A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Beyond HOTAS and FADEC - AI ???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 10th 05, 09:22 PM
Rich S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Beyond HOTAS and FADEC - AI ???

As I read more about the Third Industrial Revolution, the chapter on AI has
come into scrutiny. We are nibbling at the edges of intelligent monitoring
of our powerplants, however the inclusion of the pilot in the loop seems to
be the weak point. All the Red Arcs, Warning flags, Alarm tones and Wigwag
signs fail when applied to the brain of an otherwise occupied or tired
pilot.

Why not bypass this roadblock and construct a program that will take into
account *all* of the parameters of a normal engine operation, add to that a
learning curve and apply the results to the throttle? It would have to have
a lot more than that, including a way to let the pilot know why he must deal
with an engine that will only give him half throttle for the next ten
minutes and he'd better damn well find a place to land before things get
quiet.

There are already programs and equipment like this in service
http://www.intapp.co.uk/ so it wouldn't be something new.

Thoughts?

Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.


  #2  
Old August 10th 05, 10:15 PM
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thousands of pilotless UAV's fly every day. Some of them are really big and
fly fast and high. The remote "operator" only selects the course and
altitude to be flown and computers take care of the rest. This isn't news.

The only obstacle to pilotless commercial aircraft is customer acceptance.
Compared to a driverless car, a pilotless aircraft is easy. Even your car
is likely to be "throttle-by-wire" with a computer controlling the details.

The Pentagon is committed to UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) The
machines will have to ask a human for permission to fire - for now. (How'd
you like to be a refueling boom operator or a LSO looking down the
gunbarrels of an aerial 'bot?)

So, why not FADEC engine controls or smart autopilots? The best automation
takes over the routine boring tasks and lets the human work on the big
picture. Humans do a far better job of the big picture strategic problems
than computers do. Computers beat the hell out of humans on the boring
stuff.

Give me a "single lever" power control. Push for more power and pull for
less. Let a computer sweat the small stuff.

Bill Daniels



"Rich S." wrote in message
news
As I read more about the Third Industrial Revolution, the chapter on AI

has
come into scrutiny. We are nibbling at the edges of intelligent monitoring
of our powerplants, however the inclusion of the pilot in the loop seems

to
be the weak point. All the Red Arcs, Warning flags, Alarm tones and Wigwag
signs fail when applied to the brain of an otherwise occupied or tired
pilot.

Why not bypass this roadblock and construct a program that will take into
account *all* of the parameters of a normal engine operation, add to that

a
learning curve and apply the results to the throttle? It would have to

have
a lot more than that, including a way to let the pilot know why he must

deal
with an engine that will only give him half throttle for the next ten
minutes and he'd better damn well find a place to land before things get
quiet.

There are already programs and equipment like this in service
http://www.intapp.co.uk/ so it wouldn't be something new.

Thoughts?

Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.



  #3  
Old August 11th 05, 12:02 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Daniels wrote:
Thousands of pilotless UAV's fly every day. Some of them are really big and
fly fast and high. The remote "operator" only selects the course and
altitude to be flown and computers take care of the rest. This isn't news.

The only obstacle to pilotless commercial aircraft is customer acceptance.
Compared to a driverless car, a pilotless aircraft is easy. Even your car
is likely to be "throttle-by-wire" with a computer controlling the details.




Just think back a couple of years ago when demonstrating their
"wonderfull and fully intelligent" autothrottle system when the Airbus
crashed into the trees.....

I for one want a warm body in the cockpit and not just a bunch of
silica...

Craig C.


  #4  
Old August 11th 05, 01:11 AM
Blueskies
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message ups.com...
....

Just think back a couple of years ago when demonstrating their
"wonderfull and fully intelligent" autothrottle system when the Airbus
crashed into the trees.....

I for one want a warm body in the cockpit and not just a bunch of
silica...

Craig C.



....that crash was due to pilot error....


  #5  
Old August 11th 05, 01:32 AM
Montblack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

("Rich S." wrote)
Thoughts?

Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.



Close...

http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/...imate_Computer

http://www.ericweisstein.com/fun/sta...eComputer.html


Montblack
  #6  
Old August 11th 05, 02:29 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote

I for one want a warm body in the cockpit and not just a bunch of
silica...



Agreed, but I sure do like the idea of saying I want more power - I'll push
on this lever, instead of, "I want more power, so I have to do: mixture pull
to rich, push off carburetor heat, push throttle in, propeller governor to
high RPM. NOW I get to go.

I want it like a car. Push on the gas, and go fast.
--
Jim in NC

  #7  
Old August 11th 05, 03:13 AM
Rich S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

I want it like a car. Push on the gas, and go fast.


Jim............

The existing controls do that. I was thinking more along the lines of AI
that would monitor fuel flow, fuel remaining, oil pressure & temp., cyl.
head temp., EGT, vibration, noise, trace oil analysis, and every other
possible condition affecting engine operation. If it finds something needing
maintenance or needing engine shutdown, it will analyze the situation and
take corrective action. If you behave yourself and talk nice, it may let you
decide to ruin the engine to save your butt. Then again, it may not. . .
:^)

Rich "What was that Zeroth Law of Robotics?" S.


  #8  
Old August 11th 05, 04:39 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rich S." wrote

The existing controls do that. I was thinking more along the lines of AI
that would monitor fuel flow, fuel remaining, oil pressure & temp., cyl.
head temp., EGT, vibration, noise, trace oil analysis, and every other
possible condition affecting engine operation.


Yeah, I caught that, but I was responding to cvairwerks, this time.

I do agree with you, but that is a lot to ask for, when we can't even get
one lever power control, right? g

Really, the idea could be done one less, and be a master annunciator when an
instrument's readout started too far in a direction, and let you know with a
yellow, and where the problem is. If you didn't address it, then you get a
red warning. It would be good if it would suggest corrections, too, if it
couldn't be made to fix it by itself.

Your way sounds great - get right on it, and let me know when it's done.
vbg
--
Jim in NC


  #9  
Old August 11th 05, 01:59 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:22:47 -0700, "Rich S."
wrote:

There are already programs and equipment like this in service
http://www.intapp.co.uk/ so it wouldn't be something new.

Thoughts?

Rich "Open the pod bay door, Hal" S.


Rich, while the site implied that there were aero applications, I was
unable to find any examples. Do you know, has this software actually
been applied to an aircraft turbine?

If not, then this is just still imaginitive conceptualizing.

Corky Scott
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.