|
Will a robot take your job?
|
Nope.
Robots ain't that stupid. |
Hi Bob, the technology has been available for several years already. Google G-BWWW for info. I used to fly that airframe before it became a test bed for this stuff.
Around the world it is incompetent pilots that cause the accidents. Our era is over. |
Will a robot take your job?
Intelligent machines: Call for a ban on robots designed as sex toys
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34118482 There goes my fall-back plan... |
I think you are forgetting one large element in all of this:
Humans design computers. Until computers are designed purely by Lord God Buddha, Allah, Jehovah or whatever takes your fancy then the they will ALWAYS be subject to the same human errors that cause pilots to crash aeroplanes. If aeroplanes still crash when there is NO pilot on board then which scenario do you think the general public will trust - a computer or a human controlled aeroplane. Lots of engineers on the ground alone cannot fix an airborne problem - where is the resilience in the system without the expertise of a specialist at the source of the problem? |
Will a robot take your job?
In many cases it's already been reduced to trained monkey, so........... |
Originally Posted by Mr Good Cat
(Post 9116992)
I think you are forgetting one large element in all of this:
Humans design computers. Until computers are designed purely by Lord God Buddha, Allah, Jehovah or whatever takes your fancy then the they will ALWAYS be subject to the same human errors that cause pilots to crash aeroplanes. It's just the same with pocket calculators. Humans design pocket calculators. That is why they will ALWAYS be subject to the same human errors which cause people to get arithmetic wrong..... Oh. Wait....No... That's all complete boll@cks isn't it......?:rolleyes: |
I can see robots taking over the cargo flights, but I think passengers like the reassurance of having a couple of pilots up front (whether or not it should be reassuring is another thing). More likely is single pilot ops with remote oversight. I think however that may cause a spike in mental health issues... it's going to be a lonely place up there.
|
With any luck, yes they will.
|
We're a long way off. Even the RPAS/drones flying around now aren't pilotless, the pilot has just been relocated. In terms of manpower they are at least as labour intensive as manned aircraft.
Silver hawk, assuming you weren't just trying to start an argument with your ignorant post about incompetent pilots perhaps you'd explain why unmanned aircraft accident rates are massively higher than for manned ones. |
The category doesn't really fit ... it says "aircraft pilots and flight engineers".
I don't know if they mean those 25 % losing their jobs to automation within 20 years will be the flight engineers, but for a flight engineer, the risk of losing the job to automation within the next 20 years is close to 100 percent ... |
Originally Posted by ShotOne
(Post 9117058)
We're a long way off. Even the RPAS/drones flying around now aren't pilotless, the pilot has just been relocated. In terms of manpower they are at least as labour intensive as manned aircraft.
Why do people post on here without even a moments google to find out if they are going to talk utter cr@p? Even some of the tiny toys used in Afghanistan have no pilot, merely a mouse-click on a computer screen map. |
.....and of course we have had autonomous drones for decades, even used them in many wars.
They are called cruise missiles. They find their way to their target area, identify the target and then hit it. All without human input. |
Probably not because a bank won't give a loan to a robot in order to pay for a type rating.:hmm:
|
Posted by Clandestino:
Nope. Robots ain't that stupid. |
Posted by Tourist:
That's just not true at all is it. Why do people post on here without even a moments google to find out if they are going to talk utter cr@p? Even some of the tiny toys used in Afghanistan have no pilot, merely a mouse-click on a computer screen map. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...ndow=1&tbm=vid ShotOne is correct, these drone pilots sit in a secure bunker somewhere and fly the drone by remote control. |
LLuCCiFeR
Yup, re-evaluated, and added you to the list. Again I say google is your friend. Reaper and Predator are indeed flown from the ground. Many many others are not, as even a cursory glance at google will show. Desert Hawk is mouse click after take-off and is old hat. This is slightly bigger. Robocopter arrives | The Economist The list is growing all the time X-47B Taranis This is an autonomous helicopter planning it's own route to an unbriefed landing in a clearing. This is orders of magnitude more technically difficult than flying an airliner from A to B https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoCFE8xVhKA |
I can see robots taking over the cargo flights,
There was a study many years ago, and I wonder where it is now. The Soviet Union had developed High wing amphibian a/c with over wing engines for cargo flights. The idea was they would take of & land on water and fly in ground effect similar to the Albatross. Indeed that might have been their name. Slow ponderous transoceanic a/c., but at lower fuel burn/kg than a conventional freight a/c and faster than ship. They could fly on a preprogrammed route as per a cruise missile, but still controlled as an RPV via satellite. Ship avoidance was an issue, but perhaps an onboard radar system would solve that. Weather systems and jet streams were of less significance; although low level storms and high waves might make it interesting, but no sick bags required. Any losses would be purely financial and insurance would take care of those. Take off and landing at sea would negate any fiddly performance issues such as climb % etc. No V1 just full power and go. No noise issues except for fish. They could be taxied, takeoff, landed under local visual RPV control and monitored en-route via a central RPV control. So what did happen to the idea? |
There was a study many years ago, and I wonder where it is now. The Soviet Union had developed High wing amphibian a/c with over wing engines for cargo flights. The idea was they would take of & land on water and fly in ground effect similar to the Albatross. Indeed that might have been their name. Slow ponderous transoceanic a/c., but at lower fuel burn/kg than a conventional freight a/c and faster than ship. They could fly on a preprogrammed route as per a cruise missile, but still controlled as an RPV via satellite. Ship avoidance was an issue, but perhaps an onboard radar system would solve that. Weather systems and jet streams were of less significance; although low level storms and high waves might make it interesting, but no sick bags required. Any losses would be purely financial and insurance would take care of those. Take off and landing at sea would negate any fiddly performance issues such as climb % etc. No V1 just full power and go. No noise issues except for fish. They could be taxied, takeoff, landed under local visual RPV control and monitored en-route via a central RPV control. So what did happen to the idea? http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/...s/orlyonok.jpg |
It certainly will.
it is not the case now, simply due to costs, however if one day it costs cheaper then pilots, yes for sure. One big reason : no more limits, no more rules about flight hours duties, no complain from pilots, no calls for this or that, no strikes, no call sick, no more alcohol problems or suicide problem etc... Actually it started. Copilots pay for working and follow strict procedures without much thinking like a robot could do it. Many things a PM (pnf) do can be done by a robot (lights, gear up, calls out, fasten seat belt...) just need to program it. Making copilots pay, is a first step to remove copilots (at least economically). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.