![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Peter Duniho posted:
"Neil Gould" wrote: In the same vein, piloted airliners are "good enough". The number of catastrophic losses are quite small in comparison to the number of flights. There is no evidence that aircraft piloted by computer would fare any better, much less signficantly better. What would you consider "evidence"? I meant "evidence" in a loose way, not as legally valid terminology. ;-) So, any vehicle capable of operating autonomously over long distances and time could provide some "evidence", one way or the other. There's no question automation would avoid certain kinds of losses; the valid question (without an answer for the moment) is whether human pilots balance that out with actions that a computerized pilot could not take. I am sure the pilots' unions will invest great resources in showing that human pilots are better. But I'd just as soon see an independent source for that analysis. I see it a little differently. The contest is not between humans and computer control a computer can fly an airplane autonomously from point A to B. That's a ways off, considering the current state of AI. As far as "good enough" goes, that's a social issue. For the time being, I'd agree things are "good enough", especially the distrust that the public would have with an fully automated airliner. I also don't see this as an issue of public trust, because the mindset that we have about such things today is not relevant. By the time AI has achieved the required sophistication to pull this off, I'd expect that autonomous machines would be quite the norm and everyone would be able to accept the introduction of autonomous airlines as the next logical step, pun intended. ;-) But long-term, airlines are looking at two things, at least: * Overall loss rate * Cost of operations I am skeptical that the overall loss rate would change much, for the reasons I stated in my last post. As for cost of operations, it seems to me that support for autonomous aircraft would require an even larger and more costly infrastructure than the airlines have now. Who is going to service and pre-flight these systems? Considering the number of service stations capable of dealing with the problems identified by the computers in our cars and the expense of repair, I don't think the airlines can expect to save much (if anything) by eliminating pilots. Regards, Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is MDHI going to make it? | Matt Barrow | Rotorcraft | 55 | June 12th 05 05:04 PM |
Power Commercial to Glider Commercial | Mitty | Soaring | 24 | March 15th 05 03:41 PM |
Do You Want to Become a Commercial Helicopter Pilot? | Badwater Bill | Rotorcraft | 7 | August 22nd 04 12:00 AM |
What to study for commercial written exam? | Dave | Piloting | 0 | August 9th 04 03:56 PM |
Another Addition to the Rec.Aviation Rogue's Gallery! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 125 | February 1st 04 05:57 AM |