A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotlessplanes.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 30th 05, 04:54 AM
cjcampbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #52  
Old September 30th 05, 05:05 AM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"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?

m


One term: "KISS" Keep It Simple, Stupid!

No controller has ever died from crashing his scope; likewise, no
programmer has ever died from his computer crashing.

Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.
  #53  
Old September 30th 05, 05:56 AM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Orval Fairbairn"
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 term: "KISS" Keep It Simple, Stupid!

No controller has ever died from crashing his scope; likewise, no
programmer has ever died from his computer crashing.


That's not evidence.

Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.


Like playing chess?

moo


  #54  
Old September 30th 05, 06:15 AM
george
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


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


I have only ridden on one computorised rail system the Docks Light Rail
in London.
And they had so many problems they put staff back on....

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?


You have spent time insulting pilots with the old 'blame the dead guy'
as the explanation for accidents..
It just isn't that simple.
Again , are you envious of pilots?


[...]
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.


How many errors does it take before you'd say "Hey, there's something
not right" ?

  #55  
Old September 30th 05, 07:24 AM
Montblack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

("Happy Dog" wrote)
Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.


Like playing chess?



Thank you for flying JetBlue. Your captain today is Deep Blue. We will arive
at our destination in 47 moves ...unless of course the screen goes blue.


Montblack

  #56  
Old September 30th 05, 09:16 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
I have only ridden on one computorised rail system the Docks Light Rail
in London.
And they had so many problems they put staff back on....


So what? There are plenty of examples of poorly written computerized
systems. I'll give you another one, just because I'm so generous: the
Denver baggage handling system. That doesn't mean all computerized systems
are poorly written.

Again, you have offered merely opinion. No proof. Not anything even
approximating proof.

You have spent time insulting pilots with the old 'blame the dead guy'
as the explanation for accidents..


Insulting? Give me a break. It's the truth. Human error is a huge factor
in aviation accidents, generally. It's unfortunate you take it as an
insult, but it's not my fault you do. If you find yourself insulted, you
need to get a less fragile ego, or quit being a pilot.

It just isn't that simple.


Just isn't what simple? It most certainly is *frequently* as "simple" as
the pilot screwed up. Of course, there are numerous ways to screw up, and
there are often contributing factors. But that doesn't mean the pilot
didn't screw up.

Again , are you envious of pilots?


I have no idea why you ask that. Being a pilot myself, it makes no sense
that I might be "envious of pilots". Why would I be envious of myself?

Your line of questioning here is just plain stupid. And I mean that in the
most direct, unambiguous way.

How many errors does it take before you'd say "Hey, there's something
not right" ?


Certainly more than one.

Pete


  #57  
Old September 30th 05, 09:42 AM
cjcampbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Peter Duniho wrote:


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.

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.


That question is really at the heart of a long-running difference in
design philosophy between Boeing and Airbus. Airbus favors greater
automation, citing the fact that most accidents are caused by pilot
error. Boeing favors greater pilot control over systems, saying that
the only reason system error has not caused more accidents is that it
has not had the opportunity to do so. The truth of the matter is, no
one really can claim to know which is better: at this point it all
boils down to emotion and marketing.

I think if pilotless aircraft are to become successful, they will first
be widely used by the military. As the public gains acceptance that
these aircraft are safe, then eventually commercial will follow. There
is a huge attitude problem to overcome. Heck, Australia doesn't even
want private pilots to share airspace with commercial airliners. Who
knows what regulators there and elsewhere would demand of pilotless
airplanes?

  #58  
Old September 30th 05, 05:11 PM
beavis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Peter Duniho
wrote:

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.


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?

Had the short circuit continued, the cabin would have continued to fill
with smoke, and my passengers would have been dead. (Airline oxygen
masks are not sealed systems -- they mix with ambient air, and smoke.)

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.
  #59  
Old September 30th 05, 06:11 PM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Happy Dog" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn"
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 term: "KISS" Keep It Simple, Stupid!

No controller has ever died from crashing his scope; likewise, no
programmer has ever died from his computer crashing.


That's not evidence.

Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.


Like playing chess?

moo


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.
  #60  
Old September 30th 05, 06:16 PM
Montblack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
So what? There are plenty of examples of poorly written computerized
systems. I'll give you another one, just because I'm so generous: the
Denver baggage handling system. That doesn't mean all computerized
systems are poorly written.



I've had a perverse pleasure watching that thing over the years. My sister
lives in Colorado so I've gotten a local perspective on the 'project from
hell' as well.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L52C545EB
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/project/story/0,10801,102405,00.html
Problems with Denver's baggage system

My background is in (factory floor) production and warehousing:
Seasonal Pepsi plant (18)
Ford Assembly plant (18) ...and dumb. Didn't like working the 'chassis line'
so I quit.

Full time paper mill (19) Paid for some college, Dune Buggy, motorcycle,
car...

Hamm's/Stroh's Brewery (21) Ten years packaging and warehouse, QA

Throw in some (extra $$) school bus driving from 78-83 ...routing,
scheduling, independent decision making, mechanical issues, kids!,
parents!!, district office!!!

Yes. I think I could have fixed their baggage handling problems. :-)


Montblack
Overall, it was never 'really' a software problem.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:41 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 06:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.