Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:16:38 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-745937@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.36.178.141; envelope-from=JJHALLE@stoel.com
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Technology and the Airbus
Thread-Topic: lml Digest #1370
Thread-Index: AcXIAYLi7810DPb9RLm3TZ/g0UwYYgAIFxzQ
From: "Halle, John" <JJHALLE@stoel.com>

Many years ago, a friend of my father told a story about the first =
automated airplane.  Boarding passengers were treated to the following =
announcement:  "You are boarding an XXX250, the world's first automated =
airplane.  There are no pilots but the quadruple redundant computers =
cannot fail.  This airplane is =
foolproof.......foolproof........foolproof........foolproof."

A bit more recently but still a while ago, I was at Boeing asking about =
a head's-up display for use in bad weather landings and whether Boeing =
was going to make it available on its new 737.  The engineers were =
unanimous in confirming the effectiveness of the system but very =
noncommittal about whether Boeing would put it on the options list.  =
Finally, one of the engineers took me aside and said:  "Boeing will =
never say this officially but the statistics show that, while the =
average airline pilot makes a fatal landing error every 100,000 =
landings, a modern autoland system will malfunction only once every =
1,000,000 landings.  It follows that the less the pilots have to do with =
the landing, the safer the airplane is."

For myself, I think technology is great but I would not personally want =
to be in an airplane in which the pilot did not have the last word in =
ALL situations.  It is an interesting thought as I am contemplating the =
purchase of avionics that will provide me with little green boxes to fly =
through to wherever the computer thinks I should be going.