Degradation of will to learn how to fly
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
I heard John Roberts, the Chief Engineer on the A380, asked this question - his answer was very similar to Pace's.
Basically he said that if you're flying standard routes between civilised countries with predictable weather - yes, automate away. Route into unstable countries, with unpredictable events on the ground and in the air, with possibly unpredicted oddball weather conditions - and he always wants to see a human being up the front making the difficult decisions, usually on the basis of incomplete information.
G
Basically he said that if you're flying standard routes between civilised countries with predictable weather - yes, automate away. Route into unstable countries, with unpredictable events on the ground and in the air, with possibly unpredicted oddball weather conditions - and he always wants to see a human being up the front making the difficult decisions, usually on the basis of incomplete information.
G
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
From: LHBS
Let's agree to disagree. You nicely describe the steps taken for the successful ditching, these steps are equally applicable to all 100% loss-of-thrust situations and therefore these steps can be pre-programmed. The difference will be that a computer would use a short-range radar for obstacle avoidance, which, unlike the human eye, can see through the darkness and fog too.
A computer can also be progammed to take decisions in favor of minimizing loss of life (on-board/known and on-the-ground/estimated). It has no emotional bias, if needed, it will sacrifice 100 people to save another 200 in the blink of an eye.
On the other hand, maybe the the computers won't shut down the only operational engine, when the other one fails, which is a surprisingly difficult task for certain humans under pressure. A computer does not understand "pressure". It doesn't divorce. It doesn't have alcohol and drug problems. It doesn't get tired. It doesn't have workshift hour limits.
The biggest practical issue is who will request start-up clearence on the ground? Who will take decision regarding diverting due to sick or agressive passengers?Who will talk to the passengers en-route? The answer may be a the lead flight attendant, who is trained in using the radio from the cabin. So there will always be someone on board, representing the airline, but not necessarily able to hand-fly an airliner.
Finally, let's have a look at this for an eye opener - eSafe demonstrator:
A computer can also be progammed to take decisions in favor of minimizing loss of life (on-board/known and on-the-ground/estimated). It has no emotional bias, if needed, it will sacrifice 100 people to save another 200 in the blink of an eye.
On the other hand, maybe the the computers won't shut down the only operational engine, when the other one fails, which is a surprisingly difficult task for certain humans under pressure. A computer does not understand "pressure". It doesn't divorce. It doesn't have alcohol and drug problems. It doesn't get tired. It doesn't have workshift hour limits.
The biggest practical issue is who will request start-up clearence on the ground? Who will take decision regarding diverting due to sick or agressive passengers?Who will talk to the passengers en-route? The answer may be a the lead flight attendant, who is trained in using the radio from the cabin. So there will always be someone on board, representing the airline, but not necessarily able to hand-fly an airliner.
Finally, let's have a look at this for an eye opener - eSafe demonstrator:
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: The World
Let's agree to disagree. You nicely describe the steps taken for the successful ditching, these steps are equally applicable to all 100% loss-of-thrust situations and therefore these steps can be pre-programmed. The difference will be that a computer would use a short-range radar for obstacle avoidance, which, unlike the human eye, can see through the darkness and fog too.
A computer can also be progammed to take decisions in favor of minimizing loss of life (on-board/known and on-the-ground/estimated). It has no emotional bias, if needed, it will sacrifice 100 people to save another 200 in the blink of an eye.
A computer can also be progammed to take decisions in favor of minimizing loss of life (on-board/known and on-the-ground/estimated). It has no emotional bias, if needed, it will sacrifice 100 people to save another 200 in the blink of an eye.
No, it is not the old "the younger will ruin everything", it is exactly that emerging attitude towards pushing accountability to computers and gain the highest rank of human foolishness, non-responsibility. When I had my first secretary, she not once stood in front of me and apologized for doing a mistake. When she retired the second one never did a mistake, it was always "MS Word crashing". Humanity, responsibility and accountability were damaged and it still is.
Short-range radar does the technical trick in your example, not the computer. There is nothing wrong with the pilot using it, so no difference other than the responsibility kept at a human.
Decision taking is a very hot iron and lately even popped up in connection with automated driving. Yes, the computer does not have an emotional bias, but frankly, I want to live in a world with emotional bias, not cold blooded and cold hearted algorithms. Using statistics and Artificially Intelligence is a very common Golden Calf, but I prefer a human taking decisions, even if it does produce more fatalities in some case. It will safe more in another situation where the dump-headed programmer from Far Far Away was simply wrong. The solution to use technology advancing rapidly is quite simple, only let a human take control who understands what she/he is doing and is talented to perform, not push buttons only. Yes, this would cut i.e. the beloved holiday cattle flying to a minimum and prices for it will go through the roof, but so be it. Only do, what can be done and improve humans, not machines, first. Nowadays we tend to develop only machines and forget about the souls.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 5
From: The Wild West (UK)
@Chickenhouse: I don't disagree, but you're going to have to argue better than that if you want to convince people to opt for a course that even you admit may be riskier and more expensive.
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
How did that DA42 auto-land know the pilot was out? What triggered the takeover?
And why did the weather radar swan it around these little clouds that even I, non IR, non IMC equipped could buzz through? A towering Cb all black with internal lighting, OK, but those little bitty fluffy things? Why'd it need to do that? I'd say that vid was edited by the marketing department.
And why did the weather radar swan it around these little clouds that even I, non IR, non IMC equipped could buzz through? A towering Cb all black with internal lighting, OK, but those little bitty fluffy things? Why'd it need to do that? I'd say that vid was edited by the marketing department.
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
From: LHBS
I want to live in a world with emotional bias, not cold blooded and cold hearted algorithms.
I prefer a human taking decisions, even if it does produce more fatalities in some case. It will safe more in another situation where the dump-headed programmer from Far Far Away was simply wrong.
The solution to use technology advancing rapidly is quite simple, only let a human take control who understands what she/he is doing and is talented to perform, not push buttons only. Yes, this would cut i.e. the beloved holiday cattle flying to a minimum and prices for it will go through the roof, but so be it.
My guess is that automation will anyway gradually sneak into aviation in this order:
1. Cargo flights: Human: pilot flying, Computer: pilot monitoring.
2. Cargo flights: Computer: pilot flying, Human: pilot monitoring.
3. Cargo flights: Computer: pilot flying, Human on the ground: remote pilot monitoring.
And then the same steps for passenger flights.
Whether we like it, or not.
Next 50 years.
Last edited by rnzoli; 30th December 2015 at 22:57.
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
From: LHBS
It's not so hard to see that if this stuff saves a couple of lives, it will boost the public support / industry funding / academic research into automated solutions on an unprecedented scale. SO the time will come when the pilot is not completely passed out, but feels tired / unconcentrated / sick, so it will be very easy to press that "take me home now" button.
And why did the weather radar swan it around these little clouds that even I, non IR, non IMC equipped could buzz through?
I'd say that vid was edited by the marketing department.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
How did that DA42 auto-land know the pilot was out? What triggered the takeover?
Quite what would happen if the auto pilot was engaged I don't know, but they reckon to have already devised in car systems which can detect a driver who is falling asleep.
Edit. Already answered in part by rnzoli
