By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotlessplanes.

In article , Peter Duniho
wrote:

The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
saves a year.

You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
"pilot skill" saves, either. So what?

I'll give you an example: We had an electrical short a few months ago,
causing smoke in the cockpit and cabin. First checklist item for us,
after putting the oxygen masks, is to shut off all electric power.

Had that been a "pilotless airliner," you *couldn't* shut off all
electric power, and the wire would have continued to burn. I doubt it
would have been as uneventful as it turned out with humans at the
controls.

"beavis" wrote in message
...
[...]
Had that been a "pilotless airliner," you *couldn't* shut off all
electric power, and the wire would have continued to burn. I doubt it
would have been as uneventful as it turned out with humans at the
controls.

I don't dispute that one can imagine scenarios where only a human would
help. I don't even dispute that a fully-automated cockpit (no pilot at all)
could still fail (and of course, would fail in ways in which a human never
would).

Your example is meaningless, as would any single example of some event. The
question is who would cause accidents more often: human beings, or
computers. Only a complete statistical study can answer that question;
individual experiences are irrelevant.

That said, the event you describe was most dangerous because of the smoke in
the cabin. A computer wouldn't care about smoke. Yes, the short would
likely cause some failure to other components, but I would expect any
computer-piloted aircraft to include various redundancies and
system-isolation features.

No computer would eat the fish for lunch, either.

To think that a computer couldn't have safely handled the event you describe
is to have a complete lack of imagination for what is possible.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
"george" wrote in message
oups.com...
The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
saves a year.

You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
"pilot skill" saves, either. So what?

And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
spite of other factors.

Yes, it IS unfortunate that so many accidents turn out to be attributable to
"pilot error", and that in spite of other factors, the inspectors CAN still
attribute the accidents to "pilot error". Seems to me you're just making
the point that more automation would be good.

No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.
Many pilots are aware of incidents in their own countries and at their
own airfields where accident inspectors get it wrong and the civil
aviation body of that country maintain the fiction.
Pilots learn from air accident reports.
If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
will always be doubted .

"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..

Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.

Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.

That's because so many accidents are caused by pilot error.

Many pilots are aware of incidents in their own countries and at their
own airfields where accident inspectors get it wrong and the civil
aviation body of that country maintain the fiction.

So what? First of all, "many pilots" don't actually have the same
information that the accident inspector is working with. They are "aware"
of something based on their uninformed opinion.

Secondly, that position assumes that every accident attributed to something
OTHER than pilot error was correctly assessed. If inspectors are making
mistakes, they could just as easily make a mistake that would incorrectly
fail to blame pilot error.

Saying the one happens but not the other shows a pretty blatant bias.

Pilots learn from air accident reports.

How do they do that if the reports are, as you appear to claim, incorrect?

If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
will always be doubted .

What's that got to do with computer-piloted aircraft?

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..

Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.


They still put drivers in subway cars, we won't live long enough to see
commercial aircraft with no crew.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..

Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.

Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
systems

Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.

That's because so many accidents are caused by pilot error.

I do not know why you have this bias against pilots.
Are you envious?

Many pilots are aware of incidents in their own countries and at their
own airfields where accident inspectors get it wrong and the civil
aviation body of that country maintain the fiction.

So what? First of all, "many pilots" don't actually have the same
information that the accident inspector is working with. They are "aware"
of something based on their uninformed opinion.

Read -very- carefully what I wrote and not what you have interpreted as
being what I wrote.

I have one incident that the Accident Report claimed pilot error.
The second enquiry negated the first on -new- engineering evidence

Secondly, that position assumes that every accident attributed to something
OTHER than pilot error was correctly assessed. If inspectors are making
mistakes, they could just as easily make a mistake that would incorrectly
fail to blame pilot error.

Saying the one happens but not the other shows a pretty blatant bias.

Pilots learn from air accident reports.

How do they do that if the reports are, as you appear to claim, incorrect?

Ahah. now you're getting it. See that wasn't hard was it....

If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
will always be doubted .

What's that got to do with computer-piloted aircraft?

There you go again reading your own idea of some-one elses post

"Dan" wrote in message
...
They still put drivers in subway cars, we won't live long enough to see
commercial aircraft with no crew.

I already agreed with that statement.

"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..

Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.

Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
systems

Like I said, opinion. You're welcome to it, but don't go thinking it proves
anything.

I do not know why you have this bias against pilots.
Are you envious?

Ahh, yes...the old "I'm losing ground, so insult my foe" tactic. How's that
working for you?

[...]
I have one incident that the Accident Report claimed pilot error.
The second enquiry negated the first on -new- engineering evidence

So what? That doesn't show a general problem.

Pete

"george" wrote in
Peter Duniho wrote:
"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..

Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.

Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
systems

That's still an opinion. Got some proof. Or, at least, strong evidence?
What is the evidence that computers (of the future) will fail more often
than humans at the task of piloting planes?

m

Bob Fry wrote:
Not my statement. See
http://www.longbets.org/4

What sayeth the group wisdom? I think eventually there will be
pilotless aircraft, the question is when.

Hmmph. I was told in 1980 that by the year 2000 everybody would have
flying cars and personal rocket belts would be practical. Everything
would be run with nuclear power and we would have permanent colonies on
the moon and Mars. Disease and starvation would be a thing of the past.
Men would dress in tight jumpsuits and women in short skirts and
everyone would wear little space emblems. We would all eat food with
the consistency of paste. Robots would be in every household.

OTOH, I was also told that we would now be living in post-apocalyptic
society barely surviving a radioactive, half frozen world. Every nation
would be under totalitarian rule and war would be a permanent state of
affairs, as men dressed in battle armor fought it out with laser cannon
and robot tanks.

Maybe all those things will happen someday. Maybe it is all a question
of when. But given the track record of people being able to predict
things 25 years into the future, I am not going to hold my breath
waiting for pilotless airplanes.