Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Airbus pitches pilotless jets -- at Le Bourget

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Airbus pitches pilotless jets -- at Le Bourget

Old 21st Jun 2019, 22:10
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Mostly South of England
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher View Post
Humans have a generalised ability to solve novel problems with accumulated knowledge and experience of nearby or similar situations and intuition. There have been numerous instances posited in this thread where humans adapted on the fly to unanticipated or unprecedented scenario's that they had not been trained for. CX780, QF32, Sioux city, Sully and a slew of others. A good primer on the subject of intuition (and it's flaws) is Daniel Kahneman's unexpected best seller "Thinking Fast and Slow", noting the work of his antagonist collaborator Gary Klein on Naturalistic decision-making.

In the interest of honest debate, humans are also completely capable of screwing it up, and required strict Standard Operating Procedures has to be developed trained and complied with to save them from themselves, that for most part pilots against their will are required to function as automatons. The hull loss rate suggest we have probably optimised the hybrid between the advantages that automation can provide and human tolerance for novelty and ambiguity for "out of design" scenario's.

Can you please point to a generalised problem solving artificial intelligence system that can solve and adapt to an unprecedented novel scenario in real time? Because that is the humans bring to the game.
That is what the humans bring to the game.

That's essentially, in a nut shell what GAI is. (GAI - Generalised Artificial Intelligence)

We're about 20 years away from that. Nand Gates are where it all started and their slow but steady, rising to exponential, evolutionary growth are going to be the death of us - or our salvation.

Which of those it is - is down to us.

Start here; https://futureoflife.org/superintelligence-survey/

Last edited by Auxtank; 22nd Jun 2019 at 07:08.
Auxtank is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 08:11
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,054
Who is going to turn off the stab trim cut-out switches?
FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 12:23
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,746
I was attending a conference where it was confidently stated we were only 15 years from pilotless airliners. I had to pipe up and say "double that". I was challenged and reversed the challenge by pointing out that the statement obviously came from an engineer. This is because engineers have the confidence that they can find a solution to every issue. The FBW Airbus types are a case in point. The engineers design the ECAM procedures for every eventuality they can think of. But there are many more situations they can't anticipate. In about 8000 hours of command on these aircraft, I have had five 'significant' events, none of which were resolved by the ECAM procedures and required the pilot's systems knowledge and analysis to make the aircraft safe. One was a programming error in the Flight Warning Computer software which reported one problem, but ignored a bigger issue. A similar case was with the FWC reporting an issue with a system not actually fitted to our aircraft. Another was an issue with the Navigation System not seen before; another was as a result of a dual failure which the ECAM couldn't resolve (the suggested course of action would have resulted in the aircraft depressurising) and the last was sequence of events which started as an engine fire indication, but led to a depressurisation because of a failure that had not been seen before and which had not been considered in 25 years of the type being in service. This event led to the checklists being re-written.

Until the computers monitoring the systems have sufficient artificial intelligence to evaluate and make decisions based on the information presented, we are a long way from certifying autonomous systems in public transport. I certainly wouldn't get on one of those aircraft, and I suspect many would feel the same. And even then, I wouldn't trust the AI!
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 14:26
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
..."Welcome onboard this is Captain Emcas flying you today"...
Kerosene Kraut is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 15:34
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Originally Posted by FlexibleResponse View Post
Who is going to turn off the stab trim cut-out switches?
No need to.
The FMS has no problem with feel changing which is why MCAS doesn't (didn't) operate with autopilot engaged. MCAS was there because it was thought human pilots would be unable to fly an aircraft with varying force to move the elevator.

Ian W is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 17:58
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by Dan Winterland View Post
In about 8000 hours of command on these aircraft, I have had five 'significant' events, none of which were resolved by the ECAM procedures and required the pilot's systems knowledge and analysis to make the aircraft safe. One was a programming error in the Flight Warning Computer software which reported one problem, but ignored a bigger issue. A similar case was with the FWC reporting an issue with a system not actually fitted to our aircraft. Another was an issue with the Navigation System not seen before; another was as a result of a dual failure which the ECAM couldn't resolve (the suggested course of action would have resulted in the aircraft depressurising) and the last was sequence of events which started as an engine fire indication, but led to a depressurisation because of a failure that had not been seen before...
Interested to know: out of these issues, how many would have been disasters, and how many would have been OK, if the a/c had been programmed to divert to nearest airport and get down asap?

​​​​​
PerPurumTonantes is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 19:08
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Just look at the high crash rates of military drones. Not shoot downs...BTW: An RQ-4 is more expensive than a F-35.

Higher risk and higher cost will prevent unmanned commercial aircraft for very long. Maybe we'll see something like unmanned wingmen flying in formation with some manned leader one day.
Single seat means no redundancy and unmanned from a systems reliability standpoint as one man can become unavailable.
Kerosene Kraut is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.