请教难题：AAB7

rio

如果商业飞机都不在midair飞，那给他们装上了预警系统又怎么能避免撞机呢？

jiyuztc

以下是引用rio在2007-5-14 19:06:00的发言：
如果商业飞机都不在midair飞，那给他们装上了预警系统又怎么能避免撞机呢？

明白了,谢谢

后天考试,开始紧张...

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-5-14 22:58:18编辑过]

max1977

    

The argument that a computerized onboard
warning system will virtually solve the problem of midair collisions is not sufficiently
convincing as it ignores certain critical assumptions.

            

First, the argument assumes that each aircraft will be equipped with a
transponder. This is true for commercial aircraft operating under FAR Parts 121
or 135. However, transponders are not necessarily required for private,
experimental and agricultural aircraft operating in VFR conditions or outside
of controlled airspace (FAR Part 91). While a computer onboard warning system
might work for two commercial airlines in an imminent collision, but would not
work if at least one the aircraft was not using its transponder.

            

Second, the argument ignores the findings published by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicating most midair collisions occur near
airports, where planes are operating in a congested airspace, close to the
ground, and often in takeoff or landing configuration. A computerized onboard
warning system would have to adjust its sensitivity for the additional targets
and filter appropriately. If it reported false negatives, pilots would
eventually disregard its suggestions, reducing the device's potential
effectiveness. Two examples where(aircraft would legitimately be at the same
altitude, possibly heading towards each other are taxiing or maneuvering in the
traffic pattern.

            

Finally, the argument assumes the technology will make the correct

recommendation. For example, suppose two aircraft, equipped with the
computerized onboard warning system, are believed on a collision course. Now
suppose there are mountains to the right of one of the aircraft. If the default
"best" behavior was to steer each aircraft to the right, there is a
strong possibility one might fly into a mountain.

            

In summary, the argument is not completely sound. The information provided
about the computerized onboard warning system does not support the conclusion
that it will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions because it
fails to consider the assumptions raised.

            

The argument might have been strenghtened by qualifying its use to operations
above 10,000 feet where transponders are required for everyone, discuss its
adjusted sensitivity factor, or indicate the computerized onboard warning
system would be linked into an onboard global positioning system (GPS) with
terrain and obstruction data.

tbamimd

以下是引用xdffans在2007-4-4 17:46:00的发言：

B7. The following appeared as part of an article in a daily newspaper:

“The computerized onboard warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder—a radio set that signals a plane’s course—in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action.”

1. Gratuitous assumption (warning不一定就能避免 midair plane collisions)

2. Gratuitous assumption (commercial airliners装了，但撞机的多是 non-commerical airliner)

Any other points?

3、even if we grant the assumption that the computerized warning system will  work for the fact that it provides above, we also have to consider an additional precondition that the warning system will be on the position forever. we cannot image a fact that wot will be happen when it doesnt work 

aleduan

以下是引用max1977在2007-6-27 4:29:00的发言：

 

The argument that a computerized onboard
warning system will virtually solve the problem of midair collisions is not sufficiently
convincing as it ignores certain critical assumptions.

   

First, the argument assumes that each aircraft will be equipped with a
transponder. This is true for commercial aircraft operating under FAR Parts 121
or 135. However, transponders are not necessarily required for private,
experimental and agricultural aircraft operating in VFR conditions or outside
of controlled airspace (FAR Part 91). While a computer onboard warning system
might work for two commercial airlines in an imminent collision, but would not
work if at least one the aircraft was not using its transponder.

   

Second, the argument ignores the findings published by the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) indicating most midair collisions occur near
airports, where planes are operating in a congested airspace, close to the
ground, and often in takeoff or landing configuration. A computerized onboard
warning system would have to adjust its sensitivity for the additional targets
and filter appropriately. If it reported false negatives, pilots would
eventually disregard its suggestions, reducing the device's potential
effectiveness. Two examples where(aircraft would legitimately be at the same
altitude, possibly heading towards each other are taxiing or maneuvering in the
traffic pattern.

   

Finally, the argument assumes the technology will make the correct

recommendation. For example, suppose two aircraft, equipped with the
computerized onboard warning system, are believed on a collision course. Now
suppose there are mountains to the right of one of the aircraft. If the default
"best" behavior was to steer each aircraft to the right, there is a
strong possibility one might fly into a mountain.

   

In summary, the argument is not completely sound. The information provided
about the computerized onboard warning system does not support the conclusion
that it will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions because it
fails to consider the assumptions raised.

   

The argument might have been strenghtened by qualifying its use to operations
above 10,000 feet where transponders are required for everyone, discuss its
adjusted sensitivity factor, or indicate the computerized onboard warning
system would be linked into an onboard global positioning system (GPS) with
terrain and obstruction data.

Max1977同学是学航空专业的吧，写的太专业了，

烤G族

(1)warning只是警告，如果飞行员没注意到，还会相撞；

　　(2)onboard机载设备不具备强制性、权威性，飞行员可以选择是否执行；

　　(3)computerized计算机可能会失灵；

　　(4)commercial airlines没有排除与军队飞机或私人飞机相撞的可能性；

　　(5)signal course指示出路线，不等于两架飞机能够选择正确的避让路线；

　　(6)determine likelihood确定可能性，不等于降低或消除可能性；

　　(7)recommend evasion action建议避让动作，不等于采取避让行动，而且对方避让动作是否能够配合也是问题