[QUOTE]Originally posted by itb76
Bugs bite Mercedes quality
Glitches lead to go-slower approach

By Diana T. Kurylko
Automotive News / September 15, 2003

FRANKURT -- Top executives at Mercedes-Benz admit that a wave of increasingly complex electronic products proved so difficult to debug that the German automaker is modifying its first-at-all-costs approach to technology.


I have worked for two of the major aircraft manufacturers since 1987 and now work at NASA. My work has always focused on improving flight deck pilot features. One saying that Boeing always had was that their approach toward flight deck change was "evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary". Perhaps this latter statement has something to do with the current MB situation. I say this only because it seems that there has been an exponential leap in the options/technology on MB cars over the past, say, 6 years.

As you increase the frills on any device, it will usually require more monitoring and the overall mean time between failure will also usually begin to increase. I am a confirmed MB fan, but I do have issues with the modern MBs. Too much fancy stuff on them that are what we would call "desirements" as opposed to "requirements".

While I am not resistant to technology, my feeling is that you should use technology only when there is a demonstrable "problem" that will increase safety or reduce operator workload. An example from MB's newer models: does Distronic really add to increasing driver safety? What happens when I am driving on a road with alot of curves? How will the radar on the car react? Or an electronic trunk closer? Can't I walk around and close the trunk myself? Seems like it would be better (and cheaper) to make sure that students in drivers ed classes learn good driving techniques [i.e., maintain sufficient distance between the cars in front of you under differing road conditions and to modify driving habits on different roads].

I am a full blown capitalist and if the market wants these neat options, fine. Just be prepared to pay the potential cost of the increasing complexity down the road (pun intended). These systems (and ones I have not even mentioned) are complex. Sensors are required for system health and so is radar. These things can fail (of course, you can take the 10^-9 aero reliability standard, but that will cause the prices to shoot up further).

Perhaps MB needs to take a lead from the aero field and stop trying to implement technology for the sake of implementing technology. But again, the car and aero markets are different in the sense that if someone will pay for some neat but unnecessary auto feature, it will probably find its place on the next car model. In aero, you have to PROVE to the airline bean counters that a feature will inclease safety, improve passenger comfort, decrease pilot workload, or improve operations and reduce maintainence costs. Hmmmm. Interesting contrast, huh?

A wise engineer once paraphrased an old saying: if you have a technology hammer, everything looks like a problem nail. When you consider a new generation aircraft, you don't start with a blank slate--you start with the systems that are known to work and then identify issues that are causing problems. Systems that are proven to work are kept the way they are. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. From this baseline, only then are new systems even considered. And it usually takes a decade from when a plane is first conceived to when test flights begin.

People who look into cockpits when they fly on commercial planes probably think that every new aircraft comes out with 100 new features. Not true. In the last 15 years, the major systems that have been added are terrain collision avoidance systems, wind shear systems, and improved landing capabilities for low visibility ops. Some of the biz jets and a small number of commercials who fly into really bad visibilities have added enhanced vision systems, but most commercial aircraft do not yet have this latter feature.

The most current work is being done on providing aviation weather from the ground to the cockpit and turbulence alering. Some of the weather systems are now on GA airctaft, but the commercials are still waiting to see what the best system will be. I've been working on both of these areas for the past 4 years on the commercial side and we are still working with the manufacturers to test them.

The difference I see between air and auto is that the high end car companies are putting all sorts of new features on their cars, which (a) add to the complexity and (b) are "nice to have" things.

I drive a MB because I have found it to be a reliable car, it is a very comfortable car to drive on long trips, it has very good safety features, will last decades if it is cared for by the owner(s), and I find that is handles very well under all sorts of road conditions. I have never bought a MB new, but waited 3 or 4 years and bot used after careful inspection. I have a good MB dealer.

Just my two cents as someone who works with hi-tech everyday.

- Jon

__________________
- Jon E320 210.055

90 Wrangler
77 Mustang 307,000 mi
63 T-Bird [fully restored]