Hmmmmm. Interesting comment.
Do you hand fly Cat 3 approaches because you don't trust the automation to fly the approach?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Hmmmmm. Interesting comment.
I am on the controls all the way to a stop because a) it's required, and b) I don't trust the automation. Aircraft accidents happen too frequently because pilots "trusted" the automation when it didn't do what it was supposed to do, or wasn't designed to do it in the first place. You guys know all about that because you shit all over the crews when it happens. Are you changing your tune now?rookiepilot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 5:23 pmHmmmmm. Interesting comment.
Do you hand fly Cat 3 approaches because you don't trust the automation to fly the approach?
Another interesting comment.Rockie wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 5:30 pm
Aircraft accidents happen too frequently because pilots "trusted" the automation when it didn't do what it was supposed to do, or wasn't designed to do it in the first place. You guys know all about that because you shit all over the crews when it happens. Are you changing your tune now?
I do not disagree with any of this, or the need for human oversight.complexintentions wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 6:10 pm Now you're just arguing for its own sake.
If you're determined to place the blame on humans for automation-related accidents, you must also consider the humans that designed the man-machine interface and the automation itself.
Technology is not magic. It's imagined, built, and used by humans. All of the human errors are baked right in. Automation may perform certain singular mindless tasks very well, like pointing the aircraft in a instructed direction, but unless you have true AI (not algorithm, self-aware) it doesn't replace a human.
As rockie has stated repeatedly, it's just a tool to be used.
Your argument is growing increasingly incoherent.rookiepilot wrote: ↑Mon May 14, 2018 5:59 pm As One example only -- the countless accidents that have occurred from simply running out of fuel, -- in spite of automated, distance rings available even on single engine aircraft PFD's -- prove the weak link in the chain, is far more often, the human one.
Me too, including one that went 500 kph. But they were on elevated tracks with multiple safeguards that would bring the whole shebang to a stop at the first sign of trouble. If only we could do that at FL370 and 500 kts...
I never said it was impossible. I've said numerous times it can't happen until true artificial intelligence is invented (don't hold your breath waiting for that), and that way before it makes its way into passenger aircraft there are countless practical, ethical and moral obstacles to overcome.Posthumane wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 9:27 am My other comments regarding automation in the cockpit were in response to Rockie's comments that he is familiar with modern automation and can definitively state that making an autonomous aircraft that is safe is impossible.
Well you said it right there didn't you? Pilotless drones are expendable whereas people are not....Posthumane wrote: ↑Tue May 15, 2018 9:27 am The demand in the military, on the other hand, is much higher since it allows the elimination of risk to the crew in dangerous missions, so the development is going at a much faster pace there.