Nah, Otto Pilot's in charge.
Posted on 06/08/2010 11:30:56 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
man this is so far off for commercial aviation... if the technology is so easy, why haven’t the box haulers emptied the flight deck? no passengers to worry about a the lack of a human presence... in an unable to reach airfield scenario, just ditch in an unpopulated area (loss of property only), and it would save them one of their largest expenses (flight crew labor & benefits). The stories that I’ve heard regarding what has gone wrong with global hawk and predator are enough to convince me this is not in my lifetime. technology moves at a rapid pace, but the FAA moves at a snails pace and this is far from a trivial transition... so complex on so many levels.
Nah, Otto Pilot's in charge.
Rountrip ticket from NY to LA with Pilot = $400
Rountrip ticket from NY to LA with UAV = $200
Let the public decide
Skynet was fiction.
I know, I know, your next thought would be, “yahbut...”
passengers
Agreed. The level of automation in today's cockpit makes flying much safer. By taking over the mundane tasks, pilots can concentrate on the "big picture" and not get consumed by the minutia.
However, there's no way for the software design and development team to anticipate every possible problem and provide a solution, at least with current technology. That's where the human brain excels: using incomplete data to develop a hypothesis, test it, and derive a solution.
With the necessary equipment on the plane and on the ground, many commercial planes have full auto-land capability. But, it doesn't mean the air crew doesn't have anything to do: they constantly monitor the approach and make sure everything is within tolerances. At the first sign of trouble, they are prepared to take control and execute a missed approach procedure.
What sort of stories? I'm interested.
ML/NJ
I know, I was making an attempt at humor. Or if you prefer, yahbut iwas makingan attemptat humor.
Nobody seems to be talking about the loss rate for the Predators. They may have lost some to hostile fire, but they have lost some.
It has been postulated that systems sophistication will exceed the brain's ability to process the increased variables in real time as it pertains to air combat. Yes/no?
Ack! Alright. Now it makes sense.
“It has been postulated that systems sophistication will exceed the brain’s ability to process the increased variables in real time as it pertains to air combat.”
Sophistication does not equate to reliability in the field or the ability to reason.
A smarter machine is still just a machine.
Got it. You left the comma out of your reply, which confused me.
Lockheed-Martin wrote the code a long time ago already :-)
I would think that, based on their size, speed, and altitude, they would be fairly difficult to hit. They can’t have a massive heat signature for their size.
I don’t think they (the AI)can use more advanced evasive manuvers, at least not yet.
One of the main advantages to this technology (I would hope) is that even though the UAV maybe destroyed the tactics used to destroy it would be transmitted back and could be countered in the next version of the AI.
OTOH I could be horribly, horribly wrong.
You may have misunderstood the comment. The ability to reason was not questioned; only the reaction time.
The hull losses related to human error... the FTS bringing down one, the bad taxi speed entry, poor decisions from the ground operator for a number of crashes in the field. 4 of the first seven were lost to non-combat related human errors or faulty decision processes. The global hawk is one of the MOST automated UAVs and the human error rates are seemingly high and of great consequence. Of course these are extreme, and are largely growing pains, but nonetheless concerning. The lifespan of commercial aircraft is roughly 30 years in average service... half of the existing commercial fleet will still be in service in 2025. Retrofitting old aircraft with new systems is EXPENSIVE... imagine the cost of retrofitting them for remote control. Heck, even existing flight deck automation systems are so diverse that they are causing headaches in implementing the current improvements. Give three different flight crews the exact same clearance (e.g. descend and maintain flight level eight-zero) and you are likely to get three different results... one aircraft may descend at 3 degree flight path angle and slow to 250 kts in descent before crossing 10,000ft... the second may maintain descent speed to 10,000, level off and resume descent once the speed is reduced to 250 kts, the third may do something in between, reducing the FPA to help bleed off the speed, but not completely level off. There are no real standards in FMS operation, and the thought of automating everything should scare the hell out of you. Having said that, there will NEED to be some improvements to the system that will automate the more mundane tasks if traffic is to exceed the pre 2k levels by any significant amount (not really sure that it will any time soon though... currently looks like 2020 or later before we hit pre-2000 traffic levels).
Fill in your own government acronym here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.