Degradation of will to learn how to fly
thunderstorms
how would automation deal with severe weather?.....ah,yes pace.....reminds me that automation might not do worse than the human input.
Was my misfortune to be in an aircraft confronted with a tropical thunderstorm that had been forecast and was clearly visible; pilot was CPL transporting senior management.. Despite the possibilities to delay departure, or turn back, or fly around......we went straight through.
But this is not the only pilot in command in the world who would make the same decision. Even with the best training, some people just do not have good quality of judgement
Was my misfortune to be in an aircraft confronted with a tropical thunderstorm that had been forecast and was clearly visible; pilot was CPL transporting senior management.. Despite the possibilities to delay departure, or turn back, or fly around......we went straight through.
But this is not the only pilot in command in the world who would make the same decision. Even with the best training, some people just do not have good quality of judgement
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that is my very point )) until they develop a thinking computer / robot which can not only look at radar returns but analyse visually the clouds and find a way through looking at both automation will be limited
It is the experience and knowledge of the pilot in dealing with multiple problems and I can think of a few myself which could never be handled by a computer
Automation will have a place as a pilot assist not as a pilot replace
I am sorry you had that experience entering a CB but that is the pilots mistake as was the incorrect recovery techniques employed in an airline which crashed moving the FAA to steer away from automatics and insist pilots spent more time in hand flying and upset handling
Pace
It is the experience and knowledge of the pilot in dealing with multiple problems and I can think of a few myself which could never be handled by a computer
Automation will have a place as a pilot assist not as a pilot replace
I am sorry you had that experience entering a CB but that is the pilots mistake as was the incorrect recovery techniques employed in an airline which crashed moving the FAA to steer away from automatics and insist pilots spent more time in hand flying and upset handling
Pace
For a robot aircraft to work I am assuming the environment is even more controlled than now, and "special situations" like mechanical failure are less frequent.
As I said before this is all about the relation between imperfect humans and imperfect robots. The robots are getting better, the humans are not.
I would expect that a full autonomy robot would be able to deal with an extreme crosswind better than a human (much quicker reactions, better information on position/accelerations/rates than a human eye/inner ear). In the landing situation is there anything that a human pilot knows that a robot cannot?
Again with engine failure/battery overheat what does a human know about what is happening to the aircraft that the robot does not? The days of looking at the colour of smoke from a burning engine are past.
In very extreme situations like total engine failure maybe a human might be better at choosing a field to crash into but the track record of humans pulling this sort of thing off in multi engine jets is not too good either.
Computers do not work very well without electricity ... but humans don't work well without oxygen so we have backup O2 for pilots, I would assume there would be backup power for the computer.
As to dodging lines of cells the robot would have full information from ground radar as well as radar in the aircraft. I agree there is the visual picture as well but I would expect a human to hold the robots hand from the ground for a few minutes while dealing with unusual weather.
I would expect the robot to fall back on asking a human if it gets a special situation.
As I said before this is all about the relation between imperfect humans and imperfect robots. The robots are getting better, the humans are not.
I would expect that a full autonomy robot would be able to deal with an extreme crosswind better than a human (much quicker reactions, better information on position/accelerations/rates than a human eye/inner ear). In the landing situation is there anything that a human pilot knows that a robot cannot?
Again with engine failure/battery overheat what does a human know about what is happening to the aircraft that the robot does not? The days of looking at the colour of smoke from a burning engine are past.
In very extreme situations like total engine failure maybe a human might be better at choosing a field to crash into but the track record of humans pulling this sort of thing off in multi engine jets is not too good either.
Computers do not work very well without electricity ... but humans don't work well without oxygen so we have backup O2 for pilots, I would assume there would be backup power for the computer.
As to dodging lines of cells the robot would have full information from ground radar as well as radar in the aircraft. I agree there is the visual picture as well but I would expect a human to hold the robots hand from the ground for a few minutes while dealing with unusual weather.
I would expect the robot to fall back on asking a human if it gets a special situation.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume the Robot won't be physically handling the controls ? So any computer input would have to be through the autopilot limited by the autopilot capability which is not great in strong crosswinds or wind shear!
The thinking computer is still very basic and if it was ever intelligent enough to deal with extreme weather then we should all worry ))
Pace
The thinking computer is still very basic and if it was ever intelligent enough to deal with extreme weather then we should all worry ))
Pace
Well, no. If a robot is flying the plane it is flying the plane with full authority over the controls. There maybe a seat so a pilot can fly the machine ... but usually there will not be a pilot 
I am not assuming a thinking computer (yet). I am assuming a rule based system for now ... but it can be quite a sophisticated set of rules. It seems to me that it is more difficult to make a robot car than a robot aircraft .... but the robot cars are coming already
I am not assuming a thinking computer (yet). I am assuming a rule based system for now ... but it can be quite a sophisticated set of rules. It seems to me that it is more difficult to make a robot car than a robot aircraft .... but the robot cars are coming already
Last edited by Romeo Tango; 28th Dec 2015 at 17:10.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Autopilots can work with all the senses humans have and even more. There is only one field where they are far too behind - creativity for the completely unexpected. That's why human space missions are still preferred over robotic missions.)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even the remote controlled drones are operated by humans not computers in that sense.
I am no computer expert but all computers do is to hold data which gives a preprogrammed command which then is processed through a system like the autopilot or controls like in the airbus.
The pilot makes an input which the computer registers and sends a command rather than by a conventional control link.
this means that if an unexpected or excessive control in put is made the computer can override that input.
I think what you are talking about is intelligent computers which think for themselves? That is still in extreme infancy and very basic decision making has been demonstrated.
Whether we will ever get to the ski fi idea of thinking robots to anything like the level of a human being is another matter until then there will always be a human mind overseeing and being able to override the computers
Pace
I am no computer expert but all computers do is to hold data which gives a preprogrammed command which then is processed through a system like the autopilot or controls like in the airbus.
The pilot makes an input which the computer registers and sends a command rather than by a conventional control link.
this means that if an unexpected or excessive control in put is made the computer can override that input.
I think what you are talking about is intelligent computers which think for themselves? That is still in extreme infancy and very basic decision making has been demonstrated.
Whether we will ever get to the ski fi idea of thinking robots to anything like the level of a human being is another matter until then there will always be a human mind overseeing and being able to override the computers
Pace
For what it is worth I do know something about computers. I have written a lot of code over the last 40 years from basic assembler up to high level languages as well as designing the devices some of that code runs on.
I'm not saying I could build a reliable robot aircraft today but I would certainly know where to start.
I'm sure there are several teams who have already started, not intending to fly granny next year ... but they will be ready as the technology matures over the next few decades (years?).
As I implied before, in my opinion, the aviation environment is much more computer friendly than the public road (even if the consequences of an error in flying are bigger). The problems of driverless cars are being solved, I would expect pilotless passenger aircraft to be not that far behind.
I'm not saying I could build a reliable robot aircraft today but I would certainly know where to start.
I'm sure there are several teams who have already started, not intending to fly granny next year ... but they will be ready as the technology matures over the next few decades (years?).
As I implied before, in my opinion, the aviation environment is much more computer friendly than the public road (even if the consequences of an error in flying are bigger). The problems of driverless cars are being solved, I would expect pilotless passenger aircraft to be not that far behind.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RT
Even if what you say is correct and I am not in a position to say it would not be the type of flying that would interest me anymore than joe Bloggs wanting to go from A to B
Flying has always generated fears in passengers which are not there in cars even though you are far more likely to be killed in a car
I don't think passengers or PAX would accept one pilot never mind NO pilots and public confidence is everything regarding aviation
The impossible happens and the day a pilotless aircraft went down even for the most obscure change of events there would be a major spotlight on that accident which not even the Lubitz crash generated
The only way I could ever see pilotless aircraft becoming acceptable would be if a ballistic chute system was ever designed for airline size aircraft
I did see a program on intelligent computing and we are decades off that being a realistic and reliable development
Pace
Even if what you say is correct and I am not in a position to say it would not be the type of flying that would interest me anymore than joe Bloggs wanting to go from A to B
Flying has always generated fears in passengers which are not there in cars even though you are far more likely to be killed in a car
I don't think passengers or PAX would accept one pilot never mind NO pilots and public confidence is everything regarding aviation
The impossible happens and the day a pilotless aircraft went down even for the most obscure change of events there would be a major spotlight on that accident which not even the Lubitz crash generated
The only way I could ever see pilotless aircraft becoming acceptable would be if a ballistic chute system was ever designed for airline size aircraft
I did see a program on intelligent computing and we are decades off that being a realistic and reliable development
Pace
Moderator
It sounds like the will to learn to fly certainly could be suppressed with all this talk of automated GA flight. I guess it's a matter of what each person perceives in the term "fly".
For me, "fly" is to feel the sky in my hands, through the controls and then feel the brush of the grass on the wheels as I touch down. "Flying" is to touch the floats onto tiny wave crests on a deserted lake, to pull up to the beach for a picnic. "Flying" is to gaze upon beautiful landscapes with the door off, and have the time to fly a 360 for a second look if I want, or wheel about in gentle aerobatics. And, sometimes, "flying" is to go from A to B with reasonable speed, and not be hobbled by surface features and road traffic. I don't need any form of computer for any of that.
I will not surrender the pleasure of my flying to a computer, nor an autopilot - I want to enjoy it myself while in the air.
I once flew a friend's MS Flight Simulator. I could not feel the sky, nor the grass or water upon landing, feel the G's, nor see the mists. I did not enjoy it, and I did not do it again.
I'm here in the private flying forum to promote the very basic fun of actually taking responsibility for, and flying an aircraft. If prospective pilots are approaching aviation as an opportunity to use a computer as a primary element of flying - why go to the airport at all? It's about the tiny sensations in your hands and feel, as the control forces come and go, and the engine oil on your cuff, and grass stain on your knee.
If you want to feel, see, hear and smell aviation, you're going to have to have the will to learn it!
For me, "fly" is to feel the sky in my hands, through the controls and then feel the brush of the grass on the wheels as I touch down. "Flying" is to touch the floats onto tiny wave crests on a deserted lake, to pull up to the beach for a picnic. "Flying" is to gaze upon beautiful landscapes with the door off, and have the time to fly a 360 for a second look if I want, or wheel about in gentle aerobatics. And, sometimes, "flying" is to go from A to B with reasonable speed, and not be hobbled by surface features and road traffic. I don't need any form of computer for any of that.
I will not surrender the pleasure of my flying to a computer, nor an autopilot - I want to enjoy it myself while in the air.
I once flew a friend's MS Flight Simulator. I could not feel the sky, nor the grass or water upon landing, feel the G's, nor see the mists. I did not enjoy it, and I did not do it again.
I'm here in the private flying forum to promote the very basic fun of actually taking responsibility for, and flying an aircraft. If prospective pilots are approaching aviation as an opportunity to use a computer as a primary element of flying - why go to the airport at all? It's about the tiny sensations in your hands and feel, as the control forces come and go, and the engine oil on your cuff, and grass stain on your knee.
If you want to feel, see, hear and smell aviation, you're going to have to have the will to learn it!
P & PD:
I agree with both of you. I'm not saying robot aircraft will be any fun .... just they are coming like it or not.
I expect there will always be a place for tiger moths and cubs but we may not be allowed to share airspace with passenger carrying drones. [Thinking about that I suppose drone aircraft may get quite good at dodging flying machines piloted by humans so we may be allowed to share ....]
In not very long it will be thought foolhardy to allow manual driving on public roads and soon after that it will be apparently stupid and dangerous to other road users. Again, I don't like that .... but that is the way our risk averse society is going.
I agree with both of you. I'm not saying robot aircraft will be any fun .... just they are coming like it or not.
I expect there will always be a place for tiger moths and cubs but we may not be allowed to share airspace with passenger carrying drones. [Thinking about that I suppose drone aircraft may get quite good at dodging flying machines piloted by humans so we may be allowed to share ....]
In not very long it will be thought foolhardy to allow manual driving on public roads and soon after that it will be apparently stupid and dangerous to other road users. Again, I don't like that .... but that is the way our risk averse society is going.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until these intelligent thinking computers decide they don't need these inferior stupid and imperfect masters called human beings and decide to eject you over the north Allantic 
or knock out a window to depressurise the aircraft which of course won't effect them )))
Intelligent Robots rule the world just as realistic a proposition ) mind you a sexy human like sex mad robot with perfect proportions you could switch off at will would really save a fortune on the bank balance and heartache )) far better idea than changing aircraft into Robot drive ))
Think they could be programmed never to nag and to tell you your beer belly is really sexy )
That is the whole point we fly for passion for a love of what we do computers have no passion no love no soul
Pace
or knock out a window to depressurise the aircraft which of course won't effect them )))Intelligent Robots rule the world just as realistic a proposition ) mind you a sexy human like sex mad robot with perfect proportions you could switch off at will would really save a fortune on the bank balance and heartache )) far better idea than changing aircraft into Robot drive ))
Think they could be programmed never to nag and to tell you your beer belly is really sexy )
That is the whole point we fly for passion for a love of what we do computers have no passion no love no soul
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Dec 2015 at 17:49.
it's the cost
I believe there is a huge segment of our world population who want to travel long distances and pay as little as possible. Many will hardly consider relative safety scenarios and will be entirely unconcerned as to whether an airplane is carrying pilots, or not.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: LHBS
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's coming whether we like it or not...
It's already implemented in 1-dimensional traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tion_4_Systems
It's progressing for 2-dimensional movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autono...ar#Predictions
And the 3-dimension variant (for commercial flying) will be here in less than another half century, perhaps coupled with optional remote control.
It's already implemented in 1-dimensional traffic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tion_4_Systems
It's progressing for 2-dimensional movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autono...ar#Predictions
And the 3-dimension variant (for commercial flying) will be here in less than another half century, perhaps coupled with optional remote control.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Kremmen
When a computer can assess, balance and manage risk, then we'll all be flying automated aircraft.
When a computer can assess, balance and manage risk, then we'll all be flying automated aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the whole concept of pilotless computer controlled aircraft is crazy it just won't happen|
Just imagine the double flameout due to Multiple Bird strikes over Hudson how would a computer driven only passenger jet handle that ?
" Oh yes says the computer brain! double engine failure so I will select best glide ?
HMMM Big city below and i could take out thousands of people destroying multiple buildings as well as the 200 people on board?
Oh YES theres a nice straight river over there! I can do a water landing? must remember not to put the gear down! Must remember to stall it in tail first.
must not collide with any boats in my line of vision so lets go right a tad?
Ok we are down safely now I have to deal with a safe evacuation and as CAPTAIN COMPUTER I will be the last to vacate or go down with the ship with a hiss and a crackle
"
Get real guys
Pace
Just imagine the double flameout due to Multiple Bird strikes over Hudson how would a computer driven only passenger jet handle that ?
" Oh yes says the computer brain! double engine failure so I will select best glide ?
HMMM Big city below and i could take out thousands of people destroying multiple buildings as well as the 200 people on board?
Oh YES theres a nice straight river over there! I can do a water landing? must remember not to put the gear down! Must remember to stall it in tail first.
must not collide with any boats in my line of vision so lets go right a tad?
Ok we are down safely now I have to deal with a safe evacuation and as CAPTAIN COMPUTER I will be the last to vacate or go down with the ship with a hiss and a crackle
"Get real guys
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Dec 2015 at 22:12.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilotless passenger capable aircraft have been around since at least just post war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hist...erial_vehicles
In 1946, eight B-17 Flying Fortresses were transformed by American airmen into drones for collecting radioactive data. They were controlled at takeoff and landing from a transmitter on a jeep