Oh no not again.
but don’t forget Airbus is the company that makes the stellar user interfaces responsible for more “controlled flight into terrain” than any other
Well the 737 MAX was basically Boeing trying and failing to use software to fix aerodynamic problems, so I think in the end, airbus were right. Software heavy aircraft are the right way to go.
Trains are still better.
Skyvan goes “bus”.
I’m very interested in how they deal with that much electrical power density. One of the liabilities that DC power has in these birds is that once an arc starts, it doesn’t self-quench the way AC does.
(This reminder brought to me by $SON who actually worked on a battery-powered research aircraft – and I don’t mean small.)
In that case you will not be disappointed by this:
Human-powered, so it could not be more bird-like.
By the same team that has the human-powered speed record on land (144.17 km/h).
“If God had intended humans to fly, He would never have given us the railway.”
– Flanders and Swann
Great link, thanks for the reply!
I don’t disagree, but I think not fixing the UX for over a decade was a very bad idea (and if still not fixed, remains so).
I worked in air traffic control software for twelve years. Aviation is different from other fields. A few factors which I think might have been at play are:
These factors combine to make the industry extremely resistant to needless change, quite the opposite of front end design generally.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
