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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Peter Duniho posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote: In the same vein, piloted airliners are "good enough". The number of catastrophic losses are quite small in comparison to the number of flights. There is no evidence that aircraft piloted by computer would fare any better, much less signficantly better. What would you consider "evidence"? I meant "evidence" in a loose way, not as legally valid terminology. ;-) So, any vehicle capable of operating autonomously over long distances and time could provide some "evidence", one way or the other. There's no question automation would avoid certain kinds of losses; the valid question (without an answer for the moment) is whether human pilots balance that out with actions that a computerized pilot could not take. I am sure the pilots' unions will invest great resources in showing that human pilots are better. But I'd just as soon see an independent source for that analysis. I see it a little differently. The contest is not between humans and computer control a computer can fly an airplane autonomously from point A to B. That's a ways off, considering the current state of AI. As far as "good enough" goes, that's a social issue. For the time being, I'd agree things are "good enough", especially the distrust that the public would have with an fully automated airliner. I also don't see this as an issue of public trust, because the mindset that we have about such things today is not relevant. By the time AI has achieved the required sophistication to pull this off, I'd expect that autonomous machines would be quite the norm and everyone would be able to accept the introduction of autonomous airlines as the next logical step, pun intended. ;-) But long-term, airlines are looking at two things, at least: * Overall loss rate * Cost of operations I am skeptical that the overall loss rate would change much, for the reasons I stated in my last post. As for cost of operations, it seems to me that support for autonomous aircraft would require an even larger and more costly infrastructure than the airlines have now. Who is going to service and pre-flight these systems? Considering the number of service stations capable of dealing with the problems identified by the computers in our cars and the expense of repair, I don't think the airlines can expect to save much (if anything) by eliminating pilots. Regards, Neil |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message As far as high jacking: I think that a pilotless plane would be more secure. The designers could put in a code or something and make it impossible for a hi-jacker to take control of the plane. Of course he could still blow the damn thing up in mid-flight, but he wouldn't be able to fly it into the WTC or such. Never again will a terrorist be allowed to fly a plane into a high value target. The 4th plane on 9-11 proved that. -- Jim in NC |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Greg Farris posted:
says... I see it a little differently. The contest is not between humans and computer control a computer can fly an airplane autonomously from point A to B. That's a ways off, considering the current state of AI. What AI?? The scenario you've just described is thousands of times simpler than what happens every time you turn on your computer to check the aviation ng. Taxiing is the only element in this scenario that is not already fully automated, and performed better by machines than by people. We only fly today to keep ourselves in practice, in case we "really" have to fly "someday". I suspect that you are confusing "autonomous" with "automatic". There is no question but that machinery can follow programmed instructions precisely (that is at the heart of CNC), however that machinery is not making decisions in a greatly dynamic environment. In your example, the location of airports are fixed, and it is a relatively simple task to have a set of instructions that would get an aircraft from one to the other; OTOH, taxiing is a dynamic environment, requiring informational interaction and control based on mutually agreed decisions -- i.e. autonomy. AFAIK, today's systems are incapable of that. Weather is also a dynamic environment, one which every aircraft must contend with on every flight; course deviations based on developing weather also require autonomy. How do current-day automatic systems handle that? AFAIK, they can't. One point of the DARPA challenge (cited earlier in this thread) is to create autonomous vehicles capable of simply getting from point A to B in a dynamic environment. The results speak for themselves. Regards, Neil |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
As was pointed out earlier, I think the issue is more social then technical.
We have UAVs that are towed to a takeoff point, a computer program lauches and later lands the vehicle and a pilot sees what the plane sees via satilite. The flight is carried out, 99% by the program put into the UAV before departure and the "pilot" takes over only if they see something on the ground that makes them want to take a closer look. The military has already started to launch hellfire missiles from UAVs flying in Afganistan on orders from someone looking at a TV in Washington. Before 9/11 I got to sit in the cockpit of a Dash8 from TO to YOW. In response to changes from the tower, the pilot just entered the change into the autopilot and it did the rest. The pilot did not take the controls until he was about 500 AGL on approach. If the controller could just click on the aircraft on his screen, type in the new heading or alt. and the computer would do it that might simplify everyone's job with fewer communications errors. You might still get a few people killed getting the bugs out of the system, like when they sent the lander to Mars with one subroutine working with KM/min and the other subroutine working in miles/hour. Mind you at that point the highjacker just has to capture a control tower and send a bunch of aircraft into the same location and doesn't get to be with a single virgin, let alone 70. So we should be clear on what constitutes autonomous, what parts would the plane control and where would the pilot be who can override the computer. The problem is that society will not accept a pilotless plane because of the what if factor. What if the computer failed, who will reboot it, what if the weather goes bad, etc. And the old quetion seen in all airplane disaster movies, "who is flying the plane"? "Greg Farris" wrote in message ... In article , says... Recently, Greg Farris posted: One point of the DARPA challenge (cited earlier in this thread) is to create autonomous vehicles capable of simply getting from point A to B in a dynamic environment. The results speak for themselves. They do - and what they tell us is that navigating over uncharted terrain, full of obstacles, is a challenge for land vehicles. Quite a different challenge from taxiing across a few hundred feet of perfectly charted, smooth pavement, custom designed to fit the particularities of your vehicle! If we really wanted pilotless airliners (and my argument is that we do not, and will not, probably ever) it will be a simple matter to eliminate the human-controlled taxiing phase. Simply towing the aircraft would be one way to do it. Besides, ground operations are one of the most error-prone phases of aircraft operations, usually because pilots misunderstand instructions. So this would be a good candidate for automation, even without getting rid of the pilots. G Faris |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Greg Farris posted:
says... One point of the DARPA challenge (cited earlier in this thread) is to create autonomous vehicles capable of simply getting from point A to B in a dynamic environment. The results speak for themselves. They do - and what they tell us is that navigating over uncharted terrain, full of obstacles, is a challenge for land vehicles. Apparently, you missed the part where most of the vehicles also failed the "charted" course. In other words, they failed because they were not capable of functioning autonomously. Regardless of the notions, acting autonomously in a 2D dynamic environment will always be easier than operating in a 3D dynamic environment. It really is a problem based in the limitations of AI; we aren't there yet. Neil |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Andre posted:
As was pointed out earlier, I think the issue is more social then technical. We have UAVs that are towed to a takeoff point, a computer program lauches and later lands the vehicle and a pilot sees what the plane sees via satilite. The flight is carried out, 99% by the program put into the UAV before departure and the "pilot" takes over only if they see something on the ground that makes them want to take a closer look. (rest snipped for brevity) All that has happened is that the pilot is outside the cockpit. The UAVs are *not* acting autonomously, which is a pre-requisite for _pilotless_ operation. Neil |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Greg Farris posted:
In article , says... Apparently, you missed the part where most of the vehicles also failed the "charted" course. In other words, they failed because they were not capable of functioning autonomously. Regardless of the notions, acting autonomously in a 2D dynamic environment will always be easier than operating in a 3D dynamic environment. Euh - we were talking about taxiing - on the ground. I was talking about autonomous operation. It doesn't matter where that is. Now, imagine you have full control of all environmental variables. No point, because that's never the case. No rules - you can do anything you want. Plough it flat, remove all obstacles, pave it, put down wires,tapes, optical encoders every two inches - you can even gouge a groove in it and put a pin in the nose of your vehichle if you want. Do you still maintain that the present state of our AI is not up to the challenge? Look at the results of the DARPA challenge, and decide for yourself. Neil |
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 |