Talk:Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Robotics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Duplicate: Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot duplicates scope of Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot and should merge there

Any merger will likely go in the opposite direction, see below. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

A request has been received at Proposed Mergers noticeboard to merge Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot into Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot; reason: duplicate. The latter article is more developed and should be the target, the former is a stub. Appropriate re-naming can take place after the merger. Therefore, I am copying discussion to here; any further discussion should take place below. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate: Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot duplicates scope of Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot and should merge there

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support - The Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot page is incorrect - There was no 2007 contract to install the BUAP, that was just the date that Boeing admitted to the ALREADY INSTALLED patent of 2003. They had to admit this because they were being sued by an American pilot. The technical evidence shows that it was first installed in 1995 in the AIMS-1 and significantly upgraded in AIMS-2 in 2000. It was first witnessed in action in late 1996. - Noordinaryjohn
Support - These pages are redundant and this article is in much better shape. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The question of which title is correct; "Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot" or "Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot", has not been addressed yet, so the direction of the merge is not clear at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dodger67 - for years it was called the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot however my recent research shows that the hardware, software and the patent's implementation rests with Boeing and Honeywell (via the Apollo and Darkstar aided by the Technology Reinvestment Project with NASA assisting with fly-by-wire and the glass-cockpit). Thus the (noun) Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot (BHUAP) which is backed up fully with documentation, citations, patents, precedents, type-certificates etc. My vote is for Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot. By the way, Gaan die Bokkies! John (Noordinaryjohn) (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge under Uninterruptible autopilot--Petebutt (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except this isn't on the general topic of "uninterruptible autopilots" it's on the subject of a specific implementation/product line -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this article is about a specific piece of equipment made by a specific manufacturer, thus the article title should actually be the manufacturer's official designation - what does the label on the box say? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might make sense to go with BHUAP, if that's the best current name, and make sure it incorporates a section on the BUAP precursor, plus a redirect from a BUAP page. Chris Rodgers (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this thing actually really exist? Can an airline call their local Honewell dealers and buy these things? Or is it just vaporware? There is no evidence in the article that this is a real physical product (yet), which might go a long way towards explaining why we don't know its actual name. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris and Roger, the system exists as per Boeing's admission in 2007 (see citations on BHUAP) - as to what they call it, well they kept it secret from 1995 to 2007 when they were sued so it never really got a name. Honeywell called it the "Unauthorized Flight Detector" in their patent but it isn't another box per se. It is a set of sub-routines within the AIMS LRU's, but more than that, it is integrated into the entire architecture of the computer system, uninterruptible secondary power supply etc, involving both Boeing and Honeywell (Honeywell are also talking to Airbus about it). I have the full patent history back to 1970 which will be published in due course. It came into being in civil aircraft through the Technology Reinvestment Project, initially into Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS - ConAir - Christine Marcy) aircraft in the early 1990's from its roots in the US air force. Associated with it was the JPALS / LAAS / WAAS Dual-Use technology enabling the interoperability between military and civilian airfields for aircraft to perform Cat 3C landings. There are examples of its use however I can't put them in the BHUAP page. John (Noordinaryjohn) (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't a manufacturers name, then it gets interesting. Leaving the patents aside, what do independent sources refer to this "device" as? We might have to use a descriptive title. In which case the Capitals get the heave-ho and you end up with something like Boeing-Honeywell uninterruptible autopilot system. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was just called Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot however Honeywell are also the principle architects. Agree with your suggestion "the Capitals get the heave-ho and you end up with something like Boeing-Honeywell uninterruptible autopilot system". Additionally, the information on the "Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot" page is incorrect so I'd suggest it is replaced with the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot article. If you compare the two you'll see they are essentially the same system.John (Noordinaryjohn) (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot was independently researched and published by 21st Century News Wire last week. They have called it the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot System. John (Noordinaryjohn) (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about "independently researched" - apart from reference to this Wikipedia article, a lot of the elements about early UAVs etc read (at first glance) like sections from Wikipedia articles. Wouldn't be the first case of journalists researching articles from Wikipedia. (I note in passing the credit for the early model B-24 phot seems incorrect). Are we sure they didn't copy the "device" name from here? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not sure Graeme, sounds plausible that it was now that you mention it. My research was specifically on the avionics architecture and sub-systems, defense patent pools and defense politics at the time. We have both used a couple of common sources when it comes to the avionics - I can tell from the wording used on the Boeing and Honeywell websites. Considering it was done quietly by Boeing and Honeywell years before it became public, and for obvious reasons no-one wants to blow the whistle at Boeing, we don't know what they named it. I'm not particularly hung up on whether Honeywell gets a mention in the name or not. But looking elsewhere on the web, Boeing-Honeywell seems to have stuck. Just to clarify, it isn't a device, it is software coding built around the AIMS architecture. Honeywell did most of the coding for the autopilot and all of the coding for the AIMS, sanctioned by Boeing.John (Noordinaryjohn) (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General page clean up

I have removed a lot of content from this page that was either not supported by reliable sources, or was not supported by any sources at all. Self-published material, or primary sources such as patent grants/applications don’t generally meet the standards for Wikipedia sources. Please refer to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources M Stone (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three irrelevant categories

There are three irrelevant categories, called "NiBBa", "YawwwwwYeet", and one more, I can't remember it off the top of my head. Can we please remove the tags? 198.147.198.121 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]