Originally Posted by
tdracer
Even today, electronic systems can see better in challenging vision situations than humans - they only time the human Mark 1 eyeball is superior is in near perfect conditions (and that advantage is shrinking fast). Add some smoke or fog, low light, etc. and electronics become superior (with the advantage of being able to instantly determine distances to millimeters - far more accurate than any human). A CAT III autoland wouldn't be remotely possible using only human vision.
If we can design a car to drive down a busy, uncontrolled neighborhood road autonomously, taxing an aircraft at a controlled airport becomes almost trivial.
Rather you than me.
I was not saying human vision is better than electronic vision, I meant that the human eye/brain combination and a human's ability to adapt to changing situations and the unforeseen is vastly superior to a computer's.
If we
think we can design a car to drive down the freeway and avoid all obstacles, but it confuses the side of a truck for the sky and crashes into the truck....?
Asimo is an extremely impressive humanoid robot that can run up a few stairs and walk bipedally unaided. But he has to spend about a minute standing in front of the stairs programming himself and his visual detectors before he can do so. As he does this he adjusts his position by a few cm one way or another before making the attempt. Then, eventually, he runs up four steps. Absolutely brilliant, really impressive. But any human who can walk can do that. And then as Asimo left the auditorium, he walked into a door that he was expecting to be open, but which had swung half shut.
I am not a non believer, my first career was in electronics and I have written computer code. I just don't see a valid reason for making commercial passenger aircraft autonomous. It won't prevent accidents, it will replace current accidents with other types.
CAT lll autolands don't use electronic vision, they follow radio beams and radar altitude measurements. As you know.
