how long

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
tsgarp
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: how long

Post by tsgarp »

Rockie wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:46 pm
tsgarp wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:16 pm
Rockie wrote: Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:56 am

Imagine this sentence being some critical line of code and you get my point.
Your point is moot because critical lines of code get much better proof reading than Avcanada posts.
Yet mistakes still happen, imagine that. As for the Hornet and Airbus (both of which I actually have significant time in...unlike you), it sure isn’t computer programmers or their product flying them either or they’d all crash. So who is flying them?

I’m tempted to say f**k off you insignificant, irrelevant s**t, but that wouldn’t be polite.

Trump didn’t build a business, he built a criminal enterprise that is corrupt to the bone. It’ll be interesting how much fraud and money laundering the SDNY prosecuters dig up now that they’re getting the Trump family records.

And by the way, did they teach spelling at the school you went to?
I hate to break this to you, but, in both the Airbus and the Hornet there are many layers of computers and code between you and the control surfaces. One needs no time in the aircraft to know this, one only need know how to read.

There will indeed be mistakes in the computer code, however, most of the data indicates that those mistakes result in fewer accidents than the human errors (were they allowed to occur) they prevent. In summary, the computers aren’t perfect, they are just much, much better than you.

I figured that lighting the Trump fuse would result in some fireworks; you did not disappoint. So, after three years of being under the most intense and biased scrutiny with no results, you still think Trump is a criminal? Dude, at some point you will have to realize that you can’t make something true just by wishing it hard enough. This also applies to pilotless airliners; the ugly truth is that your are replaceable. But take heart, no computer could ever do what you do here on Avcanada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: how long

Post by Rockie »

tsgarp wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:41 am
I hate to break this to you, but, in both the Airbus and the Hornet there are many layers of computers and code between you and the control surfaces. One needs no time in the aircraft to know this, one only need know how to read.

There will indeed be mistakes in the computer code, however, most of the data indicates that those mistakes result in fewer accidents than the human errors (were they allowed to occur) they prevent. In summary, the computers aren’t perfect, they are just much, much better than you.

As it turns out I both know how to read and have years of actual experience flying both types which you seem to think isn't relevant. Layers of code between me and the control surfaces doesn't mean those layers of code are flying the airplane. I hate to break this to you, but the pilot does. And if I were to break down the number of times I intervened in what the computers were doing to keep from violating air regulations, or airspace, and/or dying versus how many times computers intervened in what I was doing it would be a score of about a million to zero.

You speak like a computer engineer who doesn't actually use the product you build and believe your own hype. Or a high school student with no actual experience in anything including human relations.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tsgarp
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: how long

Post by tsgarp »

Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:05 am
As it turns out I both know how to read and have years of actual experience flying both types which you seem to think isn't relevant. Layers of code between me and the control surfaces doesn't mean those layers of code are flying the airplane. I hate to break this to you, but the pilot does. And if I were to break down the number of times I intervened in what the computers were doing to keep from violating air regulations, or airspace, and/or dying versus how many times computers intervened in what I was doing it would be a score of about a million to zero.

You speak like a computer engineer who doesn't actually use the product you build and believe your own hype. Or a high school student with no actual experience in anything including human relations.
Rockie, this is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of observable fact. Airbus did it. They built an airliner that flies without pilots. It's here. There is no reason not to expect that technology to be used in appropriate environments in the near future.

I'm going to expose you to something called a Fermi analysis (a systematic approach to forming an estimate based on limited information). I am assuming that you had an average career length as a pilot; that equates to roughly 25000 hrs of flying. We'll take your claim that you needed to intervene with your automation 1000000 times over your career as valid. That means that you had to intervene with you automation 40 times per hour, or roughly every 1.5 minutes during your flying career. This leads to one of several possible conclusions; 1) You exude some as yet undocumented force on computers that makes them malfunction (i.e. computers find you just as annoying as humans), 2) You are one really unlucky person, 3) You just can't count all that well, or 4) You like hyperbole. Any one of these four conclusions explains your position on this thread.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: how long

Post by Rockie »

tsgarp wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:52 am

Rockie, this is not a matter of opinion, its a matter of observable fact. Airbus did it. They built an airliner that flies without pilots.

It's here. or 4) You like hyperbole. Any one of these four conclusions explains your position on this thread.
Airbus demonstrated it, but pilotless drones have been around a while and this was just a bigger version of one. The reasons why pilotless drones will not be carrying passengers in non-sterile airspace have been explained many, many times whether you recognize them or not, but if you or your great-great grandchildren are still alive when the first one does you're welcome to sign up.

#4 is correct. Not quite a million, but it's telling that you take things so literally you can't recognize hyperbole. Like you take statements like "it'll fly itself" as absolute fact. It is no exaggeration however that every actual pilot that actually flies automated aircraft intervenes constantly in that automation. As I've stated before many times, the FLCH, V/S, HDG and finally the A/T and autopilot disconnect switches are there for a reason and used constantly. According to you the aircraft takes care of itself which shows the spectacular degree of ignorance you live in.

You're an engineer right?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DrSpaceman
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:03 am

Re: how long

Post by DrSpaceman »

I think I know what the issue is here, Tsgarp watched this video and thinks he’s an expert on the subject:
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU

The fact is nothing short of a fully working general AI will work for removing both pilots completely from the cockpit. And once we get there, EVERYONE Is replaceable (doctors, lawyers, basically everything) so it won’t really matter at that point. They still have drivers in front trains and they’ve been able to automate that for decades.
---------- ADS -----------
 
garfield
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:35 pm

Re: how long

Post by garfield »

DrSpaceman wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:24 am The fact is nothing short of a fully working general AI will work for removing both pilots completely from the cockpit. And once we get there, EVERYONE Is replaceable (doctors, lawyers, basically everything) so it won’t really matter at that point. They still have drivers in front trains and they’ve been able to automate that for decades.
+1
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: how long

Post by digits_ »

DrSpaceman wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:24 am The fact is nothing short of a fully working general AI will work for removing both pilots completely from the cockpit. And once we get there, EVERYONE Is replaceable (doctors, lawyers, basically everything) so it won’t really matter at that point. They still have drivers in front trains and they’ve been able to automate that for decades.
Why is that a fact?

Most people here seem to assume that pilots can only be replaced if airplanes can operate completely from A to B, without any human intervention at all, and deal with all diversion decision, notams, weather etc.

That's not the case. You still have ATC. What's the difference between ATC telling pilots to change a heading or give them a direct, and have the pilots put it in the autopilot, versus ATC inputting the data directly in the auto pilot? ATC can be the brains if necessary. They'll be on the ground for the tough decisions, and no pilots in the airplane. Thats not sciene fiction, that's just waiting for regulations to allow it, and some manageable technological changes to be executed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: how long

Post by Zaibatsu »

digits_ wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:27 am
DrSpaceman wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:24 am The fact is nothing short of a fully working general AI will work for removing both pilots completely from the cockpit. And once we get there, EVERYONE Is replaceable (doctors, lawyers, basically everything) so it won’t really matter at that point. They still have drivers in front trains and they’ve been able to automate that for decades.
Why is that a fact?

Most people here seem to assume that pilots can only be replaced if airplanes can operate completely from A to B, without any human intervention at all, and deal with all diversion decision, notams, weather etc.

That's not the case. You still have ATC. What's the difference between ATC telling pilots to change a heading or give them a direct, and have the pilots put it in the autopilot, versus ATC inputting the data directly in the auto pilot? ATC can be the brains if necessary. They'll be on the ground for the tough decisions, and no pilots in the airplane. Thats not sciene fiction, that's just waiting for regulations to allow it, and some manageable technological changes to be executed.
Image
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: how long

Post by Meatservo »

My prediction is that there will continue to be human pilots in the front of airliners as well as increasingly capable auto pilots, until such time as they invent a system that is sufficiently advanced to function as an auto-SCAPEGOAT.
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: how long

Post by digits_ »

Zaibatsu wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:43 am
digits_ wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:27 am
DrSpaceman wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:24 am The fact is nothing short of a fully working general AI will work for removing both pilots completely from the cockpit. And once we get there, EVERYONE Is replaceable (doctors, lawyers, basically everything) so it won’t really matter at that point. They still have drivers in front trains and they’ve been able to automate that for decades.
Why is that a fact?

Most people here seem to assume that pilots can only be replaced if airplanes can operate completely from A to B, without any human intervention at all, and deal with all diversion decision, notams, weather etc.

That's not the case. You still have ATC. What's the difference between ATC telling pilots to change a heading or give them a direct, and have the pilots put it in the autopilot, versus ATC inputting the data directly in the auto pilot? ATC can be the brains if necessary. They'll be on the ground for the tough decisions, and no pilots in the airplane. Thats not sciene fiction, that's just waiting for regulations to allow it, and some manageable technological changes to be executed.
Image
The pilotless airplane would probably have crashed in that case, but it would have saved the lifes of people on board airplanes that overran runways due to landing past the markers, approaching too fast and trying to make it work etc. Not entirely sure the balance would swing in favor of the pilots if you added up all preventable accidents.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: how long

Post by Zaibatsu »

The mistake is focusing on the accidents rather than.
The thousands of safe flights made every day.

Rocky is right. He’s keeping the computer from doing an error every time he makes an input. I seriously doubt that the computer is telling him no when he says yes. You have to be far off them map for that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: how long

Post by digits_ »

Zaibatsu wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:04 pm The mistake is focusing on the accidents rather than.
The thousands of safe flights made every day.

Rocky is right. He’s keeping the computer from doing an error every time he makes an input. I seriously doubt that the computer is telling him no when he says yes. You have to be far off them map for that.
Then he has pretty crappy computers on his plane. What inputs does he have to make to save the plane that could not have been done by ATC into the autopilot? How many emergencies have you encountered that would have had a significantly different outcome if a computer made the decision, so basically where not following the checklist was necessary to avoid a crash?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: how long

Post by Rockie »

digits_ wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:27 pmWhat inputs does he have to make to save the plane that could not have been done by ATC into the autopilot?
All of them. The mistake you’re making is assuming pilots only intervene in the automation when ATC requires something. Hardly. Another mistake is that every clearance and instruction given to a pilot by ATC can be rejected by the pilot for safety reasons ATC is neither aware of or responsible for.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: how long

Post by digits_ »

Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:42 pm
digits_ wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 1:27 pmWhat inputs does he have to make to save the plane that could not have been done by ATC into the autopilot?
All of them. The mistake you’re making is assuming pilots only intervene in the automation when ATC requires something. Hardly. Another mistake is that every clearance and instruction given to a pilot by ATC can be rejected by the pilot for safety reasons ATC is neither aware of or responsible for.
Would you mind giving some examples? In the past 6 months (or 6 months pre covid if you like), what were the most critical changes you had to make, because the autopilot was going to screw something up?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
DrSpaceman
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:03 am

Re: how long

Post by DrSpaceman »

This thread is full of people who have never been in a modern airliner cockpit. No plane flies itself. It’s akin to saying my car drives itself when it’s on cruise control.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: how long

Post by Rockie »

Every flight. The FMS has to be programmed and modified to suit anticipated conditions. Once inflight actual conditions, traffic, poorly performing software requires further modifications or direct control over the flight path of the aircraft either through use of direct modes of the autopilot and auto throttle, or by disengaging them completely.

It has happened on every flight I’ve ever done for reasons you know nothing about.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: how long

Post by digits_ »

Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:30 pm Every flight. The FMS has to be programmed and modified to suit anticipated conditions. Once inflight actual conditions, traffic, poorly performing software requires further modifications or direct control over the flight path of the aircraft either through use of direct modes of the autopilot and auto throttle, or by disengaging them completely.

It has happened on every flight I’ve ever done for reasons you know nothing about.
Changing autopilot modes is exactly what ATC could do. That's a software command.

Having to disengage them completely is a more serious issue and that would be harder to deal with. What year, roughly, was the airplane built you were flying?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: how long

Post by altiplano »

digits_ wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 11:27 am
DrSpaceman wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:24 am The fact is nothing short of a fully working general AI will work for removing both pilots completely from the cockpit. And once we get there, EVERYONE Is replaceable (doctors, lawyers, basically everything) so it won’t really matter at that point. They still have drivers in front trains and they’ve been able to automate that for decades.
Why is that a fact?

Most people here seem to assume that pilots can only be replaced if airplanes can operate completely from A to B, without any human intervention at all, and deal with all diversion decision, notams, weather etc.

That's not the case. You still have ATC. What's the difference between ATC telling pilots to change a heading or give them a direct, and have the pilots put it in the autopilot, versus ATC inputting the data directly in the auto pilot? ATC can be the brains if necessary. They'll be on the ground for the tough decisions, and no pilots in the airplane. Thats not sciene fiction, that's just waiting for regulations to allow it, and some manageable technological changes to be executed.
Stick to your web design... you still don't have a clue.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: how long

Post by Zaibatsu »

The most important thing about automation is that it has to be monitored. It’s so important that we have two pilots monitoring it even though none are physically flying it. ATC would be over their head with two aircraft, never mind a dozen.

ATC clears you to climb to 350 and on course. All he knows is that’s what you want and there’s no traffic in the way. He doesn’t know what vertical mode you are going to use to get there. He doesn’t know about the storm cell in your path. He doesn’t know about the CAT you’re going to encounter at 330. He doesn’t know that you’re going to have an emergency or abnormality that’s going to require deviations from your cleared route and quite possibly a change in destination based on first hand information.

And that’s a sleepy area control centre. Not terminal where they are in the middle of switching runways and now you have to reprogram the FMS and rebrief, or the ILS just went offline, or a plane didn’t hold short or occupied the runway for too long. All of those could be dangerous or deadly without direct and present human interventions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: how long

Post by Rockie »

digits_ wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:32 pm
Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:30 pm Every flight. The FMS has to be programmed and modified to suit anticipated conditions. Once inflight actual conditions, traffic, poorly performing software requires further modifications or direct control over the flight path of the aircraft either through use of direct modes of the autopilot and auto throttle, or by disengaging them completely.

It has happened on every flight I’ve ever done for reasons you know nothing about.
Changing autopilot modes is exactly what ATC could do. That's a software command.

Having to disengage them completely is a more serious issue and that would be harder to deal with. What year, roughly, was the airplane built you were flying?
2018.

What part about "every clearance and instruction given to a pilot by ATC can be rejected by the pilot for safety reasons ATC is neither aware of or responsible for" did you not understand?
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: how long

Post by digits_ »

Zaibatsu wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:26 pm The most important thing about automation is that it has to be monitored. It’s so important that we have two pilots monitoring it even though none are physically flying it. ATC would be over their head with two aircraft, never mind a dozen.

ATC clears you to climb to 350 and on course. All he knows is that’s what you want and there’s no traffic in the way. He doesn’t know what vertical mode you are going to use to get there. He doesn’t know about the storm cell in your path. He doesn’t know about the CAT you’re going to encounter at 330. He doesn’t know that you’re going to have an emergency or abnormality that’s going to require deviations from your cleared route and quite possibly a change in destination based on first hand information.

And that’s a sleepy area control centre. Not terminal where they are in the middle of switching runways and now you have to reprogram the FMS and rebrief, or the ILS just went offline, or a plane didn’t hold short or occupied the runway for too long. All of those could be dangerous or deadly without direct and present human interventions.
I wouldn't see ATC as a remote pilot for every airplane. They would just issue instructions on their computer screen during standard ops. If for some reason, the "computer brain" or whatever you want to call it, on a remote plane would fail, then they could focus on that one plane.

If you encounter turbulence at a certain flight level, don't you usually query ATC where the better flight level might be? It's easy to add sensors to airplanes to measure the turbulence, the computer brain could then request a climb or descend, or ATC could propose one. That's not hard to build in.

Once you commit to a pilot less aiprlane, the inputs become much easier. No interface is required, no need to confirm critical data for liability reasons, as the computer does it all anyway. A runway chance should be non event at that point. That's easy software to program. The whole IFR system is already set up pretty robust.

During an emergency, you evaluate the systems you have left, the possible destinations and analyze weather, services etc. That's stuff that could be programmed as well. It shouldn't be a problem. Will the computer always find a solution that would be as good as a human would? No. That's part of the trade off humans vs computer that manufacturers, companies and politicians will have to make.


Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:19 pm
2018.
Ok, if that still happens than your plane would obviously not be a good candidate to fly pilotless at this point. That's why you are still on board. That doesn't mean that a software upgrade couldn't fix these issues.
Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 4:19 pm What part about "every clearance and instruction given to a pilot by ATC can be rejected by the pilot for safety reasons ATC is neither aware of or responsible for" did you not understand?
Nothing, but it is't entirely relevant. ATC now gives instructions and clearances with the understanding that the pilots have the final decision. If there are no pilots on board, it stands to reason that the instructions and clearances that ATC is allowed to give you, will be different.

Another way to think about is this: all the information that is on a screen or a dial in the airplane somewhere, is information that the computer brain has access to. All information that a pilot gets via ATC, is information that the computer brain can also get. What other source of information do you need? In extreme cases where you lose most of your instruments and GPS etc, you might have to look outside to land visually on a runway that is theoretically too short but is your only way out. How often does this happen in an airline scenario?

You can have pax concerns. That can be handled by flight attendants. Press an emergency button, indicating the severity of the pax emergency, and the computer brain will decide where to go.

The technology to do this exists.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
tsgarp
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 3:18 pm

Re: how long

Post by tsgarp »

Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:18 am
Airbus demonstrated it, but pilotless drones have been around a while and this was just a bigger version of one.
As you said, the technology has been around, and proven, for a long time. Airbus just took it to the next level. From a technological standpoint, there is nothing preventing pilotless airliners. The determining factor will be the risk assessment combined with the financial assessment. When the probability of a computer caused accident is equal or less than the probability of a human caused accident and when the cost of the computers (and their associated risks) is less than that of a human flight crew it will happen.
Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:18 am
#4 is correct. Not quite a million, but it's telling that you take things so literally you can't recognize hyperbole.
I recognize hyperbole quite well, and I accord it, and it's users, the appropriate level of respect as intellectuals.
Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:18 am It is no exaggeration however that every actual pilot that actually flies automated aircraft intervenes constantly in that automation. As I've stated before many times, the FLCH, V/S, HDG and finally the A/T and autopilot disconnect switches are there for a reason and used constantly. According to you the aircraft takes care of itself which shows the spectacular degree of ignorance you live in.
I've flown automation for about the last 15 years or so. Mostly Universal FMSs. There have been two or three times it did something unexpected. Most of those times it did what it did because of something I put, or failed to put, in the flight plan. If you are 'constantly' intervening in your automation because it is doing unexpected things then I would suggest the problem is in the person programming the automation; garbage in garbage out.
Rockie wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 8:18 am You're an engineer right?
No rusty nail on my pinky.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: how long

Post by Rockie »

Tsgarp. Flying automated airplanes for 15 years? Bullshit, you don’t fly anything.

Digits, what do you do for a living?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2578
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: how long

Post by Meatservo »

Sometimes I amuse myself (during those long automated cruise segments) by imagining an alternate universe in which technology rolled out differently than it did in this one. I like to imagine a world where aeroplanes have always been automated, ever since they were invented. Like for some reason, electronics were invented before flying machines. Every aircraft since the dawn of flight has been crewed, but has been controlled exclusively via an FMS and mode-control panel. Analog controls would be provided in the form of a bank of little knobs that individually selected heading, angle of bank, rate of climb, altitude and speed. THEN one day, some genius invents something. Maybe it's originally for astronauts, to make docking with a space-station a bit less effort-intensive, or whatever. But it trickles down into all levels of aviation. It consists of a stick-like handle, a pair of pedals, and a lever, or levers I guess, that directly modulates engine output. The stick-like device combines pitch and roll commands into one control. The pedals allow the pilot to yaw the aircraft. It would be called the "universal haptic control interface". It would be revolutionary. Suddenly a human operator would be capable of commanding multiple flight-attitude adjustments at once, simply with small movements of his limbs. Airbus would be the first to adopt the technology. Pilot unions would resist it because of the re-training involved. CEOs would love it because they could save money and weight on all the electronic stuff. Advocates of the U.H.C.I. would compile all kinds of testimony and damning reports concerning the times A.I. fucked up and a direct interface would have allowed a crewmember to intervene more quickly. Pilots themselves would be divided on the subject. Overall it would be quite controversial.
---------- ADS -----------
 
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6786
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: how long

Post by digits_ »

Meatservo wrote: Sun Aug 09, 2020 7:53 pm Sometimes I amuse myself (during those long automated cruise segments) by imagining an alternate universe in which technology rolled out differently than it did in this one. I like to imagine a world where aeroplanes have always been automated, ever since they were invented. Like for some reason, electronics were invented before flying machines. Every aircraft since the dawn of flight has been crewed, but has been controlled exclusively via an FMS and mode-control panel. Analog controls would be provided in the form of a bank of little knobs that individually selected heading, angle of bank, rate of climb, altitude and speed. THEN one day, some genius invents something. Maybe it's originally for astronauts, to make docking with a space-station a bit less effort-intensive, or whatever. But it trickles down into all levels of aviation. It consists of a stick-like handle, a pair of pedals, and a lever, or levers I guess, that directly modulates engine output. The stick-like device combines pitch and roll commands into one control. The pedals allow the pilot to yaw the aircraft. It would be called the "universal haptic control interface". It would be revolutionary. Suddenly a human operator would be capable of commanding multiple flight-attitude adjustments at once, simply with small movements of his limbs. Airbus would be the first to adopt the technology. Pilot unions would resist it because of the re-training involved. CEOs would love it because they could save money and weight on all the electronic stuff. Advocates of the U.H.C.I. would compile all kinds of testimony and damning reports concerning the times A.I. fucked up and a direct interface would have allowed a crewmember to intervene more quickly. Pilots themselves would be divided on the subject. Overall it would be quite controversial.
STAR TREK!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_R ... :_Voyager)

Ok, only a small part of that episode was about the manual controls, but still, never let an opportunity to reference Star Trek go to waste! Especially if it concerns Voyager...
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”