The Instigator
ItalianMan
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hayd
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Airbus computer systems (avionics) are too sophisticated for pilots to use.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Hayd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 298 times Debate No: 87161
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

ItalianMan

Pro

Aviation in the past decades has been more and more safe with sophisticated computer taking care of to complex task for pilots. But recently, various aviation experts supported the fact that we are going too far on aircraft automation and that flying became not anymore piloting, but managing computer systems and electronic inputs.

If you like and care about aviation, please challenge me in this debate.
Hayd

Con

Pro's only argument for the motion is that aviation experts agree with him. This is an appeal to authority. Pro needs to explain why this is true, not that a person of authority agrees with him. Thus Pro's entire side thus far is negated, and has no impact.

I'd also like to point out that Pro has the full BoP since he is making a claim, and thus has to affirm it.
Debate Round No. 1
ItalianMan

Pro

During the last years, the NTSB (the national transportation safety board, responsible for investigating air accidents) made report recommendations to several airline companies as well as the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to improve manual pilot flying skills and several automation systems removed, such as the selection of VOR by pilots on certain airports and the reductions of VOR and localizers. Following the crash of Asiana Airlines flight 214, investigators uncovered almost no experience form either pilots on manual flying and landing of the triple 7. This was very alerting, especially for a Boeing crew, because Boeing aircraft are made in such way that pilots have greater control on the aircraft, and it is assumed that pilots have manual flying skills already acquired to fly these airplanes. Airbus, on the other hand, lets the avionics and the autopilot to reject a pilot's request if the request doesn't match the appropriate action to take. According to William Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, pilots may not be trained to transition quickly in a crisis from monitoring an automated flight to piloting a complex aircraft. "We have to get back to automation as a tool to manage the aircraft," he says. "It should be serving us, not the other way around."
Hayd

Con

Pro's first argument is that the NTSB made recommendations to remove some automation systems. First of all, this does not affirm the resolution. Pro needs to show that pilots to the best of their ability simply cannot use the systems at all. Showing that flying skills would improved if some systems were removed does not show that the pilots cannot use the system at all. Thus this argument has no impact since it is irrelevant. Even if we accept that it is relevant, it is another appeal to authority fallacy. Just because the NTSB says you're right doesn't mean you are right. Pro needs to explain why he is right.

Pro also plagarized his entire response, see here
http://www.popularmechanics.com...

Thus he loses conduct and argument points for breaking the law, and not coming up with any arguments of his own.
Debate Round No. 2
ItalianMan

Pro

First of all, I, the Pro, didn't plagiarize at all, because all the paragraph was written by myself and the last statement made by an aviation expert was in quotations; it isn't necessary to rewrite a whole sentence meaning the same opinion when you want to have a solid proof of the saying of the expert. On the other hand, you, the Con, should defend your position and counter-argue my statements by simple facts that are logical and precise, instead of moralizing my statements and my sayings. And about the NTSB and the FAA, both represent national American agencies officially accredited by the U.S. government, so when a statement is made, it should be considered true and serious, because extensive research and studies have been made. Upon this, here is another argument:

Electrical systems and computer management are becoming more and more complex every discovery and perfection we make. This is so well done, that even the professionals in the subject and every day users of sophisticated avionics and aircraft technology can no longer completely understand the complex mechanisms of actions in the flight computer. This in big part due to the amount of individual parts in our complicated machines that have exponentially increased over the past 200 years. A good example of an airline systems that has become notoriously overwhelming for pilots to use is the elaborated Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). TCAS warns pilots of inbound airline traffic in the path of the aircraft showing the imminent collision on a screen. While avoiding midair collision is a complex problem in itself, the avionics controlling the anti-colliding system has essentially become too complicated for us to understand, and even experts sometimes react with surprise to its behavior.
Hayd

Con

1) You did plagarize, just click on the link.

2) In regards to TCAS, my pilots say it is the easiest system to use in the world, and I own the largest pilot corporation in the world, so I am more right.

#negated
Debate Round No. 3
ItalianMan

Pro

I would be curious to know what pilot corporation you own, with the number of staff present and in operation, the airline companies involved, the airliners in operation, the organisation's purpose and your relationships with the FAA, the BEA, the European Union and the ICAO. And, like you said in your second round, "Just because someone says you're right doesn't mean you are right." So, theoretically, you are contradicting yourself, saying that your pilots are right and their opinion about the system. And, who knows, this information could be biased because your take the information from your own pilots that could support you. Anyways, here is my last and final argument:

About the crash of Asiana Airlines that occurred on July 6, 2013, the NTSB concluded that the probable cause of the accident was the unintended cut-off of the 777's automatic airspeed control. According to aviationweek.com publishing the opinion of a group of experts at the NTSB, "An action that investigators linked in part to the pilot's confusion about the operations of the Flight Level Change (FLCH) mode of the automatic flight control system. Mode confusion topped the list of five contributing factors, with investigators finding that "complexities of the auto-throttle and autopilot flight director systems that were inadequately described in Boeing"s documentation and Asiana"s pilot training" increased the likelihood of mode error."
Hayd

Con

Pro questions whether I am in charge of a pilotry company. I am, and it is larger than all of the others. If Pro and the judges accept that statement as true, then I win because the amount of pilots I have outweighs all that Pro brings up. If Pro and the judges don't accept that statement, then they similarily cannot accept Pro's case since it is the same exact claim/impact/argument. Since full BoP is on Pro, my case/argument doesn't have impact, only Pro's does.

On Pro's last argument, that mistake was as a result of inadequate description in the pilot training, not the system itself. Thus we cannot conclude from that argument that Airbus systems are a cause, or have correlation. Pro does not fulfill the resolution, I win.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
ItalianManHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
ItalianManHaydTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: plagairism from Pro. Pro, don't lie, everyone knows in the internet