Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Good point...You don't get to 50k+ posts by doing either of those two things.
Good point...You don't get to 50k+ posts by doing either of those two things.
I agree with you (and you seem to be the expert here) that autonomous airliners are science fiction for now, and probably will be for a long time.
.
Here is another example of where it's going human wrong. Here's another Italin captain ready to pull a Costa Concordia.
http://youtu.be/RWetojC0ul0
You're missing the point.
Henning is not a tech expert. Far from it. He's a user with no experience in the field, who sometimes confuses the field with science fiction.
Those of us who actually do develop control systems aren't very quick to jump on the AI airliner bandwagon. Heck, I stare at the "almost there" Google autonomous cars every day out my office window. And I have for years now. It's no accident that they all have two people in them…
When you have working autonomous cars and then busses, you might consider thinking about airliners. But working autonomous cars are several years away if they ever come -- and I really don't think they will.
What is substantially more likely is autonomous assist, but we already have that.
As was said earlier, the issue is the failure modes. If you can't enumerate them somehow, you can't account for them.
I find it really hard to believe that an AI system could have averted the Air France problem. That, as for many other airliner accidents, was due to a failure in the automation. You don't solve that with more automation. You make it worse.
...Those of us who actually do develop control systems aren't very quick to jump on the AI airliner bandwagon. Heck, I stare at the "almost there" Google autonomous cars every day out my office window. And I have for years now. It's no accident that they all have two people in them…
What about boat captains ?
Already in trials.
Like many not involved with it, you grossly underestimate the design, testing, validation, and verification required to certify flight critical software...and you're talking the entire commercial fleet.One year of industry pilot wages pays for the conversion.
I'm not so sure I agree with that. Computers mess up far too frequently for my liking. The non-pilots I talk to generally believe that the two-pilot system is a good one.Of course computers can screw up, but humans screw up at a much higher rate now. As soon as the insurance industry decides that actuarially pilots are the higher risk factor, they will be replaced. Guess what? They figured that out a couple of decades ago, the system of implementation has been in progress since, and we are closing in on that time.
This will have nothing to do with egos or abilities, it is strictly a financial decission by the people who have Strict Liability exposure. All you have to do is follow the money. Computers cost both the insurance industry and the operators less money than pilots, ergo pilots will be replaced by mechanization. First it was the slaves, next it was the factory worker, next it was the company switch board operators, secretarial pools, and Mail rooms. Office worker productivity increased and staffs reduced. Travelling salesmen, warehouse workers and fork lift operators. Even brain surgery is now done robotically. If you think being a bloody airline pilot is more difficult than being a brain surgeon, you're delusional.
When people get surgery now, they look for the robotic machines, and all the best surgeons are buying them. Take the hint.
Makg is a wannabe on anything to do with airliners, autonomous or not...
I don't think he's a wannabe when it come to control systems development, and that's a crucial task in coming up with a pilotless airliner.
I don't think he's a wannabe when it come to control systems development, and that's a crucial task in coming up with a pilotless airliner.
The decisions are all simple logic decisions with limited and with databasable field of options that is larger than the human mind can handle, yet a computer can refrence through in seconds, and with much greater accuracy than the human mind is capable of.
Cost of implementing is not an impediment, it will be a profitable investment at nearly any cost.
I am a pilot, and I am an airline service consumer, and I would prefer an autonomous airliner at this point. That the general public favors my opinion more than yours is something I would wager a significant amount on.
Exactly. Most here are focusing on the ability to design a system for autonomous airline flight. Although I think that's still very far away, they aren't even mentioning the HUGE infrastructure modifications and improvements that will be needed to be made on a world-wide scale. Financially, it doesn't make sense at all. I'm not saying I'm important or irreplaceable... it's just that I'm cheap backup.Like many not involved with it, you grossly underestimate the design, testing, validation, and verification required to certify flight critical software...and you're talking the entire commercial fleet.
Nauga,
and his design assurance level
What is your role in all of this?Henning said:We have been piecing together all the disparate technological systems, and we are getting to the end of the game...the technology we have used to grow into a cohesive system...Right now all we are doing is the Beta on the components...
HaThe decisions are all simple logic decisions with limited and with databasable field of options that is larger than the human mind can handle, yet a computer can refrence through in seconds, and with much greater accuracy than the human mind is capable of.
Ha haCost of implementing is not an impediment, it will be a profitable investment at nearly any cost.
The same role that I have when the Giants do well... "We won!"What is your role in all of this?
Nauga,
indistinguishable from magic
But......
He /She is from California... So any response needs to be considered suspect............
That's funny, I was thinking the exact same thing about people from Wyoming!
Think what ya like, he doesn't work on airliners today.
And airline pilots are not expert on the design and validation of automated control systems.
At the risk of sounding insulting (and I don't mean to be) I get the impression that most people here don't have any idea what goes into designing and implementing flight critical software. It's not a bunch of programmers throwing something together and "giving it a whirl." It is a very rigorous design and testing effort and not at all cheap.Most here are focusing on the ability to design a system for autonomous airline flight...
Cheap, relatively autonomous, adaptive, with integrated sensors and actuators, and self-propelled to boot. We (and I use the term advisedly ) occasionally refer to pilots as the cheapest and most adaptive flight control computer available. Unfortunately you have a high failure rate and the programming is sometimes spotty, but you still work well when we need cheap and relatively fast...it's just that I'm cheap backup.
And airline pilots are not experts on the design and validation of automated control systems.
never said they were...so why would you bring this up?
No, we're not. But funny how both the experts on automated control systems, and the experts on airline flying are saying that this is a long way off and they are ignored.And airline pilots are not experts on the design and validation of automated control systems.
Sometimes too cheap!:wink2:...but you still work well when we need cheap...
No, we're not. But funny how both the experts on automated control systems, and the experts on airline flying are saying that this is a long way off and they are ignored.
never said they were...so why would you bring this up?
You mean like designing and validating the automated control system of this launch ????..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
When you said that he doesn't work on airliners, you seemed to be implying that that was the only type of expertise that matters in this discussion. If that wasn't the point you intended to make, feel free to clarify.
No, we're not. But funny how both the experts on automated control systems, and the experts on airline flying are saying that this is a long way off and they are ignored.
Purely your perception. Control systems covers a very wide field and to assume one person's expertise with control systems applies to large aircraft is foolhardy at best.
Can you explain that a little more? Is there something about large aircraft that makes the task of designing and validating automated control systems easier?
Like it or not, the fundamentals are the same when it comes to closed-loop control, automation and autonomy. The 'plant' may be different and certainly the devil is in the details, but the foundation is there.If you think unspecified control systems experience somehow translates into aircraft control systems experience then I can't help you.
If you think unspecified control systems experience somehow translates into aircraft control systems experience then I can't help you.
Is there something about large aircraft that makes the task of designing and validating automated control systems easier?
If you think unspecified control systems experience somehow translates into aircraft control systems experience then I can't help you.
Like it or not, the fundamentals are the same when it comes to closed-loop control, automation and autonomy. The 'plant' may be different and certainly the devil is in the details, but the foundation is there.
Nauga,
who will skip the litany of control jokes