|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
20th April 2010, 11:44 AM | #201 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
Quote:
The next generation will not care if there is a human on board or not and the current one doesn't care if the pilot does nothing but twiddle his thumbs the whole way (or get too absorbed in their laptops to notice they are 200 miles past where they were supposed to land). They want to get from A to B safely, thats all. You clearly are not ready to make the mental leap to the next generation....in fact you remind me of a typist or a typewriter manufacturer in 1982....you don't realise that the your whole job essentially was no longer required once the first IBM PC came down the line. As I said, Pilot is a job of the past, not the future. They are expensive, prone to human weaknesses and becoming the weak link in aircraft safety. |
20th April 2010, 12:00 PM | #202 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
Quote:
I think he would not live in the past but would be making the future
Quote:
|
20th April 2010, 03:27 PM | #203 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
da Vinci would not paint because there is 3D Cinema? There are not enough laughing dogs. When you understand the tradeoffs in the digital world, when I see the back ground frozen due to compression artifacts, I have to go outside and see the real 3D world. What engineering school did you graduate from?
Are you going to wow us with your work better than da Vinci due to 3D Cinema, or are you saying it takes a da Vinci to make art and he would make it in 3D Cinema? More laughing dogs but I have to go see the real world and why the digital world of 3D Cinema is still short. I have chased clouds in a supersonic aircraft and pulled 7Gs to pullout while weaving down to the ground at 600 mph, and now Da Vinci will trade in painting for 3D Cinema when he is born again, never to paint again. Why are stage plays still here? When will the Matrix takeover? A digital wife? A digital dog? A digital apple, from the digital apple tree? Will the digital rose smell like a real rose? Where is the digital smell in 3D? Wednesday I have to format two new 2TB drives and add two new dual digital tuners; so technology is not new nor the end all for me; it is a tool to do tasks. I have programed computers since 1971 and worked with technology in advanced cockpits. What engineering credentials do you have to lecture technology, or are these your opinions? Autonomous aircraft that match humans have not been invented. When will they? Not in your time. |
20th April 2010, 03:35 PM | #204 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
|
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
20th April 2010, 03:54 PM | #205 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
|
We can't really imagine which technology is going to pan out and be picked up by companies in the future, we're still waiting for the flying car, and that never materialized, but remote-controlled airplaines I don't think so.
If the technology pans out for airplaines to be piloted remotely, this means they will also become "hijackable" remotely as well. People with ill intentions will find a way to use this technology for their own ends, and I don't think airlines will risk it. Sometimes the risk is too great to continue with a technology, and human reflexes and intuition are still working quite well. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley...er#Flight_1549 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pich%C3%A9 If it wasn't for these pilots and their training and experience, there would have been no survivors. |
20th April 2010, 06:52 PM | #206 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
|
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
20th April 2010, 06:56 PM | #207 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
|
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
20th April 2010, 11:22 PM | #208 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
|
Easy, theoretically? You bet. Easy as far as maintaining an acceptable level of safety and reliability? Not at all. I wish I could show you just one modern airliner logbook so you can see yourself how many times that particular plane is "on the hook" for an autopilot problem that takes it out of autoland status. Then, you have all the unsuccessful autolands, disconnects, porpoising squawks, etc which makes me glad somebody is up there to fly the damned thing by hand when the autopilot is SNAFU'ed. Oh, and most of the time, we can't duplicate the autopilot write-up on the ground. So if the autopilot "return to service" test is successful, we put the plane back on autoland status without a repair(unless there is a history, in which case we'll throw parts at it until a successful autoland is made).
I've troubleshot an intermittent uncommaded roll autopilot squawk on an MD88 which turned out to be something as trivial as a misrouted wire(which was unshielded and picked up EMI from power feeder wires which are also unshielded). The 777 has, and I'm sure the 787 will as well, a superb self diagnostic system that detects problems real time and even recommends fixes.... but still, I've seen things that boggle my mind how they could go undetected. If you only knew that dangers that lie ahead for fully autonomous flight, you'd be leery too. As someone else upthread said; it's not what the programmers take into consideration - it's what they don't. See the famous Airbus A320 demonstrator crash, for example. BTW, which aircraft(that isn't still under a veil of secrery) in the USAF inventory is fully autonomous? This is the second time you've made this claim. I'd like to know what airplane you are talking about. |
21st April 2010, 08:21 AM | #209 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Yup. That diagnostic is the 777 CMC (Central Management Computer) if you want to look it up -- there are many papers on the subject, chief among them work by Dr. Ramohalli at Honeywell. The function of the CMC is to certify the aircraft for reflight, verifying that it has enough still-functioning redundant systems to pass an FAA checklist.
See that scary word up there, "certify?" Certification is a huge issue. There are lots and lots of technologies required to reach this level, things that no hobbyist ever encounters. For example, you as Joe the R/C Enthusiast can put whatever computer and operating system you want on your toys -- any basic SBC will do, running Linux in all probability. Think that'll fly in civil aviation? Guess again. There are literally hundreds of ARINC standards that apply, and if you don't meet those (which you don't), you don't fly. All of these standards are developed after years of bitter experience in everything that can go wrong. The basic standard of civil aviation is that your system must demonstrably meet an incident rate of 1 per 1 million flight hours of operation. That's the total system threshold. Your autonomous software gets a slice of this probability space, so let's say 1 incident in 10 million flight hours is a good target. Knock yourself out. We're beginning to repeat ourselves, sheeplenshills. Yes, some of us work on this for a living. I invite you to look up my papers on the subject. Your faith in this technology is gratifying, because it means folks like myself have done a good job... but it's a lot more complex than you think. In my estimation, pilots in combat aircraft are within 20 years of being reduced to secondary importance, but in civil aviation -- carrying passengers -- I predict it will be about 30 years before the co-pilot position is retired, 40 years before a computer ever becomes PIC (Pilot In Charge) of a heavy jet, and perhaps 100 before pilots are fully eliminated, if ever. You also won't see this happen first in aviation. Heck, our light rail still has human operators. There are easier places to apply this technology first. And yes, I expect the above to be ignored again. This is how Truthers are made -- sheer stubbornness and hubris among amateurs. The seed of it lives within us all. Fight it! |
21st April 2010, 11:10 AM | #210 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,258
|
.
And as has been shown, the technology available isn't always used, so the human operators can be distracted by other technology (texting) and create problems. And there's not many transportation systems as limited in out-of-limit operation as a train. These -must- be on -those- rails to move all. 2-dimensional linear motion, and that isn't as controlled as it can be. |
19th May 2010, 12:47 PM | #211 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=20048
Is this new? Balsammo talking to a supposed former aviation tech. Wayne Anderson who supposedly witnesses another guy David Prentice (sp?) take over the autopilot of a 757 through the Mode S transponder mode to the autopilot and that this Wayne could not disconnect it with the breakers. Of course this was via software of unknown origin and we only have Waynes word that it could not be disabled via the breakers. I could not make out the name of the company, sounded like Delfors (maybe this is on the P4T site but I'm blocked ) The whole story sounds like second hand hearsay as both Wayne and Balsammo seem very vague on details they should know if they were really knew what they were talking about. But does this company really exist and did they or did they employ a Wayne and this Dave Prentice? |
19th May 2010, 12:52 PM | #212 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Not possible for a wide variety of reasons. For starters, one can kill the transponder and the autopilot completely using the breakers. Maybe Cap'n Bob can't, but that aircraft is beyond his capabilities to begin with.
|
19th May 2010, 01:30 PM | #213 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
Ouch!!!
|
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
19th May 2010, 08:40 PM | #214 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
|
[delurk]
Yeahhh, a "whistleblower" . Jeebus, the little egos...anyways, I listened to about 5 minutes and couldn't stomach any more. The guy talking to Booby is more clueless than he is. There is no software that can make a transponder take control of an airplane. Aviation illiterate truthers have vastly overstated the use of software on 757/767's over the years. Other than firmware and unit-specific "ops" software, software doesn't have any effect whatsoever on aircraft flight control manipulation(757/767). ARINC data busses are how individual units in a system(say an Autopilot Mode Control Panel and an Autopilot Computer) talk to each other and execute commands. Separate systems(ie Air Data, Flight Management and Autopilot) also interface via these ARINC busses. In fact, that's the primary form of communication between avionics in a modern airliner; not software. Oh and of course, assuming the fantasy of "rogue software" were true, there certainly isn't any software, rogue or otherwise, that will run when the unit isn't powered. And lastly, a 767 autopilot doesn't talk to the transponder(TCAS does, and no TCAS doesn't talk to the autopilot either). We've been over this the last several pages....there 3 ways to disable any kind of "backdoor", even if it wasn't pure fantasy. Any one option will work. 1. Switch the transponder(or ACARS, or SATCOM, or whatever the perps are using for uplink) to "STBY" or "OFF" positions...like the real hijackers did) 2. P11 Circuit Breaker Panel; the ATC(ACARS/SATCOM) breakers, as well as the autopilot computer/autopilot servo power breakers are located there. Pull them. 3. Configure the Electrical System panel to fly on Battery/Standby Power. Defeating truther e-hijacking retardedness is just that easy. [/delurk] |
19th May 2010, 08:44 PM | #215 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
|
|
20th May 2010, 06:15 AM | #216 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
|
20th May 2010, 02:19 PM | #217 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
|
|
20th May 2010, 09:06 PM | #218 |
Guest
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|