Aircraft Videos and Images

[Madfish]

The first procedure for human malfunction is often to collect leftover parts and look for the black box.

Airspace is a controlled sphere. Comparing flight to cars is futile e.g. There aren't many kids or streetracers popping up unpredictably. Most things up there happen in ballistic curves. And unless the pilot is a math genius with a quantum computer as a brain he'll be only second best in many cases.

Also there's a lot of automation going on anyways. In space travel obviously - the human margin of error is very expensive and deadly up there. But I also expect cargo flights to be automated soon.

As for passenger planes they might keep some puppets just for fun and giggles. On the other hand side it's questionable how much authority a pilot will have over his plane in 20 years or so.

Pilots are supposed to be the safety net if the machine fails - but in many cases the pilot is not capable to comprehend what's going on anyways. In fact it's doubtable that a "pilot" who's literally just a passenger 99% of the time is very helpful as his "flight exerience" is mostly just sitting there and drinking coffee.


So I'd estimate this order of automation:
Cargo planes with almost full automation: soon
Passenger flights with almost full automation: will take a while
Cars which can navigate and drive almost autonomously: will take a while



In the end it's not about if anything can happen. That's always the case. The real problem the industry faces is that they need to offer something that can be sued IF anything goes wrong. (Something other than their company)
A pilot was a good thing to have: if he messes up and survives he can be sued. And if not he's dead anyways. A computer? Not so much. The value of it's destruction is not important.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Madfish

Pilots are supposed to be the safety net if the machine fails - but in many cases the pilot is not capable to comprehend what's going on anyways. In fact it's doubtable that a "pilot" who's literally just a passenger 99% of the time is very helpful as his "flight exerience" is mostly just sitting there and drinking coffee.

EERRR.... if it wasn't for experienced pilots a lot of recent aircraft incidents would have become major aircraft accidents FACT!

Originally Posted by Madfish

So I'd estimate this order of automation:
Cargo planes with almost full automation: soon
Passenger flights with almost full automation: will take a while
Cars which can navigate and drive almost autonomously: will take a while

Space Cargo is already automated, but its going to take a lot to convince me that we will see any of the others any time soon (Luckily).

[Madfish]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

EERRR.... if it wasn't for experienced pilots a lot of recent aircraft incidents would have become major aircraft accidents FACT!

It's easy to say something is a fact but sadly it's not like that.

What you're doing is like comparing the number of fires put out by firemen to those of automated systems when it's a real fact that not every area, object or building is even outfitted with automated systems to begin with.

Planes today aren't even designed to compensante for many of the incidents you speak of. Not to mention that many of these incidents would've still ended up as crashes if it hadn't been for the support through computers and modern systems or even just the improvements in design and building quality.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Madfish

It's easy to say something is a fact but sadly it's not like that.

What you're doing is like comparing the number of fires put out by firemen to those of automated systems when it's a real fact that not every area, object or building is even outfitted with automated systems to begin with.

Planes today aren't even designed to compensante for many of the incidents you speak of. Not to mention that many of these incidents would've still ended up as crashes if it hadn't been for the support through computers and modern systems or even just the improvements in design and building quality.

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

[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?
Got to admit, I have always felt safer in a prop plane than a modern jet airliner!

[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.