Please bear with me. I've taken some of these quotes out of order.
 
>A plane's cockpit is designed with an "open" mentality in mind.  By "open
>mentality" I mean the possibility (even the encouragement) of diversity of
>opinions.  Anyone can question anyone else's interpretation of a given set
>of facts.  HP3000-L is a prime example of such open mentality.  To avoid
>total chaos, some moderation is necessary (even encouraged).  In a plane's
>case, there is a hierarchy of command and the captain (theoretically) can
>override everything (unless the copilot kills the captain :-)
 
I guess it depends on a multitude of things, including the training, the
Company Procedures of the airline, and the pilot dynamics. True, the Captain
has the final responsibility for the safety of the plane and passengers.
However, there are also procedures such as challenge/response that can be
incorporated into cockpit resource management to make sure even the Captain
has all his faculties. An example would be descending to some altitude, say
10,000 feet. 1,000 feet above the altitude, the pilot not flying challenges
"1,000 to go" the pilot flying acknowledges "1,000 to go". At 10,000 feet,
the pilot not flying challenges "Leveling 10,000 feet" and the pilot flying
responds "leveling at 10,000 feet" and proceeds to do so. If the pilot
flying doesn't respond nor doesn't react, the non-flying pilot knows
something isn't kosher.
 
Now as I said in the first line, pilot dynamics could defeat this purpose. If
you have a strong willed Captain and a weak willed First Office, and procedures
aren't followed exactly, then problems could arise. Had challenge/response been
used in the Korean Air case, perhaps there would have been a different outcome.
Challenge/response could also be interpreted as "Question Authority" or "Trust
Nothing". Take it as you will.
 
[back to the top]
 
>I have received a couple of "complaints" about my "store-and-forward"
>service regarding people's comments on the HP3000, on HP management, on
>their worries, on their hopes, and so on.
 
>The complainers agree on one thing:  What in hell am I doing as a "broker"
>or ideas?  The individuals involved, themselves, should just post their
>thoughts (however "controversial") directly to the list.
 
[Alfredo then describes what amounts to posters and lurkers on the list]
 
I agree with Alfredo's statement that there are those that would like to respond
publically, but that might not be in their best personal interest. Since few
companies operate according to the "Question Authority" prinicple, having an
anonymous means to voice an opinion on this forum could provide a better flavor
into what the "General Consensus" (is there such a thing) might be. There is
always the risk in a forum such as this that only a vocal few can influence some
major policy making simply because they are the "squeeky wheels". Market
Researches know that any survey that requires those surveyed to contact the
surveyor will result in inaccurate statistics. Only those strongly interested in
the subject will respond.
 
The same probably holds true here. But there is also the mitigating fact that
there are those that would dearly love to respond, but can't because of their
management.
 
I for one appreciate that Alfredo has been operating (whether intentionally or
unintentionally) as a conduit for these persons.
 
M.