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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote: Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of A computer can do a great job, if the solution is properly developed. The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with perfectly good airplanes. Another valid question is: Would the effort required to develop hardware/software for pilotless aircraft be more or less effective than the effort to develop hardware/software to help protect pilots from error? -- Bob Noel no one likes an educated mule |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
I can't imagine a commercial acft ever not having at least one pilot aboard. Actually, one pilot and one dog: The pilot is there to feed the dog and the dog is to keep the pilot from touching anything in the cockpit. (not mine, but I like it -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com ____________________ |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote: "George Patterson" wrote in message news:mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01... I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't? Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with perfectly good airplanes. Looking at major air accidents in the US over the past 5 years I'd say humans are doing awfully well. Aside from the AA airbus right after 9/11 (which has lots of question marks) it's not at all clear to me that well trained pilots in modern airliners don't save more than they cause. A fairly large chunk of Part 121 accidents involve maintenance or systemic causes that a computer pilot would not presumably make any difference with. OTOH, fully-automated aircraft would probably make a huge difference for GA safety, where pilot failure is the primary cause of accidents. This is the same reason that autopilot cars are a good idea, no matter how offensive they may seem to some people. Yes, there will be failures of the equipment. But that will happen MUCH less often than the failures of the humans, and will improve the reliability and efficiency of our transportation infrastructure at the same time. Look at this for an idea of the state-of-the-art in robot cars. It's pretty pathetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_DARPA_Grand_Challenge OTOH, ABS and stability control, etc. have unquestionabaly made driving much safer. Some high-end cars use forward-looking radar to sound an alarm if you start closing in on the car ahead of you very quickly and even cruise control which maintains a following distance rather than fixed speed. Presumably this trend will continue much as an Airbus today is a largely automated plane but with big decisions still made by pilots. -cwk. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com... Looking at major air accidents in the US over the past 5 years I'd say humans are doing awfully well. I'm not talking about restricting one's view to "major air accidents". In any case, if you have actual statistics to refute my intuition, I'm all ears. Otherwise, your intuitive view is no more compelling than my own (no less either, granted). [...] Look at this for an idea of the state-of-the-art in robot cars. It's pretty pathetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_DARPA_Grand_Challenge The DARPA event is a completely different scenario from a general autopiloted transportation infrastructure. For you to use it as a comparison is laughable. Instead, try the many successful demonstrations of computer-driven cars on paved roadways with appropriate guidance technology. Pete |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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. In a word no. Not passenger carrying aircraft. It may well be that computorised flight systems become more reliable but people have the capability to think outside the square using previous experience. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Peter Duniho wrote: "George Patterson" wrote in message news:mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01... I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't? Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of How about: Pilots Battle Computer For Control Of 777 Stanley Kubrick couldn't have scripted anything more eerie than the real-life odyssey of a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 that seemed hell-bent on crashing itself on a trip from Perth to Kuala Lumpur last Aug. 1. According to The Australian newspaper, the Malaysian flight crew had to literally battle for control of the aircraft after something went wonky with the computerized controls. The plane was about an hour into the flight when it suddenly climbed 3,000 feet and almost stalled. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=767 report said the pilot was able to disconnect the autopilot and lower the nose to prevent the stall but the autothrottles refused to disengage and when the nose pitched down they increased power. Even pushing the throttles to idle didn't deter the silicon brains and the plane pitched up again and climbed 2,000 feet the second time. The pilot was able to fly manually back to Perth but the autothrottles wouldn't turn off. As he was landing, the primary flight display gave a false low airspeed warning and the throttles firewalled again. The display also warned of a non-existent wind shear. Boeing spokesman Ken Morton said it was the only such problem ever experienced on the 777 but airlines have been told via an emergency AD http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/25F9233FE09B613F8625706C005D0C53?OpenDocument to load an earlier software version just in case. The investigation is focusing on the air data inertial data reference unit (HAL for short?), which apparently supplied false acceleration figures to the primary flight computer. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Certainly techonology isn't a barrier, a lot can be done in 25 years.
The real question is whether or not pax will pay to ride in such a device. I suspect they would -Robert |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote:
I admit, I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I suspect that human error in the cockpit causes more accidents than human novelty recovers from. I doubt that anyone has good statistics. People investigating a accident in which the pilots don't survive are (or at least were) likely to declare it "pilot error" anytime they couldn't figure out what went wrong. And if the pilot survives, he's probably going to try very hard to hide any mistakes he might have made. There's also the tendency of the NTSB to blame the pilot for *something*, even if the basic cause was beyond anyone's control. If the engine fell off, one "cause" of the accident is likely to be "failure to maintain adequate clearance from terrain." George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
No way. considering the cost of aircraft and the liability of having
passengers it will always be cheaper to have someone there to watch over things in the case of error. But without the pilots you may actually have less crashes i.e. less liability. Pilot error is already the number 1 reference of the NTSB. -Robert |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Pilots Battle Computer For Control Of 777
I also remember when it took two people to fire up the Tandem mainframe computer. Today PCs are more powerful than that old tandem. Don't fall into the belief that things can't change a lot in 25 years. -Robert |
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 |