Aircraft Videos and Images

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Future aircraft will be crewed by a pilot and a doberman. The pilot will be there in case there are problems with the automated flight systems. The dog will be there to bite him if he tries to touch anything.

Er, no. The pilot is there to feed the dog.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

Noob questions: Just how 'flyable' are modern passenger jets, given all the computerised systems?
As in, if everything went wrong, can a pilot take over and fly completely manually, or would he/she be fighting against the computer?
Have pilots become far too dependant on aircraft systems, rather than just flying?

lets put it this way....if there were no means to provide elctricity to the systems i.e. no batteries functioning, no ram air turbine or APU then it's going to end badly, there is just no physical link to the flight controls even in a reversionary capacity, some aircraft perhaps still give elevator trim and rudder control undr those circumstances but the pilot will be earning his money.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

So do you think the airbus in the Hudson would have had a happy outcome without pilots?

That depends of the programming of the flight system. In theory, the flight system should be able to quickly determine the energy status of the aircraft and whether it can get to a nearby airfield. It should be able to do that much faster than a pilot could possibly do it.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

That depends of the programming of the flight system. In theory, the flight system should be able to quickly determine the energy status of the aircraft and whether it can get to a nearby airfield. It should be able to do that much faster than a pilot could possibly do it.

the point is if the computer determined it couldnt make the airfield would it have gone for the hudson?....probably not is the answer and it would have gone blue screen and said 'youre on your own.....I don't feel pain so I don't give a damn'

[SG1_Lud]

Don't worry kids, you'll find work. After all, my machine will need strong chess player-programmers. You will be the first. *-* (to Karpov & students, 1965) *-* Mikhail Botvinnik

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

the point is if the computer determined it couldnt make the airfield would it have gone for the hudson?....probably not is the answer and it would have gone blue screen and said 'youre on your own.....I don't feel pain so I don't give a damn'

Whether or not it landed in the Hudson would have depended on who advised the programming team. If Capt Sully was on the design team it would land in the Hudson. That's the great thing about computerized controls. You can put the most experienced pilot in the air in every cockpit.

Of course, that all falls apart if the sensors are not working. Unfortunately, human pilots don't appear to do much better when the sensors aren't working.

[Sternjaeger II]

what really surprises me is that this concept of "dual input" actually made it to production planes, what is the sense of it?! The position of your controls is the first information that gets shared between pilot and co-pilot, this is the kind of engineering solution that proves fatal in the wrong scenario

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Whether or not it landed in the Hudson would have depended on who advised the programming team. If Capt Sully was on the design team it would land in the Hudson. That's the great thing about computerized controls. You can put the most experienced pilot in the air in every cockpit.

Of course, that all falls apart if the sensors are not working. Unfortunately, human pilots don't appear to do much better when the sensors aren't working.

humans have something that computers don't have, sense of judgement.
A computer could be told to ditch a plane in a river, but would it take obstacles (i.e. boats) into account? Nope, we can't really rely on computers, because the process behind the decision making takes more than fast calculation.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Whether or not it landed in the Hudson would have depended on who advised the programming team. If Capt Sully was on the design team it would land in the Hudson. That's the great thing about computerized controls. You can put the most experienced pilot in the air in every cockpit.

Of course, that all falls apart if the sensors are not working. Unfortunately, human pilots don't appear to do much better when the sensors aren't working.

Well the problem there is there are no 'sensors' for that kind of thing, and there is no data available telling the computer there is a river, all the computer knows is basic nav data i.e. waypoints navaids and airports and some basic terrain data of which rivers do not feature, they are not coupled to the weather radar so cannot use the GND function of said radar, you must remember that design principles account for single engine ops, a double engine failure is considered so rare that it is practically dismissed.

and on a final note, no amount of computers will ever replace the human experience, computers and brains work too differently.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

humans have something that computers don't have, sense of judgement.
A computer could be told to ditch a plane in a river, but would it take obstacles (i.e. boats) into account? Nope, we can't really rely on computers, because the process behind the decision making takes more than fast calculation.

It will take the obstacles into consideration if it has the sensors to detect them. That has nothing to do with judgement.