Beyond HOTAS and FADEC - AI ???

[Rich S.]

As I read more about the Third Industrial Revolution, the chapter on AI has
come into scrutiny. We are nibbling at the edges of intelligent monitoring
of our powerplants, however the inclusion of the pilot in the loop seems to
be the weak point. All the Red Arcs, Warning flags, Alarm tones and Wigwag
signs fail when applied to the brain of an otherwise occupied or tired
pilot.

Why not bypass this roadblock and construct a program that will take into
account *all* of the parameters of a normal engine operation, add to that a
learning curve and apply the results to the throttle? It would have to have
a lot more than that, including a way to let the pilot know why he must deal
with an engine that will only give him half throttle for the next ten
minutes and he'd better damn well find a place to land before things get
quiet.

There are already programs and equipment like this in service
http://www.intapp.co.uk/ so it wouldn't be something new.

Thoughts?

Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.

[Bill Daniels]

Thousands of pilotless UAV's fly every day. Some of them are really big and
fly fast and high. The remote "operator" only selects the course and
altitude to be flown and computers take care of the rest. This isn't news.

The only obstacle to pilotless commercial aircraft is customer acceptance.
Compared to a driverless car, a pilotless aircraft is easy. Even your car
is likely to be "throttle-by-wire" with a computer controlling the details.

The Pentagon is committed to UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) The
machines will have to ask a human for permission to fire - for now. (How'd
you like to be a refueling boom operator or a LSO looking down the
gunbarrels of an aerial 'bot?)

So, why not FADEC engine controls or smart autopilots? The best automation
takes over the routine boring tasks and lets the human work on the big
picture. Humans do a far better job of the big picture strategic problems
than computers do. Computers beat the hell out of humans on the boring
stuff.

Give me a "single lever" power control. Push for more power and pull for
less. Let a computer sweat the small stuff.

Bill Daniels



"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> As I read more about the Third Industrial Revolution, the chapter on AI
has
> come into scrutiny. We are nibbling at the edges of intelligent monitoring
> of our powerplants, however the inclusion of the pilot in the loop seems
to
> be the weak point. All the Red Arcs, Warning flags, Alarm tones and Wigwag
> signs fail when applied to the brain of an otherwise occupied or tired
> pilot.
>
> Why not bypass this roadblock and construct a program that will take into
> account *all* of the parameters of a normal engine operation, add to that
a
> learning curve and apply the results to the throttle? It would have to
have
> a lot more than that, including a way to let the pilot know why he must
deal
> with an engine that will only give him half throttle for the next ten
> minutes and he'd better damn well find a place to land before things get
> quiet.
>
> There are already programs and equipment like this in service
> http://www.intapp.co.uk/ so it wouldn't be something new.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.
>
>

[[email protected]]

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Thousands of pilotless UAV's fly every day. Some of them are really big and
> fly fast and high. The remote "operator" only selects the course and
> altitude to be flown and computers take care of the rest. This isn't news.
>
> The only obstacle to pilotless commercial aircraft is customer acceptance.
> Compared to a driverless car, a pilotless aircraft is easy. Even your car
> is likely to be "throttle-by-wire" with a computer controlling the details.



Just think back a couple of years ago when demonstrating their
"wonderfull and fully intelligent" autothrottle system when the Airbus
crashed into the trees.....

I for one want a warm body in the cockpit and not just a bunch of
silica...

Craig C.

[Blueskies]

> wrote in message ups.com...
....
>
> Just think back a couple of years ago when demonstrating their
> "wonderfull and fully intelligent" autothrottle system when the Airbus
> crashed into the trees.....
>
> I for one want a warm body in the cockpit and not just a bunch of
> silica...
>
> Craig C.
>
>

....that crash was due to pilot error....

[Montblack]

("Rich S." wrote)
> Thoughts?
>
> Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.


Close...

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Ultimate_Computer

http://www.ericweisstein.com/fun/startrek/TheUltimateComputer.html


Montblack

[Morgans]

> wrote

> I for one want a warm body in the cockpit and not just a bunch of
> silica...


Agreed, but I sure do like the idea of saying I want more power - I'll push
on this lever, instead of, "I want more power, so I have to do: mixture pull
to rich, push off carburetor heat, push throttle in, propeller governor to
high RPM. NOW I get to go.

I want it like a car. Push on the gas, and go fast.
--
Jim in NC

[Rich S.]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I want it like a car. Push on the gas, and go fast.

Jim............

The existing controls do that. I was thinking more along the lines of AI
that would monitor fuel flow, fuel remaining, oil pressure & temp., cyl.
head temp., EGT, vibration, noise, trace oil analysis, and every other
possible condition affecting engine operation. If it finds something needing
maintenance or needing engine shutdown, it will analyze the situation and
take corrective action. If you behave yourself and talk nice, it may let you
decide to ruin the engine to save your butt. Then again, it may not. . .
:^)

Rich "What was that Zeroth Law of Robotics?" S.

[Morgans]

"Rich S." > wrote
>
> The existing controls do that. I was thinking more along the lines of AI
> that would monitor fuel flow, fuel remaining, oil pressure & temp., cyl.
> head temp., EGT, vibration, noise, trace oil analysis, and every other
> possible condition affecting engine operation.

Yeah, I caught that, but I was responding to cvairwerks, this time.

I do agree with you, but that is a lot to ask for, when we can't even get
one lever power control, right? <g>

Really, the idea could be done one less, and be a master annunciator when an
instrument's readout started too far in a direction, and let you know with a
yellow, and where the problem is. If you didn't address it, then you get a
red warning. It would be good if it would suggest corrections, too, if it
couldn't be made to fix it by itself.

Your way sounds great - get right on it, and let me know when it's done.
<vbg>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:22:47 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

>There are already programs and equipment like this in service
>http://www.intapp.co.uk/ so it wouldn't be something new.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.

Rich, while the site implied that there were aero applications, I was
unable to find any examples. Do you know, has this software actually
been applied to an aircraft turbine?

If not, then this is just still imaginitive conceptualizing.

Corky Scott

[jc]

Blueskies wrote:

>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com... ...
>>
>> Just think back a couple of years ago when demonstrating their
>> "wonderfull and fully intelligent" autothrottle system when the Airbus
>> crashed into the trees.....
>>
>> I for one want a warm body in the cockpit and not just a bunch of
>> silica...
>>
>> Craig C.
>>
>>
>
> ...that crash was due to pilot error....

According to the "black boxes" at the French (airbus) enquiry which looked
different to the news photos of them being removed from the crash site.

Most common last words of an Airbus pilot "What it doeing now"

Failure is not an option it comes packaged with your microsoft package
refer USS Yorktown.

--

regards

jc

LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or
sanity of the author is not guaranteed

EMAIL - and are not valid email
addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:41:24 +1000, jc > wrote:

>Failure is not an option it comes packaged with your microsoft package
>refer USS Yorktown.

What does this mean?

Thanks, Corky Scott

[Rich S.]

> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:22:47 -0700, "Rich S." wrote:
>
>>There are already programs and equipment like this in service
>>http://www.intapp.co.uk/ so it wouldn't be something new.
>
> Rich, while the site implied that there were aero applications, I was
> unable to find any examples. Do you know, has this software actually
> been applied to an aircraft turbine?
>
> If not, then this is just still imaginitive conceptualizing.

Corky.........

I haven't seen any applications, either. It just came to mind that the
concept could apply to either turbines (which not too many of us have) or
recips. Kind of a maintenance god (note small "g") who would watch every
parameter of operation, leaving us to fly the plane. Or glider if it shuts
off the fan.

I hate to see those flat-panel displays in the new instrument panels going
to waste just displaying rpm, oil temp., EGT, etc. We only check the
readings every ten minutes or so, especially when flying over gorgeous
mountain terrain.

Imaginitive conceptualizing. Yup, that's what I was doing, alright.

Rich S.

[jc]

wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:41:24 +1000, jc > wrote:
>
>>Failure is not an option it comes packaged with your microsoft package
>>refer USS Yorktown.
>
> What does this mean?
>
> Thanks, Corky Scott

The incident with the USS Yorktown where all non combat systems were done on
an NT network (engine, steering etc). A divide by zero error in a program
brought the whole network down and the ship had to be towed to port.
--

regards

jc

LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or
sanity of the author is not guaranteed

EMAIL - and are not valid email
addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.