Complex systems?

[cee-dee]

I was prompted to post this thread by this:-

http://news.sky.com/story/1288740/asiana-crash-boeing-777-system-too-complex

Leaving aside the reported pilot errors in that crash, it seems that virtually everything today has complex systems, many of which userss never make use of!

A fine example is eBay itself? The pages are crammed with gimmicks most of which only annoy the users?

Look at the cars of today? Crammed with gizmo's and "features" all of which are something extra to go wrong? If you dare open the bonnet, you're faced with such a mass of pipes and wires that you close the bonnet quickly in shock.

Phones? Blimey, they're also crammed with stuff? It seems the current thinking leads to users becoming easily bored unless they've got loadsa new things to play with and once they've exhausted "new things", they're looking to move on to the next thing or the next round of updates meddling.

Speaking of updates around computers and websites, often the changes have shuffled features from one place to another and some make it more difficult to use than it was before?

I think people have lost sight of the KISS principle and the sooner we get back to that and intuitive "controls", the better!

[bankhaunter]

When speaking to my grandson who is an IT systems designer, he was complaining about all the unnecessary pointless gimmicks on his new phone, many of which didn't work quite as intended such as the feature which kept it turned on while the user was looking at the screen.

At least that's what it was supposed to do but in actual fact acted somewhat randomly.

I have cameras with functions 85% of which I have never used not are ever likely to use.

[evoman3957]

I remember, a good few years back, the words on peoples lips were " Built in obsolescence", a way by which something would definitely need replacing; within a given period of time, thereby guaranteeing people would need to buy another. That is actually very difficult to achieve and requires materials, parts and engineering to all be carried out, with that aim in mind. It still meant, in a lot of cases, that people did not come back for a replacement for many years ( either due to the fact that they did not use the item as much as some, or they looked after it too well ). I'm sure that, in response, manufacturers tried another ploy..........they packed more and more functions into items; under the premise that sooner or later ( hopefully sooner ) something was bound to go wrong. The more functions / gizmos were packed into an item, the more chance there was of one of them going wrong and needing attention. They don't just need consumers to make one off purchases and then not come back, they need our custom on a regular basis. If I need something, then I need it and that's that; at least I know what their game is............so I can say I don't have "Mug" tattooed on MY forehead, but you either buy it or you don't.........as unsatisfactory as the system may be.

[cee-dee]

If one of the gizmos fails on a car, you just stop at the side of the road and either fiddle with it, call out the AA (Green Flag or RAC etc) or just carry on if the vehicle still keeps going. If it's dead, you've got to wait for assistance if you can't fix it.

However, in a plane, what do you do? You're supposed to Aviate, Navigate and Communicate in that order. Simply put, you're supposed to FLY the plane but pilots get confused by the complexity and forget, then have to get out of things in a panic (or crash!).

[evoman3957]

cee-dee.........I think you'll find that the main difference between Cars and Planes, is that parts in Cars remain until they fail ( or until the owner upgrades or replaces them out of choice ) but parts in Planes; are time sensitive. ie. They are replaced after so many air miles, whether they are faulty or not. That, of course, doesn't mean ( in some cases ) they don't fail unexpectedly, while in service.

[electric*mayhem*band]

Got yourself a brand new state-of-the-art curved television, Evo ? Pinned to the wall flat screens are sooooo last year.

[evoman3957]

One thing I will say though, on the subject of Cars. I have driven extremely high performance Cars, most of my life, My current EVO being one of the most "Brutal" I have driven and I've had it now for 12 Years ( been suped up big time ). I was in a Garage on Monday with it, when I young lad ( 19 years old ) came in to pick up a Nissan GTR that He'd bought. Now, these Cars are bristling with computer technology; which practically keeps them on the road, whatever the driver is doing. The downside, is that people don't learn how to drive them properly and don't learn about the limitations of the car, or of themselves. A lot of people have received serious injuries, or been killed driving these Cars; probably why His insurance was £3500 a Year. Many Cars are the same, to a lesser extent and it takes away the true driving skills and heeps the responsibility onto a computer. Computers have no feel or sixth sense and just take the vehicle to the Max. that they're programming will allow..........and then "Let Go". People forget all too easily that "Man" programs Computers........NOT the other way round.

[evoman3957]

No.........just a good old "Flat Screen" TV..........great Picture......that'll do just fine.

[cee-dee]

I'm well aware about the time limited parts on aircraft and that unless maintenance has been criminally ignored, the components are usually OK but that doesn't cover the electronics which, at times has a mind of it's own.

A prime example is the problems with one of the Boeing 737's radio altimeters which can show the plane is at -8 feet when it's actually a couple of thousand feet in the air. As far as I'm aware, that problem still exists on occasions.

[evoman3957]

I agree........you still can't beat good old "Eyes", some people still don't believe what they see though. In the Land of the Blind........the one Eyed Man is King !!

[upthecreekyetagain]

The systems in the Boeing 777 may be complex and as the NTSB reported 'may' have contributed to that particular accident.

On the other hand also according to the article this was the first fatal crash involving that plane type and since manufacturing started nearly 20 years Boeing 777s are estimated to have made 55 million landings.  Does anyone really think that had the systems been simplified and not included all the 'pilot aids' the 777 has that there would have been fewer accidents.

I tend to agree in general that many systems seem to be made complex for complexities sake but I don't think the particular example chosen supports that argument.