3 ms·

> This was a situation where it was off, but still "sane," No. The margin for error in jets is very small. Jets are much less forgiving than Cessna 172s. Th

by lisper 4y ago

> This was a situation where it was off, but still "sane," No. The margin for error in jets is very small. Jets are much less forgiving than Cessna 172s. The difference between a tail strike and a failed takeoff is very small, easily under the threshold of human perception until it's too late. Also, the whole point of using this software in the first place is so that every takeoff is done right on the hairy edge of minimal performance. It is a catastrophe waiting to happen. This was a wakeup call. > If the union was unhappy with the remediation steps taken, they'd say so. It is quite possible that no one in the union appreciates the broader implications. Pilots are generally not software engineers.

Someone1234 4y ago
So your point is that professional airline pilots, their union, or an airline are less qualified to understand the safety implications of this incident than a PPL because that PPL is also a software engineer? Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect[0] and how it may be playing a role in your perspective of this incident? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
- lisper 4y ago
  > because that PPL is also a software engineer? Not just for that reason. I'm also not bound by the political constraints that union leaders are. They have to pick their battles. I'm free to say whatever I want about this with little risk to my career. But yes, I think I understand software -- and particularly software risks -- better than most pilots, and I think I understand flying better than most software engineers, so I think that makes my opinion better informed than most. (It is nonetheless just an opinion.) > Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect Yes. Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
  - Someone1234 4y ago
    > Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? It doesn't apply. When an argument is backed by someone's qualifications (in this case PPL and software developer), discussing the merit of those qualifications for the discussion domain is absolutely relevant. Your first reply to this thread started off with: > Private pilot here. And now that I'm calling into question how relevant that is, or more to the point if you're in a position to know better than the pilot union/airline/etc, it is suddenly Ad hominem. Cannot have it both ways, either your qualifications make your opinion more relevant or they don't. But pick a lane. The implication with calling it Ad hominem though is that your qualifications aren't relevant, which I happen to agree with, and actually that was my point.
    - lisper 4y ago
      You don't seem to understand that Dunning-Kreuger effect. Let me quote from the article that you cited: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge." In other words, by invoking D-K, you have implicitly said that you think I am a person "with low ability, knowledge, or expertise" regarding the matter at hand. But I am a licensed private pilot with 30 years of flying experience, and a software engineer with a Ph.D. and over 40 years of professional experience, including over 15 years working at NASA and at an aerospace startup I co-founded. Those are all just facts. In the face of those facts, an implicit and unsupported assessment that I am a person of "low ability, expertise, or experience" is an ad hominem, essentially saying, "Yeah, you have all these credentials, but you still might be an idiot." Well, yeah, I might be. There are lot of idiot pilots out there, and there are a lot of idiot software engineers out there, and I may well be a member of both groups. One of the big problems with idiocy is that it does not yield readily to introspection. (And you might want to mull that over a few times before you respond.) As long as I'm pointing out your logical fallacies, here's another one: > your point is that professional airline pilots, their union, or an airline are less qualified to understand the safety implications of this incident No, that is not my point, which makes this a straw-man [1]. The fact that neither the union nor the airline have publicly expressed the same concern that I have in no way implies a lack of expertise on their part. There are many other possibilities, one of which is that they agree with me, but they are savvy enough to realize that there is nothing to be gained by saying so publicly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- astro19238_ 4y ago
  Ad hominem, argument from authority.

by lisper 4y ago

Someone1234 4y ago

So your point is that professional airline pilots, their union, or an airline are less qualified to understand the safety implications of this incident than a PPL because that PPL is also a software engineer? Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect[0] and how it may be playing a role in your perspective of this incident? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

lisper 4y ago
> because that PPL is also a software engineer? Not just for that reason. I'm also not bound by the political constraints that union leaders are. They have to pick their battles. I'm free to say whatever I want about this with little risk to my career. But yes, I think I understand software -- and particularly software risks -- better than most pilots, and I think I understand flying better than most software engineers, so I think that makes my opinion better informed than most. (It is nonetheless just an opinion.) > Are you familiar with the Dunning–Kruger effect Yes. Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- Someone1234 4y ago
  > Are you familiar with the ad hominem fallacy? It doesn't apply. When an argument is backed by someone's qualifications (in this case PPL and software developer), discussing the merit of those qualifications for the discussion domain is absolutely relevant. Your first reply to this thread started off with: > Private pilot here. And now that I'm calling into question how relevant that is, or more to the point if you're in a position to know better than the pilot union/airline/etc, it is suddenly Ad hominem. Cannot have it both ways, either your qualifications make your opinion more relevant or they don't. But pick a lane. The implication with calling it Ad hominem though is that your qualifications aren't relevant, which I happen to agree with, and actually that was my point.
  - lisper 4y ago
    You don't seem to understand that Dunning-Kreuger effect. Let me quote from the article that you cited: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge." In other words, by invoking D-K, you have implicitly said that you think I am a person "with low ability, knowledge, or expertise" regarding the matter at hand. But I am a licensed private pilot with 30 years of flying experience, and a software engineer with a Ph.D. and over 40 years of professional experience, including over 15 years working at NASA and at an aerospace startup I co-founded. Those are all just facts. In the face of those facts, an implicit and unsupported assessment that I am a person of "low ability, expertise, or experience" is an ad hominem, essentially saying, "Yeah, you have all these credentials, but you still might be an idiot." Well, yeah, I might be. There are lot of idiot pilots out there, and there are a lot of idiot software engineers out there, and I may well be a member of both groups. One of the big problems with idiocy is that it does not yield readily to introspection. (And you might want to mull that over a few times before you respond.) As long as I'm pointing out your logical fallacies, here's another one: > your point is that professional airline pilots, their union, or an airline are less qualified to understand the safety implications of this incident No, that is not my point, which makes this a straw-man [1]. The fact that neither the union nor the airline have publicly expressed the same concern that I have in no way implies a lack of expertise on their part. There are many other possibilities, one of which is that they agree with me, but they are savvy enough to realize that there is nothing to be gained by saying so publicly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
astro19238_ 4y ago
Ad hominem, argument from authority.