Future of Electronics In Aviation

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 20, 9:55 pm, Steve Hix
wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:15 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote stuff:
Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
things that distract you from paying attention
That's my wife's job when we fly.

I'm too busy trying to stay ahead of the airplane, avoid traffic, and
get to where we're headed.

so that you don't
collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
When she gets her license, then I can take pictures.

I have heard a lot of pilots complain that they cannot enjoy the
scenery when they are PIC. The pilot I flew with said he liked for me
to take the controls because he could enjoy the scenery for a change.

Then you really need to be more careful with whom you are flying. There
is no reason a competent pilot shouldn't be able to enjoy the view
during the en-route portion of the flight.


It should be possible to have it both ways - "flying" as Dan calls it,
or sitting back and relaxing and enjoying the scenery, with more
advanced form of auto-pilot, with multiple cameras streaming entire
flight to 1TB hard disk, of course.



The technology has been around a long time to take in flight video. But
I want it in live 3D NOT on a TV screen after the flight.

On Jun 20, 8:27*pm, wrote:
* Just a gimmick addict, I think you are. If you want to fly, fly. if
you want to take pictures or listen to music or do a lot of other
things that distract you from paying attention so that you don't
collide with other airplanes or get lost on a cross-country, then find
some other means of travel, like in an airliner.
* * * Super-complex airplanes operated by computers that allow the
dumbest and most inattentive people into the air are just a disaster
waiting to happen, and they'd be so expensive that none of us would be
flying if we had to buy them. We fly the airplanes we fly because we
can afford them and because we want to FLY, not play with computers
and pretend to be pilots. Piloting involves learning some challenging
skills, which is why most of us do it. Restoring an old car or truck
like I did also involves a wide range of skills, which is why I did
it. I could go buy a new car that has so many safety gimmicks, like
antiskid brakes, but that involves nothing more than spending money
and there's absolutely no challenge to that. Besides, things like
antskid brakes are well known to make dumber drivers who just stand on
the brakes and trust the vehicle to prevent a skid into the snowbank,
and soon enough that driver, because he no longer has to learn the
feel of the surface, gets onto a slippery-enough surface that the
system cannot save him and he crashes good and proper. Along the
freeways here during snowstoms the vehicles in the ditch or upside-
down are ALL newer cars and SUVs. The drivers of non-antiskid cars
have to watch what they're doing and it makes them more aware of the
conditions.
Safety systems, indeed. Computers still cannot replace the human brain
and won't be able to do all that that brain can do for a long time, if
ever.
* * * *So use your head. Go learn to fly and stop trolling just to
infuriate us. We'll be asking how the lessons are going.

I think you post gets at the root of the matter.

I think many of the pilots who object to my point of view object on
the grounds that you outline above. Essentially, flying is a hobby
for them, and they take pleasure in the knobs, dials....

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

Then what? Will all the private pilots who like the feel of their
Bravo demand that state-of-art state remain stagnant?

Will you speak for those who might like a vehicle as outlined by NASA/
CAFE/PAV?

If some organization is successful in building such a vehicle, one
that relies mostly on computers, will you object? If the safety is not
as dire as indicated in this thread, on what ground will you object?
"Well, simply put Mr. Administrator, we do not like the idea of
someone flying a vehicle that is insufficiently complex and has too
few knobs and quite frankly is too cheap and does vibrate or make
enough noise or does not overheat or require hangar space or uses fly-
by-wire and has too much cockpit amusement and lends itself to highly-
commoditized components... you see, there is a process that one must
go throuhg, that requires years of hard work and financial
investment...and these new guys are cheating..."

None of these things have anything to do with technical feasibility.
It has more to do with how currents pilots feel about aviation.

At least it seems that way.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.

Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
world.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 21, 12:45*am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.

Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
world.

So basically you are saying that the FAA, NASA, EAA, AOPA, and Boeing,
are wasting their money sponsoring PAV?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 21, 12:45?am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.

People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.

Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
world.

So basically you are saying that the FAA, NASA, EAA, AOPA, and Boeing,
are wasting their money sponsoring PAV?

Unless you have a computer that is the equivelant of Mr. Data from
Star Trek, there will never be an automatic airplane for every Joe
Sixpack.

Is that clear enough for you?

As to whether or not PAV is a waste of time, basic research generally
eventually results in something usefull, though not necessarily
resulting in the stated object of the original research.

And anyway, automatic airplanes already exist, they just don't carry
people.

Have you ever heard of a Preditor?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 21, 12:45 am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I think the day will come when the average person, one who is not
inclined to do all the things that are required in 2008 to earn a PPL,
will be allowed, and even encouraged, to get into the air, by all the
federal agencies that matter, including the FAA.
People have been daydreaming about automatic cars since the 1930's,
which is an extremely simple subset of the automatic airplane problem.

Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

You are a comic book reading babbler with no connection to the real
world.

So basically you are saying that the FAA, NASA, EAA, AOPA, and Boeing,
are wasting their money sponsoring PAV?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Yes, if the outcome is a PAV as outlined by CAFE. That really isn't what
they are trying for though. Look at the prizes CAFE is giving out. They
are looking for evolutionary changes that can be brought into the
current fleet. Not revolutionary changes.

wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 19:35:25 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge


Here's a concept that should be pursued:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/pr97-12/p32.htm
Actual Hands-off Steering:
And Other Wonders of the Modern World

by Bob Bryant

This article discusses the demonstration of automated
highway system technologies by the National Automated Highway
System Consortium, in which the federal Highway Administration is
a partner; in San Diego, Calif., on Aug 7 to 10, 1997. See "Demo
'97: Proving AHS Works" of the July/August 1997 issue of Public
Roads for a general description of the demonstration, its
background, the demonstration scenarios, and the consortium

Eight car platoon demonstrates vehicles traveling as a unit.
In the platoon scenario, eight cars in a tight formation -
6.5 meters apart - at nearly 105 km/h traveled the demo
course as coordinated unit with the vehicles "communicating"
with each other 50 times per second.
(Photo courtesy of California PATH)
Demo '97

It's magic! Or so it seems -- cars driving themselves.

Well, we know, it's not magic. It's very technical and
explainable -- the logical culmination of years of study,
development, and testing. But that doesn't detract from the wonder
of it all.

It's like the tricks of the master magicians and
illusionists; you know that there is a logical explanation for all
the apparently supernatural feats, but it is still exciting.

You know the magician did not really saw the woman in half,
and the Statue of Liberty did not really disappear. But we're
still amazed. Even if it's not magic, the cars did drive
themselves -- at least without the help of human drivers.

I know that is true hecause I saw them. I even rode in three
of the automated vehicles at Demo '97, the demonstration of
automated high-way system (AHS) technologies in San Diego on Aug.
7 to 10, 1997. I rode in a car, a minivan, and a bus, and it was
exhilarating to barrel down that 12.2-km segment of the Interstate
15 high-occupancy-vehicle lanes at 105 km/h with the drivers' feet
tucked under their seats and their hands in their laps -- truly
"hands-off, feet-off" driving. Even though it is a very overused
cliche, I couldn't help thinking, "Look Ma, no hands -- or feet!"

Demo '97, -- put on by the National Automated Highway System
Consortium (NAHSC), an industry-government-academia collaboration
-- was a congressionally mandated demonstration to prove that it
is technically "feasible" to use these AHS technologies to
significantly alleviate several of the most enduring
transportation problems in the United States -- and in the rest of
the world as well.

AHS addresses three major concerns, explained Bill Stevens,
the NAHSC Program technical director. One is safety; second is
congestion; and the third is environmental problems.

Each year in the United States, more than 40,000 people are
killed and 5 million people are injured in automobile crashes.
Because human error is a leading factor in nine out of 10 crashes
and because AHS promises to significantly reduce the element of
human error, AHS offers a great potential for saving lives and
avoiding injuries.

AHS can reduce congestion and increase mobility in several
ways, but primarily, by being able to safely reduce the distance
between vehicles, AHS "can double or triple the capacity of our
roadways at today's legal speeds and make trips faster and trip
times more reliable by avoiding the backups due to stop-and-go
traffic and congestion," said Jim Rillings, former NAHSC program
manager. Congestion is another leading factor in automobile
crashes; so, reducing congestion will also have safety advantages.

Vehicles traveling in a tight, automated platoon with about
half a vehicle-length interval have a dramatic reduction in
aerodynamic drag that results in a 20-percent to 25-percent
improvement in fuel economy and emissions reduction. AHS will also
have great economic advantages. Today's vehicles are about as
crash-worthy as it is possible to make them within reasonable
cost. Therefore, the automobile companies, as well as the federal
government, are now turning to crash avoidance as a way of
avoiding injuries and death and also as way of saving economic
losses due to crashes, which amount to approximately $150 billion
per year. The economic losses due to highway congestion are in the
neighborhood of $50 billion per year. Adding those up, a sizable
amount of money is lost each year due to motor vehicle crashes and
congestion," Rillings said.

Different approaches to AHS were showcased in seven
different "scenarios" during the demo. Cutting-edge technologies
to provide adaptive cruise control, collision warning, obstacle
avoidance, lane departure warning, and lateral and longitudinal
control (steering and interval) were used to show variations on an
AHS of the future.

The 1,350 passengers who rode in the Demo '97 vehicles were
the first people to experience s...


It appears that it is being pursued by come capable folks:
http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/Videos/

In rec.aviation.piloting Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

I work with Traffic Engineers, state DOT's and FHWA on a regular basis.

Automated traffic crap IS my area of expertise.

I'm well aware of what is out there and the experimental projects.

The statement stands.

If you believe it is just around the corner, somewhere I have a Popular
Mechanics from the 1930's that says the same thing you might like to read.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim Logajan wrote:
wrote:
Automatic cars don't exist and there is little likelyhood the will
exist anytime in the near future.

Um, you may want to start doing a bit of catch-up reading before making any
further categorical statements like the above since you appear to be making
claims outside your realm of knowledge or expertise. It appears you are
probably unaware of current development in this area. Autonomous vehicles
are probably in the near future; this is what DARPA's Grand Challenge was
intended to accomplish:

http://www.darpa.mil/GRANDCHALLENGE/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darpa_grand_challenge

Those aren't for road use. Remember what the D in DARPA stands for.