For this reading response we were asked to dissect two different articles. The first, by Phelps discusses the accusations against a fellow writer of plagiarism. At the beginning of the article, the author discusses the fact that during his schooling, he admired the author in question, Zizek. Phelps discuses the fact that Zizek had attained an almost godlike image and that he, Phelps, strove to be like him. It was after this that Zizek was accused of plagiarism. The author then discusses the fact that plagiarism is a very real problem for those that write frequently. There is a very thin line between quoting too much and quoting too little. If the author quotes too much, that person will be viewed as though they do not know the subject matter that they are discussing. If the quote too little, they could be accused of plagiarism. Most authors that produce large amounts of articles do not have a whole lot of time to spend on the intricacies of citations; therefore they tend to quote less and may face this problem. The author then finishes the article by arguing that he still supports Zizek now that he is more of a successful author. I would argue in favor of the author of this article due to the fact that plagiarism should be thought of in more strict terms. If the term is thrown around too frequently, everyone will be accused of it. Plagiarism should be recognized when the word for word use of someone else’s ideas are used as your own.

The next article is actually an interview with Clay Shirky. First collaboration is discussed; specifically the collaboration relative to three-dimensional printing. The speaker uses the example of parts for a remote control car. The first version of the car might be too heavy and not work with the finished product; however, once uploaded, the community will most likely edit it and make it work properly. I find this interesting due to the fact that I have designed 3D objects for Microsoft Flight Simulator. Once I have become satisfied with the finished product or sufficiently frustrated with it, it gets uploaded to the internet. Once there it is adjusted and edited by the community and eventually is a much better finished product than when I finished my work on it. This community mentality for these two different subjects is a very interesting thing, it allows people to collaborate. When this collaboration occurs, there will most likely be a much better finished product than if created by one person.


Literature Review

Literature Review

Captain’s Training Faulted In Air Crash That Killed 50

By Andy Pasztor


This article, by Pasztor chronicles the events associated with the crash of Colgan Air flight 3407 from Newark, NJ to Buffalo, NY. The article discusses some of the possible causes of the crash that killed fifty people including one person on the ground. This article is not the first to delve into this particular crash as there were many different factors that caused the accident. For example, Geiselman, Johnson and Buck (2013), argue in their article, entitled, “Flight Deck Automation Invaluable Collaborator or Insidious Enabler?” that the crash was caused by myriad factors including overreliance on aircraft systems and poor design of those systems. The authors of this particular article list their credentials at the end of the work and are renowned experts in the aviation field. The Pasztor article that this literature review is referring to is much less scholarly, however.

The title of the article, for example directly shows the reader where the blame for the crash will be placed. Throughout the article, the author attempts to argue that the cause of the accident is strictly the captain, Marvin Renslow. The author then makes presumptuous claims about the pilot’s FAA record that are not supported by quotations or any research for that matter. The author uses terms such as “these people said” (Pasztor, 2009), without referencing which people made the claims. This example is but one of many that riddle this article and help dilute its credibility.

Secondly, the author makes the unsupported claim that Captain Renslow failed many checkrides, (a term that is readily misspelled throughout the article), and claims that the crash was caused by these mistakes. Almost every single pilot that is flying currently has failed checkrides, myself included. These failures do not cause us to crash airplanes and again, the author mars his credibility with such outlandish claims. Pasztor then makes another unsupported claim that First Officer Shaw had a perfect FAA record. If readers contemplate this claim for more than a few seconds, they realize that it is completely flawed. If both crew members are pilots and one has a “dirty” record and one a “clean” record, and both allow the aircraft to crash, than this has nothing to do with the accident. The first officer’s job is to be a leader and active member of the crew of the aircraft in support of the captain. This means that if the captain had a lapse in judgment, the first officer should have reacted in his stead.

This said, this article makes many claims that it cannot support. In order for this article to be a trustworthy work, in text citations must be made in order to back up claims that are made. This author bloviates endlessly on topics he clearly lacks knowledge on. He uses immense amounts of rhetoric to keep readers interested and stop them from realizing he has pulled the wool over their eyes. If readers are interested in a scholarly interpretation of the causes of the crash of Colgan Air 3407, they should look no further than “Flight Deck Automation Invaluable Collaborator or Insidious Enabler?”


Geiselman, E. E., Johnson, C. M., & Buck, D. R. (2013). Flight Deck Automation Invaluable Collaborator or Insidious Enabler?. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 21(3), 22-26.


Pasztor, A. (2009). Captain’s training faulted in air crash that killed 50. Wall Street Journal, May, 11.


Reading Response 7

For this week’s reading response, I chose to read the texts in option “A.”   the required readings for this option are as follows; first, “We Want Privacy, but Can’t Stop Sharing” by Kate Murphy, the next is “Why it’s too Easy to Dismiss Technology Critics…” from Forbes and the final item is a podcast called “Keeping Tabs: Data Surveillance in America.”

The first of these articles, by Kate Murphy, entitled “We Want Privacy, but Can’t Stop Sharing” discusses our addiction with social networking sites and the negative effects of such a dependency. Firstly, the author outlines some of the ways that posts or other digital footprints such as your address on Google Street View can negatively impact you. The author makes it clear that this information can cause you to not get hired or be turned down for a date. The author then cites a German study in which it was argued that there are negative psychological effects of being observed so much and having such limited privacy. It is mentioned that people that are constantly watched have higher heart rate along with other factors. Finally, the author offers some solutions that may help people be tracked less and therefore preserve their privacy.

The second article, “Why it’s too Easy to Dismiss Technology Critics…” discusses flawed attempts to discredit technology critics. This article mainly focuses on attempts against Carr. The offending author, Bustillos apparently uses certain fallacies in the article discrediting Carr. To put it more simply, this author is defending Carr against authors bent on saying that he is paranoid.

The final podcast discusses the history of surveillance and how it came about in the eighteen hundreds. The main speaker in this episode is our president at the University of Richmond, Ed Ayers. Due to the high numbers of scam artists, the government needed a way to monitor people’s credit rating and thus the credit score was born. Finally, the speakers discuss the beginning of the FBI and J Edgar Hoover’s surveillance. Finally, the speakers go into the possible future of government surveillance and how it may affect the US people.

Annotated Bib.

Annotated Bibliography


Wiener, E. L. (1988). Cockpit automation.


The above article is old; this being said, it is actually still relevant to aviation as many of the systems that are being used today were also being used back then in the late 1980s. The article discusses some crashes that have been attributed to over-automation of aircraft also. This topic is out of date as incidents and accidents of more significance have occurred since it was published.


Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1992). Pilot interaction with cockpit automation: Operational experiences with the flight management system. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(4), 303-321.


This article discusses pilot interaction with flight management systems. It discusses instances in which pilots have gone through training on these systems and have still had knowledge gaps during the practical application of these systems. This article is moderately aged; however it still bears significance and is quite trustworthy.


Ale, B. J., Bellamy, L. J., Cooper, J., Ababei, D., Kurowicka, D., Morales, O., & Spouge, J. (2010). Analysis of the crash of TK 1951 using CATS. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 95(5), 469-477.


This article was sought out simply due to the fact that this particular accident is the entire crux of this research. Cockpit automation failed and the pilots failed to react in time due to an over reliance on technology.


Hecht, H. (2011, November). So Much to Learn from One Accident Crash of 737 on 25 February 2009. In High-Assurance Systems Engineering (HASE), 2011 IEEE 13th International Symposium on (pp. 348-351). IEEE.


This article is similar to the one above and it was selected for redundancy and alternative opinions on the Turkish Airlines crash.


Levin, A. (2010). Simulator training flaws tied to airline crashes. USA Today.


This article is about the crash of Colgan Air in Buffalo, NY. This crash has also been attributed to over reliance upon technology by pilots. This accident caused many changes in training and regulations in aviation.


Geiselman, E. E., Johnson, C. M., & Buck, D. R. (2013). Flight Deck Automation Invaluable Collaborator or Insidious Enabler?. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 21(3), 22-26.


This article discusses flight deck automation relative to the Buffalo crash mentioned above. It ties the technology into the crash and paints a picture of what went wrong in this particular situation.


Palmieri, A. P. (1988). U.S. Patent No. 4,774,670. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


This just describes flight management systems and how they relate to aircraft. It will be used to solidify and add credibility to my description of flight management systems.


Cooper, M. G., Elliott, E. M., & Hartzell, D. A. (1987). U.S. Patent No. 4,644,538. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


This is similar to the above document in that it discusses autopilot and flight director systems and will be used to add credibility to my arguments.


Gast, M. E. (1998). U.S. Patent No. 5,803,408. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


This will also be used to describe technical systems in my research.



Reading Response 6

The two articles that we were required to read this week were “What is Evil to Google” by Ian Bogost and “Are We Getting Privacy the Wrong Way Round” by Kieron O’Hara. The first of these articles goes into depth about one of Google’s mottos, “don’t be evil”. The second article delves into the morals of the lack of privacy on the internet.

In terms of the Bogost article, the author first lays out the issue that we face as digital citizens, privacy, or the lack there of. The author discusses the fact that unprofessional internet posts will likely never disappear from the web and could possibly spoil opportunities of getting a job in the future. Even if these posts are deleted, they still can be found by employers and others. This is only one of the many issues that the author discusses relative to the issue of privacy. The next is the fact that users are constantly leaving a digital trail every time they use the web. This information is then collected into a whole and becomes part of big data. Companies then use this gathered information to advertise and create statistics. It is argued by many that this use of personal information is immoral due to the fact that it is used without the consent of the populous.   The author argues that society must regulate this digital world much like the environment.

The other article, about Google’s motto, “don’t be evil,” spends a significant amount of time discussing and dissecting this statement. The author first elaborates on the fact that some think that this might mean that Google has once been pious and since fallen from grace. However, the author then tells us that there is another meaning to the word “evil.” This other meaning is actually a technological colloquialism, meaning something totally different from what we would expect. Evil in this context is used to describe anything that hinders progress of either individuals or companies. The author then spends quite a lot of time discussing how this meaning could be applied to Google’s motto.

All in all, both of these articles are interesting reads, the Bogost article being the most interesting and relevant out of the two. The Bogost article discusses a more pressing matter to society in that it addresses some of society’s biggest fears. Most people have some issue with big data, no matter how small it is.

Reading Response 5

In his article, “Does the Digital Scholarship Have a Future” Edward Ayers defines this term as “most frequently describes discipline-based scholarship produced with digital tools and presented in digital form.” It appears that his thesis statement is the third sentence of the third paragraph; “Yet the foundation of academic life—the scholarship on which everything else is built—remains surprisingly unaltered.” Ayers argues that scholarship is research, digital or in actual text, with the intent to acquire knowledge. Ayers argues that digital scholarship will become part of generative scholarship, an ever changing set of information. The scholarly communication process has been one of reading first and second hand texts typically in libraries. Digital scholarship grows when articles and information are added, therefore it is constantly growing because digital media is a more accessible media.



Wes Van Gelder

October 9, 2014

Knowledge Management



Is Cockpit Technology Causing Pilots to Forget How to Fly?


Currently, the advance of technology is a fast paced, unstoppable force that affects all aspects of our daily lives. For the most part, this is a good thing, allowing for more safety and increased efficiency in all aspects of modern society. However, when it comes to the aviation field, the effects of advanced technology are not so cut and dry. Some experts argue that the increase of technology in this field will lull pilots into a false sense of security and cause them to forget vital emergency procedures. Other experts argue that this technology is able to prevent more accidents than it causes. These are the topics that will be addressed in the research that follows in the next few weeks.






Point 1

Different types of systems

How these have evolved over time

How they assist pilots

Point 2

Accidents that were caused in part by systems

System failures

Other causes of these accident

Point 3

Regulations currently used by FAA

Future regulations

Point 4

Psychology involved in accident

Reaction time

Point 5

How systems prevent accidents

How should pilots fly safely with technology

Arguments on how to mitigate problem



Bush, Mary, and Raymond Miller. “The crash of Colgan Air flight 3407: Advanced techniques in victim identification.” Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 142.12 (2011): 1352-1356.


Cherry, Jane. “Remembering How to Fly: How New Pilot Training Requirements May Do More Harm than Good.” J. Air L. & Com. 77 (2012): 537.


Childs, Jerry M., and William D. Spears. “Flight-skill decay and recurrent training.” Perceptual and motor skills 62.1 (1986): 235-242.