Talk:Ground proximity warning system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

I changed this statement (because it was not accurate):

"Since the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration required large airplanes to carry such equipment in 1974, there has not been a single CFIT crash by a jet in U.S. airspace.[2]"

to read as follows:

"Since the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration required large airplanes to carry such equipment in 1974, there has not been a single passenger fatality, in a CFIT crash by a large jet in U.S. Airspace.[2]"

Although the original statement was derived from a speech by a FAA expert [2], it was not accurate, since there were three CFIT crashes of large jets in US airspace, after 1974.

---

December 18, 1977, a UAL DC-8 freighter crashed into high terrain, while in a holding pattern, near Salt Lake City.

---

April 13, 1987, a Buffalo Airways 707-321C freighter crashed short of the runway, while conducting an ILS approach to the Kansas City airport.

---

June 2, 1990, a Mark Air 737-200 crashed into rising terrain, while it was conducting a non-precision approach to the Unalakleet, Alaska airport.

All three were CFIT crashes of large jets, and all three only had flight crew and/or authorized company personnel on board. I also inserted the word "large," because there have been one or more small jet (Lear Jet size) CFIT accidents too.

EditorASC 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge with Bitching Betty

Probably not a necessarily good idea since, at least for military fast jet aircrew, "Bitching Betty" (also called "Nagging Nora" in UK), is usually understood to include all the voice messages produced by all cockpit warnings, not just those from GPWS. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge, it is a bad idea to merge because other systems, like TCAS, also use cockpit voices --66.32.178.63 (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Eurofighter Typhoon apparenty has over 200 different cockpit voice warnings, only a few of which are associated with GPWS. I would expect other modern fighter aircraft are much the same. A merge here is definitely not a good idea. In fact, more detail on cockpit voice warnings would be a better idea. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dont Merge Although I had never heard of term 'bitchin betty', it is mildly humorous, but it doesnt clarify the source, EGPWS, TCAS, RadAlt, etc.B744B763 (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of eliminating the heading "Bitching Betty" and transferring the technical content to GPWS. Mildly amusing local terms like Bitching Betty, Nagging Nora, Helpful Heather etc have no place in an encyclopedia because if they have a meaning it is unambiguous only in some parts of the world or in some industries. The technical content in Bitching Betty is of high quality and deserves to be located where it can be found by readers using the technically correct name - GPWS. "Bitching Betty" can be re-directed to "GPWS" so that anyone familiar only with the term Bitching Betty can find all the technical information in Wikipedia, and at the same time learn the internationally correct terminology for this equipment. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your point about the heading, Dolphin, but if we do that merge, anyone familiar only with the term Bitching Betty unfortunately won't currently find "all the technical information" relevant to Cockpit Voice Warning Systems, but only the GPWS part. In commercial aircarft its usually only the GPWS, ICAWS, TCAS etc which produces voices, but in the military cockpit practically every system, sub-system and equipment can have a voice warning, all distributed across a complex hierarchy of categories and prioritisation. Similarly, GPWS as a system itself is far more than just the voice inteface end. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge - The only thing that would make sense wrt the 'bitching betty' phrase is a single sentence in this article noting that GPWS is often referred to by that term by pilots (with embedded link to that article). A merge of 'bitching betty' content into this article would be totally out of place, considering that the one is a superset slang word for two or more other systems.

> "Mildly amusing local terms like Bitching Betty, Nagging Nora, Helpful Heather etc have no place in an encyclopedia because"

Sounds like this is a "RFD" in a different guise :) . I'm an inclusionist, but I'd agree that the 'Bitching Betty' article probably could use improvement. It's probably a little longer than is called for, and the "example phrases" section is growing into a list. Could the article itself be renamed to something more appropriate, more "encyclopedic", with a redirect from 'Bitching Betty'? How much slang does wikipedia cover? CraigWyllie (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CraigWyllie's suggestion that the article should be re-named something more encyclopedic. When a user such as the USAF, or an airplane manufacturer, needs to specify the inclusion of a Bitching Betty I'm sure they don't issue a technical document referring to a Bitching Betty - they would use a more appropriate and self-explanatory term. Perhaps they use Simulated Voice Annunciator System, or Audible Crew Alerting Facility. I'm sure you get my drift. Whatever term is used by the industry that designs, manufactures and installs these systems is the term that should be used in Wikipedia. Then, as CraigWyllie has suggested, there could be redirects from Bitching Betty, Nagging Nora and any other mildly amusing terms that flight crew and maintainers have for the equipment. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original Design and Development

Although Don Bateman and team are credited with design and develoment, I think they were working under the old Allied-Signal banner, prior to Honeywell.. EGPWS was definetly developed in late 90's prior to the merger.. Unable to find an authoritive reference. B744B763 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The original patent for a 'Ground Proximity Warning System Utilizing Radio and Barometric Altimeter Combination' No: 3,715,718 was filed by Ralph A. Astengo on Aug 11, 1970 so why is Don Bateman credited with the invention of the GPWS? His patent 3,922,637 only expands on the GPWS to provide added protection during a landing approach using a waypoint signal from an area navigation beacon. The correct inventor should be credited in an entry entitled GPWS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corkery (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)