If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
The human analog of your question is a pilot becoming unconsicous
during flight. Yes, we have a backup pilot, but there is no reason why we can't put MANY backup computers and backup power sources. Computers will never be fool proof, but they can be more reliable than humans, especially in repetitive tasks. Like it or not, flying is a repetitive task. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"beavis" wrote in message
... I'm having trouble imagining how that computer could have run without electric power. Backup battery? What if the computer was where the fire was? From my previous post (you might try reading it): "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... [...] 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. You also write: Computers have a LONG way to go before they'll be completely foolproof, and intelligent enough to adapt to scenarios. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I'm willing to bet it's going to take a lot longer than 25 more years. We are there now. We have the engineering know-how to produce computer-flown airplanes, including solving all of the various redundancy and system-isolation issues to address issues such as the one you think is a problem. The problem is social. There's no way people will get on an airliner flown by a computer. And you're right about that: it's going to take a LOT longer than 25 more years for that to change. It may *never* happen. Pete |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
This reminds me of a movie I watched some time ago. Can't remember
which one, could have been 'Right Stuff'. The aircraft was designed to fly without pilots, but for some reason they elected to have pilots in the aircraft. But there were no windows for the pilots. So, the pilots vehemently objected to it, and wanted to hand fly the aircraft. Then I think there was some discussion of putting a monkey in the aircraft instead of pilots. Any way, in the end the pilots won, and they had to redesign everything with windows and controls. It went to show how egoistical pilots can be. It is not a question of safety or efficiency. It was mostly about ego. I believe that is still true today. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote: We are there now. We have the engineering know-how to produce computer-flown airplanes, including solving all of the various redundancy and system-isolation issues to address issues such as the one you think is a problem. What we don't have is the ability to formally prove the correctness of software. (which is not to say that humans always are correct). -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Noel" wrote in message
... What we don't have is the ability to formally prove the correctness of software. We DO have the ability to prove "correct enough". That is, we have engineering strategies designed to ensure correctness to some given degree. These are the same techniques that were used for the space shuttle computers (though, unfortunately, not for recent unmanned space probes), and similar techniques are used for existing automation in aviation. It's true that we don't have mathematical proofs for correctness. Of course, it's widely believed we may never be able to have that. But physical engineering suffers from similar limitations, and it seems to get by just fine. Theoretical design can always be undermined by human implementation, but there is an idea of "good enough" in both types of engineering. You simply design in assumptions of human failure of implementation. I don't see this as a fundamental barrier to pilotless airliners. Pete |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Happy Dog wrote: "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? One example does come to mind. The Lunar Lander computor/s that shut down on approach. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you. Like playing chess? In chess, you have set, predictable moves and progressions of moves. In aviation, you have an infinite number of those moves and progressions. The chess problem becomes trivial in comparison. That makes two subjects you confirm knowing nothing about. But, anyway, name some piloting challenges that can never be solved by computers. I predict numerous mirthful responses. moo |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"george" wrote in message
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? One example does come to mind. The Lunar Lander computor/s that shut down on approach. And pilots become incapacitated and planes crash on a regular basis. The above isn't evidence. moo |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
The human analog of your question is a pilot becoming unconsicous during flight. Yes, we have a backup pilot, but there is no reason why we can't put MANY backup computers and backup power sources. Computers will never be fool proof, but they can be more reliable than humans, especially in repetitive tasks. Like it or not, flying is a repetitive task. Have you ever flown one of the new state of the art aircraft? 7 times out of 10 when you start up the aircraft you get some kind of nuisance message or glitch, and like any computer you just go with the old Control Alt Delete routine. There are still too many computer glitches to even think to have aircrafts without pilots. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Happy Dog" wrote: "Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you. Like playing chess? In chess, you have set, predictable moves and progressions of moves. In aviation, you have an infinite number of those moves and progressions. The chess problem becomes trivial in comparison. That makes two subjects you confirm knowing nothing about. But, anyway, name some piloting challenges that can never be solved by computers. And -- it confirms that "Happy Dog" knows nothing about aviation! I predict numerous mirthful responses. moo 1. stuck landing gear. 2. identifying asymmetric flap extension. 3. wake turbulence. 4. hijackers. 5. midair collisions. 6. birdstrikes. 7. lightning strikes (EMP will play havoc with the computer). 8. ice. 9. catastrophic engine failure. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is MDHI going to make it? | Matt Barrow | Rotorcraft | 55 | June 12th 05 05:04 PM |
Power Commercial to Glider Commercial | Mitty | Soaring | 24 | March 15th 05 03:41 PM |
Do You Want to Become a Commercial Helicopter Pilot? | Badwater Bill | Rotorcraft | 7 | August 22nd 04 12:00 AM |
What to study for commercial written exam? | Dave | Piloting | 0 | August 9th 04 03:56 PM |
Another Addition to the Rec.Aviation Rogue's Gallery! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 125 | February 1st 04 05:57 AM |