[conspire] conspire Digest, Vol 162, Issue 17
bruce coston
jane_ikari at yahoo.com
Tue Apr 18 14:27:18 PDT 2017
[ Flight 799 and improving aviation ] And now it's worse than that because the " standards " of most workplaces and weaknesses of current watchdogs probably would not consider the messed up checklists to absolve the crew .
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 4/18/17, <conspire-request at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
Subject: conspire Digest, Vol 162, Issue 17
To: conspire at linuxmafia.com
Date: Tuesday, April 18, 2017, 1:00 AM
Send conspire mailing list submissions to
conspire at linuxmafia.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
World Wide Web, visit
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
or, via email, send a message with
subject or body 'help' to
conspire-request at linuxmafia.com
You can reach the person managing the
list at
conspire-owner at linuxmafia.com
When replying, please edit your Subject
line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of conspire
digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Wikipedia editing
suckitude; the art of checklists
(Ivan Sergio
Borgonovo)
2. Re: Wikipedia editing
suckitude; the art of checklists (Rick Moen)
3. Re: Wikipedia editing
suckitude; the art of checklists (Rick Moen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 16:34:46 +0200
From: Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail at webthatworks.it>
To: conspire at linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: [conspire] Wikipedia
editing suckitude; the art of
checklists
Message-ID: <055142d1-8025-b07e-a116-c7a0682453cf at webthatworks.it>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
You all complain, but it's not easy.
http://backreaction.blogspot.it/2017/03/academia-is-fucked-up-so-why-isnt.html
Should we give up do science? Should we
close wikipedia?
Should we distrust wikipedia or
science?
I recently read an article in Italian
that talk about anti-vaxxers[1].
Roughly it says they are middle class
and they should have access to the
tools to build up an informed opinion.
For me it is absolutely clear what herd
immunity is and I've no doubt
vaccines have an historical successful
record.
But I'm not a doctor! Am I qualified to
draw this conclusions? Why or
why not?
Nevertheless I do believe media and
even experts lies and there are real
conspiracies oh!
I think the usefulness of Occam's razor
has been excessively simplified ;)
BTW Rick, feel responsible for making
me waste some more time to try
again to replace fetchmail.
[1] https://www.vice.com/it/article/chi-sono-antivaccinisti-italiani
On 04/17/2017 12:11 AM, Paul Zander
wrote:
> This aligns with a story I heard
(NPR?) a couple of years ago. The
> subject was some incident during
the Civil War. It was commonly
> accepted that what happened was
"A". However a history professor had
> researched the subject in depth
and concluded "B". This was based on
> contemporary newspaper articles.
>
> He edited Wikipedia. His
edits were undone. Lots of back and forth.
> Wikipedia had a preference for
secondary sources (history books
> published long afterwards, but
widely available) and rejected the
> primary source because the
original newspaper articles were not
> available online.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> *To:* conspire at linuxmafia.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 16, 2017
10:43 AM
> *Subject:* [conspire] Wikipedia
editing suckitude; the art of checklists
>
> Remember: a well-debugged
checklist will save your life.
>
> ----- Forwarded message from Rick
Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com
> <mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com>>
-----
>
> Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 23:50:49
-0700
> From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com
<mailto:rick at linuxmafia.com>>
> To: Kevin W Enns <kwenns at gmail.com
<mailto:kwenns at gmail.com>>
> Subject: Re: [skeptic] And see,
this is why he makes the big bucks...
> Organization: If you lived here,
you'd be $HOME already.
>
> I wrote:
>
>> BTW, the things you learn from
reading NTSB disaster reports! I'd
>> somehow assumed Dad had been a
longtime captain, but the disaster report
>> on the crash that killed him
in December 1968 said he'd been rated for
>> full captain status only in
June 1967, in the middle of our stay in
>> Victoria, Hong Kong.
>
> Around the time I was writing
that, I was doing a low-key corrective
> edit of this Wikipedia passage:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmendorf_Air_Force_Base#Aviation_accidents
>
> Over the years, there have been
several mentions on Wikipedia of the Pan
> Am flight 799 disaster that killed
my father, and they've all had the
> same appalling problem: The
clumsy editing and writing always ends up
> blaming the pilots: The
Wikipedians always boil it down to 'Crew
> attempted a no-flaps takeoff',
which makes them sound like a trio of
> idiots who incompetently killed
themselves and a $5M airframe.
>
> And they do this while linking
directly to the NTSB report, which means
> they _don't fscking read
it_. The report goes out of its way to say it
> wasn't the pilots' fault.[1]
>
> This is a sore point with me and
with anyone who grew up in an airline
> family, because it's notorious
that the airline, the airframe
> manufacturer, and even the press
tends to _immediately_ jump the gun
> after almost any fatal air crash
and _blame the pilots_. 'Must have been
> pilot error', we hear. Why
_not_ blame them? They're dead and can't sue,
> so who cares if everyone casually
defames them?
>
> _So_ tired of that.
>
> I have to be extremely low-key
about my Wikipedia editing, though,
> because if my personal connection
is known or suspected, there could be
> a huge backlash. The
justification for this is their mania for NPOV
> (neutral point of view), but
functionally (IMO) it's hauled out by
> Wikipedia regulars mostly as a
passive-aggressive way to fend off
> non-regulars with inconvenient
expertise.
>
> So, I edit without logging in, and
try hard not to get the regulars'
> backs up.
>
> Around late 2004, a Wikipedia
article about my friend Eric S. Raymond,
> a rather flamboyant (and, to be
fair, self-promoting) member of the open
> source community, had been turned
into a rather appalling hatchet job
> pretty much devoted to attacking
him personally, citing as the 'neutral'
> source an extremely dubious,
scurrilous free-hosted Web page
> (http://esr.1accesshost.com/) that for some years had
been maintained
> elsewhere by anonymous parties who
dislike Eric in order to ridicule
> him. Eric made the mistake
of directly attempting to edit and correct
> the Wikipedia page under his own
name as the editing login -- and
> immediately ran into a buzzsaw of
Wikipedians saying he was not allowed
> to make the article cease sucking,
because he wasn't 'neutral'. So, his
> edits were reverted(!), even
though he amply explained them. At that
> time, in particular, the
Wikipedians would rather reject corrections
> from an expert and keep a terrible
page if the expert knew too much
> because, y'know, nobody knows more
about that particular subject, being
> a primary source, but isn't
'neutral' so we mustn't listen.
>
> I drew the appropriate lessons,
and, not long afterwards when someone
> created a page about me, rather
than try to improve it, I invoked
> Wikipedia's non-urgent process for
deleting the page, which got done
> about a month later.
>
> Ironically, what ended use of the
http://esr.1accesshost.com/
> <http://esr.1accesshost.com/>page as a
> primary source was it being cited
by one of its propenents, one Jim
> Thompson, on my 'Conspire' Linux
user group mailing list in California,
> in reply to which I debunked the
factual claims cited from that page,
> even to Thompson's
satisfaction. Afterwards, Wikipedians were able to
> reference my mailing list
discussion as a reliable external authority to
> fix the page about Eric. So,
they were willing to accept better
> information about Eric from me,
but not from Eric. Weird.
>
> (Since that time, Wikipedia has
mostly cleaned up its act, getting
> serious about enforcing its
Biography of Living Persons policy and
> disallowing use of Wikipedia for
personal hatchet jobs.)
>
>
> There is also at least one other
Wikipedia page that includes the Pan Am
> crash, that I _also_ had to
delicately fix some years ago -- same
> serious problem -- but I can't
find it at the moment.
>
>
> Here's a weird thing:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_Boeing_707#1960s
> and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft#1968
> have nothing about the
crash. Can you guess why?
>
> It's because _even though_ those
purport to be comprehensive lists, no
> additions are permitted (to flesh
out the lists) unless each links to
> a full Wikipedia page about the
disaster. Because nobody has yet made a
> page about Pan Am flight 799, it
remains nearly absent.
>
> Of course, I _could_ create a
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_799
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_799>page
from scratch and
> make it scrupulously match the
NTSB report and several classic books
> that extensively cover it as a key
case study. I'm almost willing to try.
> That would be a fairly
high-profile edit, however, and might attract
> attention. (Articles that
are too substantive also start getting
> complaints about violations of the
'No original research' rule, even if
> scrupulously referenced.)
>
>
>
> [1] Among the many things you'll
never learn from the lamentably bad
> discussion of this crash most
places on the Web (including Wikipedia) is
> that the flight 799 disaster
(eventually) brought about a revolution in
> human-factors research for both
the airline industry and others, and
> forced rethinking about the way
checklists are used. In a real way, the
> sad lessons learned from studying
this crash have saved countless lives
> (later). (But it took more
checklist-related deaths and 18 more years
> before NTSB prompted FAA to
convence a research group to improve
> checklist design.)
> See: https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/profile/adegani/Cockpit%20Checklists.pdf
> http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/Northwest255/Review%20of%20Takeoff%20Configuration%20Warning%20Systems%20on%20Large%20Jet%20Transports.pdf
>
> In its mid-1969 report on the
crash, NTSB identified as critical
> causative factors (a) a fatal flaw
in the preflight checklists that
> interacted catastrophically with
(b) an unfixed hardware defect in a
> crucial warning system. The
warning system was a horn designed to sound
> if the pilots apply takeoff thrust
and any of several control structures
> including the flaps aren't set
right for takeoff.
>
> First Officer Johannes Markestein,
following the taxi phase of the
> checklist as they rolled away from
the gate, lowered (set) the flaps to
> the correct 14 degrees for
takeoff. (There are separate checklists for
> each successive phase of
takeoff: 'BEFORE START' at the closing of the
> passenger doors, 'TAXI' after
receiving the taxi clearance, 'BEFORE
> TAKEOFF' to be completed by
reaching the hold line before the runway,
> etc.) However, then Captain Arthur
Moen, following verbatim requirements
> of the cold weather operations
section of the Pan Am aircraft operations
> manual, which says flaps in cold
weather conditions (like Anchorage, AK
> in late December at 6am) should be
left _up_ (retracted) until lineup
> for takeoff, in order to reduce
the chance of snow or ice wedging the
> flap screws into extended position
or lodge between the flap and the
> wing edge, did so.
>
> Captain Moen immediately discussed
his having done so with Markestein.
> Markestein replied 'OK, let's not
forget them.' But there was no
> post-taxi checklist item to
-recheck- flaps before takeoff. The
> checklists in use made the
brittle, often-untrue assumption that there
> would have been no reason to touch
the flaps after setting the to 14
> degrees after taxi phase. In
fact, as NTSB pointed out in a subsequent
> special report, the checklists'
assumptions were easily invalidated by
> any number of unplanned events or
interruptions as the crew runs through
> them.
>
> And this is where the poorly
debugged checklists interacted
> catastrophically with the jet's
hardware defect. This was the 'takeoff
> warning system', which is intended
to sound a loud horn if pilots apply
> takeoff thrust with either flaps,
speed brakes, or the stabilizer
> (vertical tail) are in the wrong
position for takeoff. As this was in
> the primitive era of electronics,
application of takeoff thrust was
> detected by a mechanical linkage
to the thrust lever. If it were
> advanced to 42 degrees of angle,
then the checks of those three systems
> would be triggered and a horn go
off if they weren't set right.
>
> And this is where there's a subtle
physics problem. Boeing had done
> testing two years before, and
found that if the ambient air were really
> cold -- like Anchorage, AK in late
December at 6:15 am -- triggering
> wouldn't occur, and sent out a
bulletin recommending that the actuator
> be changed from 42 degrees to 25
degrees.
>
> And why would cold weather cause
this? (My surmise:) Because cold air
> is denser, and provides more lift,
hence you get takeoff thrust without
> the thrust lever being pushed as
far forward. Boeing didn't indicate
> any special urgency, and
completely failed to define what it meant when
> it said this would be a problem in
'cold weather operations'.
>
> It was about 1 degree F, that day
in December, 1968.
>
> For its part, Pan Am decided to
not bother implementing the recommended
> fix even though it would have cost
less than $50 per plane: Some
> unnamed engineer in Pan Am service
engineering 'decided the modification
> was not necessary'. An
equally unnamed supervisor reviewed this
> decision and 'decided, after
coordination with flight operations, that
> the bulleting was not applicable
to Pan Am aircraft, and no further
> action was taken. The reason
for this decision was not fully
> documented.' Great job,
guys!
>
> So, First Officer Markestein had
said 'OK, let's not forget them', but
> they were following procedure by
working scrupulously through the
> checklists, and nothing there said
anything about the flaps. The flight
> was cleared for takeoff, and
Markestein applied takeoff thrust --
> advancing the thrust lever, but
not to 42 degrees on account of the cold
> air. They rose, but started
having trouble maintaining attitude control
> and remaining above stall
speed. Doubtless they started working through
> the emergency checklists, which
unfortunately were written with the
> assumption that the takeoff
warning system was functional. And, problem
> is, the crew didn't have enough
time to uncover the broken-checklists
> problem. They had exactly
59.2 seconds before the plane hit the ground
> at 187 knots (215 MPH). The
broken checklist and the broken warning
> system conspired against them, and
they didn't find the problem in time.
>
> And all of that gets boiled down
by Wikipedians to 'Crew attempted
> a no-flaps takeoff'.
>
> _So_ tired of that.
>
> (I have a running gag with Deirdre
every time we fly together, whereby
> one of us needs to check out the
window before takeoff to ensure 14
> degrees flaps.)
>
> I need a drink after writing
that.
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
>
_______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
<mailto:conspire at linuxmafia.com>
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> conspire mailing list
> conspire at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
>
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it http://www.borgonovo.net
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 18:21:47 -0700
From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
To: conspire at linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: [conspire] Wikipedia
editing suckitude; the art of
checklists
Message-ID: <20170418012147.GE9102 at linuxmafia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Quoting Ivan Sergio Borgonovo (mail at webthatworks.it):
> BTW Rick, feel responsible for
making me waste some more time to try
> again to replace fetchmail.
You're welcome, I think(?).
I've only once deployed fetchmail, a
long time ago in a very peculiar
consulting situation that I can no
longer fully recall. For most
purpose, I tend to think of it as a bit
odd and overfeature. Because I
read my own mail right on my MTA box
(via ssh and screen), I personally
don't need that or any other MDA -- so
I'm sometimes a little fuzzy on
what's good in that category.
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/mdas.html
has a bunch covered, although I
haven't refreshed that page in quite a
few years.
> Should we give up do science?
Should we close wikipedia?
> Should we distrust wikipedia or
science?
Compared to what? ;->
To misquote Churchill, Wikipedia is the
worst example of crowdsourced
encyclopaedia, except for all the
others.
I love Wikipedia, and am glad it's
there. I just note, along the way,
that it has some tics and bad
habits. As do we all.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:17:00 -0700
From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
To: conspire at linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: [conspire] Wikipedia
editing suckitude; the art of
checklists
Message-ID: <20170418021700.GA18471 at linuxmafia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Quoting Ivan Sergio Borgonovo (mail at webthatworks.it):
> BTW Rick, feel responsible for
making me waste some more time to try
> again to replace fetchmail.
Oh, I get it: You were reading
the stuff about fetchmail's design and
security history on http://esr.1accesshost.com/ . Well, I don't
argue
with replacing fetchmail if you don't
need its feature set, but you
might be interested in what I said to
Jim Thompson when he started
quoting that an all the other stuff
from that page.
http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2006-January/001733.html
Re-reading that reminds me that the
long-ago consulting need I once
filled using fetchmail did indeed
specifically use fetchmail's multidrop
mode. If you have a use-case that
needs it, less-complex MDAs are not
functionally equivalent.
If you _don't_ need that or any of
fetchmail's other distinctive
features, then using a sparser solution
is just basically IT best
practices, so (generically) I approve.
Anyway, above URL is part of the
discussion where I debunked in front of
Jim Thompson a bunch of the claims on
http://esr.1accesshost.com/ .
I misremembered that as being a
discussion _on_ Conspire. I see from
the archives that it was something I
discussed with Jim in private mail
and then forwarded -to- Conspire,
FWIW.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
conspire mailing list
conspire at linuxmafia.com
http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/conspire
End of conspire Digest, Vol 162, Issue
17
*****************************************
More information about the conspire
mailing list