"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Antipodes
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've followed this thread with interest. But the simple question is whether as a passenger one would accept to board an aircraft without pilots. I'm sure that if a poll is made, we'll get an overwhelming 99% of response that says that they won't risk doing it. Humans will trust a lot of things to automation, but in an instinct of self-preservation, they won't trust their lives to it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 71
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
6 Posts
Humans trust their lives to automation every time they travel in a lift (elevator). They don't even think about it. Aircraft are many orders of magnitude more complex. But people have got used to travelling in unmanned trains. I look forward to travelling in a driverless car. I don't see why, in time, aircraft could not be similarly acceptable.
The first 'pilotless' passenger aircraft isn't going to be a 400 passenger commercial airliner - it'll be a private 'bizz jet' general aviation aircraft (or even a prop), certified under far more relaxed regulations than the Part 25 FAA and EASA regs. The safety record for general aviation currently isn't all that great - orders of magnitude worse than the Part 25 counterparts. So you've got some businessman who can justify and afford his own aircraft, but doesn't want to either pay for a pilot or become one. You honestly think the idea of a pilotless aircraft - as safe or safer than the admittedly mediocre level of piloted general aviation - wouldn't be attractive? Sure, some will crash, people will die - just like what happens with all to much regularity in general aviation today. But the bugs will be worked out, and before long unpiloted GA aircraft will be way safer than their piloted counterparts.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr dre
I think one of the bonuses of automation is that due to the step change in systems required, we may actually require a lot less infrastructure. Good time to bin ILS/VOR/NDB entirely. They are just not required anymore. There is plenty of tech around that made them obsolete long ago, it just requires certification which is expensive.
I read with interest your "at least a century"
I'm sure that you came to that figure from careful analysis of Moore's law, the pace of change of technology in aviation etc, but some on here might think you just pulled it out of your @rse.
I think one of the bonuses of automation is that due to the step change in systems required, we may actually require a lot less infrastructure. Good time to bin ILS/VOR/NDB entirely. They are just not required anymore. There is plenty of tech around that made them obsolete long ago, it just requires certification which is expensive.
I read with interest your "at least a century"
I'm sure that you came to that figure from careful analysis of Moore's law, the pace of change of technology in aviation etc, but some on here might think you just pulled it out of your @rse.
Last edited by Tourist; 6th Dec 2014 at 21:02.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faire dincome
Leaving aside the fact that the computer would also have had the AoA info to hand, plus why on earth would the computer have only those inputs. There are vastly more parameters available nowadays.
Even a mobile phone has accelerometers. pitot tubes are not the only way of measuring airspeed etc etc.
It is beside the point I believe anyway.
Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did. Let's assume that we limited the proposed new airliner to old school sensors.
I believe I am correct in saying that after the initial pitot problem, for the rest of the flight the instruments actually worked correctly?
So all the info was available to the pilots, they just failed to interpret it and act accordingly. All a computer had to do was lower the nose.
Your misunderstanding of pitch and power worries me if you are in fact a pilot.
Pitch and power is not a stall recovery technique.
It is a flying with unreliable instrument technique.
It does not mean pitch the aircraft and add power as you seem to suggest.
It means that there are pitch and power settings that will give known level flight speeds.
Yes, Airbus and the rest of the sane world recommends lowering the nose to recover from a stall in an airliner. This is not beyond the wit of man to program into a computer.
Leaving aside the fact that the computer would also have had the AoA info to hand, plus why on earth would the computer have only those inputs. There are vastly more parameters available nowadays.
Even a mobile phone has accelerometers. pitot tubes are not the only way of measuring airspeed etc etc.
It is beside the point I believe anyway.
Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did. Let's assume that we limited the proposed new airliner to old school sensors.
I believe I am correct in saying that after the initial pitot problem, for the rest of the flight the instruments actually worked correctly?
So all the info was available to the pilots, they just failed to interpret it and act accordingly. All a computer had to do was lower the nose.
Your misunderstanding of pitch and power worries me if you are in fact a pilot.
Pitch and power is not a stall recovery technique.
It is a flying with unreliable instrument technique.
It does not mean pitch the aircraft and add power as you seem to suggest.
It means that there are pitch and power settings that will give known level flight speeds.
Yes, Airbus and the rest of the sane world recommends lowering the nose to recover from a stall in an airliner. This is not beyond the wit of man to program into a computer.
That fact you didn't understand this blows your argument to pieces.
As for lowering the nose, that it not the issue. The issue is delaying the increase of thrust, which causes a pitch up moment thus compounding the stall. But then you didn't seem to understand that either.
Time to stop spoofing.
And I love this 'Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did.' What do you think happened before the autopilot disconnected?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Mostly hotels
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why
The main question is WHY. Why have a pilot-less airplane in the first place?
What do we gain from it.Safety ?Economy? what exactly do we gain?
Safety will not improve with pilot less airplane, nor will it be economical as they will cost a lot to maintain and run , eventually costing more .
What do we gain from it.Safety ?Economy? what exactly do we gain?
Safety will not improve with pilot less airplane, nor will it be economical as they will cost a lot to maintain and run , eventually costing more .
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why?
Why?
Well the clue is in the title of the thread.
Tourist and others have spent 15 pages explaining why.
It's simply that the timescale involved, versus the lifespan of the industry as we know it means it won't be worth it.
And with the industry for the time being getting safer as well as cheaper, the safety benefit versus cost also means it won't be worth it. As somebody put it nicely a few pages back, "We aren't killing enough people".
Why am I bothered? Well it's not the dent in professional pride. I'm making a reasonable fist so far of keeping last century technology out of the mountains. And it's not fear of my job. See timescale, above.
Really, it's that all the departments of hard sums, and the clever people, and all that money could be better invested where there's a pressing need.
For example, alternative power for when the oil runs out...
Well the clue is in the title of the thread.
Tourist and others have spent 15 pages explaining why.
It's simply that the timescale involved, versus the lifespan of the industry as we know it means it won't be worth it.
And with the industry for the time being getting safer as well as cheaper, the safety benefit versus cost also means it won't be worth it. As somebody put it nicely a few pages back, "We aren't killing enough people".
Why am I bothered? Well it's not the dent in professional pride. I'm making a reasonable fist so far of keeping last century technology out of the mountains. And it's not fear of my job. See timescale, above.
Really, it's that all the departments of hard sums, and the clever people, and all that money could be better invested where there's a pressing need.
For example, alternative power for when the oil runs out...
Thread Starter
not a "Tourist trap"
Hi tourist.
I appreciate it that you say I am making some good points!
About the question at the end (to save readers having to trace back I asked this "Question for the YES side."
"A pilotless airliner with 400 pax. is taking off in the correct configuration. At VR a system detects a changed status of a physical system. A/C protection software automatically reconfigures aircraft to settings appropriate to changed status. The new configuration puts a/c immediately outside the flight envelope and makes it almost incapable of flight. This condition had not been considered in any certification fault tree analysis.
(a) what do you envisage would happen to this pilotless a/c?
(b) which organisations will volunteer to be liable for the consequences?"
You replied "Your question is just a trap.
You are asking me to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet you have just thought of the scenario."
I take it you believe I am posing a false paradox - since I have thought of it, it can't be something that couldn't be foreseen. That would be true if I had "just thought of it", i.e. imagined it as a potential scenario.
The point is that I have not just imagined this scenario. The way I have phrased it is simply a generalised description of what happened to an acquaintance of mine 5 years ago.
During a B744 night takeoff, close to performance limits, the thrust reverser cowls on 2 engines independently moved rearwards as the aircraft accelerated. #3 at V1-25 kt, #2 9 seconds later at V1+ 9. They moved fractionally further than they should, triggering microswitches that sensed it as reverser activation.
System logic then was
"weight is on wheels, therefore a/c on ground.
>reversers are about to be deployed therefore a/c is landing
>possible exhaust gas damage to leading edge flaps when reversers deployed therefore retract LE flaps."
So at 0.7 seconds / 4kts before VR the LE flaps were retracted, with no warning to the crew.
At V2 the aircraft wheels left the ground. The a/c was just airborne in the dark with an intermittent stick shaker and very heavy buffeting making the instruments hard to read. Fortunately the First Officer who was PF recognised the buffet as being stall related, and maintained a very shallow climb to build up speed. After 7 seconds the air-ground logic caused the LE flaps to re-extend.
My point here is not to discuss the specifics, and I will grant that an automatic system would not have had the human pilots' handicap of difficulty in reading instruments and absence of external visual cues in the dark (although heavy buffet has been known to cause poor contact for avionics boxes).
It is that the humans on the spot were able to make some attempt to deal with this unforeseen situation. If they had not succeeded it would have been a major catastrophe with incalculable consequences especially for Boeing, as the possibility of such an occurrence had not been identified during amendment of the retraction logic.
This was nothing to do with reaction times and computer redundancy etc, it was physical objects in unpredicted circumstances. In the event, human pilot "instinct" saved the day, with NO analysis whatever of data. In this case, by pure good fortune the PF was an experienced aerobatic pilot and familiar with buffet, and one might question whether other pilots would have done so well. But that's really irrelevant to the questions.
So to come back to my question to you, which I've expanded slightly to cover the specific example:
(a) what do you envisage would happen to this pilotless a/c?
Would it follow the logic of "All engines are operating at VR, therefore raise nose and follow normal climb profile", which would be followed by a sustained stall warning leading to "follow stall recovery procedure and lower the nose (and hit the ground)".
or "An engine is about to go in reverse below V1, stop (and run off at high speed)"
or "Two engines are about to go in reverse above V1, stop (and run off at even higher speed)"
or "Two engines are about to go in reverse above V1, carry on (and do what?)"
or some other logic path, obtained from what analysis?
(b) which organisations will volunteer to be liable for the consequences?"
However, I reject the idea that "this is a "trap", because I am asking you to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet I have just thought of the scenario." I am using it as an example of something that neither I nor anyone else thought of, before it actually happened. I maintain that totally unpredicted and unpredictable events will continue to happen to both piloted and any pilotLESS aircraft, and want to know how the pilotless ones will deal with them.
I appreciate it that you say I am making some good points!
About the question at the end (to save readers having to trace back I asked this "Question for the YES side."
"A pilotless airliner with 400 pax. is taking off in the correct configuration. At VR a system detects a changed status of a physical system. A/C protection software automatically reconfigures aircraft to settings appropriate to changed status. The new configuration puts a/c immediately outside the flight envelope and makes it almost incapable of flight. This condition had not been considered in any certification fault tree analysis.
(a) what do you envisage would happen to this pilotless a/c?
(b) which organisations will volunteer to be liable for the consequences?"
You replied "Your question is just a trap.
You are asking me to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet you have just thought of the scenario."
I take it you believe I am posing a false paradox - since I have thought of it, it can't be something that couldn't be foreseen. That would be true if I had "just thought of it", i.e. imagined it as a potential scenario.
The point is that I have not just imagined this scenario. The way I have phrased it is simply a generalised description of what happened to an acquaintance of mine 5 years ago.
During a B744 night takeoff, close to performance limits, the thrust reverser cowls on 2 engines independently moved rearwards as the aircraft accelerated. #3 at V1-25 kt, #2 9 seconds later at V1+ 9. They moved fractionally further than they should, triggering microswitches that sensed it as reverser activation.
System logic then was
"weight is on wheels, therefore a/c on ground.
>reversers are about to be deployed therefore a/c is landing
>possible exhaust gas damage to leading edge flaps when reversers deployed therefore retract LE flaps."
So at 0.7 seconds / 4kts before VR the LE flaps were retracted, with no warning to the crew.
At V2 the aircraft wheels left the ground. The a/c was just airborne in the dark with an intermittent stick shaker and very heavy buffeting making the instruments hard to read. Fortunately the First Officer who was PF recognised the buffet as being stall related, and maintained a very shallow climb to build up speed. After 7 seconds the air-ground logic caused the LE flaps to re-extend.
My point here is not to discuss the specifics, and I will grant that an automatic system would not have had the human pilots' handicap of difficulty in reading instruments and absence of external visual cues in the dark (although heavy buffet has been known to cause poor contact for avionics boxes).
It is that the humans on the spot were able to make some attempt to deal with this unforeseen situation. If they had not succeeded it would have been a major catastrophe with incalculable consequences especially for Boeing, as the possibility of such an occurrence had not been identified during amendment of the retraction logic.
This was nothing to do with reaction times and computer redundancy etc, it was physical objects in unpredicted circumstances. In the event, human pilot "instinct" saved the day, with NO analysis whatever of data. In this case, by pure good fortune the PF was an experienced aerobatic pilot and familiar with buffet, and one might question whether other pilots would have done so well. But that's really irrelevant to the questions.
So to come back to my question to you, which I've expanded slightly to cover the specific example:
(a) what do you envisage would happen to this pilotless a/c?
Would it follow the logic of "All engines are operating at VR, therefore raise nose and follow normal climb profile", which would be followed by a sustained stall warning leading to "follow stall recovery procedure and lower the nose (and hit the ground)".
or "An engine is about to go in reverse below V1, stop (and run off at high speed)"
or "Two engines are about to go in reverse above V1, stop (and run off at even higher speed)"
or "Two engines are about to go in reverse above V1, carry on (and do what?)"
or some other logic path, obtained from what analysis?
(b) which organisations will volunteer to be liable for the consequences?"
However, I reject the idea that "this is a "trap", because I am asking you to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet I have just thought of the scenario." I am using it as an example of something that neither I nor anyone else thought of, before it actually happened. I maintain that totally unpredicted and unpredictable events will continue to happen to both piloted and any pilotLESS aircraft, and want to know how the pilotless ones will deal with them.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, I reject the idea that "this is a "trap", because I am asking you to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet I have just thought of the scenario." I am using it as an example of something that neither I nor anyone else thought of, before it actually happened. I maintain that totally unpredicted and unpredictable events will continue to happen to both piloted and any pilotLESS aircraft, and want to know how the pilotless ones will deal with them.
But I agree with your final comment. The systems we produce are vastly more automated than the ones they replaced, with self-monitoring and maintenance capabilities. When I get a phone call at 4am, it's usually because of some scenario we never considered, which leads to pathological behaviour until the system shuts down (e.g. some piece of hardware fails, so the servers reset it, but it won't reset, and that triggers some watchdog timer, from which it can't recover without the failed hardware, and then it all goes to hell). It's much more robust, and needs much less human intervention, than the previous generation, but it still breaks. Fortunately, hundreds of people don't die when that happens.
Thread Starter
neville_nobody commented "12 Pages and noone has even touched on how you could ever certify a pilotless pax aircraft."
interesting link here
'Certifiable Trust' Required To Take Autonomous Systems Past 'Unmanned' | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
interesting link here
'Certifiable Trust' Required To Take Autonomous Systems Past 'Unmanned' | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slast
Ok, let's deal with your example.
The simple fact is that I don't know the systems in enough detail to know.
It's possible that it would have gone swimmingly, just like it is possible that another pilot on another day might have porked it.
As I have said before.
There will still be smoking holes.
They will almost certainly be for different reasons. Different problems will be tricky for manned vs unmanned.
This might come under the previously mentioned black swan events.
What is important is whether overall it is as safe but cheaper, or safer.
ie total death rate
I believe it to be likely that removing all the human error accidents will offset the rare/weird ones.
As I've said, I don't disagree with most of your points. They are all valid. The difference is that I think they are surmountable challenges rather thn stoppers.
....and yes, that is a very interesting article.
Ok, let's deal with your example.
The simple fact is that I don't know the systems in enough detail to know.
It's possible that it would have gone swimmingly, just like it is possible that another pilot on another day might have porked it.
As I have said before.
There will still be smoking holes.
They will almost certainly be for different reasons. Different problems will be tricky for manned vs unmanned.
This might come under the previously mentioned black swan events.
What is important is whether overall it is as safe but cheaper, or safer.
ie total death rate
I believe it to be likely that removing all the human error accidents will offset the rare/weird ones.
As I've said, I don't disagree with most of your points. They are all valid. The difference is that I think they are surmountable challenges rather thn stoppers.
....and yes, that is a very interesting article.
Last edited by Tourist; 6th Dec 2014 at 21:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faire
I think you are embarrassing yourself.
Go read up on the accident.
One of us is making a
of themselves here, and the fact that the people on here that disagree with everything I'm saying don't think that the AF447 is a good example to press their case should point you in the direction of who that might be....
I think you are embarrassing yourself.
Go read up on the accident.
One of us is making a
of themselves here, and the fact that the people on here that disagree with everything I'm saying don't think that the AF447 is a good example to press their case should point you in the direction of who that might be....
but if the dog-feeding-pilot is there as an "In an emergency break the glass " context, which might make a bit of sense, how is he to be able to take over if he never physically flies the aircraft for practice ? Even now we have some pilots rarely making manual landings - until they have to try to land at San Francisco with a glide slope out of service and an auto throttle system that holds the throttles stationary ( even had they engaged it ). OK, I won't start that again !
World's Gone Mad.
Never mind pilotless aircraft, I usually ask the cabin crew if I'm on a Boeing or a Scarebus ? (sometimes gets me a free drink when I'm on a Boeing ! )
World's Gone Mad.
Never mind pilotless aircraft, I usually ask the cabin crew if I'm on a Boeing or a Scarebus ? (sometimes gets me a free drink when I'm on a Boeing ! )
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by slast
neville_nobody commented "12 Pages and noone has even touched on how you could ever certify a pilotless pax aircraft."
interesting link here
'Certifiable Trust' Required To Take Autonomous Systems Past 'Unmanned' | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
interesting link here
'Certifiable Trust' Required To Take Autonomous Systems Past 'Unmanned' | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
Great article. I had seen articles on similar lines but that had alot more technical detail.
Shows that Tourist's theory is really a non-starter for now.
They need to figure out the intelligent computer bit THEN figure out how to certify it and what is and isn't acceptable for the computer.
Interesting quote:
When all is said and done though I money will be the biggest driver in all this:
I actually thought we would be alot closer to Single Pilot RPT and/or cruise than we actually are too. Interesting that two guys still beat the Single Pilot + computer.
Shows that Tourist's theory is really a non-starter for now.
They need to figure out the intelligent computer bit THEN figure out how to certify it and what is and isn't acceptable for the computer.
Interesting quote:
For humans, interpersonal trust is based on “information, integrity, intelligence, interaction, intent and intuition,” says Allen, arguing this will be difficult to establish with a machine. “We will need new methods of verification and validation.”
The qualified people in government that can design an effective test-and-evaluation program do not exist. There are not enough people to staff the FAA’s six UAS test sites; not in the military, not in the government,” she says.
“These people are not inside the government or industry. They are out there, but working for Google, Oracle and others—companies with a 40% R&D spend,” Cummings notes, comparing their rate of research and development investment with the aerospace and defense industry’s average of around 5% of revenues. “The government does not understand the difference between autonomous systems and unmanned. They know nothing about test and evaluation for autonomous systems. A deterministic approach will not work,” she says. “Meanwhile China is pouring billions into the development of probabilistic and stochastic software systems.
“These people are not inside the government or industry. They are out there, but working for Google, Oracle and others—companies with a 40% R&D spend,” Cummings notes, comparing their rate of research and development investment with the aerospace and defense industry’s average of around 5% of revenues. “The government does not understand the difference between autonomous systems and unmanned. They know nothing about test and evaluation for autonomous systems. A deterministic approach will not work,” she says. “Meanwhile China is pouring billions into the development of probabilistic and stochastic software systems.
I actually thought we would be alot closer to Single Pilot RPT and/or cruise than we actually are too. Interesting that two guys still beat the Single Pilot + computer.
Tourist;
Humans are almost exactly what you don't want in a modern cockpit.
= Humans are what YOU don't want in a cockpit you mean.
Airline flying is dull and repetitive.
= Says who? No it isn't
All the good SOP stuff can't avoid the fact that we have rarely even met the other guy.
= What has that got to do with anything? Do you understand what SOP's are for?
A modern airliner is spectacularly complex.
= Yes, but not to operate
Machines don't get tired.
They don't need practise
The love dull
They care not about unsociable.
They don't need to rehearse.
They excel at complex concurrent tasks
= Machines can go wrong. Power supplies overheat, bad connections occur, fuses or breakers pop. Processors can become overloaded, causing lock ups or resets. Valves can jam. Programmers cannot consider every eventuallity.
I say again.....
The first point I will make yet again.......
= You don't have to keep saying again. The reason your points are being ignored is that you're making stupid assertions.
In an Airbus, nearly everything is solved by "leave it alone, it's just having a bad morning" or off then on.
= Rubbish
The third of course is why are you judging the future on a really old piece of archaic junk like an Airbus?
= Archaic junk? Ridiculous assertion. You really don't like Airbus do you? What happened, did you fail your SIM?
Glueball
Read back a few pages.
There is a strong suggestion that the river was not the best option. If that is the case, that is the sort of thing a computer is good at judging. It is just a matter of geometry and speed distance time glide angle calculations. That is where a computer has us totally beaten.
= What about garbage in garbage out?
Uplinker.
I don't think you have thought this through.
What do you do in an engine/generator/gear failure/flap jam failure that involves thought? You follow the ECAM. You are not supposed to think. All you currently are is an error waiting to happen as you don't follow the instruction properly or most likely you make a tiny error in the landing distance chart and totally mess up.
The ECAM tells you what to do.
You do it. well done, you must be a pilot.
= Thank you. Yes I am, and what rubbish you speak. "Not supposed to think" Where on earth did you get that from?
Here are a few of the considerations that I and the other pilot will be making as we are following the ECAM:-
Where is the high ground?
How much fuel have we got?
What is our endurance?
Is a fuel imbalance building up? If so, why?
Where are the CB's ?
Do we have any icing?
What stopping systems have we lost?
What landing distance do we require?
What landing distance is available?
Have we lost any landing capability, e.g autoland?
What is the weather situation at our destination and alternates?
Do all our slats and flaps work?
Will the landing gear deploy - What if it doesn't?
Will our noeswheel steering work? If not, how are we going to control the roll out?
When we land, will we need to evacuate the aircraft on the runway? If so, we need to brief the Cabin crew and the passengers.
By the way. Don't be scared of the ECAM. Folk seem to think it has a mythical intelligence. It is an electronic checklist. It is programmed to present the appropriate checklist(s) in an appropriate order. End of. It doesn't think. It is not intelligent.
Rather than computerise the decision making process, why don't we make sure that the human element has as much information and assistance as possible? The best working conditions, the best training, sufficient rest etc. etc. Why is anyone trying to remove pilots from the cockpit?
Humans are almost exactly what you don't want in a modern cockpit.
= Humans are what YOU don't want in a cockpit you mean.
Airline flying is dull and repetitive.
= Says who? No it isn't
All the good SOP stuff can't avoid the fact that we have rarely even met the other guy.
= What has that got to do with anything? Do you understand what SOP's are for?
A modern airliner is spectacularly complex.
= Yes, but not to operate
Machines don't get tired.
They don't need practise
The love dull
They care not about unsociable.
They don't need to rehearse.
They excel at complex concurrent tasks
= Machines can go wrong. Power supplies overheat, bad connections occur, fuses or breakers pop. Processors can become overloaded, causing lock ups or resets. Valves can jam. Programmers cannot consider every eventuallity.
I say again.....
The first point I will make yet again.......
= You don't have to keep saying again. The reason your points are being ignored is that you're making stupid assertions.
In an Airbus, nearly everything is solved by "leave it alone, it's just having a bad morning" or off then on.
= Rubbish
The third of course is why are you judging the future on a really old piece of archaic junk like an Airbus?
= Archaic junk? Ridiculous assertion. You really don't like Airbus do you? What happened, did you fail your SIM?
Glueball
Read back a few pages.
There is a strong suggestion that the river was not the best option. If that is the case, that is the sort of thing a computer is good at judging. It is just a matter of geometry and speed distance time glide angle calculations. That is where a computer has us totally beaten.
= What about garbage in garbage out?
Uplinker.
I don't think you have thought this through.
What do you do in an engine/generator/gear failure/flap jam failure that involves thought? You follow the ECAM. You are not supposed to think. All you currently are is an error waiting to happen as you don't follow the instruction properly or most likely you make a tiny error in the landing distance chart and totally mess up.
The ECAM tells you what to do.
You do it. well done, you must be a pilot.
= Thank you. Yes I am, and what rubbish you speak. "Not supposed to think" Where on earth did you get that from?
Here are a few of the considerations that I and the other pilot will be making as we are following the ECAM:-
Where is the high ground?
How much fuel have we got?
What is our endurance?
Is a fuel imbalance building up? If so, why?
Where are the CB's ?
Do we have any icing?
What stopping systems have we lost?
What landing distance do we require?
What landing distance is available?
Have we lost any landing capability, e.g autoland?
What is the weather situation at our destination and alternates?
Do all our slats and flaps work?
Will the landing gear deploy - What if it doesn't?
Will our noeswheel steering work? If not, how are we going to control the roll out?
When we land, will we need to evacuate the aircraft on the runway? If so, we need to brief the Cabin crew and the passengers.
By the way. Don't be scared of the ECAM. Folk seem to think it has a mythical intelligence. It is an electronic checklist. It is programmed to present the appropriate checklist(s) in an appropriate order. End of. It doesn't think. It is not intelligent.
Rather than computerise the decision making process, why don't we make sure that the human element has as much information and assistance as possible? The best working conditions, the best training, sufficient rest etc. etc. Why is anyone trying to remove pilots from the cockpit?
Last edited by Uplinker; 7th Dec 2014 at 10:25.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Limoges/Sussex
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er, fuel imbalance?
Just don't come crying to me after an automatic pilotless plane has dumped all the fuel in one wing out through the broken pipe on the opposite engine.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Limoges/Sussex
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice edit
Just don't come crying to me after an automatic pilotless plane has tried to balance the fuel and dumped all the fuel in one wing out through the broken pipe on the opposite engine, like two humans once did too. (But they also managed to fly deadstick to a safe landing.)