LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for UCD-STAFFORDBEER Archives


UCD-STAFFORDBEER Archives

UCD-STAFFORDBEER Archives


UCD-STAFFORDBEER@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

UCD-STAFFORDBEER Home

UCD-STAFFORDBEER Home

UCD-STAFFORDBEER  January 2008

UCD-STAFFORDBEER January 2008

Subject:

Re: System failure

From:

allenna leonard <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Forum dedicated to the work of Stafford Beer <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:13:31 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (236 lines)

Hi all,

I'm out of town and not able to follow this
consistently but noted Stuart's # 2 - 'tail of a plane
broke off climbing out of New York'.

We had a case of severe turbulance in Canada a little
while ago that was attributed to wake turbulance.  The
New York case was cited as another example.  This is a
controllable problem although it is becoming worse as
air traffic increases.  It seems probable that the
minimum distance that a plane must keep behind another
should be increased.  It becomes worse, also, with the
increased use of larger planes.

Best,
Allenna
 



--- Stuart Umpleby <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Arthur, I am struggling with your use of terms, but
> here are some thoughts.
> 1.  Add "taxi" after landing?
> 2.  Add equipment failure?  The tail of a plane
> broke off climbing out
> of NY in recent years.  "Uncontrolled collision with
> ground"?
> 3.  Shoot down by military jet or terrorist on
> ground.  "Uncontrolled
> collision with ground"?
> 4.  You do not mention loading -- passengers, crew,
> baggage, food,
> fuel.  "Uncontrolled collision with ground"?
> 5.   Where would you put "incorrect computation of
> needed fuel".  A
> famous case in Canada.  "Uncontrolled collision with
> ground"?
> Bad things can happen in the air before the plane
> encounters the ground.
> 
> You say, "If we take the cybernetic approach an
> accident can be
> described as a homeostat out of balance. The
> critical variables of
> speed, altitude and course went out of balance. May
> I have you
> comments on that please !."
> 
> The homeostat was a device that demonstrated
> ultrastability -- the
> ability to restructure itself in order to keep a set
> of variables
> within limits.  I believe that autopilots are not
> ultrastable.  An
> ultrastable autopilot would function effectively,
> though not
> immediately, even if it were miswired.  That is, it
> would change its
> parameters, its structure, in order to compensate
> for miswiring.  I do
> not know what "out of balance" means in this case. 
> "Out of bounds,"
> meaning variables outside of acceptable range, would
> be better.  In a
> plane the autopilot provides first level feedback
> (when circumstances
> are normal).  The pilot provides second level
> feedback, when
> overriding routine is needed.  The homeostat did
> both.  So, the plane
> plus pilot is ideally a homeostat (variables are
> kept within desired
> limits).  I would say an accident happens when the
> homeostat (plane
> plus pilot) fails.  Hence the suggestion for
> additional help --
> calling a coach on the ground for help when the
> plane plus pilot
> system seems to be in trouble.  This would be adding
> an additional
> feedback loop.  Of course, there is the possibility
> that the "helper"
> would simply provide additional noise and distract
> the pilot.  A
> machine designed to correct for "pilot error" would
> be able to
> override the pilot.  Similar issues are being
> discussed in the case of
> "driverless" cars.
> 
> I would not use the word "ontology" here.  To me
> what you have
> constructed is a "conceptual framework,"  a useful
> one.  A legal
> conceptual framework was suggested earlier in the
> discussion.
> "Ontology" is often a claim of objectivity or
> certainty.  Does your
> client require that?
> Regards, Stuart
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2008 4:21 PM, Arthur Dijkstra
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger et all,
> >
> > Thanks for your response. Again your reply seems
> very interesting but I have
> > trouble digesting the full meaning, so we need
> more iterations. So here I go
> > and hope that you will follow.
> >
> > My problem with current safety management
> practices is that it is reactive
> > and based on very simple models. The data that is
> selected is of the type
> > that is easy to get. These data points are eg
> safety reports of a incorrect
> > weight and balance sheet, report of an overspeed,
> report of a procedure that
> > went wrong, investigation why a crew did not
> follow the procedure,
> > investigation why an airplane wing hit another
> during taxi, number of to
> > fast approaches, etc I hope you get the flavour of
> the kind of data we
> > collect. These event are assigned a risk level ,
> low mid high, and a
> > classification, suh as flight management, ground
> handling etc. This is done
> > by one of the 4 flight safety officers. Risk is
> severity x probability. The
> > severity is judged on the reported situation, not
> on what might have
> > happened. These data is then put in a management
> report which shows
> > frequency of selected events. These are often the
> events which contain the
> > high risk. The management reports may lead to a
> further analysis of specific
> > events many management desire so. (I think these
> reports lack requisite
> > variety (RV) but I am unfortunately not able to
> 'prove' that)
> >
> > This is normal safety management in airlines. The
> linking between the
> > registered events and accident models is new. So
> the creation of meaning out
> > of the data is still very immature.
> >
> > My intention is to design accident models which
> cover the scope of how you
> > can crash an airliner. These models then serve as
> a basis to collect data.
> > Not just that what is easy to report. This data
> should then via the models
> > lead to information that enables the management to
> take action before severe
> > mishaps occur. One step further is the modelling
> that allows management to
> > see the impact on safety when other (not obvious
> safety related) decisions
> > are made. But that will be later.
> >
> > Below you find an example of a new classification
> set of all the possible
> > accident that can occur.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Taxi
> >
> > Take-off
> >
> > Initial Climb
> >
> > En-route
> >
> > Approach
> >
> > Landing
> >
> >
> > Abrupt manoeuvre
> >
> >
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Cabin environment (fire, O2)
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> > X
> >
> >
> > Uncontrolled collision with ground
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 

For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:  www.platformforchange.org

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
August 2017
May 2017
November 2016
October 2016
July 2016
June 2016
March 2016
November 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager