Aircraft Videos and Images

[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]

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.

[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.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

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

they don't have the sensors you describe, remember they are all about saving costs so they aren't likely to get them either.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

they don't have the sensors you describe, remember they are all about saving costs so they aren't likely to get them either.

Obviously, they would have to add them if they wanted to replace the pilot.

[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 bongodriver

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.

I'm not talking about the current systems, I'm talking about the sort of system that would be needed to replace a human pilot. It would need better sensors to detect obstacles and terrain. It would also need a very detailed mapping system.

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

That just is not true. Computers can give a single aircraft crew the combined experience of every pilot in the sky. In a situation like the Hudson crash the computer could inform the pilot immediately whether he can reach a nearby airfield. It could let him know about alternative places to land. It could do all of that much faster than any human could do it.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

I'm not talking about the current systems, I'm talking about the sort of system that would be needed to replace a human pilot. It would need better sensors to detect obstacles and terrain. It would also need a very detailed mapping system..

In which case you have a point, if the need was desparate enough to eliminate the pilots then I guess they would take it into consideration

Originally Posted by David Hayward

That just is not true. Computers can give a single aircraft crew the combined experience of every pilot in the sky. In a situation like the Hudson crash the computer could inform the pilot immediately whether he can reach a nearby airfield. It could let him know about alternative places to land. It could do all of that much faster than any human could do it.

Remember Jim Lovells anecdote about the bioluminescent algae helping him find his carrier, that's the experience a computer won't have.