@Guppy
"Quote:
That's one of the reasons the government keeps the NUMBER of UAVs that have NOT returned to base a secret. In fact, hundreds have been lost, and not just in combat.
I've been present when it's happened (at the business end, not the operator end). I've also seen up close and personal what they can do,and what they can't..."
Me too
Quote:
The autopilot is there to fly the aircraft.
"No, it's not. The autopilot is there as an auxilliary control system; the pilot still flies the aircraft, but flies it through the autoflight system, rather than through the control column. The autopilot doesn't fly the airplane. It's merely one of the controls that pilots use to operate the airplane. You don't fly, do you?"
Yes I do fly. You missed the point, but I apologise for making it a little too oblique.
If an autopilot were to be used to save an aircraft in the situation relevant to this discussion, it would need the full functionality to fly the plane autonomously. Those APs exist and are routinely used in UAVs. There is no fundamental reason they could not be easily fitted to your large jet transport.
"Quote:
The question is, why could the crew of the AC in question not use its autopilot to save their lives?
"I guess that answers the last question. If you have to ask, then obviously you don't fly. The crew was blind, you see."
Bad guess, see above
Quote:
My point is that we now have new autopilot technology (as can be observed in UAVs) which can navigate an aircraft completely autonomously, and of course the autopilot may be manually controlled from the ground (anywhere in the world) with a variety of existing comms links with (for example) click and drag waypoints, climbs, descents, and various configuration changes with ease.
"It would appear that what you know of UAV/UAS systems, you learned from CNN, wouldn't it? "
Negative Guppy
"Chock this up to the same thinking that so far has brought us "give the crews parachutes;" "dive the airplane and push the cargo out the door while it doesn't weigh anything;" and of course "put a doctor, lawyer, indian chief, and marriage counselor, priest, and firefighting brigade on board just in case" ideas. "
Look, I really do understand the reticence on behalf of pilots to give away control. It is quite right to be skeptical, however as with all new and challenging concepts, good skepticism requires an open mind and a strong guard against denialism.
I imagine Mr Sperry may have encountered skeptics at first, but once people realized that overall safety could be improved, and that the technology was able to augment their role rather than diminish it, the future was inevitable. Else you risk to be a Luddite.