Automation, "computers", You have to go one way or the other guys.

[Kiteflyer]

Now is the time to make a choice. You either go fully automatic with triple, quadruple, quintuple redundancy like you do with your flight control systems or you forget it.

It is getting near the time when you guys should let the electronics manage and control all aspects of your jobs. The goal is to get 10-500 people from point A to B without people going from C to D hitting each other.

Yes "flying" is the best thing you can do outside the bedroom and ATC is the greatest video game ever invented. But it is time to let the machines do the work. When you can't see squat as a pilot the machine lands it... When an ATC screws up the machine yells "conflict"

Sorry to offend, but having read posts in here for several years most "disasters" and loss of life has been when man and machine disagreed.

Machine was correct in most cases.

This is meant as a debate point, you guys trust the "machine" as in Autopilot every day, why not go the whole way and trust "machines" in every aspect of getting a plane from A to B.

When you can't land "visual" what do you do?... Use instruments, you trust them?

[Notso Fantastic]

This is REPORTING POINTS! If you have items of news,by all means announce it here. Otherwise there are other areas to put this trash if you want a general jaw-wag! Why not go to QUESTIONS?

[Mike-Hunt]

Kiteflyer,

This is a professional pilot forum.
Your question is so immature and uninteresting that I doubt whether you will get any replies. Please now off you pop to the beach with that KITE.

[Dale Harris]

No problem kiteflyer. Your next aircraft's operating system will be Windows XP. No pilot to reboot it, either. Still happy to get on board, are we?. Thought not. This has been debated ad nauseum here. Try a bit of research before opening yap i suggest.

[Carruthers]

Predictable responses, some just want to hang on to the pilot image and traditional role. Afraid progress towards total automation is inevitable after all some of us are flying aeroplanes with the dreaded computers between us and the control surfaces, they seem to work. If you want to fly get a Stearman.

[NoJoke]

What NigelSoFantastic. Poor chap got the wrong board (don't get excited, not cheese-board) Are you so perfect that you do not make mistakes? I would love to fly with you NNSF. NOT.

[WhatsaLizad?]

Excellent Idea!

We should do this ASAP!

After all, my country (US), is extensively using remote controlled aircraft in the Afghanistan area.

Once we have all 6.5 billion Kevlar/Titanium umbrellas issued to every human being, your aviation utopia will be realized.

[Kiteflyer]

Notso Fantastic:- Thank you for your suggestion, Questions does indeed seem to be the place this thread ended up. However even here there have not been any answers to my "Question"

Mike-Hunt:- Well, the header on my post was a STATEMENT. The only line that was a question was "When you can't land "visual" what do you do?... Use instruments, you trust them?" Immature and uninteresting? To you maybe, but currently a very active discussion is going on about TCAS (a machine) and the consequences of not obaying its instructions.

Dale Harris:- "Windows XP" Now WHY would ANYONE use a general purpose operating system to do a very specific job like flying a plane? I think you will find that software used for that type of application is very limited in its function and not anything like "Windows" ALSO "triple, quadruple, quintuple redundancy" now I am SURE that if you used five laptops to fill in your expenses claim than you would stand a good chance of one of them not screwing up.

Carruthers:- My statement was "Automation, "computers", You have to go one way or the other guys." Meaning either go FULLY automatic or reduce the dependence on the existing (and often uncoordinated) computer control systems. This half way stage is a very dangerous place to be. As you said you already have to trust electronics to some extent.

BigBrutha:- Where did I "snipe" at you??????? However you do make valid points. you get the Windows bluescreen because windows is an operating system designed to do everything from fill in your taxes to playing solitaire. Also I bet you run programs written by third parties that have not been tested alongside OTHER programs. I think you will find that in process control systems the software is vastly different to your general usage PC stuff. I know for a FACT that the control unit on a pegasus (harrier) engine does not have a mouse, keyboard or screen and it DEFINATLY does not run Windows.

WhatsaLizad:- I don't understand your point, I assume you are talking about expendable drones. Pilotless because they fly over enemy territory for up to 24hrs at a time and what good would 180lbs of lard sitting in the front reading a newspaper be anyway?


So, getting back to the "question" how do you land the thing when you can't see where you are going?

As to supporting examples I assume you can all find instances where the "machine" reported one thing and the pilots either ignored it or mis-interpreted it. Ones that spring to mind are SQ006 (wasn't lined up on a runway), Air Transat leaking fuel and the tragic mid air over Germany. Very simplistically put these were instances where the systems reported to the pilots so the pilots could interpret the data and take action. The systems were not able/equipped/designed to take corrective action themselves.

[arcniz]

Kite - Your premise addresses an interesting discussion topic, but you dilute the prospective results with your show of attitude.

Your contention that "machine was correct in most cases" is not correct. If it were not for the moment to moment skill of pilots - from Wilber and Whasisname to the ones up there right now, aviation would be a marginal part of transportation technology.

Skilled human actions and interactions are the key to the safety and reliability of modern aviation. Just because they make it look easy... doesn't mean it is.

In focussing only on the few accidents that neither man nor machine was able to prevent, you misunderstand the cause-effect relationship.

By design, aircraft are inherently a compromise between expectations about intended uses and perceived constraints about materials, costs and time.

A moden passenger aircraft has - at a minimum - five to ten thousand man-years of design effort put into it before the first real flight, plus a lot of collateral effort by vendors, airlines, and others directly involved in aviation.

Even with that level of effort, design-related surprises occur throughout the service life of the bird.

The pragmatics of aviation add a lot of dynamic variables to even the simplest aircraft operations - and most operations in the real world are far from simple.

Variables of weather, loading, rules, plans, finance, sunspots, ice, bacteria..... the list is long.

What the technical experts do in developing an aircraft, avionics, etc, is try to think ahead, anticipate the context, and design well for it.

What the pilots, engineers, cabin crew, maintenance, ATC and operations people and a lot of others must do to apply those aircraft for useful work is understand, analyze, and chart a path through all these other immediately relevant variables, making plans and changes of plans every second of the day to accomplish the desired result.

One might suspect that, by the end of this new century, if not the middle, a capability will exist for sensor-connected airborne electronic information systems with 'real' intelligence comparable to that of humans. If so, they will probably become a welcome addition to the cockpit - as a nerdy sort of peer that never needs to bathe.

The human crew will benefit from this additional resource, yet will still run circles around it - from time to time.

[Wheelybin]

Blind reliance on automated systems is a very dangerous game.
If neither aircraft had TCAS then the controllers actions would have prevented a collision.
Also a number of incidents involving high descent rates to safe levels have caused TCAS to see conflicts that do not exist and in a recent incident in Britain The RA actually put the aircraft into conflict with another.

[Dale Harris]

Kiteflyer, my use of windows was an example. Do you know how may times a computer aboard an aircraft has to be rebooted? Do you know how many times an accident is averted because the "human" discovers that the computer is in fact wrong? Do you know why you don't know these things?. Simply because it doesn't make news, and it doesn't make good copy. Yes, we use autopilots, yes we use ILS systems, but do you honestly think as pilots we completely trust them? You have to be kidding......... Automation is an excellent way to reduce cockpit workload, increase efficiency, and increase the operating parameters of the flight. Humans make mistakes, they always will. Redundancy is not the solution you hope for. What do you think that removing the pilots and adding electronic complexity will do to despatch reliability? Remember that many items that an aircraft can carry as acceptable unserviceabilities require a higher workload for the crew. If there is an unserviceability on a completely automated system, would it be acceptable to the passengers to still despatch the aircraft, knowing that there is no person on board to possibly intervene if necessary?

While automation is not perfect, humans are not perfect either. That is why there is a mix of the two on board. Ask a surviving passenger on the Sioux City DC-10 if they would have preferred full automation. The day YOU can convince paying passengers to get on board a fully automated intercontinental flight, I suggest that YOU will be the world's best airline executive.............. Won't be in my lifetime anyway..........


Anyhow, as far as my expenses go, no, I would only use one computer. You see, as distinct from your example, if it crashes and I lose my expenses claim, I can always start again. Bit tougher for the passengers I would suggest..............

[Kiteflyer]

arcniz:- sorry if i showed an attitude. I re state my assertion that the "machine" was correct in most cases. The three I quoted indeed were instances where the systems did infact report good data (1, the runway is over there not here. 2, you are using more fuel than you should be. 3, you are going to hit something if you don't climb)

Now this thread has gone through its You want to replace pilots by computers phase I for one would not like to see a fully automatic way of transporting people and my birthday presents (freight) from A to B. arcniz, you are correct, there is ALWAYS the things that we didn't think of, the things we could never allow for in the design and testing, the things you need human ingenuity to solve as it happens. You said "The human crew will benefit from this additional resource, yet will still run circles around it - from time to time." my worry is when do you stop trusting it?

Wheelybin:- If either the controller or TCAS drove what happened then yes they would have missed. This may end up being a situation where once the humans have dropped the ball let the machines sort it out. A bit like airbags in cars....


Dale Harris:- No I didn't realise you had to frequently reboot your onboard systems. WHY????? Also I ask where did I suggest removing the pilots? If you read my initial post I said "Now is the time to make a choice. You either go fully automatic with triple, quadruple, quintuple redundancy like you do with your flight control systems or you forget it. " Forget it as in don't bother reducing pilot work load any more because if you go too far then the Pilots wwill rely on the systems and in the event of an anomaly they really won't have a clue what to do anymore. They will trust the systems all the way to the end.
As to using 5 computers for your expenses you made my point, if you used one and it crashed then you could start over, not so the passengers. That is where the 5 came in, the other 4 would fly them safely to Disneyland.


Automation is an excellent way to reduce cockpit workload, in fact it can reduce it to zero if you take it far enough. But there is the law of diminishing returns, at some point the cost of installing and maintaining these systems is less than a pilot's salary.

I am glad someone brought up UA232 that was a situation that you could never have imagined as a systems designer and so the solution to that problem would not have been available in a fully automated aircraft. In fact in 2102 when you all are flying around in a nintendo 780 then that situation would STILL be fatal because the chances of it happening are not worth designing out.


So, my opinion is... Do not automate any more as that will de-skill the guys at the front who may, once in their lifetime, have to take over and save the day.
Be careful of the amount of helpful information the systems you have now give the pilots, there is only a certain amount we humans can process.

and finally I HATE working on equipment that can kill people if it fails. Spare a thought for the poor devils who have to fix it........ They sometimes can't sleep at night..

[Wibble Hatstand]

Here is a really nice example of how well a pilotless aircraft performs.

Very safe and reliable. I'd fly in it!

article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_2127000/2127429.stm)

:D :p :p :D

[Dale Harris]

So you don't think that changes were made to design, both to existing a/c and new designs after the lessons from the united flight? No testing done to see if control can be maintained in these conditions in other a/c? How do you figure that nothing has been done to improve on this so called once off?

[McD]

Kiteflyer,

I see that you've clarified your original post/question (thanks), and from that perspective, I think I can see (at least somewhat) what you're getting at.

However, you must understand that it is very difficult to see your (apparently intended) point of view from your original post, because you advocate "letting the machines do the work" and say that we should let the "electronics manage and control all aspects of (our) jobs". That sort of thinking, in the way you originally put it, is very dangerous, which is why you got the responses you did.

Dale Harris makes some very good points in his post about computer failures and newsworthy items. Automation, or portions of automated systems, fail on occasion, and it's no big deal. The reason that it's no big deal is that we humans are ready for these failures, and when they happen, we correct or override them. No news at all.

Here's the way I (and most other pilots I know) look at automation: The facets of automation are simply TOOLS to assist us in performing our "mission" getting passengers from A to B safely. Automation is not "all or nothing", it's actually a range from complete non-automation (raw data, hand flying) to fully automated (Cat IIIB ILS, for instance), and several levels in between. As professional pilots, we must stay proficient at ALL these levels. We must know which tools are appropriate for the given situation, and how to use those tools properly. We must also have a backup plan if our intended tools fail.

As far as your question about further development, I see no reason to stop developing advanced systems which will result in more or better options for the pilots. More tools to choose from and work with, and that's a good thing!

Not to go overboard with the tool analogy, but you wouldn't deny a carpenter a powered screwdriver just because his hand-held one works well. And while he will happily own an "advanced" powered screwdriver with all the latest technology, he will still never give up his old-fashioned hand-held, because there WILL be times he needs it.

[arcniz]

Kite - Your clarification adds some elegance to the topic.

Implicit in the clarified premise is a point which can be very well taken -- that increasingly sophisticated technology should be augmented by increasingly sophisticated means to determine how well it is functioning - in real time - at all points during its operating life.

This applies not just to hardware and software, but to the integrated systems of people and machines that really do the work.

If the LZRH ATC terminus had been broadcasting a real-time 'quality of performance' indication in the ten percent range last month, the DHL and Tupolev crews might have had their adrenalin churning many notches higher; perhaps enough to change the outcome.

I have spent several decades flying and about the same duration actively working on development of fail-safe and fail-soft computer architectures and highly reliable control and measurement systems.

From my POV, sufficient cost-effective technical means and understandings are available at present to make avionics and integrated aircraft control systems that are inherently ULTRA reliable and also able to methodically degrade themselves and disengage or delegate their authority in a manner commensurate with internal or external failures affecting their performance.

For this to work well in practical application, crew and external systems affecting the aircraft need to be monitored as well. I won't do the list here, but suggest that everything from ground handling history to ATC status telemetry to maintenance logs would be fair game for continuing analysis by a self- monitoring aircraft.

For a dramatic example of this principle, I think it would make perfectly good sense for the flight controls on future aircraft inflight to automatically set themselves to an emergency autoland configuration if nobody is in the front seats is showing a pulse for five or ten consecutive minutes.

At the other end of this scale, it is desirable to have the aircraft systems - from the master FMS to the lowliest sensor - much more ready to 'fess-up' when they are not functioning properly or are operating outside the envelope of performance for which they are qualified.

McD's perspective is the right one - to keep clear on the idea that all of the systems in an aircraft are tools to support the aircraft mission. The humans in front need to have visibility as to the degree of proper function available from each of these tools and adequate control authority over them so as to be able to adapt and reconfigure any and all systems for unanticipated circumstances.

[Bagheera]

Can i just re-emphasise what has been said a little earlier.
According to the tapes , the controller (despite being at the lowest ebb for human reaction timing) actually beat the machine in providing avoiding action. Although it can be argued that this might be just down to parameter times,the point remains that without computer help the two aircraft would most likely have missed by a considerable distance. TCAS was invented for aircraft flying outside of controlled airspace ,but has since been brought in to a controlled environment,leaving the unanswered question of who is in charge? ATC? The Captain? The computer?
Automation is a wonderful thing and has brought us much reliability and safety(in terms of freeing up our minds to concentrate on other things), but we applaud the computers at the risk of forgeting our own brains capability of processing information far faster and also an ability to use lateral and experienced thinking.
Never forget computers are great but are nowhere near close to emulating the human brain.
For instance no-one has asked the question when TCAS told the DHL aircraft to descend why did it not pick up the fact that the TU154 was descending as well? We automatically blame the human but surely a sophisticated computer should have been able to pick up on that?????

[Kiteflyer]

Wibble Hatstand:- Aw when I clicked on your link I was so dissapointed, I thought you had linked to the BBC story about the X-34!!!!

Dale Harris:- I HOPE changes were made and lessons learned after UA232 but my intended point was who would have thought that could happen and how would you design an automated flight control system that could have adapted so quickly and saved lives as the pilots did.

McD:- Can't add anything.. The systems are tools, and arcniz takes it one step further, they are tools that humans use but in the event that humans "mess up" the tools take over.

arcniz:- The whole subject of how far you should trust automated systems is a fascinating one. If nobody can get hurt then I have no objection to single systems running something, however you will find that in industry if a system fails that does not injure but causes loss of production or damage then there is a backup (or several depending on the money lost in the event of a screw up)

In essence I really don't know what is best. I screw up, machines screw up and if one or other of us is running things then it is not as good as if we both were, the happy medium is the way to go I think, but where is it?

I am leaving Bagheera until last!

Bagheera:- "the controller actually beat the machine in providing avoiding action" For one aircraft, however it was too late.

"the point remains that without computer help the two aircraft would most likely have missed by a considerable distance" No I think that should be if either TCAS or ATC had not intervened then they would have missed, it was the mix of the two that caused a tragedy (don't yell at me that the report isn't out yet!)

"Leaving the unanswered question of who is in charge? ATC? The Captain? The computer?" That is the question which prompted my thread, who is in charge as in.. ""Automation, "computers", You have to go one way or the other guys""

"For instance no-one has asked the question when TCAS told the DHL aircraft to descend why did it not pick up the fact that the TU154 was descending as well?" In my opinion at that point both aircraft TCAS systems should have told the pilots "TCAS.. I have control..HANG ON!!!" and the systems should have taken control of both aircraft and only released control when the near miss was over. But that can't happen without TCAS being a multiple redundant system and being a lot more complicated than it is already.

On a lighter note I have spent all day trying to put together an automated garden watering system, got soaked to the skin many times when the system didn't work as it was supposed to. Finally gave up when the cat sunk it's teeth into the 1/4in transparent pipe that went from the pump to the pressure switch and it sprayed water all over the control box! (design note, I will now replace the clear plastic pipe with black poly pipe as the cats were attracted to the bubbles moving back and forwards in the clear tube, Who would have thought of that until it happened!!!) Some things like watering plants are best left to humans....

;)

[Bealzebub]

You have a strange understanding of TCAS. Whilst I have no intention of speculating as to the cause of an accident, you should appreciate that TCAS doesn't "Take over". It is a visual and audio warning system. Its purpose is to warn the Pilots that a conflict situation is arising, and then to provide an escape solution in the vertical plane.

ATC is normally the service that prevents conflicts arising. They have the ability to route aircraft directionally in the lateral and vertical planes. Pilots have eyes and ears and are ultimately the ones who will prevent a collision. If things have deteriorated to the point that TCAS has issued a resolution, then that really must be followed.

"The tools take over" ? Not usually a good idea to let this happen. Most of us have had the situation of cruising at FL350 when the GPWS suddenly has a little "brainstorm" and decides to shout "Terrain PULL UP !" (or something similar). Letting the tool (autopilot ?) "take over" would not be a bright thing to do. These systems are warning systems. They are for Pilot interaction. They cannot think or reason. They are as fallible as the people who made them. They are prone to any number of failures. Any computer is a glorified abacus.

Humans have the ability for rational thought and sometimes for irrational thought. In both cases that may lead to creative ideas. In the world we live in now that is the best we can expect. It is also the safest thing to have in the front end of an airplane.

[arcniz]

Bealz - You're showing your age with the remark:

"Any computer is a glorified abacus."

This is analogous to:

"Any airplane is a poor attempt at imitating a bird."

Both might ring well in a country pub at dusk after the haying, but both are mostly wrong from the pov of the 21st century.

We are roughly a hundred years into aviation technology and roughly 50 years into electronic computing technology. If anything, future innovation will proceed much faster on the computing side, because new designs and methods can be tried quickly and cheaply.

There now are, humming in university and commercial laboratories around the world, computers of the abacus variety ('threaded deterministic automata' ) that do a darn good imitation of thinking as we know it. They can do that trick by means analogous to compressing all those horses into a diminutive turbine engine - by moving energy around inside very rapidly and very purposefully.

Another technology- one can compare it to rocket power in this similie - promises to give us truly intelligent low-cost, low-power computing machines that range in intelligence from the simplest bug to the collective brainpower of everything alive - portable in your lunchbox. This category, called 'parallel non-deterministic automata' because the results are typically expressed with time as an added dimension and at any one moment are not a linear or wholly predictable computation (much like concepts emanating from your spouse). Some non-de's will almost certainly be able run circles around us in thinking as humans do, and also possibly in conceptualizing, by heretofore unavailable ways, useful concepts that go beyond the ability of our biological thought mechanisms.

Thinking machines - don't knock 'em until you have tried them.


On the other hand -

a) Experience has taught us to be very conservative about mass application of new technologies in aviation. Even the more conventional (deterministic) approaches to intelligent systems are going to be first tried in space exploration, military systems and industrial applications before going into the critical path of commercial aviation. The non-de's may take much longer before we can trust them adequately.... they will require a long period of apprenticeship.

b) The practical requirement for large-scale aviation is to have populations of closely interchangeable aircraft and similarly interchangeable skilled people who know really well how to operate them. Putting in vast amounts of technology does not change that need, but possibly makes it harder to assure a consistent result.

A big effect of more complex airborne technology is that it can greatly increase the need for crew expertise regarding the new black-box systems, and increases the confusion (v.v. TCAS) when many different 'versions' of the same thing are about. In the extreme case, the systems training activity consumes all the time there is.

Given that the highly-trained people operating aircraft will likely cost employers about the same in all scenarios, I would greatly prefer to be flown around by pilots who are experts in flying, rather than ones who are experts in everything else but.

[Kiteflyer]

Bealzebub:- I see you are also not sure of how much should be "automated" You mention my understanding of TCAS and the fact it does not take over. Which is correct. I said ""In my opinion at that point both aircraft TCAS systems should have told the pilots "TCAS.. I have control..HANG ON!!!" and the systems should have taken control of both aircraft and only released control when the near miss was over"" However I qualified it later in my post by saying ""But that can't happen without TCAS being a multiple redundant system and being a lot more complicated than it is already.""

However you stated ""If things have deteriorated to the point that TCAS has issued a resolution, then that really must be followed"" as in if you HAVE to do what TCAS tells you then why not cut out the middle man (pilot) and let it do it for you?

It is an interesting dilema is it not?

arcniz:- You know what is going to happen in aviation don't you?.. There is going to be a steady increase in the complexity of the onboard systems so passengers can be transported more cost effectivly and safe but to make it all work they will have to add yet another onboard computer at a cost of say $98,000 a year to help monitor all those systems. (3rd guy at the pointy end...)


I have thought about this for several days now and I think commercial aviation is now a tried and tested "mature" technology. If there were any major changes needed they would have happened by now.

Look at Personal Computers, they crashed regularly in 1982, they still crash now... but they do it in style!

Anything "automated" that is now added to aviation is iceing on the cake, it is the safest way to travel, and I think that even includes walking/passenger miles,

[Pegasus77]

Here are a few of my thoughts to the subject:

If I had let my quadruple-redundant autopilot fly the go-around for me instead of taking over the airplane manually, I would have been dead by now, and so would my 130 passengers and crew have died as well, due to a weird softwarebug, which caused the autothrust to close the throttles at only 1000' AGL with a pitch attitude of 17 degrees ANU and a now very quickly decreasing airspeed.

An autoland is way overestimated. People seem to forget that an autoland is a very critical flight manouvre, that, when CAT3 ops are in progress, causes a lot of delay, due to the increased distances to prevent interference with radiosignals.
The expansion in capacity needed to cope with an autoland-only operation would be virtually impossible with all the environmentalists around.

Furthermore, usually an autoland is made in dense fog, when it is windstill. The autoland system of the Airbus fades out the glidslopesignal in the last 100 feet and produces a kind of flare there. No reaction will follow in gusty wind-conditions, where the ground is suddenly a lot nearer or further away than expected. Only today I was able to correct a (manual) landing where I got a lowlevel windshear in the flare. An autoland would have ended up in disaster in the same conditions.
Autocoupled approaches are not always possible, because the systems have not been designed to cope with those conditions.

Human beings are creative, and it seems that a human being on the spot (i.e. a pilot) is more creative than a guy behind a desk. Yes offcourse airplanes could take off and land automatically, but as you cannot foresee all possible events, and because flying (and weather for that part) is a lot more dynamic than a piece of paper, you will keep a need for human interference.

As stated in this thread before: Several cases are knowm where a human pilot overruled the system wrongly and crashed the aircraft. I never crashed, but in my short experience took over control from the 'machine' several times already to prevent a creash from happening. And because that is actually pretty normal, most cases never got documented. So before stating that computers should fly instead of humans... get your facts straight.

Last but not least, I had my emergency recurrency training yesterday, and we discussed the possibility of cabin crew observing fire coming from an engine. I explained to them that relaying that information to the cockpit is vital! Because our fire-pickups in the engine are made for a few writingdeskthoughtof-cases, there could very well be something burning without the system knowing and without any alarmbells ringing.
Here I remember an incident, where the entire cockpit filled with a very light smoke which smelled like burning electric cable. All systems were functioning normally, but the captain and I needed less than 2 seconds to decide to make an emergency landing at the nearest airport. Safely on the ground everything was handled perfectly well by the fire brigade, ground crew etc. and we all survived some anxious moments. A machinecontrolled aircraft could never have sensed it would be on fire, because the cause of this fire was not being picked up by any kind of mechanism. The machinecontrolled aircraft would have flown on to the destination and would have given a great romantic view over the night mediterranean with all passengers dead aboard just before exploding in midair.

So I conclude: Yes we can fly automatically, sometimes we even need to, but that is possible only in selected circumstances, and due to the limitations of computers and machines and their pickups, I'm damn glad that there are 2 human beings up front.

P77