The Engineer Who Stopped Airplanes From Flying Into Mountains 237
New submitter gmrobbins writes "The Seattle Times profiles avionics engineer Don Bateman, whose Honeywell lab in Redmond, Washington has for decades pioneered ground proximity warning systems. Bateman's innovations have nearly eliminated controlled flight into terrain by commercial aircraft, the most common cause of fatal airplane accidents."
Airplanes? (Score:2, Funny)
I think you mean "Aeroplanes".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody uses aero in everyday language nowadays, that's the reason.
the reason is that Aero ltd. changed it's name to Finnair in '68.
(Aero-filters? Aeroships? full of hot aero?)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Aeroengineering? Aerospace?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Aerogel, aerodynamic, aeronautics, aerobic
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Airplanes? (Score:4, Funny)
nobody uses aero in everyday language nowadays
Once again I'm declared a nobody by slashdot. Should I just get it over with a book a flight to Switzerland now?!
Re:Airplanes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_(chocolate) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
yup, i've read today that Aussies are about to roll out body scanners (following the US) but there will be no opt-out (surpassing the US)
U NO SCAN - U NO FLY
Re: (Score:2)
It didn't ...
Airplane : USA Only ...
Aeroplane : The rest of the world
By the way Red Hot Chili Peppers seem to think it is spelt Aeroplane ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroplane_(Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers_song) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was W. Churchill. Same for aerodrome
And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
a low-tier banking executive makes more money than this man.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
doesn't sound like he's really into it for the money
that man is lucky -- he has a very long engineering career with a meaningful benefit to society
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, I agree with you. Thing is though, he's not going to have as much in the bank should something happen and he can't work any more.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm an engineer working in the field of aerospace instrumentation. I'm passionate about my job. For me, it's like playing a game and I can barely wait for the weekend to end to go back to work. In my team here, we're having a lot of fun and everyday gives us new challenges. Solving these challenges is quite exhilarating, probably just as it was for this engineer fight through the challenge of solving CFITs.
But, in the end, we're still all in it for the money. We were just lucky enough to find a career and a job that we really happened to enjoy.
I'm totally biased when I say this, but engineers are one of the profession that's grossly underpaid and under-regarded. Some investment make millions just by moving some virtual values - usually worthless - left and right on a computer screens, while engineers responsible for the success of projects worth in the multi-billion "real dollars" range, or indirectly responsible for countless lives, struggle to get decent salaries and usually don't even come close to 6 digit figures. What's even worse is that engineers carry a true responsibility for the success of their project. A personal responsibility. Bankers, when they fail because of their own greed, carry little responsibility as far as I know. Worse that could happen, is that they lose their job when the company goes down. That's nothing compared to what engineers have to face personally when they fail like that.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:4, Interesting)
I will also admit to bias - I'm also an engineering researcher (coincidentally, also specialising in aerial systems). And I love my job... but I think that might be part of the problem. If engineering wasn't as fun and creative and fulfilling, nobody would do it for what's being paid. It seems to me that perhaps if we weren't willling to do it for the love of it, maybe we would get paid more... but then someone else would just step right in. Again, I think that unless society is prepared to paid for less-stressed and more productive engineers, we're stuck.
Another perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Engineers are one of the highest paid professions in our society. Other than actuary you won't find a profession that pays higher with a 4 year. Starting salaries? What profession tops the list everytime? Engineering. If you want to come out of a 4 year program making the most money, it's engineering. And it's been that way for decades.
The trouble is that everyone here is comparing their salaires to Wall Street types - who are outliers when it comes to compensation. I have met a local investment banker here in Atlanta (at Suntrust) who shakes his head about Wall Street bankers - he says they're another "World".
It's winner take all in some sectors (Score:5, Insightful)
Sir,
Our economy is increasingly winner-take-all.
Entertainment: mass media raises a few stars as superstars, most of the profession starves. Once upon a time, local entertainment could provide a living. Now all those local entertainers have to compete with superstars on TV. They can't.
Big company management: with fewer, bigger, companies, very few people ever get a chance to be a CEO-type. A few winner superstars, and then everyone else.
Sports: same story as entertainment.
Bankers: apparently concentrated in Wall Street!
What used to be distributed markets supporting many are now global markets supporting a few superstars, opportunity for most has dried up.
This is big shift in our economy and society, and I don't think we've really adapted well. Unless we want a society of 99% losers and 1% superstars, we're going to have to do SOMETHING. We could do something about it ourselves: just shun mass entertainment and the superstars and support the locals instead. Don't buy in big-box stores. Try not to buy stuff from SuperCorps. But all that may not be enough, and we'll have a bald choice between Government income-levelling or serfdom for most.
-PeterM
Re:And yet somehow (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly pro athletes and entertainers are unionized.
Dockworkers in Oakland CA typically make in the low six figures, but that is also a very unionized environment.
The dock workers struck a few years ago because they were being replaced by computer techs that were non-union and getting about a third of what the union workers were (the result of the strike is that the computer professionals at the port are now union scale.
Something to think about anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes what would we ever do without swarms of HFT servers sucking the value out of the market within milliseconds, before humans could ever react.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no "value" in that system to begin with. That's like saying there's value in a Vegas slot machine. Sure you can walk away with more money that you started with, but you didn't actually create anything. You are merely wallet voting for the people you feel may be able to create value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think day traders do a good enough job of that.
Re: (Score:2)
This may be somewhat cultural... My experiences here in northern Europe are that engineers are respected and paid accordingly.
Based on what I read on /. and other tech sites, it seems that the US in general has neglected the sciences for the last few decades, which may explain the status of the engineering profession.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm totally biased when I say this, but engineers are one of the profession that's grossly underpaid and under-regarded. Some investment make millions just by moving some virtual values - usually worthless - left and right on a computer screens, while engineers responsible for the success of projects worth in the multi-billion "real dollars" range, or indirectly responsible for countless lives, struggle to get decent salaries and usually don't even come close to 6 digit figures.
I think you're comparing averages to outliers.
An analogous comparison would be to look at drama majors and assume they all make crazy money because A-list Hollywood actors are millionaires. There are large numbers of people who study finance and business -- and are good at it -- but who don't have the particular breed of genius mixed with insanity required to succeed in Wall Street, which is the pinnacle of that career field.
In my field, software, there are plenty of millionaire engineers, and a few billionaires. They made their money as much by luck, being in the right place at the right time with the right ideas, as by skill and hard work, but that's also true of the Wall Street types. Oh, and the software "outliers" have orders of magnitude more money than the Wall Street types.
Further, those millionaire investment bankers don't make money by just taking a nice, safe and predictable salary... their compensation is almost entirely performance-based, and the nature of their business is that performing well requires taking risks. If those risks don't pan out, they get very little and lose their jobs. Lots of people go that route and wash out, but we don't hear about them. The analogous sort in the software field is the guys who spend their careers in Silicon Valley, hopping from startup to startup, working insane hours for peanuts plus worthless stock, hoping that this time the stock becomes valuable. I don't know what the analogous risk-taking, shoot-for-the-moon career path looks like in, say, aviation engineering, but working for Boeing isn't it.
I think there are plenty of opportunities for engineers to make huge money by taking big risks. There are also plenty of opportunities for engineers to make a decent living working 40-50 hours per week, doing what they like, with a paycheck that shows up like clockwork. It's also important to keep in mind that the lower stress of the steady paycheck is also a form of compensation, and not a trivial one. It's huge if you want to have a family and to be involved in your kids' lives, for example.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, which job is the 'correct' one varies with the speaker.
Why? He's just one of anything from dozens to hundreds or more people on the project. The linked article hews to the "lone heroic engineer" myth... But you don't build a product like that and get
Re: (Score:3)
Since when did we have a free market? The only reason the financial industry makes the money they do is because they literally make the money. If we had hard money and 100% reserve banking they wouldn't be able to make money and would have to earn money.
The Reason (Score:2)
If you are a true engineer/software guy, these are the kinds of applications you dream of doing and the reason you get into the field.
There is no comparing something like this, that directly affects people's lives in a good way, with some hack to decode DVDs or run Linux on some device, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And yet somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be a youngling.
I have an impressive CV. Each job or client they allow me to do more difficult and complex things.
In your carreer, if you give your maximum you won't come into a comfortable zone: each other job I need to give maximum (to maintain what I have on my record) PLUS the extra edge expected "for someone with such a CV".
There are moments you cannot keep it up though, and your energy levels and determination can't keep up with your CV. After 10 years carreer in misc fields (advertizing, finance, mobile, retail, ...) I burned out. I haven't cashed in my CV and will need to perform at the same level to embody my CV.
If you want to take a step back (my exgf worked 10 years in finance, wanting to get out) you'll hear "You are overqualified for this job".
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently met an engineer who developed the architecture and led the design of several widely deployed electronic systems. I don't want to mention the names (so as not to embarrass anyone) but they're systems that generate a quarter billion dollars in revenue annually and which you've almost certainly heard of.
*He* can't get a job, because of his age and (ironically) because his resume is so impressive. People are afraid to hire him.
Now to be fair this guy pretty much radiates "engineer". He comes across as gruff, cynical and impatient, and he dresses a little oddly. He might have some tendency towards Asperger's; he listens intently to what is said but doesn't seem to be aware of body language. But still, even considering that, this shows that the fond belief engineers have that a track record of success will magically open doors for them in their career is baloney. This guy built more than one "better mousetrap", and he can't even get a job interview.
The reason this guy hasn't been able to get a job for several years is that he doesn't want to network. He sees shmoozing as a stupid waste of time, because it's not how *he* would hire someone to do a job. But at his career stage it's the *only* way he'll get another job, because otherwise his resume will only land on the desk of people who see his ability and experience as a threat. He's got to hit the cocktail party circuit -- events where tech entrepreneurs hang out -- because *that's* where he'll find people eager to bring someone like him on board.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As someone who has read resumes and done some hiring, its not that you see an overqualified person as a threat; you see them as a very expensive potential asset that is way overkill for the job you need done, and a unwise use of your limited budget.
You get the exact same issues when choosing a new platform for some internal project: do you go with the $1000 option, that does exactly what you need and nothing more, or the $100k option that does what you need as an configurable module in an expandable archi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
Only bad engineers get offshored. The good ones get kept on to die a slow, painful death by managing the offshored employees.
FTFY.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone else can do my job cheaper than I can, to the same standard or better than I can - I deserve to lose my job - that's the free market people are always raving about, isn't it.
Fortunately, the Chinese haven't worked out how to transfer years of specialist domain experience into the heads of their worker drones yet. I'm good for another decade or so, in which time I'll have moved on.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to be clear - what we have today is not "free trade" by any definition. NAFTA was a weapon, which was designed to pit Mexican workmen against United States workers. CAFTA is more of the same. And, China's "most favored trade partner" status was too.
The corporate world is using us, all of us, as tools to destroy each other's livelihoods. Corporations in Mexico, South America, China, Africa, and the rest of the world are pushing family farmers out of business, so that those families have no choice but to emigrate, or turn to a life of crime to survive.
All that cheap labor becomes available to undermine the economies of the first world nations.
What we have today amounts to class warfare, with that infamous 1% stealing everything that belonged to the middle classes, lower classes, and even the subsistence level dirt poor of the world.
Free trade, my ass. Who was it that made all these "free trade" agreements? Damned near no one in the 99% voted for any of it. Al Gore's constituents made it quite clear to him that they did NOT want anything to do with NAFTA, and his reply amounted to, "I'm sorry, but I know better, so I'm overriding your wishes."
If this is "free trade", then I'm ready to try some socialism.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The rich will still keep rich and people will still have a massive incentive to work (we can set the basic income perhaps quarter to half the amount of a normal job).
It's inevitable anyway once automation comes into force more strongly, and frees our time up. Tons of people will simply not be 'needed' (i.e. not needed to be slaves to the 9-5) an
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
If robots and other automation can do the jobs, why should a few take everything and become ultra-rich, assuming the resulting increased productivity can actually provide basic income for everyone?
If you're in the IT line, you're taking part in the process of replacing more and more humans with automation.
You might be one of those who objects if some/much of the resulting productivity or $$$ gets transferred to providing basic income for everyone, but are you really happier with the current situation where some/much of the resulting $$$ gets transferred to making a few people filthy rich? I'd personally prefer the basic income thing. Just seems more civilized. And you could still have filthy rich people...
Perhaps if you still need to encourage people to contribute, make it so that if you want to vote, you need to have worked a certain number of hours within 5 years. But a rich person or great contributor still only gets one vote.
If you want to have say, you have to contribute,
otherwise you are a (hopefully well-treated) _pet_ of Advanced Human Civilization, with no votes.
Might not be a good idea to disenfranchise people like that, but it's just a suggestion
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Culture#Biological_citizens [wikipedia.org]
If we develop post-humans and/or strong AI (and hit that "singularity" thing) in the wrong environment/culture, we normal humans won't be pets. We'd more likely be worshippers+slaves, livestock or vermin.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When you retards stop complaining about the system and start campaigning for Ron Paul to get it fixed.
Help us O. B. Gyn Kenobie; you're our only hope.
Re:I look forward to the day (Score:4, Insightful)
Different does not necessarily mean better.
"Free Trade" is a marketing slogan (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it it "free trade". "Free", doesn't means free for everyone, or equal for everyone. "Free trade" just means "no rules trade" or "self-regulating trade".
Oh boy, are you ever wrong. At the time of the free trade talks, I obtained a copy of the agreement. It is a fairly hefty book.
"Free Trade" is a marketing slogan to sell a trade agreement to liberty loving people. In reality, it is a set of rules that groups try to influence to their advantage.
Your post only points out how effective that marketing has been.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone else can do my job cheaper than I can, to the same standard or better than I can - I deserve to lose my job - that's the free market people are always raving about, isn't it.
You have entirely failed to recognize the stupidity of our MBAs that are often in control of these jobs. The qualification for offshoring jobs is not 'cheaper, same/better standard or faster'. It is simply CHEAPER. These MBA types run companies into the ground regularly going for the cheapest alternative with no quality control or time requirements.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't assume those jobs offshore are always terrible either. They very well may be able to deliver on time, above/on spec, and much cheaper than American labor. From what I have seen - it is a crap shoot. Similar things can be said about American contractors as well though, but in America - you have the legal system and can sue the contractor out of existence if they screw you!
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, I do realise that I am lucky to be able to make such a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
These MBA types run companies into the ground regularly going for the cheapest alternative with no quality control or time requirements.
If the MBAs run the company into the ground, they they will also be out of a job, too? So the system works.
You need to cite some evidence to back up "regularly".
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone talks about age discrimination as if it were real. I've had problems with a slow job market, but not with age discrimination. If anything, I've found more companies willing to do interviews in the past years than less.
I'm starting a business because it's the right thing to do with the efforts I've made in my life and the cards I hold right now, not because I "can't find work." I could get a regular job, and be a wage slave for the rest of my life -- I choose not to.
But then again, I'm still willing to put in as much effort as I can for my employers and customers, even if that's not as much clock time as it was 20 years ago.
Maybe you should ask yourself a pertinent question the next time you think you were discriminated against on basis of age:
Re: (Score:3)
I'm starting a business because it's the right thing to do with the efforts I've made in my life and the cards I hold right now, not because I "can't find work." I could get a regular job, and be a wage slave for the rest of my life -- I choose not to.
Why are your options "don't work" or "wage slave"? Is there a reason you couldn't command a higher salary with your experience?
Perhaps "Experience & Salary Demands Discrimination" would be more accurate...
Re: (Score:3)
"Why are your options "don't work" or "wage slave"? Is there a reason you couldn't command a higher salary with your experience?"
How cute... someone who thinks that Promotions are based on knowledge and experience...
Re: (Score:2)
A higher salary doesn't mean you get what your work is worth to the company or organization who is paying you.
Getting a bigger crumb from the pie doesn't mean you're tasting any filling.
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
There are larger rewards in life than money
Re: (Score:2)
Like a budget increase, so you can do your job more effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
well there's still booze.. ...which isn't that useful if you can't properly booze up due to medical conditions..
Re:And yet somehow (Score:5, Insightful)
a low-tier banking executive makes more money than this man.
Well, look at the "Forbes 400 list" of richest Americans, and see how many of 20 richest actually produce a physical product.
And that's why system is about to collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
And the geek shall inherit the earth... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scary fact of the day from the CFIT wiki article - as of 2007, 5% of commercial airlines still weren't running a Terrain awareness and warning system.
Re:And the geek shall inherit the earth... (Score:5, Funny)
"Re:And the geek shall inherit the earth..." - and some plough into it by accident.
5% of commercial airlines still weren't running a Terrain awareness and warning system.
Don't worry about the 5% - that number is decreasing all the time, one way or another.....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised airlines have a choice in the matter, given how regulated the industry is world wide.
Re:And the geek shall inherit the earth... (Score:5, Informative)
That 5% includes Africa and Asia, most of which isn't covered by aviation authorities with the same power as the EASA or FAA - places like Singapore etc are, but you need to start including all the smaller airlines that own Boeing 737-200s or 727s, which have been around for over 4 decades and are available very cheaply. They won't fly to Europe or the US, so they get to operate under very relaxed rules - check out the list of airlines banned from flying to EU airports sometime, it's quite enlightening.
Also, corruption is rife in many African countries, which even by itself is a big blocker to reform.
Re:And the geek shall inherit the earth... (Score:5, Informative)
It's nice to see real Engineers getting a bit of recognition for a change.
On Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
No. In the Seattle Times. Like most stories on /., this is just a summary of an article that appears elsewhere. This is why you sometimes see people saying "RTFA" or "Didn't RTFA". These are hints that a poster who wishes to be knowledgeable about the thing that they're commenting on would actually read the fine article and not just the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the geek shall inherit the earth... (Score:5, Informative)
I was a sailor, not a pilot. And, I've seen many, many times when it was hard to tell the sky from the sea. To almost echo, jholyhead, "Ever heard of storms?"
Re:And the geek shall inherit the earth... (Score:5, Insightful)
surely a more scary fact is that we have people flying planes who can't tell the difference between the land and the sky?
If, like Don Bateman, you'd ever lived in the Pacific Northwest - you'd realize there are times you can't tell the land from the sky even when you're standing on the land.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... that might explain why the "land" was so squishy.
Re:And the geek shall inherit the earth... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, unless you only want to fly in day time VFR (visual flight rules) conditions, in which case, getting around by airlines would be incredibly unreliable as it would depend totally on a nice sunny day the length of your route and at the start and destination. In other words, aviation as a means of transport would be more or less impractical.
In the real world we have to fly at night, in the clouds or both. Make a navigational error and you could end up piling into a mountainside instead of making a nice smooth approach into an airport.
In the clouds or at night with no visual reference, you can't even tell which way up you are without reference to instruments.
CFIT vs loss of control (Score:2, Redundant)
CFIT is nowhere near the leading cause of fatal accidents in general aviation.
http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=13103&omniRss=fact_sheetsAoc&cid=103_F_S [faa.gov]
It's pretty hard to find statistics for combined civil aviation, please post a link if you can find one.
Re:CFIT vs loss of control (Score:5, Informative)
Correction: cfit is no longer the leading cause. Terrain warning systems make then almost impossible, which is the point of this article.
Flight 901 November 1978 (Score:2)
Air New Zealand DC10 was equipped with a terrain warning system, on the black box voice recorder you could hear the "woop woop pull up a few seconds before it hit Mt Erebus. So I duess it depends on how steep the mountain is.
The reason the plane flew straight into the mountain was the navigation system had been programmed wrong.
An the visibilty was compromised by the cluds and reflections from the snow and ice.
BTW it was not an 'international' flight, it took off from Aucland and was schedules to land in Ch
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone actually claimed that CFIT never happens at all to anyone anywhere. The claim is that it used to be substantially more common, so much more common that it was the leading cause of fatal aviation accidents, and now it is anomalous for a commercial plane to be involved in such an incident. That Air New Zealand crash is notable specifically because the accident is so rare on modern aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
visibilty was compromised by the cluds.
..and that's when the C.L.U.D.S. came at us. Those insensitive cluds!
Re:Flight 901 November 1978 (Score:5, Insightful)
Air New Zealand DC10 was equipped with a terrain warning system, on the black box voice recorder you could hear the "woop woop pull up a few seconds before it hit Mt Erebus. So I duess it depends on how steep the mountain is.
The reason the plane flew straight into the mountain was the navigation system had been programmed wrong. An the visibilty was compromised by the cluds and reflections from the snow and ice.
One of the main problems is decision making is hard when your mental model of what is happening differs from what instruments and other sensors are telling you. Not trusting your mental model (often developed from years of training and experience) does not come easy; add in a situation where even a slight delay has serious impact and you can see why stuff still happens.,/P>
As someone much older, wiser, and experienced once told me if you get into a situation where your not sure what is going on, return to the last safe setup and sort things out; as he put it "Remember - you can always back the ship down because you know the water behind you is deep enough to avoid running aground."
Re: (Score:2)
What TFA says (and what TFS obviously intended to say) is that CFIT was the leading cause of fatal accidents before it was nearly eliminated by Bateman's inventions.
Re: (Score:2)
CFIT is nowhere near the leading cause of fatal accidents in general aviation.
true. It's selling doctors twin - Beeches.
How old school. (Score:5, Funny)
Today this would be solved by making flying info mountains illegal.
It already is, but there's a solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is an "info mountain" and how do I get to fly one? That sounds AWESOME!
Re: (Score:2)
AWACS? Galaxy transport full of servers? 747 carrying military intel all-star weightlifting team?
Re: (Score:2)
Lies! (Score:5, Funny)
This summary must be incorrect somehow.
I just opened Flight Simulator and had no trouble controlling my flight right into the side of a mountain. Clearly, the system needs work.
As someone in the mountains I appreciate this (Score:5, Interesting)
My family has had a ranch in the mountains for about 100 years within line of sight of a military airport in more recent years.
The B17 and other wreckage there was horrible, uncommon and yet eventual.
You won't see those pictures on the Internet.
Make the technology scale down... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Elevation from GPS alone is accurate to about +/- 15 meters, which isn't great but good enough to save lives.
Meanwhile my phone not only has a GPS that can read position and elevation but also has enough storage to recall a detailed street map of every city in the world, its only a few gigs of information... so why can't they just do this as an app already for small planes?
Re: (Score:2)
mercedes is doing it for cars. it's scaled already, but I guess retrofitting it is the costly part.
Re: (Score:3)
This technology does scale down. The SportCruiser LSA that I fly from time to time warns me when I get down to 500ft from the ground. This is a 2-seat airplane. However, there are lot of old GA aircraft out there (often 30+ years old) that do not have modern avionics.
What? (Score:5, Funny)
"The Engineer Who Stopped Airplanes From Flying Into Mountains"
I thought that was the pilot's job?
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
It is...but history shows that they weren't very good at it.
Terrain Avoidance Gone Wrong (Score:2)
What [blogspot.com] is going on?
good thing he's not retired... (Score:2)
Honeywell Labs? (Score:3)
Re:Terrain (Score:5, Interesting)
"He deliberately force-landed the plane by diving down in a steep manner until the Ground Proximity Warning System gave off a signal 'sink rate, whoop, whoop, pull up'."
He said Komar ignored 15 GPWS warnings as well as his co-pilot's warning and brought the plane into the sharp dive, causing it to drop suddenly by 1,600 feet per minute compared with a normal 1,000 feet per minute and to overshoot the runway.
The plane's front wheel snapped off, causing the aircraft to bounce three times before skidding on the runway, crossing an airport fence and a public road and hitting a dyke before bursting into flames, the prosecutor said.
Source. [sky.com]
A few years ago, a friend claimed that a member of the flight crew aboard GA-200 actually said "Stupid American" or something along those lines in an attempt to shut up the GPWS (which wouldn't particularly surprise me knowing Garuda). I'd dearly love to hear the CVR recordings for that flight if anyone knows where I can get them, I'd like to see whether that rumour is fact or fiction.
Re: (Score:2)
signal 'sink rate, whoop, whoop, pull up'."
To be fair I don't think I would have listened to a juggalo computer either :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Think
That should be "Don't Sink!"
Re: (Score:2)