Paging Fly320s

[Hawkmoon]

I hope you have your retirement portfolio in good shape:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/08/07/computer-speaking-now-cruising-580mph-altitude-36000ft/

I hope I never have to fly commercial ever again, mostly due to the incredible shrinking seat pitch issue but, if I do, I want a pilot up front. Preferably two.

Look at the Miracle on the Hudson. Could Sully have successfully ditched that plane in the river if he had been flying it by remote control from Philadelphia or Boston? Would a computer have been able to do it if there had been no live pilots on board?

[dogmush]

Meh.

It seems like most of the time the pilots are up there surfing internet forums.

[Fly320s]

Meh.

It seems like most of the time the pilots are up there surfing internet forums.

You're wrong, but I don't have time to prove it right now.  After I land I'll prove it.   

[Fly320s]

As to pilot-less planes, I can see it happening, but not for at least 20 years.  Probably closer to 40.  That is mainly do to limitations on the aircraft, not the computers.

Sure, computers can do the job more accurately, more efficiently, and probably safer overall, but the computers lack the ability to reason, see outside and judge the environment, anticipate rapidly changing events, and most importantly, they lack the ability to think outside their programming.

We've all seen the videos of computers playing chess, or catching a ball, or driving a car.  Those a simple tasks compared to the complexity of flying a plane through bad weather.  Computers are better than humans at many things, but they can not replace expert judgement learned after many years of experience.

[Perd Hapley]

Meh.

It seems like most of the time the pilots are up there surfing internet forums.

Just now the first three non-stickies in this sub-forum are threads begging for his opinion. It looks like he could use some automation up there, while he answers all of our questions.

If this keeps up, we'll have to pay him a consulting fee.


Hey, Fly, how is babby formed?

[Fly320s]

Just now the first three non-stickies in this sub-forum are threads begging for his opinion. It looks like he could use some automation up there, while he answers all of our questions.

If this keeps up, we'll have to pay him a consulting fee.

Heh.  I take cash, BBQ, and beer as legal tender.  If I was single I would also accept legal Tinder.

FTR, I am home today.  Drinking coffee and solving the problems of the world.

[Hawkmoon]

Sure, computers can do the job more accurately, more efficiently, and probably safer overall, but the computers lack the ability to reason, see outside and judge the environment, anticipate rapidly changing events, and most importantly, they lack the ability to think outside their programming.

That's why I still want a pilot or two up there.

Another example of a situation that a computer probably couldn't have handled was the one a few years ago when a flight from South America to New Orleans (IIRC) flamed out short of the destination and had to land short of the airport. They were lining up to ditch in a canal when the pilots spotted a nice, straight, level-looking levee, and set the plane down on that. No injuries, and after some engine repairs a crew was able to fly it out off the levee to an airport for more permanent repairs. I don't think I computer could have handled that.

[Fly320s]

As automation in the cockpit increases, we pilots have less to do.  The running joke is that soon there will be one pilot and one dog.  The pilot's job is to feed the dog.  The dog's job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.

[makattak]

As to pilot-less planes, I can see it happening, but not for at least 20 years.  Probably closer to 40.  That is mainly do to limitations on the aircraft, not the computers.

Sure, computers can do the job more accurately, more efficiently, and probably safer overall, but the computers lack the ability to reason, see outside and judge the environment, anticipate rapidly changing events, and most importantly, they lack the ability to think outside their programming.

We've all seen the videos of computers playing chess, or catching a ball, or driving a car.  Those a simple tasks compared to the complexity of flying a plane through bad weather.  Computers are better than humans at many things, but they can not replace expert judgement learned after many years of experience.

Until they send the computer up with the pilots to learn how to deal with those things on its own. Machine learning is a frightening and impressive thing.

One I have read about is teaching computers to diagnose things from medical records- and the programs were coming up with diagnoses warning of (IIRC) schizophrenia.* When doctors don't actually know what causes it, but the computers were catching a correlation and the programmers don't even know what the correlation the program was catching is.  

That italicized portion is the frightening part.


*And were correct about the diagnoses, which is rather important.

[230RN]

'

Captured this a while ago. Couldn't resist.

Apologies in advance.

X (Terry, his mark)

[HeroHog]

'

Captured this a while ago. Couldn't resist.

Apologies in advance.

X (Terry, his mark)

<Click!>"This is your captain speaking, could all passengers scootch over to the right side of the plane so we can bank and turn this bird please?"

[MechAg94]

Until they send the computer up with the pilots to learn how to deal with those things on its own. Machine learning is a frightening and impressive thing.

One I have read about is teaching computers to diagnose things from medical records- and the programs were coming up with diagnoses warning of (IIRC) schizophrenia.* When doctors don't actually know what causes it, but the computers were catching a correlation and the programmers don't even know what the correlation the program was catching is.  

That italicized portion is the frightening part.


*And were correct about the diagnoses, which is rather important.

I guess it is the same thing with automated cars.  People might trust them until they don't.  All it would take it one failure.  Even if the actual record is good, you can bet the media will play up any perceived failure. 

[French G.]

Self driving anything is going to be a boon to both statist control freaks and anti statist terrorists of all stripes that can hack the datalink or compromise the human somewhere in the system.

[KD5NRH]

<Click!>"This is your captain speaking, could all passengers scootch over to the right side of the plane so we can bank and turn this bird please?"

Didn't they actually do something like that in one of the infamous rudder hydraulic failure incidents?  May have been a fore/aft shift to trim the plane out better that way so the crew could focus on fighting to turn with throttles, though.

[Scout26]

Didn't they actually do something like that in one of the infamous rudder hydraulic failure incidents?  May have been a fore/aft shift to trim the plane out better that way so the crew could focus on fighting to turn with throttles, though.

United 232.  They didn't have passengers moving from side to side.  Just another pilot from the airline (who had probably bumped a paying passenger) helping with the throttles.

What helped according the Captain:

Of the 296 people aboard, 111 were killed in the crash, while 185 survived. Haynes later told of three contributing factors regarding the time of day that allowed for a greater number of passengers surviving:

1)  The accident occurred during daylight hours in good weather;
2)  The accident occurred as a shift change was occurring at both a regional trauma center and a regional burn center in Sioux City, allowing for more medical personnel to treat the injured;
3)  The accident occurred when the Iowa Air National Guard was on duty at Sioux Gateway Airport, allowing for 285 trained personnel to assist with triage and evacuation of the injured.