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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
("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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
("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 | |
|
|
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 |