Barnstormer,
You're absolutely right. Most of the other issues raised were what I would class as the
'basics', which I did in fact refer to in my reply. I just didn't want to list weapon parameters in an aviation forum...
My response was in no way referring to you as inadequate.
I do however, have past experience of those who can reel off technical specifications of weapons... but couldn't hit a cow in the arse with a spade!
You can guess my former regiment? I find that quite a disparaging comment... But that's okay.
I can guess your rank...
As for revealing one's status... It generally adds credence to the discussion. There are a lot of people who masquerade as knowledgeable on this forum. It's good to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Tourist,
All the 'real pilots' I know, would never use such a term, as it goes against the grain. Pilot's don't talk in term's of 'real or fake'. Since, I'm not 'real' and therefore an 'impostor of the sky' I'm not doing too badly at flying an aircraft to date...
To speak in such a derisory manner of another pilot's licence, aircraft etc. reeks of the uninitiated or 'non-pilot'...
Such a comment is usually the preserve of the general public who don't fly and see airline pilot's as the only flying that there is...
Therefore... Test Pilot's, Cargo, Flying Instructors etc... You must all be 'fake pilot's'!!!
In response to my status; I'll let you in on what my day job is. I've spent the last few years working in the design and development of a large aircraft, which means routinely understanding and justifying the rationale of many flight limits of a large aircraft to Test Pilots and Observers for Flight Trials. My contacts are far and reaching across military and civil. So... I know a bit more than your average pilot about how, why and where an aircraft's limits and capability come from. Henceforth, what also can be achieved in the real world.
The truthful answer from my end is that what can be achieved in a real world flight test programme and what science fiction would have you believe are two very different things.
This thread has thrown up some really interesting points, so all has not been in vain.
I do have to question the motives of people who see removal of pilot's as progress and why they are so determined to do this. A pilot is the best redundancy an autopilot could have.
I'm not a total hater of UAVs, I can see the obvious advantages of certain military applications as we see over Afghanistan. Loitering and certain highly dangerous roles where it would be suicidal to put a manned aircraft in spring to mind.
I do however, question the true misunderstanding and perhaps petty jealousy that envisages the elimination of the piloting profession as progress. Why are certain elements so determined to remove pilots from aircraft? My hunch is that it's the same sort of people who think that because they've played 'Call of Duty' or 'Flight Sim' that they are experts on the Army or flying... Yet, strangely and conspicously
never try to do it for real.
In answer to your glideslope question;
have you not vindicated my argument? You've just described a situation where the computer would have to recognise a
'one in a million' scenario which was more or less
inconceivable, then ask that computer to deal with that situation.
Is that not artificial intelligence of the highest degree? Or in layman's terms 'thinking'?
I'm genuinely interested in this subject and spoke to a friend today who has a degree in computing. He pointed out that a computer is only as good as the programming and rules it is given to operate around. A pilot is far better equipped to deal with the
'unimaginable' or
'one in a million' disaster scenarios as we've discussed or even just basic mismatches in certain cases. If the computer does not recognise the input, it can't give a meaningful output. A computer does not have the ability to be
ingenious or
imagine a scenario out of the impossible. You can't programme ingenuity into something.
The simple facts are: A pilot is the best form of redundancy there is for automation. How is removal of him from the aircraft progress?
It's not broken, why fix it?
Next time you encounter an advocate of the 'pilotless sky', question his motivation.
Computer's fail... fact. 'Real' pilot's know that.
Overall... We could argue forever about this, but only time will tell.