FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well if it goes back to the first post, the two examples Sys gave were VERY poor.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So just a process check here. Can you restate the point of this thread again? Is it to discuss whether UAS' are inherently more safe than manned aircraft?
Would you allow your family to fly in an unmanned UAV right now?
So just a process check here. Can you restate the point of this thread again? Is it to discuss whether UAS' are inherently more safe than manned aircraft?
Syscom - it is no secret that human error plays a part in most mishaps. Human error plays a factor in approximately 80-85% of mishaps, if I recall correctly. There will still be human factors with a human operating a UAV, no doubt
Parts fail in high performance aircraft all the time. It is not a perfect world. When aircraft systems are tied together to large extent through computers, software, data buses, etc., small part failures can have large consequences.
Obvious? Not in a million years. And statements that application of sound human factors is not "complicated" is boundlessly naive. Surely can't expect such statements to go unchallenged, sys. Properly applied human factors analyses are immeasurably complex and in many cases very subjective. And identifying system engineering solutions as means of mitigating human factors risks only adds to the complexity of the hardware and software development.
Well if it goes back to the first post, the two examples Sys gave were VERY poor.
And a UAV operator can do the same thing while troubleshooting a problem. The L-1011 is texbook for training scenarios and would also apply to UAVsWhy is that? tell me why they are poor. In fact, they're textbook examples of human failure allowing an AC to crash.
And the same thing applies to any machinery. Add a computer to run it and you have rigidity in the decision making abilityAnd sorry, saying that modern crew flight procedures and discipline wont let that happen again is incorrect. As long as people are people, sooner or later cockpit discipline will become lax and flight procedures "over looked" from time to time.
Unrelated to this discussion....Just like that Russian captain who let his kids fly his airbus. Who would have thought ......
And you cannot gain immediate positive climb, something desirable in jet aircraftHeres some simple code for you:
"Do not allow landing gear to be retracted untill altitude "X" is reached".
And now you're limiting the manevability of the aircraft"Do not allow aircraft to enter a bank exceeding X degrees at Y airspeed so as to prevent stalling or exceed allowable gee loads".
And how does the UAV determine runway length? What if you're operating on a dirt strip? If you have ice on the airvehicle you have to land at a higher than normal airspeed."Do not allow AC to touchdown for landing if air speed exceeds Z MPH and runway length is too short".
It's not but then you limit the capability of the unit. What I just described has to be determined by a humanAre you telling me this is complex?
They are, but the systems that allow those aircraft to fly are synthesized to allow human decision making in most of the flight envelope.BTW, the B2 and F16 are unstable aircraft to fly. Dont you suppose that the avionics is whats allowing the plane to fly to begin with?
Here's another example where pilot error went to the extreme and cockpit automation would have prevented this from happening.
B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base occurred on June 24, 1994, killing the four crew members of a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress named Czar 52[1] during an airshow practice flight. In the crash, Bud Holland, who was the command pilot of the aircraft based at Fairchild Air Force Base, flew the aircraft beyond its operational limits and lost control. As a result, the aircraft stalled, hit the ground, and was destroyed.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kHa3WNerjU
Plenty of computers working that one Sys...
Some comments...
Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water.
Google Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998. Watch the video of an airbus A320 crash into a forest because the computers wouldn't allow a power increase following a low pass. The computers wouldn't allow a power increase because they determined that the airspeed was too low for the increase requested so the computers didn't give them any. Pushing the throttles forward in a Airbus does nothing more than request a power increase from the computer. If the computer doesn't like all the airplane and engine parameters you don't get a power increase. Airbus blamed the dead crew since they couldn't defend themselves. A Boeing would still be flying.
How Airbus nearly killed 155 people according to an idiot - Plane Talking
You stole my thunder Joe. I was gonna cite the A320 crash. To this day the flight control laws of the Airbus aircraft are subject to heated debate. Boeing has the exact opposite philosophy, "You wanna bend the airframe, that is the pilot's call... not the FCC". My quote... not Boeing's.
There was German company or govt research institute (I would like to say BMW but I am not sure) that demonstrated "autopiloted" cars used on both highway and city driving and it worked marvelously. Only problem was it was too expensive for consumers. But it worked. I also know there are some semi-automatic engine/throttle/steering controls that work like ABS's do right now .... prevent the car from becoming uncontrollable or unsteerable.
syscom3 said:The AC crashes. But the failure points for an automated cockpit are far fewer than manned cockpits, simply because the human element is taken out.
A simple equation for you:
w = number of crashes soley due to pilot error
x = number of crashes due to a combination of human error and mechanical failure
y= number of crashes due to mechanical failure only.
z = number of crashes due to events beyond the control of the AC or pilot (like bird strikes)
N = w+x+y+z.
Now if we eliminate variable w, already we are < N
and factor in part of x, in which pilot error made a bad situation worse, or was the primary cause of the crash, then "N" is even lower.
Would a UAV that's automated to a high degree, with properly tested software to accommodate failures, could still crash? Yes, statistically it will still happen. But it is still obvious that the UAV would be inherently safer than a manned AC. And even if there is an external operator flying the UAV, there's nothing complicated in writing "do not do or allow" software to be written to prevent accidents, or operating the AC out of its limits.
Utter falsehood.
Heres some simple code for you:
"Do not allow landing gear to be retracted untill altitude "X" is reached".
"Do not allow aircraft to enter a bank exceeding X degrees at Y airspeed so as to prevent stalling or exceed allowable gee loads".
"Do not allow AC to touchdown for landing if air speed exceeds Z MPH and runway length is too short".
Are you telling me this is complex?
BTW, the B2 and F16 are unstable aircraft to fly. Dont you suppose that the avionics is whats allowing the plane to fly to begin with?
Here's another example where pilot error went to the extreme and cockpit automation would have prevented this from happening.
B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base occurred on June 24, 1994, killing the four crew members of a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress named Czar 52[1] during an airshow practice flight. In the crash, Bud Holland, who was the command pilot of the aircraft based at Fairchild Air Force Base, flew the aircraft beyond its operational limits and lost control. As a result, the aircraft stalled, hit the ground, and was destroyed.
1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here was complete failure of pilot dicipline and flight deck dicipline. And if the AC had a computer flying the plane in which prohibited or unsafe maneuvers were prevented from happening, then this would not have occurred. And if the computer is flying the plane, why should there be a pilot?
Heres some simple code for you:
"Do not allow landing gear to be retracted untill altitude "X" is reached".
"Do not allow aircraft to enter a bank exceeding X degrees at Y airspeed so as to prevent stalling or exceed allowable gee loads".
"Do not allow AC to touchdown for landing if air speed exceeds Z MPH and runway length is too short".
Are you telling me this is complex?
Just like that Russian captain who let his kids fly his airbus. Who would have thought ......
Unrelated to this discussion....
"Sys that stuff is already built into onboard computers. That however does take the need away from a pilot."