Hold er, Ned!

Does that qualify as an "Oh S*** moment" for both the Pilots and Spotter?
 
A wordless response to those who might contend aircraft don't need pilots...
 
I don't understand what the fuss is all about. it looks like one of my normal landings in calm air, except the airplane is somewhat larger.

[FONT=ARIAL, Helvetica, Geneva]More shots like these...[/FONT]

John
 
Last edited:
I'd like a close up of the crew's faces.
 
wabower said:
The real question, however, is what the computer would have done to fix it.
Click to expand...

Diverted to an alternate?

It's this kind of thing, along with the weather stories, that make me respect the airline pilots, but ask myself "would I really want to do that for a job?"
 
SCCutler said:
A wordless response to those who might contend aircraft don't need pilots...
Click to expand...

A rate sensing gyro and a 286 processor into a FBW system can deal with that situation about 1000 times faster and more precisely than the human brain and body. There really isn't anything that difficult about it.
 
Interesting picture. It's so hard to really visualize what went down with such a zoomed-in still photo like that. I'd love to see a video of that landing.
 
wabower said:
The real question, however, is what the computer would have done to fix it.
Click to expand...

Whatever it was programmed to. There are planes that fly both statically and dynamically unstable. They can do this only because they have FBW systems. The technology to deal with this goes back to the 80s and that forward swept wing fighter design, X-27 or 29, something like that...yeah, here it is, X-29
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html

The control surfaces don't respond to the control inputs. The control inputs tell the computer what you would like the aircraft to do, the computer figures out what control surfaces need to do what with the given conditions. The pilot's physical inputs in a FBW aircraft can easily be replaced with a rate sensing gyro and D/WAAS/LAAS GPS combined with a database of where the TDZE and alignment for the runway is.

I know it's kinda a blow to the ego, but flying ain't all that difficult, it's sensing the inputs that we need to guide the plane that's tricky, but the technology is here. To the best of my knowledge, all the X- programs running right now are fully autonomous, and the X-43 just broke Mach 9 a bit back.
You think controlling a plane is too trick for autonomy, read this tidbit:
http://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/autonav.html

"What if there's a problem with the plane?"... that's coming as well....
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/news/acfs-simulation-evaluation/

Flying is not art, flying is action and reaction as constrained by the laws of physics. Computers cannot create "art". Computers can interpolate within the laws of physics in a dynamic environment much better than any human.
 
Henning said:
Computers can interpolate within the laws of physics in a dynamic environment much better than any human.
Click to expand...

As long as the programming is good...

For an example of how the humans did better than the computer could, see the Apollo 11 moon landing.


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
As long as the programming is good...
Click to expand...
And just as important -- the hardware.

Programming things like this in theory is pretty simple. Outside of the theory it isn't that simple anymore. Programming the automatic landing of things is not all that simple either. There is a reason the airforce lands their drones via human control with them on site.

What is difficult for a human is often incredibly simple for a computer. What is rather easy for a human is often EXTREMELY difficult for a computer. So you take an event, like landing, that can be difficult for a human. It may be easy for a computer *UNTIL* some variable changes that a human could easily handle and the computer simply doesn't recognize it. A computer doesn't care about death -- it only cares about executing its logic.

As someone that deals with hardware and software a lot, you would have a hard time getting me to ride on an airplane without a pilot. Remote flown or computer flown, either way, I don't think we're there yet. The costs just don't make sense.
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
.

A computer doesn't care about death -- it only cares about executing its logic.

.
Click to expand...

We may not quite be arrived at a fully automated aircraft yet, we are very close though. I read somewhere recently that the navy is conducting tests on fully automated carrier landings and takeoffs. They point out that the computers do not care if it is night or day, stormy or calm seas. They do not get tired, you don't have to feed them.

What strikes me is that both the article and Jesse point out that computers do not "care". Already we are starting to accept them as beings, who have an awareness of themselves and their environment, even if it does entail ignoring that environment.

I have no doubt most of us will live to see fully automated aircraft in our lifetimes. We may even be attended to by computers and robots when our kids put us in "the home", rather than humans.

It is in our future, you can bet on it.

John
 
John Baker said:
Already we are starting to accept them as beings, who have an awareness of themselves and their environment, even if it does entail ignoring that environment.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see anything I would consider as a "being" including all the AI work that has been done. I don't foresee anyone writing something I would consider a self-aware being in my lifetime.
 
It's as much about the fact that computers cannot experience joy..the art of flight is driven by the joy a pilot gets from the act of flying...it will be a sad day when that's gone from the equation.
 
I'll say this -- looks like it was an exciting few seconds on board.
 
Interesting post. I see your point about the reaction time of FBW systems; however most rely on feedback (rather than anticipation) to make adjustments.

I once heard PID control compared to driving down the road using only your rear-view mirrors. You don't know the road has started to curve until it is already curving. . . . A PID algorithm which included a feed-forward element can help, but something needs to send information to that FF element so it can bypass the PID and make a faster adjustment not based on something that has already happened.

I guess what I am saying is that I agree the situation displayed in that picture would most likely have not happened with a truly advanced autonomous system in place because things never would have gotten that far out of whack in the first place. However, before we are ready to go fully autonomous for all situations the sensor package and algorithms need to continue to improve. I would not be surprised if autoland was ultimately a system which combined ground-based telemetry with the systems in the AC.

Henning said:
Whatever it was programmed to. There are planes that fly both statically and dynamically unstable. They can do this only because they have FBW systems. The technology to deal with this goes back to the 80s and that forward swept wing fighter design, X-27 or 29, something like that...yeah, here it is, X-29
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html

The control surfaces don't respond to the control inputs. The control inputs tell the computer what you would like the aircraft to do, the computer figures out what control surfaces need to do what with the given conditions. The pilot's physical inputs in a FBW aircraft can easily be replaced with a rate sensing gyro and D/WAAS/LAAS GPS combined with a database of where the TDZE and alignment for the runway is.

I know it's kinda a blow to the ego, but flying ain't all that difficult, it's sensing the inputs that we need to guide the plane that's tricky, but the technology is here. To the best of my knowledge, all the X- programs running right now are fully autonomous, and the X-43 just broke Mach 9 a bit back.
You think controlling a plane is too trick for autonomy, read this tidbit:
http://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/autonav.html

"What if there's a problem with the plane?"... that's coming as well....
http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/news/acfs-simulation-evaluation/

Flying is not art, flying is action and reaction as constrained by the laws of physics. Computers cannot create "art". Computers can interpolate within the laws of physics in a dynamic environment much better than any human.
Click to expand...
 
Robotics and artificial intelligence are up at the top of the hot subjects being investigated and studied in more than a few institutions, from high schools to universities. Robotics are common in thousands of manufacturing facilities worldwide. Your auto pilot is a robotic system.

As artificial intelligence joins with robotics, design and manufacture of computer chips done solely by full automation will become the norm. Robots will be designing and manufacturing themselves. They will continue to improve based on their own squawk lists. The concept of fully automated aircraft is almost primitive compared to the things that are coming.

Think about this: When I was a kid, the most high tech devices in our home was a black rotary telephone mounted on the kitchen wall, it had a party line. We had a small white plastic radio in the Kitchen and a larger, fancier one in the living room. We had no television, nor did our neighbors. At night we listened to radio shows like Amos and Andy, The Whistler, and others I can't remember anymore. We usually listened to those shows in the living room while my mom washed the dishes and listened in the kitchen. My mom had a washing machine in the basement that had electric wringers mounted on top. The dryer was some lines that went around a cast iron wheel at both ends and ran from our back porch out to a pole by the back fence.

When I was in the military, we used prick 10 radios, we navigated with maps and compass, our ground speed was determined by a pace man who tied a knot in a cord for every 1/4 mile.

Right now, at the beginning of the 21st century, it's like looking back to the beginning of the 20th century. We are primitives. The stuff we regard as high tech and modern is the stuff of antique shop inventory in fifty years or so. I have a hunch that by the end of this century, flying in aircraft that used human pilots will be looked at as amazingly dangerous and foolhardy.

Things that are taken for granted, like cell phone communication, was the stuff of science fiction just thirty years ago.

John
 
Stepping back 30 years and looking at the development of cell phones -- is NOTHING like looking at developing something that is truly intelligent, self-aware, and self improving. It just IS not the same thing.

Do I think we can write *CODE* to fly an airplane? Sure. Do I think that code can do anything it wasn't coded to do? Nope.

Writing code to fly an airplane is pretty simple. Writing code to fly them around, taxi through an airport, take-off, land -- in varying conditions at all of the airports that we currently operate at without a human on board ... is NOT simple.
 
Using the analogy of cell telephones was intended to illustrate how fast technology can evolve. Like I said in my post, the marriage of artificial intelligence, which today, is in it's infancy, and combining that with robotics, which is also in its infancy, is the direction we seem to be heading.

At this point in time, thinking that an artificial intelligence device could be capable of writing it's own programs with a thousand times more accuracy and precision than that of a human, almost seems preposterous, but then, so did the idea of millions of people using cell as a common communicating method just thirty years ago.

The simple, common phrase "write *CODE* " was unheard of in the 1960s by most people. Now, little children know what it means, it is part of our language.

The day will come that not only will computers control aircraft one hundred percent, they will also design and build them as well, right down to ordering and receiving the materials to do it.

If your concept of the future is next month, or even next year, you are right, airplanes will need pilots. We are already experimenting with completely robotic aircraft, we are doing that now, in 2009. How far do you think our technology will have advanced in 2060?

If you have ever watched a robot manufacture or cut anything, you would be astounded at the speed and precision that accomplished the job, especially if you had ever done the same job by hand.

It is not all that far into our future when the flying public would consider it downright dangerous to fly in an aircraft controlled by a human. Computers will do it with precision and accuracy. The emergencies that flesh and bones pilots find themselves in from time to time, will probably not occur at all when the pilots are computers with artificial intelligence.

There was a time in America that most folks considered automobiles toys for the wealthy. That they would never, ever, replace horses. Henry Ford changed all that with a thing called a production line. Heady stuff in those days.

John
 
John Baker said:
Using the analogy of cell telephones was intended to illustrate how fast technology can evolve. Like I said in my post, the marriage of artificial intelligence, which today, is in it's infancy, and combining that with robotics, which is also in its infancy, is the direction we seem to be heading.

At this point in time, thinking that an artificial intelligence device could be capable of writing it's own programs with a thousand times more accuracy and precision than that of a human, almost seems preposterous, but then, so did the idea of millions of people using cell as a common communicating method just thirty years ago.

The simple, common phrase "write *CODE* " was unheard of in the 1960s by most people. Now, little children know what it means, it is part of our language.

The day will come that not only will computers control aircraft one hundred percent, they will also design and build them as well, right down to ordering and receiving the materials to do it.

If your concept of the future is next month, or even next year, you are right, airplanes will need pilots. We are already experimenting with completely robotic aircraft, we are doing that now, in 2009. How far do you think our technology will have advanced in 2060?

If you have ever watched a robot manufacture or cut anything, you would be astounded at the speed and precision that accomplished the job, especially if you had ever done the same job by hand.

It is not all that far into our future when the flying public would consider it downright dangerous to fly in an aircraft controlled by a human. Computers will do it with precision and accuracy. The emergencies that flesh and bones pilots find themselves in from time to time, will probably not occur at all when the pilots are computers with artificial intelligence.

There was a time in America that most folks considered automobiles toys for the wealthy. That they would never, ever, replace horses. Henry Ford changed all that with a thing called a production line. Heady stuff in those days.

John
Click to expand...

Did you write this, or was it copied out of Popular Mechanics in the 50's? ;)
 
A computer would quite likely have gotten just as out of whack, seeing as it can't anticipate wind gusts or whatever condition it was that did cause that. How would it handle the situation? Good question, but seeing as the programmer would not likely be a very good pilot, I doubt that it would handle it very well. Computers are only as good as the programmers.
 
John Baker said:
Using the analogy of cell telephones was intended to illustrate how fast technology can evolve. Like I said in my post, the marriage of artificial intelligence, which today, is in it's infancy, and combining that with robotics, which is also in its infancy, is the direction we seem to be heading.

At this point in time, thinking that an artificial intelligence device could be capable of writing it's own programs with a thousand times more accuracy and precision than that of a human, almost seems preposterous, but then, so did the idea of millions of people using cell as a common communicating method just thirty years ago.

The simple, common phrase "write *CODE* " was unheard of in the 1960s by most people. Now, little children know what it means, it is part of our language.

The day will come that not only will computers control aircraft one hundred percent, they will also design and build them as well, right down to ordering and receiving the materials to do it.

If your concept of the future is next month, or even next year, you are right, airplanes will need pilots. We are already experimenting with completely robotic aircraft, we are doing that now, in 2009. How far do you think our technology will have advanced in 2060?

If you have ever watched a robot manufacture or cut anything, you would be astounded at the speed and precision that accomplished the job, especially if you had ever done the same job by hand.

It is not all that far into our future when the flying public would consider it downright dangerous to fly in an aircraft controlled by a human. Computers will do it with precision and accuracy. The emergencies that flesh and bones pilots find themselves in from time to time, will probably not occur at all when the pilots are computers with artificial intelligence.

There was a time in America that most folks considered automobiles toys for the wealthy. That they would never, ever, replace horses. Henry Ford changed all that with a thing called a production line. Heady stuff in those days.

John
Click to expand...
There will always be improvments in technology....what we do with those improvements are unpredictable. Extrapolating from the 1960s, I should be taking my Christmas break on the moon (at least that's what the magazines said).

I doubt many people (any?) predicted that wide spread availability of inespensive broad-band internet and storage would give us such things as FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, and www.jesseweather.com .

BTW- you may want to chack your history...The production line was used by the British to make blocks (complex pulleys) for sailing ships. They needed a lot of ships to blockade Napoleon, each ship needed hundreds of blocks. Smaller vessels such as sloops, cutters, etc also needed many blocks. I don't have an on-line ref for this. Henry Ford pioneered the moving assembly line where the worker stayed in one place and the car moved past him/her while they performed a task- an upgrade of the production line to be sure. The production line probably dates back to the days when cavemen needed a lot of spears to displace another tribe- Ogg straighten spear, Grod sharpen spear point, and Tod fire-harden spear tip. They just didn't have a name for the term "production line".
 
I guess I am not splaining myself clear enough. Based on todays computer technology, your right, humans are better. Are we locked into todays technology forever? This is as good as it gets? It can not be made better?

What if computers that learn (artificial intelligence) learned to write their own programs? Try to think of it this way, todays computers are primitive compared to what is coming.

Can a human mind keep up with todays computers? In ten or so years, todays computers will be regarded as dinosaurs, yet they can perform tasks at light speed as compared to humans ability to accomplish the same. What will happen when a computer can not only perform any task faster than a human, but use logic during the process?

Do you think a computer will care if it is night or day, foggy or windy? A computer will know the complete capabilities of an aircraft's performance. It will collect weather data ahead of it's track, it will know the heights of all obstacles along it's track, all the time.

We are not locked into todays technology to operate tomorrow's aircraft. Or perhaps there is some technology law I am not aware of and we are not allowed to progress any farther than we are now?

John
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Did you write this, or was it copied out of Popular Mechanics in the 50's? ;)
Click to expand...

I found an old Popular Science magazine from 1948. I never could have thought that stuff up by myself. Isn't it amazing that we can shun the idea of technological advancement. while typing on a keyboard and using the Internet?

I'm with you guys though, computers will never replace humans driving airplanes, nope, it's not possible. Never going to happen. You betcha! :mad2:

John
 
John Baker said:
I found an old Popular Science magazine from 1948. I never could have thought that stuff up by myself. Isn't it amazing that we can shun the idea of technological advancement. while typing on a keyboard and using the Internet?

I'm with you guys though, computers will never replace humans driving airplanes, nope, it's not possible. Never going to happen. You betcha! :mad2:

John
Click to expand...
Dig out some of the '50s sci fi. According to some authors, by now we would be flying across the galaxy in atomic powered space ships designed by guys using slide rules.

The one thing you can be sure of - whatever predictions are made now are going to be wrong.
 
John Baker said:
I guess I am not splaining myself clear enough. Based on todays computer technology, your right, humans are better. Are we locked into todays technology forever? This is as good as it gets? It can not be made better?

What if computers that learn (artificial intelligence) learned to write their own programs? Try to think of it this way, todays computers are primitive compared to what is coming.

Can a human mind keep up with todays computers? In ten or so years, todays computers will be regarded as dinosaurs, yet they can perform tasks at light speed as compared to humans ability to accomplish the same. What will happen when a computer can not only perform any task faster than a human, but use logic during the process?

Do you think a computer will care if it is night or day, foggy or windy? A computer will know the complete capabilities of an aircraft's performance. It will collect weather data ahead of it's track, it will know the heights of all obstacles along it's track, all the time.

We are not locked into todays technology to operate tomorrow's aircraft. Or perhaps there is some technology law I am not aware of and we are not allowed to progress any farther than we are now?

John
Click to expand...

You are making youself clear. I don't think you understand your prediction may or may not be correct. Look at the predictions for the future others have made in the past...and see how many actually panned out. You may be correct...but it may take longer than you expect.

FWIW, self-modifying code (computers writing their own programs) was done on a primitive scale back in the late 1980s. People don't bother much with it now since it looks like a virus- and viruses tens to get shut down by the operating system.

You may try studying a little history. It is amazing how technology has been used in unexpected ways, and also how the expected uses for technology hasn't panned out, and how "modern" technology has been used for a long time (look at my comments about mass production, for example). It will demonstrate the folly of trying to predict the future.

John Baker said:
I found an old Popular Science magazine from 1948. I never could have thought that stuff up by myself. Isn't it amazing that we can shun the idea of technological advancement. while typing on a keyboard and using the Internet?

I'm with you guys though, computers will never replace humans driving airplanes, nope, it's not possible. Never going to happen. You betcha! :mad2:

John
Click to expand...

I, for one, am not saying it won't happen. I say it may not happen. It may happen, and a horrific incident causes us to keep humans in the cockpit for another hundred years. There will be human oversight for a long time if it does happen, even if it is from the ground.
 
"It will demonstrate the folly of trying to predict the future."

I'm not sure what to think of this comment. Stop looking ahead? What we have now is probably it? Dreaming of better things is folly?

We should close all institutions of research and higher education now, save the country billions of dollars. We should put all those foolish daydreamers to work in the fields or something.

There is no "folly" in trying to predict a future, that is what makes our future better than today. Tomorrow my car will be clean, so I will wash it today in order to make that prediction come true.

We are human, we think, we base our thinking on past experience and a 1948 Popular Science magazine probably.

Someone once thought that airplanes of the future would fly across oceans.

John
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A computer would quite likely have gotten just as out of whack, seeing as it can't anticipate wind gusts or whatever condition it was that did cause that. How would it handle the situation? Good question, but seeing as the programmer would not likely be a very good pilot, I doubt that it would handle it very well. Computers are only as good as the programmers.
Click to expand...
A rate sensing gyro would have noticed not only the deviation but the rate of deviation and the AP applied the calculated correction all in under a second.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Dig out some of the '50s sci fi. According to some authors, by now we would be flying across the galaxy in atomic powered space ships designed by guys using slide rules.

The one thing you can be sure of - whatever predictions are made now are going to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, Atomic rockets were designed by guys with slide rules. The choice not to use them was a political one. The issue of not flying around the galaxy (or at least solar system) is mostly an economic one. We've (as a race) chosen to dedicate our resources to war and strife instead. CERN may give us some very interesting things to work with in next decade though.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A computer would quite likely have gotten just as out of whack, seeing as it can't anticipate wind gusts or whatever condition it was that did cause that. How would it handle the situation? Good question, but seeing as the programmer would not likely be a very good pilot, I doubt that it would handle it very well. Computers are only as good as the programmers.
Click to expand...

Programs in today's FBW systems are simply coded versions of control loops that can be implemented without software albeit less flexibly and more costly. The designer of such a system doesn't really need much in the way of pilot skills although the person who spec'd the performance requirements would need to know what makes an airplane fly and how the control surface movements affect the aircraft's attitude and performance.

And WRT the pictured landing / near crash, a "computer" would likely have reacted far quicker than the human pilots were capable of which should have resulted in far less deviation from the intended path/attitude. 250ms is as fast as our "circuits" work and that's assuming there's no need for a conscious decision. A "computer" could have begun reacting to the upset in less than one ms. As Jesse pointed out, there are things that automated systems can do with much greater precision and reliability than humans and keeping the wings from dragging on the ground and the plane aligned with the runway is one of those things. OTOH, coping with an abnormal situation not anticipated by the designers is not.
 
John Baker said:
"It will demonstrate the folly of trying to predict the future."

I'm not sure what to think of this comment. Stop looking ahead? What we have now is probably it? Dreaming of better things is folly?

We should close all institutions of research and higher education now, save the country billions of dollars. We should put all those foolish daydreamers to work in the fields or something.

There is no "folly" in trying to predict a future, that is what makes our future better than today. Tomorrow my car will be clean, so I will wash it today in order to make that prediction come true.

We are human, we think, we base our thinking on past experience and a 1948 Popular Science magazine probably.

Someone once thought that airplanes of the future would fly across oceans.

John
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for my flying car that I can use to launch from the road when the traffic gets too heavy on the ground. Seems like Pop Sci predicted that would have occurred a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top