"At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter suddenly
and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2 meters) below
sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic control system, Van
Vollenhoven said.
"But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost speed,
decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it was about to
stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a freshly
plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking into three
pieces."
----------
Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
fault, right?
Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
hk
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49aeedcf$0$20286$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter suddenly
> and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2 meters) below
> sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic control system, Van
> Vollenhoven said.
>
> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost speed,
> decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it was about to
> stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>
> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
> however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a freshly
> plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking into three
> pieces."
>
> ----------
>
> Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
>
> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>
> Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
> fault, right?
I failed to register the headline:
"Altimeter Cited in Netherlands Crash"
QfED.
kt
>
> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>
> hk
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <ymiwsb4kdtn.fsf@blackcat.isi.edu>
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter suddenly
> and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2 meters) below
> sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic control system, Van
> Vollenhoven said.
...
> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
Well, when landing in the Netherlands, I imagine it might actually be
possible to be flying at 8 feet below sea level.
And a check with data about Schiphol airport confirms it. The runway at
the airport is at an elevation of -11 feet. So the reading was, in
fact, a legal and even expected data input value for a landing aircraft.
http://www.world-airport-codes.com/netherlands/amsterdam-schiphol-225.html?page=5
> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
Hmmm. I wonder what Kenny's flight control software would have done
when a plane came in for a landing at that airport? What would happen
when it encountered the "impossible" input?
Shudder.
=============
But in another OT item from that same article:
"Some [passengers] didn't realize the landing had gone wrong until
other passengers began opening emergency doors."
Wow! Talk about being conditioned to accept rough landings...
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49af3fbb$0$5905$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Thomas A. Russ wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter suddenly
>> and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2 meters) below
>> sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic control system, Van
>> Vollenhoven said.
> ...
>
>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
>> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>
> Well, when landing in the Netherlands, I imagine it might actually be
> possible to be flying at 8 feet below sea level.
>
> And a check with data about Schiphol airport confirms it. The runway at
> the airport is at an elevation of -11 feet. So the reading was, in
> fact, a legal and even expected data input value for a landing aircraft.
Nice research! But I was aware dry land existed below sea level so that
was not my big problem with the software.
>
> http://www.world-airport-codes.com/netherlands/amsterdam-schiphol-225.html?page=5
>
>> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>
> Hmmm. I wonder what Kenny's flight control software would have done
> when a plane came in for a landing at that airport? What would happen
> when it encountered the "impossible" input?
>
> Shudder.
Sorry, Charlie. My software would have known where it was (bless GPS)
and the geography (bless whatever) and the low-altitude warning would
have been silent anyway because it never would have seen the input.
Your imagined code needs a new layer, dude.
Ordinary good code would have identified the physically impossible
altitude change as, um, impossible, rejected it altogether, and fallen
back on extrapolation. The auto-pilot would have enjoyed a smooth flight.
Why do I have to explain such trivialities to a developer as astute as
yourself?
Trust me, we have not heard the end of this. I wager the software could
not possibly have been so bad and ... I'll stop there. They do say the
autopilot shut down the power...oh, my...
We need to get the altimeter a lawyer fast!
hth,kxo
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> Thomas A. Russ wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
>>> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>>
>> Well, when landing in the Netherlands, I imagine it might actually be
>> possible to be flying at 8 feet below sea level.
>>
>> And a check with data about Schiphol airport confirms it. The runway at
>> the airport is at an elevation of -11 feet. So the reading was, in
>> fact, a legal and even expected data input value for a landing aircraft.
>
> Nice research! But I was aware dry land existed below sea level so that
> was not my big problem with the software.
AIUI, it was a radio altimeter, not a barometric altimeter, that
failed. Since the radio altimeter directly measures height, negative
values are clearly invalid. But given a poor resolution/accuracy
(apparently ~50ft), "small" negative values would be normal on the ground.
- Daniel
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49af4cac$0$20306$607ed4bc@cv.net>
D Herring wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> Thomas A. Russ wrote:
>>> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one
>>>> that
>>>> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>>>
>>> Well, when landing in the Netherlands, I imagine it might actually be
>>> possible to be flying at 8 feet below sea level.
>>>
>>> And a check with data about Schiphol airport confirms it. The runway at
>>> the airport is at an elevation of -11 feet. So the reading was, in
>>> fact, a legal and even expected data input value for a landing aircraft.
>>
>> Nice research! But I was aware dry land existed below sea level so
>> that was not my big problem with the software.
>
> AIUI, it was a radio altimeter, not a barometric altimeter, that
> failed. Since the radio altimeter directly measures height, negative
> values are clearly invalid. But given a poor resolution/accuracy
> (apparently ~50ft), "small" negative values would be normal on the ground.
>
I thought of a simple definition of the failure of the software: a
person would see the altimeter jump from x-hundred feet to -7 feet in
consecutive readings and "see" a broken alitmeter, not shut down the
engines. And this is not AI, this is simple physical possibility,
newtonian physics, grade 8 physical sciense.
odd that buffalo just had a similar issue with pilots getting into an
argument with autopilot, killing everyone aboard and one on the ground
that time.
And the Ariane computers saw valid but unexpected values and shut
themselves down, the other side of this coin.
I always say I am glad I do not write software that flies 747s.
Still wondering how this will turn out...
kt
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:31:39 -0500, <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>> Thomas A. Russ wrote:
>>> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
>>>> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>>>
>>> Well, when landing in the Netherlands, I imagine it might actually be
>>> possible to be flying at 8 feet below sea level.
>>>
>>> And a check with data about Schiphol airport confirms it. The runway at
>>> the airport is at an elevation of -11 feet. So the reading was, in
>>> fact, a legal and even expected data input value for a landing aircraft.
>>
>> Nice research! But I was aware dry land existed below sea level so that
>> was not my big problem with the software.
>
> AIUI, it was a radio altimeter, not a barometric altimeter, that
> failed. Since the radio altimeter directly measures height, negative
> values are clearly invalid. But given a poor resolution/accuracy
> (apparently ~50ft), "small" negative values would be normal on the ground.
That's not poor.
That is about 50 nanoseconds resolution in the system. There are
dozens of opportunities to lose a couple nanoseconds from moment of
radar chirp to height presentation to pilot. It is also likely that
the device itself contains some smoothing mechanism to handle 'bad
data' input.
Interesting, one google result was 'Order a 737 Flight Manual, get a
supoena'.
Plus, now that I think about it some more, most jetliners start a
partial flare on approach, so a tail-first impact could mean that the
command pilot never caught up with the autopilot. Still seems pilot
error, landing is the most dangerous moment and requires constant
cross-checking.
From: Javier
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <gonhgm$2sh$1@aioe.org>
Kenneth Tilton escribi�:
> Thomas A. Russ wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter suddenly
>>> and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2 meters) below
>>> sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic control system, Van
>>> Vollenhoven said.
>> ...
>>
>>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
>>> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>>
>> Well, when landing in the Netherlands, I imagine it might actually be
>> possible to be flying at 8 feet below sea level.
>>
>> And a check with data about Schiphol airport confirms it. The runway at
>> the airport is at an elevation of -11 feet. So the reading was, in
>> fact, a legal and even expected data input value for a landing aircraft.
>
> Nice research! But I was aware dry land existed below sea level so that
> was not my big problem with the software.
>
>>
>> http://www.world-airport-codes.com/netherlands/amsterdam-schiphol-225.html?page=5
>>
>>
>>> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>>
>> Hmmm. I wonder what Kenny's flight control software would have done
>> when a plane came in for a landing at that airport? What would happen
>> when it encountered the "impossible" input?
>>
>> Shudder.
>
> Sorry, Charlie. My software would have known where it was (bless GPS)
> and the geography (bless whatever) and the low-altitude warning would
> have been silent anyway because it never would have seen the input.
>
> Your imagined code needs a new layer, dude.
>
> Ordinary good code would have identified the physically impossible
> altitude change as, um, impossible, rejected it altogether, and fallen
> back on extrapolation. The auto-pilot would have enjoyed a smooth flight.
>
> Why do I have to explain such trivialities to a developer as astute as
> yourself?
>
> Trust me, we have not heard the end of this. I wager the software could
> not possibly have been so bad and ... I'll stop there. They do say the
> autopilot shut down the power...oh, my...
>
> We need to get the altimeter a lawyer fast!
>
> hth,kxo
>
>
What usually happens with this kind of things is not really a faulty
altimeter or software. No.
The usual thing is that there is somebody important flying who were
convenient to be died, and someone manipulated controls.
You new yorkers should know that.
In article <························@cv.net>,
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.world-airport-codes.com/netherlands/amsterdam-schiphol-225.html?p
> > age=5
> >
> >> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
> >
> > Hmmm. I wonder what Kenny's flight control software would have done
> > when a plane came in for a landing at that airport? What would happen
> > when it encountered the "impossible" input?
> >
> > Shudder.
>
> Sorry, Charlie. My software would have known where it was (bless GPS)
> and the geography (bless whatever) and the low-altitude warning would
> have been silent anyway because it never would have seen the input.
Then it's a good thing you don't write the software for these systems.
What if the fault had actually occurred earlier, and all the previous
readings were erroneously high, and the sudden transition was due to the
fault correcting itself (these things happen) and the plane was in fact
3 feet over the runway?
rg
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:45:48 -0500, <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter suddenly
> and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2 meters) below
> sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic control system, Van
> Vollenhoven said.
>
> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost speed,
> decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it was about to
> stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>
> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
> however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a freshly
> plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking into three
> pieces."
> ----------
> Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
>
> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
pilot error.
There are tons of indications that a speed reduction has occurred. It
should have been caught before stall was encountered, I would expect a
passenger aircraft to have a benign stall characteristic in any case.
Tail-first impact means the idiot had jacked back on the stick, the
exact opposite of what should be done.
Oh, was it an Airbus product?
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:37:50 -0500, <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
> GP lisper wrote:
>> Oh, was it an Airbus product?
>
> No; this time it was a Boeing 737-800 (a fairly recent model;
> introduced in the 90's).
Yes, 737 is very common, airplane graveyards are filled with them
waiting for the next new airline startup. It will be interesting to
see what the FAA does if the altimeter 'takes the fall'. I think
further digging is needed here... I know I depend on the outside view
and just double check against the altimeter, but then I don't get an
autopilot either.
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:48:43 -0800, GP lisper
<········@CloudDancer.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:37:50 -0500, <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
>> GP lisper wrote:
>>> Oh, was it an Airbus product?
>>
>> No; this time it was a Boeing 737-800 (a fairly recent model;
>> introduced in the 90's).
>
>Yes, 737 is very common, airplane graveyards are filled with them
>waiting for the next new airline startup. It will be interesting to
>see what the FAA does if the altimeter 'takes the fall'. I think
>further digging is needed here... I know I depend on the outside view
>and just double check against the altimeter, but then I don't get an
>autopilot either.
But you do adjust trim as you're descending. Trim control - the poor
man's autopilot.
With a real 3-axis autopilot (there are 2-axis models as well), it's
typical for pilots to let it fly the approach ... if the autopilot is
integrated with ILS, it can follow the ILS glide path right down to
50ft above the runway. Even ILS free, it's easy enough to program the
descent glide from the marker.
George
George Neuner <········@comcast.net> wrote:
+---------------
| GP lisper <········@CloudDancer.com> wrote:
| But you do adjust trim as you're descending.
| Trim control - the poor man's autopilot.
+---------------
Not really. You adjust trim to set airspeed [which you normally
decrease once or twice prior to landing, true]. But whether you
go up or down actually depends on the power setting. Trim just sets
the *airspeed* at which you'll descend or climb [depending on power].
+---------------
| With a real 3-axis autopilot (there are 2-axis models as well), it's
| typical for pilots to let it fly the approach ... if the autopilot is
| integrated with ILS, it can follow the ILS glide path right down to
| 50ft above the runway. Even ILS free, it's easy enough to program the
| descent glide from the marker.
+---------------
Even more fun is full Category IIIc ILS Autoland, wherein the autopilot
controls the plane all the way to touchdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System#ILS_categories
...
Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing
with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.
A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot
to land the aircraft and can also provide guidance along the
runway surface.
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
...
Autoland systems were designed to make landing possible in visibility
too poor to permit any form of visual landing, although they can be
used at any level of visibility. They are usually used when visibility
is less than 600 meters RVR and/or in adverse weather conditions,
although limitations do apply for most aircraft -- for example, for
a B747-400 the limitations are a maximum headwind of 25 kts, a
maximum tailwind of 10 kts, a maximum crosswind component of 25 kts,
and a maximum crosswind with one engine inoperative of five knots.
They may also include automatic braking to a full stop once the
aircraft is on the ground, in conjunction with the autobrake system,
and sometimes auto deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers.
...
There's extensive discussion later in that page on failure modes
during autoland.
And guess what?!? The Dutch Safety Board says that the Turkish Airlines
plane *was* on an autoland approach when the altimeter failed!
Accidents
On February 25, 2009, a Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crashed
about a mile (1500m) short of the runway at Amsterdam Schiphol
Airport. The Dutch Safety Board published preliminary findings
only one week after the crash, suggesting the autoland played a
key role in downing the plane. According to the Flight Data
Recorder, the airplane was on a full autoland approach at a
height of 1950 ft / 595 m when the left Radio Altimeter suddenly
misreported a height of -8 ft. The autoland system responded
accordingly and configured the plane for touchdown, idling the
engines. This made the plane lose speed and stall. When the
flight crew received stall-warnings, they were already too low
and too slow to pull up again. As a secondary factor, the Safety
Board suggested the crew did not have a visual ground reference
because of foggy conditions.
The final investigation report will be published later this year.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49b0db16$0$5915$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Rob Warnock wrote:
> George Neuner <········@comcast.net> wrote:
> +---------------
> | GP lisper <········@CloudDancer.com> wrote:
> | But you do adjust trim as you're descending.
> | Trim control - the poor man's autopilot.
> +---------------
>
> Not really. You adjust trim to set airspeed [which you normally
> decrease once or twice prior to landing, true]. But whether you
> go up or down actually depends on the power setting. Trim just sets
> the *airspeed* at which you'll descend or climb [depending on power].
>
> +---------------
> | With a real 3-axis autopilot (there are 2-axis models as well), it's
> | typical for pilots to let it fly the approach ... if the autopilot is
> | integrated with ILS, it can follow the ILS glide path right down to
> | 50ft above the runway. Even ILS free, it's easy enough to program the
> | descent glide from the marker.
> +---------------
>
> Even more fun is full Category IIIc ILS Autoland, wherein the autopilot
> controls the plane all the way to touchdown:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System#ILS_categories
> ...
> Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing
> with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.
> A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot
> to land the aircraft and can also provide guidance along the
> runway surface.
>
> Also see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
> ...
> Autoland systems were designed to make landing possible in visibility
> too poor to permit any form of visual landing, although they can be
> used at any level of visibility. They are usually used when visibility
> is less than 600 meters RVR and/or in adverse weather conditions,
> although limitations do apply for most aircraft -- for example, for
> a B747-400 the limitations are a maximum headwind of 25 kts, a
> maximum tailwind of 10 kts, a maximum crosswind component of 25 kts,
> and a maximum crosswind with one engine inoperative of five knots.
> They may also include automatic braking to a full stop once the
> aircraft is on the ground, in conjunction with the autobrake system,
> and sometimes auto deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers.
> ...
>
> There's extensive discussion later in that page on failure modes
> during autoland.
>
> And guess what?!? The Dutch Safety Board says that the Turkish Airlines
> plane *was* on an autoland approach when the altimeter failed!
>
> Accidents
> On February 25, 2009, a Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crashed
> about a mile (1500m) short of the runway at Amsterdam Schiphol
> Airport. The Dutch Safety Board published preliminary findings
> only one week after the crash, suggesting the autoland played a
> key role in downing the plane. According to the Flight Data
> Recorder, the airplane was on a full autoland approach at a
> height of 1950 ft / 595 m when the left Radio Altimeter suddenly
> misreported a height of -8 ft. The autoland system responded
> accordingly...
yeah, what am I gonna do?, the altimeter says 1950 then it says -8, I
have to respond accordingly--I ignore the broken altimeter!!!!!!
accordingly my ass!
I am telling you, the software had plausibility checks. This is just a
bug in either those checks or a bug in the code that reacted to
impossible data... ah, there ya go. It is not all that easy to test such
things because even when we try to simulate a failed altimeter in
testing we are never as clever at failing as altimeters can be.
kt
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Rob Warnock wrote:
| > And guess what?!? The Dutch Safety Board says that the Turkish Airlines
| > plane *was* on an autoland approach when the altimeter failed!
...
| > According to the Flight Data
| > Recorder, the airplane was on a full autoland approach at a
| > height of 1950 ft / 595 m when the left Radio Altimeter suddenly
| > misreported a height of -8 ft. The autoland system responded
| > accordingly...
|
| yeah, what am I gonna do?, the altimeter says 1950 then it says -8, I
| have to respond accordingly--I ignore the broken altimeter!!!!!!
+---------------
Of course, if you're landing on Catalina Island:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catalina_Island,_California
...
Catalina's airport, the "Airport in the Sky" (AVX), was completed
in 1946. The 3,250-foot (990 m) runway sits on a mountaintop,
1,602 feet (488 m) above sea level.
then the radar altimeter going from 1,602' to -8" instantly would
be perfectly *normal*!! The approach end of the runway extends all
the way to the edge of the cliff, you see:
http://airports.pilotage.com/avx/
...
The approach end of Catalina's runway 22 begins at the edge of a
1500' cliff. This gives the airport some characteristics similar
to landing on an aircraft carrier that is 1,602' in the air.
...
[Yes, I know that AVX isn't approved for Cat IIIc approaches... ;-}
In fact, all it has are two circling approaches, VOR-A (GPS-A)
and VOR/DME (GPS-B), and those are only approved for planes which
land slower than 120 kts. But still...]
+---------------
| I am telling you, the software had plausibility checks.
+---------------
No argument. But I'm just saying that getting the plausibility checks
"right" isn't trivial. You'd need a database for each possible approach
type to each possible runway at each possible airport at which you might
attempt a landing. And then you'd have to debug the database... and then
keep it current with any new construction around each airport... etc.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
On Mar 6, 4:12 am, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> No argument. But I'm just saying that getting the plausibility checks
> "right" isn't trivial. You'd need a database for each possible approach
> type to each possible runway at each possible airport at which you might
> attempt a landing. And then you'd have to debug the database... and then
> keep it current with any new construction around each airport... etc.
I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me it would be simpler to
check a barometric altimeter against a radar altimeter. Surface
discontinuities (e.g., cliffs) would be expected to show
discontinuities in radar altimeter readings but not in barometric
altimeter readings.
In article
<····································@q11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Raffael Cavallaro <················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:12�am, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
>
> > No argument. But I'm just saying that getting the plausibility checks
> > "right" isn't trivial. You'd need a database for each possible approach
> > type to each possible runway at each possible airport at which you might
> > attempt a landing. And then you'd have to debug the database... and then
> > keep it current with any new construction around each airport... etc.
>
> I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me it would be simpler to
> check a barometric altimeter against a radar altimeter. Surface
> discontinuities (e.g., cliffs) would be expected to show
> discontinuities in radar altimeter readings but not in barometric
> altimeter readings.
Actually, the way this is done (or at least the way this is supposed to
be done) is with a model-based estimator like a Kalman filter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
Your handlheld GPS probably has one of these too.
rg
On Mar 6, 11:07 am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> Actually, the way this is done (or at least the way this is supposed to
> be done) is with a model-based estimator like a Kalman filter.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
>
> Your handlheld GPS probably has one of these too.
>
> rg
And presumably the crashed plane's autopilot had something like this
as well, but it still crashed.
In article
<····································@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Raffael Cavallaro <················@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:07�am, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually, the way this is done (or at least the way this is supposed to
> > be done) is with a model-based estimator like a Kalman filter.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter
> >
> > Your handlheld GPS probably has one of these too.
> >
> > rg
>
> And presumably the crashed plane's autopilot had something like this
> as well, but it still crashed.
That's true, but it's a bit presumptuous to think that this was
necessarily due to some engineer doing something stupid. These are
complex systems.
If you really want to know you could start by reading this:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900007452_19900074
52.pdf
Or we could just blame it all on Kenny.
rg
On Mar 6, 3:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
> That's true, but it's a bit presumptuous to think that this was
> necessarily due to some engineer doing something stupid. These are
> complex systems.
agreed absolutely; we're all just speculating here, and without much
real data to boot.
> Or we could just blame it all on Kenny.
Now there's an attractive option... :)
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49b19584$0$5902$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:20 pm, Ron Garret <·········@flownet.com> wrote:
>
>> That's true, but it's a bit presumptuous to think that this was
>> necessarily due to some engineer doing something stupid. These are
>> complex systems.
>
> agreed absolutely; we're all just speculating here, and without much
> real data to boot.
>
>> Or we could just blame it all on Kenny.
>
> Now there's an attractive option... :)
Yes, I am delighted by any form of attention.
kzo
Le Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:20:28 -0800,
Ron Garret a écrit :
> [...]
> http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900007452_1990007452.pdf
> [...]
1. Eigenvalues (p.31)
They seem to have difficulties with some words... :-)
--
Jacques.
From: Thomas A. Russ
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <ymivdqmtq92.fsf@blackcat.isi.edu>
Raffael Cavallaro <················@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me it would be simpler to
> check a barometric altimeter against a radar altimeter. Surface
> discontinuities (e.g., cliffs) would be expected to show
> discontinuities in radar altimeter readings but not in barometric
> altimeter readings.
Unfortunately, you would get the same inputs if the radar altimeter
suddenly failed as well.
And the more safety checks you put in, the more additional potential
points of failure you get as well. That's why in some cases you
actually get better reliability if you have 2 engines rather than 4 on
an aircraft.
And then there was an interesting tale of a (fortunately diaster-free)
incident with an regional jet aircraft landing at a Canadian airport a
few years ago. Apparently, this plane had a safety interlock to prevent
accidental deployment of engine thrust reversers in flight. In the case
in question, the plane was not able to deploy the thrust reversers once
on the ground and had a rather unusual bit of high-speed taxi-ing to do
until the brakes alone were able to stop the plane. The cause was a
failure in a switch on the landing gear that was supposed to detect when
weight was on the wheels (and thus the plane was known to be on the
ground). There was no manual override....
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
On Mar 6, 2:17 pm, ····@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) wrote:
> Raffael Cavallaro <················@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm no expert in this field, but it seems to me it would be simpler to
> > check a barometric altimeter against a radar altimeter. Surface
> > discontinuities (e.g., cliffs) would be expected to show
> > discontinuities in radar altimeter readings but not in barometric
> > altimeter readings.
>
> Unfortunately, you would get the same inputs if the radar altimeter
> suddenly failed as well.
right, but I guess I (and Kenny?) are suggesting that such sudden
failures/discontinuities should signal an alarm to disengage the
autopilot.
IOW, much better to have the predictable annoyance of an autopilot
alarm every time you land at Catalina than to crash a commercial
passenger jet at Schiphol.
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49b17c87$0$5911$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Rob Warnock wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Rob Warnock wrote:
> | > And guess what?!? The Dutch Safety Board says that the Turkish Airlines
> | > plane *was* on an autoland approach when the altimeter failed!
> ...
> | > According to the Flight Data
> | > Recorder, the airplane was on a full autoland approach at a
> | > height of 1950 ft / 595 m when the left Radio Altimeter suddenly
> | > misreported a height of -8 ft. The autoland system responded
> | > accordingly...
> |
> | yeah, what am I gonna do?, the altimeter says 1950 then it says -8, I
> | have to respond accordingly--I ignore the broken altimeter!!!!!!
> +---------------
>
> Of course, if you're landing on Catalina Island:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catalina_Island,_California
> ...
> Catalina's airport, the "Airport in the Sky" (AVX), was completed
> in 1946. The 3,250-foot (990 m) runway sits on a mountaintop,
> 1,602 feet (488 m) above sea level.
>
> then the radar altimeter going from 1,602' to -8" instantly would
> be perfectly *normal*!! The approach end of the runway extends all
> the way to the edge of the cliff, you see:
>
> http://airports.pilotage.com/avx/
> ...
> The approach end of Catalina's runway 22 begins at the edge of a
> 1500' cliff. This gives the airport some characteristics similar
> to landing on an aircraft carrier that is 1,602' in the air.
> ...
>
> [Yes, I know that AVX isn't approved for Cat IIIc approaches... ;-}
> In fact, all it has are two circling approaches, VOR-A (GPS-A)
> and VOR/DME (GPS-B), and those are only approved for planes which
> land slower than 120 kts. But still...]
OK. You remind me one of the reasons I love Lake George. Near the
northern end you can be twenty feet from shore and in two hundred feet
of water. I actually experienced mild vertigo when I checked the chart.
That was so cool.
>
> +---------------
> | I am telling you, the software had plausibility checks.
> +---------------
>
> No argument. But I'm just saying that getting the plausibility checks
> "right" isn't trivial. You'd need a database for each possible approach
> type to each possible runway at each possible airport at which you might
> attempt a landing. And then you'd have to debug the database... and then
> keep it current with any new construction around each airport... etc.
All right, all right. That charge is dismissed. What about the other?
The auto-pilot failed to fly the plane? It thought it was on the ground
so it just had to avoid shooting off the runway?
kt
On Mar 6, 2:41 pm, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK. You remind me one of the reasons I love Lake George. Near the
> northern end you can be twenty feet from shore and in two hundred feet
> of water. I actually experienced mild vertigo when I checked the chart.
> That was so cool.
iirc, at a similar distance from shore at some points in Loch Ness you
can be 600 feet from bottom.
On Mar 5, 11:44 pm, ····@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:
> Even more fun is full Category IIIc ILS Autoland, wherein the autopilot
> controls the plane all the way to touchdown:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System#ILS_categories
> ...
> Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing
> with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations.
> A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot
> to land the aircraft and can also provide guidance along the
> runway surface.
>
> Also see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland
> ...
> Autoland systems were designed to make landing possible in visibility
> too poor to permit any form of visual landing, although they can be
> used at any level of visibility. They are usually used when visibility
> is less than 600 meters RVR and/or in adverse weather conditions,
> although limitations do apply for most aircraft -- for example, for
> a B747-400 the limitations are a maximum headwind of 25 kts, a
> maximum tailwind of 10 kts, a maximum crosswind component of 25 kts,
> and a maximum crosswind with one engine inoperative of five knots.
> They may also include automatic braking to a full stop once the
> aircraft is on the ground, in conjunction with the autobrake system,
> and sometimes auto deployment of spoilers and thrust reversers.
> ...
>
> There's extensive discussion later in that page on failure modes
> during autoland.
>
> And guess what?!? The Dutch Safety Board says that the Turkish Airlines
> plane *was* on an autoland approach when the altimeter failed!
>
> Accidents
> On February 25, 2009, a Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 crashed
> about a mile (1500m) short of the runway at Amsterdam Schiphol
> Airport. The Dutch Safety Board published preliminary findings
> only one week after the crash, suggesting the autoland played a
> key role in downing the plane. According to the Flight Data
> Recorder, the airplane was on a full autoland approach at a
> height of 1950 ft / 595 m when the left Radio Altimeter suddenly
> misreported a height of -8 ft. The autoland system responded
> accordingly and configured the plane for touchdown, idling the
> engines. This made the plane lose speed and stall. When the
> flight crew received stall-warnings, they were already too low
> and too slow to pull up again. As a secondary factor, the Safety
> Board suggested the crew did not have a visual ground reference
> because of foggy conditions.
>
> The final investigation report will be published later this year.
Of interest:
From Long Bet:
BET 4
“By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless
planes.”
http://www.longbets.org/4
My vote is yes. By 2030, Ruby will be good enough. Common Lisp would
be extint.
Also of interest:
• Responsible Software Licensing
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html
Plain text version follows:
--------------------------------
Responsible Software Licensing
Xah Lee, 2003-07
Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with
the invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs break
that precept. In digital form, programs and music and books all become
goods in essentially infinite quantity.
All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,
just as goods. Well known examples are computer viruses and email
spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons are software bads. In a
unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is “where is
your code?”, singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is
judged on how much code he has contributed to the community.
Therefore, every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their
homework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of
their “contributions” to the world. These digital bads, including
irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses
until they obtained the touting right of being the STANDARD or MOST
POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are
C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost
anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is temporal. The harm of
irresponsible software (especially with unscrupulous promotion) is the
creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The
scale can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain, versus
creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath. (e.g. “Unix
Philosophy”)
Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law
that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for
garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty
of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i
think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called
education; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i
spoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any
individual's opinion.
The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
responsible licenses, such that the producer of a software will be
liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
software license comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is
this, that ferments all sorts of sloppitudes and fads and myths to
rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software
producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or
transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they
build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing
Patterns, eXtreme Programing, “Universal” Modeling Language...) will
automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
stipulation.
In our already established infrastructure of software and industry
practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And
this, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of
awareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers
include single individual to software houses, and consumers include
not just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)
Please spread this idea.
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49b16457$0$5933$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Xah Lee wrote:
> My vote is yes. By 2030, Ruby will be good enough. Common Lisp would
> be extint.
Is that any worse than being dead? Being dead has not been so bad, and I
find I get more work done.
kt
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49b0ca27$0$20288$607ed4bc@cv.net>
George Neuner wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:48:43 -0800, GP lisper
> <········@CloudDancer.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:37:50 -0500, <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
>>> GP lisper wrote:
>>>> Oh, was it an Airbus product?
>>> No; this time it was a Boeing 737-800 (a fairly recent model;
>>> introduced in the 90's).
>> Yes, 737 is very common, airplane graveyards are filled with them
>> waiting for the next new airline startup. It will be interesting to
>> see what the FAA does if the altimeter 'takes the fall'. I think
>> further digging is needed here... I know I depend on the outside view
>> and just double check against the altimeter, but then I don't get an
>> autopilot either.
>
> But you do adjust trim as you're descending. Trim control - the poor
> man's autopilot.
>
> With a real 3-axis autopilot (there are 2-axis models as well), it's
> typical for pilots to let it fly the approach ... if the autopilot is
> integrated with ILS, it can follow the ILS glide path right down to
> 50ft above the runway. Even ILS free, it's easy enough to program the
> descent glide from the marker.
In both the Buffalo and Amsterdam cases (relying on the reporters'
mastery of the facts) being under auto-pilot at the critical time and
circumstances was not by the book A Bad Thing(tm). I imagine that book
will get a serious rewrite, at least until we can port all that Ruby
code to CL.
kt
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49af4237$0$5918$607ed4bc@cv.net>
D Herring wrote:
> GP lisper wrote:
>> Oh, was it an Airbus product?
>
> No; this time it was a Boeing 737-800 (a fairly recent model; introduced
> in the 90's).
>
> - Daniel
btw and unrelated to this just splicing in, blaming the altimeter is
like blaming Bush. Left as exercise.
hk
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:45:48 -0500, Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter suddenly
> and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2 meters) below
> sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic control system, Van
> Vollenhoven said.
>
> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost speed,
> decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it was about to
> stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>
> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
> however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a freshly
> plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking into three
> pieces."
>
> ----------
>
> Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
>
> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>
> Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
> fault, right?
>
> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
When I was learning Bayesian Markov filtering, we had a homework
exercise with the following setup: hidden variable X has some
stochastic law of motion, measuring device gives a noisy measurement Y
of X. Measuring device goes gaga with a small (given) probability,
from then on it swill just sample from an IID distribution. Once gaga
it stays gaga (one-time structural break). Derive the posterior
distribution, etc. It was not trivial, but fun. If you ignore the
measurement error (suppose that you measure X perfectly, but it still
follows some stochastic law), in most cases you can derive quick &
reliable approximations for detecting device failure, these you can
implement even in embedded systems of low computational capacity. I
don't know if this is done, I am not an engineer but an economist.
Tamas
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <20090312054949.255@gmail.com>
On 2009-03-04, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
Hi Kenny,
You will be happy to know they only let me program toasters.
Or, no, wait! I could be wrong.
Loading the bread and pushing the lever---is that code, or mere data?
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 21:12:52 +0000 (UTC), <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2009-03-04, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>
> Hi Kenny,
>
> You will be happy to know they only let me program toasters.
>
> Or, no, wait! I could be wrong.
>
> Loading the bread and pushing the lever---is that code, or mere data?
Talkie Toasters?
--
Being a Slime user means living in a house inhabited by a family of
crazed carpenters. When you wake up, the house is different. Maybe
there is a new turret, or some walls have moved, or perhaps someone
has removed the floor under your bed.
On Mar 4, 8:05 pm, GP lisper <········@CloudDancer.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 21:12:52 +0000 (UTC), <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-03-04, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>
> > Hi Kenny,
>
> > You will be happy to know they only let me program toasters.
>
> > Or, no, wait! I could be wrong.
>
> > Loading the bread and pushing the lever---is that code, or mere data?
>
> Talkie Toasters?
"We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes
or bagels,
no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-
cross buns
and definitely no smegging flapjacks!"
--
Geoff
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49aefc22$0$16840$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2009-03-04, Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>
> Hi Kenny,
>
> You will be happy to know they only let me program toasters.
>
> Or, no, wait! I could be wrong.
>
> Loading the bread and pushing the lever---is that code, or mere data?
Loading the bread is fine. You'll need someone from the union to push
the lever.
kt
From: William James
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Cobol-Lisp, or Ruby vindicated
Date:
Message-ID: <gomr2c0dn3@enews2.newsguy.com>
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2
> meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic
> control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
>
> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost
> speed, decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it
> was about to stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>
> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
> however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a
> freshly plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking
> into three pieces."
>
> ----------
>
> Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
>
> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one
> that has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>
> Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
> fault, right?
>
> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>
> hk
Wow! I could have sworn that Ruby functioned correctly, and I'd hate
to think that I was so terribly wrong. (Actually, I was wrong, once,
back in August 1982. I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't.)
Just in case, I'd better test it again.
%w(wasn't a know who Kenny punk? Ever a).
sort_by{ rand }.join " "
==>"Ever know a Kenny who wasn't a punk?"
Whew! What a relief. It works perfectly!
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Cobol-Lisp, or Ruby vindicated
Date:
Message-ID: <49aefca9$0$16840$607ed4bc@cv.net>
William James wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>
>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
>> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2
>> meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic
>> control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
>>
>> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost
>> speed, decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it
>> was about to stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>>
>> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
>> however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a
>> freshly plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking
>> into three pieces."
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
>>
>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one
>> that has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>>
>> Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
>> fault, right?
>>
>> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>>
>> hk
>
>
> Wow! I could have sworn that Ruby functioned correctly, and I'd hate
> to think that I was so terribly wrong. (Actually, I was wrong, once,
> back in August 1982. I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't.)
>
> Just in case, I'd better test it again.
>
> %w(wasn't a know who Kenny punk? Ever a).
> sort_by{ rand }.join " "
> ==>"Ever know a Kenny who wasn't a punk?"
>
> Whew! What a relief. It works perfectly!
You should show some respect, I am the only one who figured out how to
prevent you from posting a Ruby solution to a coding problem. Not that
it was all that hard, you being as simple-minded as Ruby...hmmm, could
explain a lot.
hth, kenny
From: Javier
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Cobol-Lisp, or Ruby vindicated
Date:
Message-ID: <gonffc$1i5$1@aioe.org>
Kenneth Tilton escribi�:
> William James wrote:
>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>
>>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
>>> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2
>>> meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic
>>> control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
>>>
>>> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost
>>> speed, decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it
>>> was about to stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>>>
>>> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
>>> however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a
>>> freshly plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking
>>> into three pieces."
>>>
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
>>>
>>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one
>>> that has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>>>
>>> Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
>>> fault, right?
>>>
>>> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>>>
>>> hk
>>
>>
>> Wow! I could have sworn that Ruby functioned correctly, and I'd hate
>> to think that I was so terribly wrong. (Actually, I was wrong, once,
>> back in August 1982. I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't.)
>>
>> Just in case, I'd better test it again.
>>
>> %w(wasn't a know who Kenny punk? Ever a).
>> sort_by{ rand }.join " "
>> ==>"Ever know a Kenny who wasn't a punk?"
>>
>> Whew! What a relief. It works perfectly!
>
> You should show some respect, I am the only one who figured out how to
> prevent you from posting a Ruby solution to a coding problem. Not that
> it was all that hard, you being as simple-minded as Ruby...hmmm, could
> explain a lot.
>
> hth, kenny
I have the impression that this forum is all about Kenny instigating
William, William falling down in the trap, and some noise at the sides.
Kenny why don't you go on with another one, for example Xaa Lee? Think
for example about the possibility to ask for solutions in Emacs Lisp. Do
you think you can transform him into a Truly Comune Lisper?
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Cobol-Lisp, or Ruby vindicated
Date:
Message-ID: <49af4db0$0$29270$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Javier wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton escribi�:
>> William James wrote:
>>> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
>>>> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about 2
>>>> meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the automatic
>>>> control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
>>>>
>>>> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost
>>>> speed, decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters) it
>>>> was about to stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>>>>
>>>> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full gas,
>>>> however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell into a
>>>> freshly plowed field, striking the ground tail first and breaking
>>>> into three pieces."
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>> Nine dead, twenty-eight still in hospital a week later.
>>>>
>>>> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one
>>>> that has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>>>>
>>>> Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
>>>> fault, right?
>>>>
>>>> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
>>>>
>>>> hk
>>>
>>> Wow! I could have sworn that Ruby functioned correctly, and I'd hate
>>> to think that I was so terribly wrong. (Actually, I was wrong, once,
>>> back in August 1982. I thought I had made a mistake, but I hadn't.)
>>>
>>> Just in case, I'd better test it again.
>>>
>>> %w(wasn't a know who Kenny punk? Ever a).
>>> sort_by{ rand }.join " "
>>> ==>"Ever know a Kenny who wasn't a punk?"
>>>
>>> Whew! What a relief. It works perfectly!
>> You should show some respect, I am the only one who figured out how to
>> prevent you from posting a Ruby solution to a coding problem. Not that
>> it was all that hard, you being as simple-minded as Ruby...hmmm, could
>> explain a lot.
>>
>> hth, kenny
>
> I have the impression that this forum is all about Kenny instigating
> William, William falling down in the trap, and some noise at the sides.
>
> Kenny why don't you go on with another one, for example Xaa Lee? Think
> for example about the possibility to ask for solutions in Emacs Lisp. Do
> you think you can transform him into a Truly Comune Lisper?
Pay attention! Willy the Social Failure is already posting Clojure code.
The Body Snatchers always win, Lisp is the Venus Flytrap of HLLs...help
me here, one more bad metaphor and I get a trip to Atlantic City.
kt
From: Javier
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Cobol-Lisp, or Ruby vindicated
Date:
Message-ID: <gonkhg$4tf$1@aioe.org>
Kenneth Tilton escribi�:
> Pay attention! Willy the Social Failure is already posting Clojure code.
Oh my god. I never thought you were going to transform him. But you did it.
> The Body Snatchers always win, Lisp is the Venus Flytrap of HLLs...help
> me here, one more bad metaphor and I get a trip to Atlantic City.
Yeah... what about... trolls of today will be lispers of tomorrow??
sounds good?
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Cobol-Lisp, or Ruby vindicated
Date:
Message-ID: <49af7199$0$5916$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Javier wrote:
> Kenneth Tilton escribi�:
>> Pay attention! Willy the Social Failure is already posting Clojure code.
>
> Oh my god. I never thought you were going to transform him. But you did it.
All credit to His McCarthyness.
kt
>
>
>> The Body Snatchers always win, Lisp is the Venus Flytrap of HLLs...help
>> me here, one more bad metaphor and I get a trip to Atlantic City.
>
> Yeah... what about... trolls of today will be lispers of tomorrow??
> sounds good?
>
>
Cut it down to four words and you might have a hit.
hth, kzo
Kenneth Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Javier wrote:
| >> The Body Snatchers always win, Lisp is the Venus Flytrap of HLLs...help
| >> me here, one more bad metaphor and I get a trip to Atlantic City.
| >
| > Yeah... what about... trolls of today will be lispers of tomorrow??
| > sounds good?
|
| Cut it down to four words and you might have a hit.
+---------------
Troll today, Lisp tomorrow!
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
From: Javier
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Cobol-Lisp, or Ruby vindicated
Date:
Message-ID: <gopsqo$502$1@aioe.org>
Rob Warnock escribi�:
> Troll today, Lisp tomorrow!
Nice!
On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:45:48 -0500, Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> What system acts on an impossible data discontinuity, let alone one that
> has the plane below sea-level? And then fails to fly the plane?
>
> Of course the solution will address the damn altimeter. It's all his
> fault, right?
>
> Why is anyone but me allowed to program computers?!!!
Indeed. The 'plane was a Boeing 737-800, so not a particularly old
design. Isn't Boeing famous for having the world's best software
development practices?
Why was it doing an auto-pilot landing at a major European international
airport and *not* paying attention to the ground radar auto-landing
systems? There should have been klaxons going off as soon as the
altimeter said something different from the radar approach and GPS
systems...
As you said, the altimeter has been blamed; we'll probably never know the
real answers.
Friggin' 'puters.
Cheers,
--
Andrew
From: William James
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <gong3j02f8o@enews2.newsguy.com>
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about
> 2 meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the
> automatic control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
>
> "But the autopilot reduced gas to the engines and the plane lost
> speed, decelerating until, at a height of 450 feet (150 meters)
> it was about to stall. Warning systems alerted the pilots.
>
> ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full
> gas, however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell
> into a freshly plowed field, striking the ground tail first and
> breaking into three pieces."
Wasn't it programmed in Lisp?
William James wrote:
>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
>> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about
>> 2 meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the
>> automatic control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
Seems a bit hard to believe that the pilots wouldn't notice the plane
reducing the fuel used and going to such a low altitude, due to an
obvious malfunction, and have taken it out of auto pilot sooner and
avoided the entire incident. But, there's a reason why it sounds like
a fake story. Nice language flame war attempt.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
From: Kenneth Tilton
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <49af6064$0$16825$607ed4bc@cv.net>
Tim Greer wrote:
> William James wrote:
>
>>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
>>> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about
>>> 2 meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the
>>> automatic control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
>
> Seems a bit hard to believe that the pilots wouldn't notice the plane
> reducing the fuel used and going to such a low altitude, due to an
> obvious malfunction, and have taken it out of auto pilot sooner and
> avoided the entire incident. But, there's a reason why it sounds like
> a fake story. Nice language flame war attempt.
Are you trying to win a Moron Contest*, or did I miss a joke?
They are prolly still digging the fake plane out of the fake ground in
the real Amsterdam if you have any more questions.
As for "language flame war attempt", would that not rely on autopilot
software even remotely conceivablyly having been written in in Ruby?
God I love stupid replies to my posts...Thx!
kenny
* An auditor of my math classroom teaching said my mockery of students'
incorrect answers was pretty much something they got off on and that the
fun even at their expense took the sting out of failure. Whew! I got
away with it!! k
From: Dimiter "malkia" Stanev
Subject: Re: OT: This system must have been written in Ruby...
Date:
Message-ID: <gosj2g$94m$1@malkia.motzarella.org>
Flash news on similar event from Ireland:
Thousands Feared Dead in Two-seater Irish Plane:
http://www.utterpants.co.uk/news/world/planecrash.html
Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> Tim Greer wrote:
>> William James wrote:
>>
>>>> "At 1950 feet (around 700 meters) the airplane's left altimeter
>>>> suddenly and mistakenly registered an altitude of 8 feet (about
>>>> 2 meters) below sea level and passed the reading on to the
>>>> automatic control system, Van Vollenhoven said.
>>
>> Seems a bit hard to believe that the pilots wouldn't notice the plane
>> reducing the fuel used and going to such a low altitude, due to an
>> obvious malfunction, and have taken it out of auto pilot sooner and
>> avoided the entire incident. But, there's a reason why it sounds like
>> a fake story. Nice language flame war attempt.
>
> Are you trying to win a Moron Contest*, or did I miss a joke?
>
> They are prolly still digging the fake plane out of the fake ground in
> the real Amsterdam if you have any more questions.
>
> As for "language flame war attempt", would that not rely on autopilot
> software even remotely conceivablyly having been written in in Ruby?
>
> God I love stupid replies to my posts...Thx!
>
> kenny
>
> * An auditor of my math classroom teaching said my mockery of students'
> incorrect answers was pretty much something they got off on and that the
> fun even at their expense took the sting out of failure. Whew! I got
> away with it!! k
Le 5 Mar 2009 03:14:59 GMT,
William James a écrit :
> Kenneth Tilton wrote:
> > ''It appears that then the pilots immediately gave gas, full
> > gas, however it was too late to recover,'' ...The plane fell
> > into a freshly plowed field, striking the ground tail first and
> > breaking into three pieces."
>
> Wasn't it programmed in Lisp?
You mean (L)anding (i)nterface for (s)illy (p)ilots?
--
Jacques.