0
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to get this question reopened. It's closed as a duplicate and it is pretty close to one of the linked questions. But I think it has a slight difference.

Honestly I'm just frustrated because I spent part of my lunch hour writing an answer to it and it got closed before I could submit it. I'd post it to the linked question but I'd have to rewrite it to fit (hence the slight difference).

Anybody wanna help my pry it back open just long enough so my answer doesn't languish on the cut/paste clipboard of my phone?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It is labeled as a duplicate of, not one but two questions. Most people did not agree to reopen it either. Can you edit that question to highlight the difference? This way, people might realize the slight difference. $\endgroup$ – Farhan Mar 29 '16 at 23:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Farhan Ooh, you've got your black diamond already! Congrats! I have to say they are pretty close. I prob won't get a reopen on it either way. If I get a moment I might try to pin down the difference and edit $\endgroup$ – TomMcW Mar 29 '16 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Farhan oh, and I don't see how it's even close to a dupe of the first question listed. It's all about recovery, not prevention $\endgroup$ – TomMcW Mar 29 '16 at 23:30
3
$\begingroup$

If I'm completely honest, I feel like the "this is duplicate" reason tacked onto that question may just be a cover for many reasons it could (or should) have been closed. One of which (and my persona reason) is that it's not so much a questions as it is a length suggestion only thinly veiled as a question. The questioner has an interesting idea for an improvement in avionics and is just kind of floating the idea to the stack.

Personally I think the question ought to have been closed as "too broad", because what the author really needs to do is start by fact checking all of his assumptions before coming up with a better proposal. But when presented with the option to leave it closed in the queue, I didn't see a way to indicate why I thought it should be closed. So I just left it as closed with the currently ascribed reason.

One way or another, though, that question really should remained closed. Though I wish we could speak with the original questioner (AirDude) in chat, to see if we could help break the suggestion down into relevant questions that would be better fits for the site.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The questioner has an interesting idea for an improvement in avionics and is just kind of floating the idea I wouldn't say an interesting idea as much as just a lack of understanding. It's definitely not a well written question. It's kind of disjointed and has a ranting tone. His overall question is "why don't they do this?" The answer I had prepared was basically addressing why many of his assumptions are not accurate. It's just that by the time I finished writing my answer it was already on hold. No biggie, though. I agree that it's got several problems and should stay closed. $\endgroup$ – TomMcW Mar 30 '16 at 2:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If its a problem with the question, then you might want to edit the question rather than fixing it in an answer. $\endgroup$ – rbp Mar 30 '16 at 13:31
0
$\begingroup$

I'm in support of reopening this question (I don't agree it should be closed at the first place). The author proposed an interesting solution to a problem. While some answers in other questions are relevant, I don't believe the exact question has been addressed. Thus the author has a valid point (and I'm quite sure he did a quite throughout analysis) in his proposed solution. The problem is that his assumptions (and his understanding of piloting an aircraft in general) are wrong.

The other questions discuss why automation and computers cannot address the problem. The OP's point, if I understand it correctly, is that the power (and knowledge) of computers has not been utilized to their full potential. If a missing data can be interpreted from other parameters by investigators in the post-accident analysis, then sure the onboard computers already had all the information needed to compute that data. The OP's proposal is like, if there are 6 variables in a formula that doesn't add up, and you find out taking out 1 variable and estimating that from the other 5 makes sense, then quite certain we've identified the error variable here.

The question itself may be a bit board, but the way I see it, not a duplicate.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ To be quite frank, the "question" does not pose an interesting solution. It shows a complete lack of understanding of both advanced systems software and the problem space. It contains flawed assumptions and guesses and far from showing "a quite thorough analysis", it suggests to me that the OP is probably a hobbyist programmer with little understanding of the complexities of complex aircraft. $\endgroup$ – Simon Mar 30 '16 at 5:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Simon, that's the point: the OP definitely thinks his solution is "thorough"; you hardly see a question longer than that. He sounds quite confident in his solution. The problem is that his assumptions are wrong. But wrong assumptions don't merit a closure - an answer can lay down, point by point, why his proposal would not work, where does it fall apart. $\endgroup$ – kevin Mar 30 '16 at 9:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @kevin The only difficulty is that this is a QA site, not a "proposal review site". Questions needs to, as best they can, contain a single, answerable question. Sadly, AeroDude's proposal doesn't do this, requiring a multifaceted response instead. Therefore, it's not really a great fit for the site. Though, as I mentioned in my answer, it would be great if he broke the proposal up into it's composite pieces and asked direct questions regarding those. $\endgroup$ – Jay Carr Mar 30 '16 at 13:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .