By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotlessplanes.

Peter Duniho wrote:
"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01...
I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?

Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It
has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of

The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
perfectly good airplanes.

I admit, I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I suspect that
human error in the cockpit causes more accidents than human novelty recovers
from.

This is the same reason that autopilot cars are a good idea, no matter how
offensive they may seem to some people. Yes, there will be failures of the
equipment. But that will happen MUCH less often than the failures of the
humans, and will improve the reliability and efficiency of our
transportation infrastructure at the same time.

The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
saves a year.
And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
spite of other factors.

"george" wrote in message
oups.com...
The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
saves a year.

You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
"pilot skill" saves, either. So what?

And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
spite of other factors.

Yes, it IS unfortunate that so many accidents turn out to be attributable to
"pilot error", and that in spite of other factors, the inspectors CAN still
attribute the accidents to "pilot error". Seems to me you're just making
the point that more automation would be good.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
spite of other factors.

Yes, it IS unfortunate that so many accidents turn out to be attributable to
"pilot error", and that in spite of other factors, the inspectors CAN still
attribute the accidents to "pilot error". Seems to me you're just making
the point that more automation would be good.

That is not at all what George said.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

In article , Peter Duniho
wrote:

The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
saves a year.

You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
"pilot skill" saves, either. So what?

I'll give you an example: We had an electrical short a few months ago,
causing smoke in the cockpit and cabin. First checklist item for us,
after putting the oxygen masks, is to shut off all electric power.

Had that been a "pilotless airliner," you *couldn't* shut off all
electric power, and the wire would have continued to burn. I doubt it
would have been as uneventful as it turned out with humans at the
controls.

"beavis" wrote in message
...
[...]
Had that been a "pilotless airliner," you *couldn't* shut off all
electric power, and the wire would have continued to burn. I doubt it
would have been as uneventful as it turned out with humans at the
controls.

I don't dispute that one can imagine scenarios where only a human would
help. I don't even dispute that a fully-automated cockpit (no pilot at all)
could still fail (and of course, would fail in ways in which a human never
would).

Your example is meaningless, as would any single example of some event. The
question is who would cause accidents more often: human beings, or
computers. Only a complete statistical study can answer that question;
individual experiences are irrelevant.

That said, the event you describe was most dangerous because of the smoke in
the cabin. A computer wouldn't care about smoke. Yes, the short would
likely cause some failure to other components, but I would expect any
computer-piloted aircraft to include various redundancies and
system-isolation features.

No computer would eat the fish for lunch, either.

To think that a computer couldn't have safely handled the event you describe
is to have a complete lack of imagination for what is possible.

Pete

In article , Peter Duniho
wrote:

To think that a computer couldn't have safely handled the event you describe
is to have a complete lack of imagination for what is possible.

I'm having trouble imagining how that computer could have run without
electric power. Backup battery? What if the computer was where the
fire was?

Had the short circuit continued, the cabin would have continued to fill
with smoke, and my passengers would have been dead. (Airline oxygen
masks are not sealed systems -- they mix with ambient air, and smoke.)

Computers have a LONG way to go before they'll be completely foolproof,
and intelligent enough to adapt to scenarios. I'm not saying it can't
happen, but I'm willing to bet it's going to take a lot longer than 25
more years.

The human analog of your question is a pilot becoming unconsicous
during flight. Yes, we have a backup pilot, but there is no reason why
we can't put MANY backup computers and backup power sources.

Computers will never be fool proof, but they can be more reliable than
humans, especially in repetitive tasks. Like it or not, flying is a
repetitive task.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

The human analog of your question is a pilot becoming unconsicous
during flight. Yes, we have a backup pilot, but there is no reason why
we can't put MANY backup computers and backup power sources.

Computers will never be fool proof, but they can be more reliable than
humans, especially in repetitive tasks. Like it or not, flying is a
repetitive task.

Have you ever flown one of the new state of the art aircraft?

7 times out of 10 when you start up the aircraft you get some kind of
nuisance message or glitch, and like any computer you just go with the
old Control Alt Delete routine.
There are still too many computer glitches to even think to have
aircrafts without pilots.

"beavis" wrote in message
...
I'm having trouble imagining how that computer could have run without
electric power. Backup battery? What if the computer was where the
fire was?

From my previous post (you might try reading it):

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
[...]
That said, the event you describe was most dangerous because of the smoke
in
the cabin. A computer wouldn't care about smoke. Yes, the short would
likely cause some failure to other components, but I would expect any
computer-piloted aircraft to include various redundancies and
system-isolation features.

You also write:

Computers have a LONG way to go before they'll be completely foolproof,
and intelligent enough to adapt to scenarios. I'm not saying it can't
happen, but I'm willing to bet it's going to take a lot longer than 25
more years.

We are there now. We have the engineering know-how to produce
computer-flown airplanes, including solving all of the various redundancy
and system-isolation issues to address issues such as the one you think is a
problem.

The problem is social. There's no way people will get on an airliner flown
by a computer. And you're right about that: it's going to take a LOT longer
than 25 more years for that to change. It may *never* happen.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

We are there now. We have the engineering know-how to produce
computer-flown airplanes, including solving all of the various redundancy
and system-isolation issues to address issues such as the one you think is a
problem.

What we don't have is the ability to formally prove the correctness of software.
(which is not to say that humans always are correct).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule