mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) (06/23/89)
Bill Thacker, the moderator of sci.military, pointed out that a call-for-votes requires two weeks of public discussion. Thus, here's an edited copy of the call-for-votes for sci.aeronautics, which touches on most of the issues: > After consulting with several frequent posters to comp.risks and rec.aviation, > we concluded that it is desirable to have a separate newsgroup dedicated to > airliner technology, particularly concentrating on: safety, human-interface > issues (cockpit and otherwise, concentrating on the burgeoning role of > automation), operations, and general aeronautics. Many of these concepts have > crossover applicability to military and general aviation aircraft. > > The reasoning behind the need for the new newsgroup is based on three > longstanding observations: > > 1. The tendency of airliner technology discussions on comp.risks to > stray too far from the group's charter. > > 2. The tendency of rec.aviation to be oriented around general aviation > operational issues, rather than technology issues, and the consequent > reluctance of many people to avoid participating in rec.aviation. > > 3. The reluctance of some sites to import the rec.* stems, thus strangling > free discussion of what appear to be popular research issues. I should add another comment: The impetus behind sci.aeronautics was largely inspired by the success of sci.military. If someone had told me a year ago that the net could support a consistently high-level technical (non-computer) newsgroup, I wouldn't have believed it. Largely based on e-mail contacts, and the tendency of discussions on airliner issues on comp.risks to balloon until the moderator is forced to yank them, I'm willing to bet that there are enough people out there with interest in the issues that would be discussed in sci.aeronautics. Robert Dorsett Intenet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd
aviator@athena.mit.edu (Joakim Karlsson) (06/23/89)
In article <2524@molokai.sw.mcc.com> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > > >> After consulting with several frequent posters to comp.risks and rec.aviation, >> we concluded that it is desirable to have a separate newsgroup dedicated to >> airliner technology, particularly concentrating on: safety, human-interface >> issues (cockpit and otherwise, concentrating on the burgeoning role of >> automation), operations, and general aeronautics. > >Robert Dorsett I agree wholeheartedly. Since the first time I used rn, I have missed an aeronautical equivalent of sci.space (and know sci.military). Two years back I suggested renaming sci.space to sci.aerospace, since a lot of non- space related aeronautical discussion took place in that group. I am all for sci.aeronautics. Joakim Karlsson || iceman@bellerophon.mit.edu Flying Fanatic in Training || {backbone}!mit-eddie!bellerophon.mit.edu!iceman "Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings"
shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov (06/23/89)
In article <12164@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> aviator@athena.mit.edu (Joakim Karlsson) writes: >In article <2524@molokai.sw.mcc.com> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: >> >> >>> After consulting with several frequent posters to comp.risks and rec.aviation, >>> we concluded that it is desirable to have a separate newsgroup dedicated to >>> airliner technology, particularly concentrating on: safety, human-interface >>> issues (cockpit and otherwise, concentrating on the burgeoning role of >>> automation), operations, and general aeronautics. >> >>Robert Dorsett >I agree wholeheartedly. Since the first time I used rn, I have missed an >aeronautical equivalent of sci.space (and know sci.military). Two years >back I suggested renaming sci.space to sci.aerospace, since a lot of non- >space related aeronautical discussion took place in that group. I am all >for sci.aeronautics. So am I. As an aerospace engineer who works on fighters, I'd really like to have somewhere to discuss common topics with the civil people, for example. Right now we're discussing stall/spin/departure dynamics in sci.military and probably boring everyone else in the group. I didn't even know that airliners had been discussed in comp.risks since I don't read it. I find rec.aviation more oriented to the procedural aspects of flying, with emphasis on the FAA and its ever-wonderful regulations :-), but I'm not a pilot so all of these topics fly right over my head. -- M F Shafer |Ignore the reply-to address NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility |Use shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way.
miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) (06/24/89)
In article <2524@molokai.sw.mcc.com>, mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > > After consulting with several frequent posters to comp.risks and > > rec.aviation, we concluded that it is desirable to have a separate > > newsgroup dedicated to airliner technology, particularly concentrating on: > > safety, human-interface issues (cockpit and otherwise, concentrating on > > the burgeoning role of automation), operations, and general aeronautics. I'm sure it will come as no surprise to Robert that I am very much in favor of the establishment of such a group. Whether or not I could receive it is another question; due to site problems I can post to but not receive rec.aviation, sci.military, and most of my other favorites. On the other hand I receive comp.risks without problems but apparently can no longer post to it. $#@$#! modern technology! -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
lex@NRC.COM (Lex Mierop) (06/24/89)
In article <2524@molokai.sw.mcc.com> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > After consulting with several frequent posters to comp.risks and rec.aviation, > we concluded that it is desirable to have a separate newsgroup dedicated to > airliner technology, particularly concentrating on: safety, human-interface > issues (cockpit and otherwise, concentrating on the burgeoning role of > automation), operations, and general aeronautics. Many of these concepts have > crossover applicability to military and general aviation aircraft. You seem to have cornered this into implementation issues. I feel it should also be a forum for "design" issues such as airfoil design, wing loading, power loading, etc. Any problems with this? BTW, I am cross-posting this to rec.models.rc, because we do aeronautical design stuff too. Later, -- Lex Mierop - Network Research | #include <cute_quote.h> Internet/uucp: lex@nrc.com | US Snail: 2380 Rose Avenue; Oxnard, CA 93030 U.S.A. tel. 805-485-2700
dgee@cup.portal.com (David O Goodman) (06/26/89)
In <2524@molokai.sw.mcc.com> mentat@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes: > After consulting with several frequent posters to comp.risks and rec.aviation, > we concluded that it is desirable to have a separate newsgroup dedicated to > airliner technology, particularly concentrating on: safety, human-interface > issues (cockpit and otherwise, concentrating on the burgeoning role of > automation), operations, and general aeronautics. ... I agree completely. The discussions which Robert mentions have been found in rec.aviation, comp.risks, sci.military, and elsewhere. We could certainly use a single forum for discussion of commercial aviation issues and technology, as opposed to rec.aviation, which deals largely with general procedural aviation matters. -- Dave Goodman dgee@cup.portal.com ...sun!portal!cup.portal.com!dgee