SurelySerious Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Anyone else getting a mental image of what 26-yr-old Las Vegas resident named Tiffany Lee looks like?!? Eh.
Infamous Posted March 28, 2012 Author Posted March 28, 2012 How ironic this comes out today... Not that this changes my opinion. https://www.nypost.co...OXCuUvryqgykKwI https://www.facebook.com/clayton.osbon
M2 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Eh. Eh. Not what I expected, but not so bad that 90% of this board wouldn't hit it...
Wolf424 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 The Koala or the chick? ZING! In the end, the Jetblue plane landed safely and the passengers eventually made it to their destination. Now if a computer goes ape-shit mid-flight...
pawnman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Nope. Big difference between computers running the switches for a subway train and having computers responsible for several hundred people in a metal tube going 800 feet per second six miles above the earth. Really? You don't think a computer running two subway cars packed full of passengers into each other while they're going 100 MPH is comparable, safety wise? Plus, the car companies are already working towards cars that can drive themselves. If anything, planes are even better suited to automation, since they're unlikely to collide with any obstacles at FL 350.
itsokimapilot Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Really? You don't think a computer running two subway cars packed full of passengers into each other while they're going 100 MPH is comparable, safety wise? No, I think it's completely different. Subways are operating in two dimensions. What happens if the train goes degraded? Stop the train. What happens if a jet goes degraded? There's no mechanical backup. So, even if the pilot is along for the ride 99% of the time he needs to be there for the 1% when the automation doesn't work as planned. The pilot is a 1 percenter. As a passenger I'll pay a little extra for pilot to be onboard. I'll avoid a pilotless aircraft at all costs.
Getzen2 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 No, I think it's completely different. Subways are operating in two dimensions. What happens if the train goes degraded? Stop the train. What happens if a jet goes degraded? There's no mechanical backup. So, even if the pilot is along for the ride 99% of the time he needs to be there for the 1% when the automation doesn't work as planned. The pilot is a 1 percenter. As a passenger I'll pay a little extra for pilot to be onboard. I'll avoid a pilotless aircraft at all costs. 2
Guest Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Really? Really. Take a poll of the folks you know and see how many people would rather save the $5 extra on their ticket to not have a pilot on board. Plus, the car companies are already working towards cars that can drive themselves. Let me know when you think we're going to start putting our kids on school busses that don't have a driver. If anything, planes are even better suited to automation, since they're unlikely to collide with any obstacles at FL 350. They're already "automated", which is great. Passengers know airplanes have autopilots and that sometimes, when the wx is really shitty, the plane can/does land itself. They get a sense of comfort if they board the plane, look inside and see a pretty, new, modern looking all glass cockpit. They like that because they know it makes the pilot's job easier. However, no pilotless airline can compete with the guys who keep their pilots and make the pax pay a couple bucks more. End of discussion.
sky_king Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Subways are operating in two dimensions. It is even simpler than that. The subway really only operates in one dimension. Plus, if you put two independant computers on board and they disagree, it's pretty easy to program the train to stop where it is.
pawnman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Really. Take a poll of the folks you know and see how many people would rather save the $5 extra on their ticket to not have a pilot on board. Let me know when you think we're going to start putting our kids on school busses that don't have a driver. They're already "automated", which is great. Passengers know airplanes have autopilots and that sometimes, when the wx is really shitty, the plane can/does land itself. They get a sense of comfort if they board the plane, look inside and see a pretty, new, modern looking all glass cockpit. They like that because they know it makes the pilot's job easier. However, no pilotless airline can compete with the guys who keep their pilots and make the pax pay a couple bucks more. End of discussion. Given the number of mishaps chalked up to pilot error versus the number chalked up to system malfunction, I'd happily board a plane without a pilot. It is going to happen, it's just a matter of time and conditioning. The real question is going to be working through the FAA regulations.
M2 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 The Koala or the chick? Your choice. I'd take the chick.
RASH Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Given the number of mishaps chalked up to pilot error versus the number chalked up to system malfunction, I'd happily board a plane without a pilot. It is going to happen, it's just a matter of time and conditioning. The real question is going to be working through the FAA regulations. And how many system malfunctions didn't result in a mishap because there was a pilot onboard??? Think it through...
Infamous Posted March 29, 2012 Author Posted March 29, 2012 Your choice. I'd take the chick. But have you ever been with a Koala?
Champ Kind Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Given the number of mishaps chalked up to pilot error versus the number chalked up to system malfunction, I'd happily board a plane without a pilot. It is going to happen, it's just a matter of time and conditioning. The real question is going to be working through the FAA regulations. W...T...F.... Are you a trunk monkey?
pawnman Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 W...T...F.... Are you a trunk monkey? I am a trunk monkey, but the solid truth is that the statistics show pilot performance is the big x-factor in mishaps, not mechanical breakdowns. And if the plane were entirely automated, it would prevent any more 9-11s because it would be physically impossible to take the controls...because there wouldn't be any more physical controls. It won't take long. Most of us will probably see the day when it happens. If we can do this for trains, cars, and boats, there is no logical reason we can't do it for planes. Perhaps the pilot-types feel differently because they are the ones in control of the jet...but your average passenger has the same amount of impact on the conduct of the flight whether there's a guy in the cockpit or a computer: none.
Apollo Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 You're missing a part to your statistics. The part where the auto pilot goes squirrelly, and the pilots calmly and routinely take manual control to de######ulate it. This isn't reported as mechanical failure, though maybe it should be for people who think autopilot is completely safe. Autopilot works great... Until it doesn't.
Prozac Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Rainman hit it on the head. People aren't going to be lining up any time soon for driverless taxis or busses, captainless cruise ships (even if they have a tendency to run into big f-ing rocks), or pilotless planes. Hell, even Amtrack and Burlington Northern still see a need to keep men in the loop. Sure, there are a few limited instances where we've given up on human operators. Subways and airport trams are pretty controlled environments. When something goes wrong, the tram stops and some pax are stranded for a while. Most people can live with that. Here's my philosophy on pax safety as a pilot: I don't care as much about the safety of my pax as I do about my own. It is my own instinct for self preservation that makes me want to operate within the margins of safety, not some stoic sense of duty to my pax. Don't get me wrong, that sense of duty is there, but saving my own pink butt is what really drives me to resolve an emergency. Guess what? A computer or a dude in a trailer with a joystick doesn't have the same sense of self preservation. That's why I'd NEVER get on a pilotless aircraft as a pax. I want the motherfvcker who's operating the thing to be along for the ride too! You're missing a part to your statistics. The part where the auto pilot goes squirrelly, and the pilots calmly and routinely take manual control to de######ulate it. This isn't reported as mechanical failure, though maybe it should be for people who think autopilot is completely safe. Autopilot works great... Until it doesn't. Exactly. We hear all the time about how the root cause of most accidents is pilot error. What you don't hear about are the times that the human being in the cockpit resolved an issue by appplying good judgement and proper procedure. How many times has an aircraft been saved because there was someone there to think the problem through? We'll never know because pilots consider that a routine part of their job.
Guest jtsmith1 Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 because it would be physically impossible to take the controls...because there wouldn't be any more physical controls. Something is still controlling the plane in this situation, doesn't have to be something directly tangible in order for someone to take control. Would just be a matter of time before someone figured out how to hack it.
Guest Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 I am a trunk monkey pilot performance is the big x-factor in mishaps it would prevent any more 9-11s 'Nuff said. I think we get where you're coming from.
Darth Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Your automated airplane takes off, flies through a large flock of geese, and flames out both engines of your two engine airliner. Where does the autopilot decide to land it? 1
pawnman Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) 'Nuff said. I think we get where you're coming from. Yep. It's all spite and jealousy, not a recognition that technology will keep advancing. ETA: Nevada is now registering automated cars. https://www.kolotv.com/news/headlines/Nevada_Wants_Autonomated_Cars__142715105.html?ref=105 If a computer can navigate around the myriad idiots on the road during rush hour, pedestrians and/or deer jumping out in front of the car, traffic lights and stop signs, and avoid grazing the guardrails, I have high hopes that airplanes, which already have a high level of automation, will be capable of the same thing in the relatively near-future. Edited March 29, 2012 by pawnman
Guest Grind Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Yep. It's all spite and jealousy, not a recognition that technology will keep advancing. We all know where that leads... 2
Guest Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 It seems some can envision a time when technology will eventually progress to a point where flying on an automated/remotely piloted aircraft can be done with less risk than with a human pilot. Good point. To take it even further...it seems some can envision a time when technology will eventually progress to a point where people no long need aircraft to fly them around. And others can't.
Ram Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Let alone the time when technology will replace the need for navigators... ...oh wait... 4
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now