My point is that if the computer can run a simulation then the computer can "know what it is doing".
Anybody that thinks that is a bad thing has rocks in their head.
It is not knowing what you're doing that gets people killed

Are you saying that those pilots "had rocks in their heads" because the Airbus FBW would not let them flare before impact with the runway?

From post #7 "The cause of the accident was the activation of the angle of attack protection system which, under a particular combination of vertical gusts and windshear and the simultaneous actions of both crew members on the sidesticks, not considered in the design, prevented the aeroplane from pitching up and flaring during the landing."

that was because the computer didnt know what it was doing.
if it had run a simulation then it would have known what it was doing

thats the whole point of this thread
and I just restated that point for you in the very post you just quoted

Don't you think that Airbus would have run thousands of simulations for every conceivable combination they could have imagined?
The difference is that in real life there can be a combination of things which result in something we never expected.

It's great to use computers to perform routine tasks - but please still give us the authority to over ride.

thats why it needs to run a simulation in real time with current conditions
so it can know what is happening and take appropriate action

of course the pilot should override.
thats what he is there for

This is the issue - you can program a computer for every conceivable problem, and combination thereof. Then a problem occurs that no-one conceived of and the computer has no answer, what then? You need a human with the experience to solve the problem there and then, and the computer to fail safe and help out when required.
Anyone who thinks a computer can be made to cope with every possible situation is deluded, and when failure means likely death you can't just wait and "turn it off and back on again".
Maybe AI may eventually have the answer but it's a long, long way off yet.

exactly what I just answered in the post before yours

AI is not that far off.
all it needs to do is run a simulation in real time to see what is happening

AI based on previous experiences in here, but AI that can deduce a solution to a new unknown problem based on other experiences (as a human can) is still in the early stages yet. It will come one day though.

Hi em3ry,
I'm glad we agree on that.
Pity Airbus don't permit pilots to override in Normal Law.

em3ry

I absolutely agree with you.

You are never going to persuade the luddites though.

Even when they are flying around, they will still deny their existence....

Who is this human with experience you talk about?

A vanishingly small % of airline pilots have any experience of any emergencies whatsoever in their entire career.


I had one "emergency" and I use the term loosely in my civil airline time. It ended up essentially autopilotless and autothrustless with all the captains side instruments failed.

It was the most serious thing that the captain had seen in his 20 yrs.

This is not a bad thing, this is a testament to the exceptional engineering that goes into these aircraft, but it certainly does not translate into experience.

em3ry,

You are so busy repeating yourself I don't think you are actually doing any thinking.

This has been quoted at you twice, and you don't seem to have comprehended it.

The point of this quote was that this scenario could NOT have been simulated in advance by the computer because no-one predicted this scenario in advance.

You say:

What are these "current conditions" you speak of and how are they relevant to the quoted scenario? How could the computer have predicted the combination of vertical gust, windshear and simultaneous actions of the crew members?

As for AI being not far off, they've been saying that for decades. What is often not discussed is that there is a difference between "simulated AI" and "real AI". Real AI is real intelligence. That would be handy, but that is a looong way off. However simulated AI is not real intelligence, it's just a pre-programmed dumb machine. That's what the Google Car will be. If you throw something at it that the programmers have not thought of, game over.

In principle, however, I think I agree with your general point that predictive systems such as TCAS, EPGWS and Predictive Windshear could (and very likely will) be expanded upon to extend to other predictions and warnings. A dynamic warning system for runway overruns (takeoff and landing) wouldn't be that hard and could save a lot of regular incidents/accidents.

But then again we come back to your "simulate with current conditions" argument. What are the current conditions and how does the aircraft know them? How is it going to know the friction co-efficient of a contaminated runway? It won't. So your argument might save the day sometimes, but not always.

Where to draw the line in the human/computer interface will continue to be controversial. The two largest aircraft manufacturers don't agree, and the recent trend from both manufacturers is that the pilots have been pushed a little too far out of the loop - they are now trying to bring them back in.

Three recent high profile crashes (Asiana, Air Asia and Air France) have all been put down to lack of basic flying skills. You either take the pilots out all together or you let them fly the aircraft. You can't just have them sit there doing nothing and be expected to save the day when the computer gives up.

And that last paragraph sums it up nicely!

Em3ry,

I'm sure this all sounds fantastic in your head (more so every time you repeat it), but it's science fiction.

A computer system that can simulate, predict and counter all possible flight scenarios is simply not going to happen in our lifetimes. Even if current aircraft systems were literally 100% reliable, you need humans to make the decisions the machine cannot, of which there are thousands of possibilities.

And your comment about perhaps "removing the First Officer" indicates you have little to no idea about the modern flight deck and how it actually operates, like most of the general public who think there's a "pilot" (who always flies the plane) and a "co-pilot" (who helps out in the hope he too can become a "pilot" one day).

What is your point? Because the computer isnt omniscient therefore it can never fly the plane? Neither is the human pilot!

Don't you think the computer in the recent crash could have determined that if the pilot is attempting a go-around and has forgotten to give it thrust that it will end badly?

All too often they crash turns out to be due to some mundane pilate or computer error that would have been prevented had the computer simply been able to look forward into the future

If humans make mistakes like that then by your reasoning humans should never even be allowed near an airplane

As I said earlier
And as I said earlier

And all of this is relevant to my original post. All I'm suggesting is a way of making the computers smarter.
Are you people seriously suggesting that smarter computers would be a bad thing?

running a simulation is science fiction? Really? I didnt know that!

If I were guessing I would guess that you people already have this technology and the government and the airlines have made you swear an oath that you will keep it secret