer control. However, problems like the one in Buffalo will only tarnish public perception of automated aircraft systems.
It appears this incident actually proves that we can't rely on human judgment in dangerous conditions, but I expect it'll be spun the opposite way.
Posted in Government, Traffic, Science | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:09:00 GMT
I've frequently heard about how great the trains are on the other side of the pond, so when I had lunch with a fellow from outside Manchester, UK recently, I asked him how many people take the train to London as a commute.
"Oh, plenty, but not me," was his answer. Probing further, I found the reason was he couldn't afford it.
The trains are apparently so popular and the roads so congested, that simple supply and demand have driven the fares sky-high. He told me that commuting to London, a bit less than a 2 hour trip, would run about a thousand dollars a week. Some big firms cover these costs for their day-trippers.
Half-disbelieving, I figured I'd run the numbers myself. I searched for that trip, on a weekday, commuting hours, and asked for the cheapest fare, steerage class. Turns out the cheapest round-trip fare is £230. Google says that's about $455.
While granting that there is probably a frequent-traveler discount, I can take a 2-hour commuter bus round-trip from here to Boston for $40 as the posted rate. $32 is the 'monthly' rate.
So, I'll assume my lunch partner's numbers were a bit old, or at least his exchange rate. Taking the train in the UK like this is in all likelihood $1600 per week affair, or about 10 times the cost of commuting in the US.
Consider this the next time you hear we ought to have commuter trains like they do in Europe.
Posted in Government, Traffic, Economics, Driving, Local | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Bill McGonigle
Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:14:00 GMT
Starting this week, Amtrak will start featuring, no, not decent sandwiches, but automatic weapons on its trains.
From the AP story:
WASHINGTON - Amtrak will start randomly screening passengers' carry-on bags this week in a new security push that includes officers with automatic weapons and bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling platforms and trains.
It has been until now a decent alternative to airline transportation. Now you need to drive if you want to avoid infringement on your Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections, and that's only if you don't get stopped at a MADD-promoted 'sobriety checkpoint'. This move is good for the automotive industry, no?
Amtrak has three problems here. First, they're going to lose ridership. They're already barely able to keep operations afloat. Second, the move implies there is specific intelligence about terrorism on trains. See problem #1. Third, if they don't have specific intelligence, they're just being belligerent towards their customers, so... see problem #1.
This might finally be the straw that breaks mass-transit's back in the US. Can this policy really be promulgated by those who claim they want to do something about human CO2 emissions?
Posted in Government, Traffic, Economics | no comments | no trackbacks
