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
  #61  
Old September 30th 05, 06:40 PM
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 30th 05, 06:47 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old September 30th 05, 06:52 PM
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 30th 05, 06:58 PM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 30th 05, 08:00 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old September 30th 05, 09:36 PM
george
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old October 1st 05, 03:16 AM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 1st 05, 03:17 AM
Happy Dog
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 1st 05, 12:24 PM
Arketip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 1st 05, 09:48 PM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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 03:20 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.