pbfoot
1st Lieutenant
And how many lives were saved by having a real person in the drivers seat example the Gimli Glider for one , it was a rare day when I was working that we didn't have some sort of emergency
Airline Crash Due to Crew Errors
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
An automated cockpit on a GA airplane???Again more fantasy. How will any "automated system" prevent this? Looks like a Cessna 150 or 172 - so tell me, explain to me how this would be set up and the cost?!?!?! Sorry pal, another bad example.
There are thousands of people killed every year by drunk drivers - again I see little technology around to prevent the common Joe from getting behind the wheel drunk in the same manner you described above.
How about bus and train engineers - are we going to automate those functions as well, I mean there are human error fatalities there too?
And automatic cockpits cannot totally replace pilots in many operations such as you described. They cannot make judgements in certain conditions that only a human can see or feel nor can they respond to passengers in the same manner any type of artificial intelligence can - can an automated cockpit see immediately that a passenger is suffering from hypoxia? Oh yea, the computer will take care of that, but so far you have failed to say what type of computer and how it will function. I'm sorry but you're examples are half fantasy and half wish full thinking. In many cases its the human frailties that are the most important and only another human at the controls can fully deal with them.
To a point they are, but when you safer, in what operation are you talking about? Military? Airlines? GA?
Decision charts or decision trees? Show me a manual that has one in the manner you described. There are trouble shooting guides for the maintainers that have these, but give me a specific flight manual that you have seen that has this format.
You keep saying that this stuff is out there, well if its that viable everyone would have jumped on it 5 years ago - again, I agree UAVs will be the wave of the future but we are decades away from even beginning to think about having fully autonomous aircraft carry passengers.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Actually there are electrical and mechanical devices that do what you describe. An "autopilot" does one thing - fly the aircraft to a specific programmed course.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Do They????
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/88952b887f210c988625707e005944f2/$FILE/2005-19-10.pdf
Air Canada 190 - A319 Autopilot Failure? Tech Ops Forum | Airliners.net
A320 flight crew experiences dual flight augmentation computer failure shortly after takeoff causing...
BombTaxi
Tech Sergeant
I have been following these UAV threads for a while, and would just like to ask a question, if I may 
sys, the basis of you're argument is that humans are inherently prone to making errors of judgment that crash planes, correct? Yet all present-day UAVs are flown by human pilots on the ground, which means a UAV is no safer than a manned aircraft because your primary source of error is still there to mess things up.
The alternative that you seem to have assumed is that UAVs can be flown entirely by computers. While an admirable aspiration, this simply isn't possible it the present timeframe or, IMHO, anytime soon. AIs are still fairly rudimentary and struggling to pass the Turing Test, never mind fly a fighter. A computer can only make decisions in black or white - 1 or 0. As I think any account of flying or aerial combat makes clear, there is a lot of grey involved in aerial warfare, which the present state of the computing art cannot deal with. This is why we still depend on squishy, error-prone humans to take these massively advanced weapon systems into combat...
So, do you envision UAVs as being 'flown' by remote human operators (in which case you render your own argument null and void). or as being flown by AIs we do not yet possess, nor seem to be capable of developing soon (in which case your concept is pure speculation at best)?
sys, the basis of you're argument is that humans are inherently prone to making errors of judgment that crash planes, correct? Yet all present-day UAVs are flown by human pilots on the ground, which means a UAV is no safer than a manned aircraft because your primary source of error is still there to mess things up.
The alternative that you seem to have assumed is that UAVs can be flown entirely by computers. While an admirable aspiration, this simply isn't possible it the present timeframe or, IMHO, anytime soon. AIs are still fairly rudimentary and struggling to pass the Turing Test, never mind fly a fighter. A computer can only make decisions in black or white - 1 or 0. As I think any account of flying or aerial combat makes clear, there is a lot of grey involved in aerial warfare, which the present state of the computing art cannot deal with. This is why we still depend on squishy, error-prone humans to take these massively advanced weapon systems into combat...
So, do you envision UAVs as being 'flown' by remote human operators (in which case you render your own argument null and void). or as being flown by AIs we do not yet possess, nor seem to be capable of developing soon (in which case your concept is pure speculation at best)?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think that sums it up!
Umm, how many members of the public would willingly get into an aircraft without a pilot sitting up the front who can do the flying? I would hazard a guess that the answer is not many (almost certainly not enough to make the proposition a commercial reality).
Sys, do you fly? (As a pilot I mean, not a pax). this thread would suggest that you don't, as I have never heard a pilot even bringing up this topic. Maybe if you did, you would see the other points of view, and not resort to blindly sticking to the statistics.
Issues on landing such as standing water/ice on the runway, wind gusts, wind-shear, all mean that automation in every circumstance is pretty near impossible.
And, yes, there are occasions when you have to bust a limitation to avoid bending the aircraft, its a judgment call, and no computer out there can make a judgment on which rules can be 'bent' safely, and which options to take.
I sure as hell know I wouldn't get in an unpiloted spam can...
Sys, do you fly? (As a pilot I mean, not a pax). this thread would suggest that you don't, as I have never heard a pilot even bringing up this topic. Maybe if you did, you would see the other points of view, and not resort to blindly sticking to the statistics.
Issues on landing such as standing water/ice on the runway, wind gusts, wind-shear, all mean that automation in every circumstance is pretty near impossible.
And, yes, there are occasions when you have to bust a limitation to avoid bending the aircraft, its a judgment call, and no computer out there can make a judgment on which rules can be 'bent' safely, and which options to take.
I sure as hell know I wouldn't get in an unpiloted spam can...
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Me either... yet. But the time is coming.
This is what is so disconcerting about the discussion. Everyone agrees that UAS' are the wave of the future. Perhaps it is the timeline that Sys proposes that hangs us all up. It is NOT near future. Hell, industry can't even automate routine ATC voice clearances via data link in the next 5 years, let alone integrate UAS' into the NAS.
And what many people don't realize are the categorical differences in UAV capabilities. Remember there are those that are almost fully autonomous like the Globalhawk/Predator/EagleEye/Hummingbird class. And then there are those that are less functional like the ScanEagle or other tactical applications.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And let's stress "almost."
Matt308
Glock Perfection
- Thread starter
- #51
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Another good point. And its lessons were learned so as to make sure the probability of its happening again were minimized.
Human error completely.
- Thread starter
- #52
syscom3
Pacific Historian
-172. Automated cockpit would have landed the airplane safely and then taxi it safely without it running into people or other structures.
Ever hear of ignition locks?
How about bus and train engineers - are we going to automate those functions as well, I mean there are human error fatalities there too?
Sounds like something a flight attendant can do. BTW, avionics are immune to altitude and are not subject to hypoxia. Are you willing to debate me on the issues of pilot incapacitation due to oxygen starvation vs automated cockpits?
All of them.
Again, I am not insulting you, nor intend to do so. But just WTF are you talking about? Again, I might be misreading you, so again I say, I am not insulting you .... but the first instance I know of for decision charts was the B-17 pilots checklist. Dont you suppose decision charts and diagrams have been used since 1939?
And yes, as part of my current job is to look at failure modes, and see what the symptoms are and what our monitoring program will report.
Decades? The future is far sooner than that. But yes, I agree that when it comes to civil aviation, it will take some time. But for military aviation where the pilot risk is high?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Again, how will it work? What types of servos are connected to the flight controls? How do you intergrate this system to the mixture controls? How will an automated cockpit know where and how far to taxi the aircraft? How about weight of the system as GA aircraft don't have a wide useful load? Cost? This rationale is like me saying "we could build a plane that could fold up into a suit case, just like the Jetsons." Answer these questions and I'll start to take you serious.
Why have a flight attendant, just put a robot in place!
No, but I will point out the silliness of some of your claims.
And again, show me one - I have a B-17 pilots manual and I see no so called "decision chart." There are performance charts, weight and balance charts, fuel consumption charts, etc., so tell me what YOU'RE talking about?!?!?!?
I'll put this out to the other pilots - Has anyone ever heard of the charts in a -1 or POH called "decision charts?"
Matt308
Glock Perfection
sys is thinking like an engineer again (e.g., FMEA, Fault trees, FHA, etc).
And just to correct sys again, avionics ARE susceptible to altitude. That is why civil avionics must be tested and qualified to environmental considerations contained in RTCA, Inc DO-160 Section 4. Military avionics have similar standards. Working for Hughes, sure you would know that.
And just to correct sys again, avionics ARE susceptible to altitude. That is why civil avionics must be tested and qualified to environmental considerations contained in RTCA, Inc DO-160 Section 4. Military avionics have similar standards. Working for Hughes, sure you would know that.
Explain this one to my sys? Drunk Driver crashes his Ford Explorer into a Chevy S10. All the laws in the books didn't stop this driver from some serious lapses of judgement.
Get my point? You are still grabbing at air...
syscom3 said:
Sys there are already systems in place that prevent your from pilot from doing such things.
As for the landing gear on the ground. You do no even need an Auto Pilo to keep you from doing that. That would be overkill! Ever heard of a WOW switch? Probably not, since you think that something needs to be put in place to keep you from retracting the wheels while on the ground.
Do a search for a WOW switch, and come back to me when you are ready? Okay...
But then again, since I have caught you in something you have no clue about, you will say that my post is rhetorical and not respond to it.
There are also already systems in place that keep pilots from doing that. You are describing something new.
Again you are doing nothing but grabbing at air at something you do not seem to grasp.
Ditto, I would not want to fly an aircraft that has no pilot.
evangilder
"Shooter"
This is getting ridiculous. Why the hell would anyone want a GA plane that flies itself??? I sure as hell wouldn't buy one, nor want to fly in one. A big part of GA aviation is people who learn to fly and love to fly. I can't think of any GA or warbird pilot that thinks flying is "just okay". They love it, and would never give up piloting the airplane to a machine.
I am not a pilot, but have spent quite a bit of time in the cockpit of many different types the last few years. I fly with people I know and trust, and people with the judgment to tell me the pilot is good to go. Part of that is also the kinship and camaraderie that goes with it.
Are there errors in judgment that cause crashes? Sure. Are there errors in judgment cars that cause crashes? Yes. There are going to be people that make errors and in some cases can cause things to go wrong. But does that mean that we should replace all of that with automated controls? No.
Because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. I honestly wouldn't want to fly in a pilotless craft.
I am not a pilot, but have spent quite a bit of time in the cockpit of many different types the last few years. I fly with people I know and trust, and people with the judgment to tell me the pilot is good to go. Part of that is also the kinship and camaraderie that goes with it.
Are there errors in judgment that cause crashes? Sure. Are there errors in judgment cars that cause crashes? Yes. There are going to be people that make errors and in some cases can cause things to go wrong. But does that mean that we should replace all of that with automated controls? No.
Because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. I honestly wouldn't want to fly in a pilotless craft.
Agreed, I am going to go and eat now. I am getting hungry waiting for sys to grab at more air.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Airbus crash is slightly misleading as the aircraft was already at a high angle of attack...for a civie jet...and the increase in power wasn't allowed coz the engines were full of trees.
American Airlines Flight 96 in 1972 is probably the greatest feat of civilian flying and that is something a computer will never do...have the will to survive.
American Airlines Flight 96 in 1972 is probably the greatest feat of civilian flying and that is something a computer will never do...have the will to survive.
Agreed, I am sure that if two lists were made, one that lists every crash that was attributed to human error and a second one that lists every crash that was avoided because the pilot did his damn job, the 2nd list would be longer.
People make mistakes, no one is going to argue that. Lets just be realistic and not play around in a fantasy world.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
