|
One of the big problems is that you don't know the separation between the aircraft in front of you and whether or not it's cleared the runway. And of course that's ILS CATIII which is only installed on a few runways in the world. An air canada flight crashed last year because they hosed up a non precision approach in bad visibility. The airport did not have a precision approach installed.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You realize that's because they refuse to auto land the drat things yes? Global Chicken (the RPA he was referring to) actually does land itself. It needs a chase pilot for take-off because the crew has no SA on what is going on because they don't have a fancy spin-around camera like the other drones (Pred/Reaper), so for example, if the plane catches on fire on the take-off roll the crew probably won't know to abort until it's too late. As far as landing it most definitely can do it completely on its own as long as the field has been pre-sited with all the necessary info/GPS coordinates/etc. I witnessed it with my own two eyes at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia. Incidentally it's pretty funny when a gigantic unmanned aircraft drops out of the sky and Transient Alert calls you to help them figure out what the gently caress because "you're the drone guys." In fact Global Chicken is literally flown with a mouse and keyboard, no one does any "flying," they just tell it where to go and what to look at, the actual flying portion is completely automated. Smaller RPAs like Pred and Reaper are a different story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Which is why the USAF opening the door to enlisted RQ-4 pilots isn't as big a deal as it seems at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
This is one of those "lol good job" moments for the PLAN. Not like anybody didn't see this coming. Tokyo is responding by stringing a line of anti-ship, anti-aircraft missile batteries along 200 islands in the East China Sea stretching 1,400 km (870 miles) from the country's mainland toward Taiwan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Which is why the USAF opening the door to enlisted RQ-4 pilots isn't as big a deal as it seems at first glance. Uh, piloting should be kept to officers and any filthy peasant enlisted that volunteers should be drummed out of the Air Force for not respecting their betters. I'm quite certain that there are officers that feel that way, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Coffeehitler posted:Uh, piloting should be kept to officers and any filthy peasant enlisted that volunteers should be drummed out of the Air Force for not respecting their betters. Fortunately most of them are sailors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
I was at the Singapore Airshow a couple years ago and took some pics, any interest? Nothing too fascinating but I did get shots of an F-15SG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 08:20
|
|
|
You boys like low passes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCViKu9XlbQ Boomerjinks fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Also under what circumstances in this day and age would a B-52 doing nookular combat toe to toe with the rooskies not just get shot down way before reaching its target? I mean presumably some AD capability would survive and targets don't get much easier than a loving BUFF. Are B-52s even used in the nuclear deterrent role anymore?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Also under what circumstances in this day and age would a B-52 doing nookular combat toe to toe with the rooskies not just get shot down way before reaching its target? I mean presumably some AD capability would survive and targets don't get much easier than a loving BUFF. Could be, with a bit of work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Also under what circumstances in this day and age would a B-52 doing nookular combat toe to toe with the rooskies not just get shot down way before reaching its target? I mean presumably some AD capability would survive and targets don't get much easier than a loving BUFF. The key is not to get toe to toe- they can carry a bunch of these suckas which will let it hit targets from about 1,500 miles away with 150kT per shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Quoting so I can add to my text document of bad predictions of the future. I agree that people continually overstate just how quickly this kind of tech will be in place, but the idea that there won't ever be a civilian aircraft with pilots is laughable unless you're severely limiting what you count as a civilian aircraft. To clarify, I meant passanger aircraft or cargo aircraft. Propagandalf posted:Yup. There's nearly no reason for an actual pilot while cruising. TCAS does a pretty good job of stopping midflight collisions already. You might see a flight engineer added for safety and redundancy, but they won't be "in charge", they'll just be there to flip breakers. I fully expect you'll see piloting done like air traffic control, where some guy in a trailer within a few milliseconds signal range takes over during critical phases via virtual cockpit. You can even stick them right next to the air traffic controllers for extra safety. I believe you are trolling, because no one can be this thick. But in case you are not, imagine the following situation. The communication link with the aircraft goes down, for whatever reason. Several malfunctioning sensors flood the cockpit with warnings and/or faulty data. A human pilot would be able to determine within a few moments that everything is fine and just keep flying while resetting the components/modules that report errors. A fully automated autopilot does not have a pair of eyes and hands in the cockpit as a secondary measure of making sure what is being reported to it is what is actually happening. It will try to alter the flight parameters according to the faulty information reported to it and probably crash. Just how often do these little malfunctions happen during flight? More often than people think, every day in fact: http://avherald.com/ No autopilot or VR link can ever replace a human being in the cockpit, period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:No autopilot or VR link can ever replace a human being in the cockpit, period. Generally speaking, if you use ever or never in a statement, it will turn out to be false, because ever is a long time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/soviet-tu-95-bomber-aircraft-sale-ebay-1439453 AIRPOWER/Cold War Thread: There is a Bear in my Driveway
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
Hexyflexy posted:Could be, with a bit of work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It7SQ546xRk 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:39
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:Generally speaking, if you use ever or never in a statement, it will turn out to be false, because ever is a long time. Good point. Let's say in the next 100 years, we're all be dead by then and I can die knowing I was right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:To clarify, I meant passanger aircraft or cargo aircraft. Apparently it is impossible to design for redundancy and error detection. This hilariously dumb luddite mentality is bad enough in the aeronautical insanity thread, please don't introduce it here. Have a look at all the poo poo robots can do in space, where there is huge signal lag, interference, etc. There is nothing a person can do that a computer isn't theoretically capable of other than, say, love.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Splode posted:Apparently it is impossible to design for redundancy and error detection. This hilariously dumb luddite mentality is bad enough in the aeronautical insanity thread, please don't introduce it here. Have a look at all the poo poo robots can do in space, where there is huge signal lag, interference, etc. There is nothing a person can do that a computer isn't theoretically capable of other than, say, love. Theoretically capable of. This cannot be emphasized enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Theoretically capable of. This cannot be emphasized enough. Considering how often humans crash a perfectly good airplane based on bad decisions, I wouldn't give humans too much credit here either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Considering how often humans crash a perfectly good airplane based on bad decisions, I wouldn't give humans too much credit here either. Hell, we can already crash airliners remotely!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:To clarify, I meant passanger aircraft or cargo aircraft. I imagine passenger aircraft will keep human pilots around a lot longer for both good reasons (making sure a human is there in case of system error) and bad reasons (mistakenly thinking human pilots don't screw up while machines are a bunch of dunces and also the general fear of putting your faith in a robot). Cargo aircraft that are unmanned already operate privately. We already have a private air and spacecraft that puts poo poo in loving orbit without a human flying the thing. The K-Max was a private aircraft, contracted out by Marines, for cargo transport. It won't be the model used in the future, because future cargo delivery unmanned helicopters need to be better at dealing with EW, cyber-warfare, hostile fire, etc. The K-Max flew a bunch of higher altitude missions at night to avoid ground fire, and we weren't worried about insurgents using electronic warfare against it. They have done proof-of-concept tests to show the K-Max could be used for firefighting or casualty evac in addition to your standard slingload movement. If you can't imagine a private desire to have a relatively cheap, pilotless cargo transport, your imagination is just too small. There are some missions that will likely stay manned for a very long time, but claiming that there's no place for unmanned aircraft in civil aviation is demonstrably already incorrect and will be increasingly incorrect as time goes by, and I'm not talking about centuries. You're coming off as an overly defensive luddite. I'm sure the first major pilotless aircraft crashes that fly as they CFIT will make big news, but it's not like we don't have a pile of examples of humans doing that. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 15:13 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Theoretically capable of. This cannot be emphasized enough. Yeah I used cautious words there as I was referring to computers replacing white collar work like design and journalism etc. Computers can absolutely fly a plane, that's easy in comparison. Even if some systems have issues now they're all very solvable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
I have one of Saddam's similar books they issued to Republican Guard officers. It was actually pretty boring when translated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:To clarify, I meant passanger aircraft or cargo aircraft. Especially when you reset all the Flight Augmentation Computers at the same time in an A320 and then try to hand-fly it in a thunderstorm. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I have one of Saddam's similar books they issued to Republican Guard officers. It was actually pretty boring when translated. Doesn't surprise me that totalitarian dictators are basically Vogons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Kafouille posted:Note that when i said fighter I meant a plane with air superiority as part of it's primary job, not strike aircraft. But i wasn't aware of the F-X program and was under the impression that most of the others were seriously considering going unmanned, so I stand corrected. Even still, those strike fighters are going to be designed for and capable of air to air combat. They may be more like an F-111 than an F-16, but there's going to be manned multi-role fighters for a looooooong time. Unmanned air to air drones will certainly be a thing, and might even make up the bulk of interception and escort sorties, but 100 years from now there's gonna be a dude riding an engine with wings bombing stuff and shooting missiles over the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
What's Russian for "Dear Leader"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Large USAF drones need a high speed chase car to land via "virtual cockpit". I don't see such a technology coming to civilian aviation soon. Lol, no they don't. Are you talking about global chickens?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
OhYeah posted:Several malfunctioning sensors flood the cockpit with warnings and/or faulty data. A human pilot would be able to determine within a few moments that everything is fine and just keep flying while resetting the components/modules that report errors. You literally just described what happened with AF447 as well as AirAsia 8501. In the first case, two fully qualified human pilots physically in the aircraft flew a perfectly good plane into the ocean because they were stupid and didn't understand how their system worked. In the second, two fully qualified human pilots physically in the aircraft caused a minor completely recoverable malfunction on their aircraft to spiral out of control, crashing the plane, because they were stupid and didn't understand how their system worked. e: conversely, I can think of several instances I've personally witnessed where dudes in a GCS were able to more effectively troubleshoot a problem because they weren't a) physically in the aircraft that was in danger of flying into the ground (obviously a different story if we're talking about airliners, but pretty good analogy for a cargo aircraft) and b) they had a lot more access to resources/guidance/assistance than if they were all alone on the plane. I'm not saying one is definitively better than the other....I'm just saying that you're incorrect when you say one is definitively better than the other. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
I wouldn't say that they were stupid. Those pilots, and all aircrews, could benefit from more extensive and costly training. Edit: that's not to say they didn't make some really stupid calls because they totally did. They didn't help themselves either. bloops fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
On the one hand, alternate law isn't the most intuitive thing in the world, especially if you're a big dumb airbus pilot who's been told from day one "the plane won't let you stall it"* * except in that one case where when things are already going pretty badly, then the plane will absolutely let you stall it On the other hand, that's kind of something that you should have in your head if you're flying a plane whose entire theory of operations is underpinned by "when certain things malfunction, the plane doesn't fly like it normally does." And I will always call people stupid when they violate TO guidance (which is exactly what the AirAsia aircrew did when they reset the FAC circuit breaker in flight). As for the Air France crew.....still mind boggling to me that you can stall a perfectly functioning airplane into the ocean all the way from FL380.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Lol, no they don't. Are you talking about global chickens? Yeah already discussed up thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
This is based largely on one presentation I saw at a robotics conference but a lot of robotics people seem to think that the biggest hurdle to overcome in automated autonomous things is not the technology but rather people's fear of it. Like, even if a roboplane was demonstrably safer than a piloted plane, people would prefer the piloted plane because there's a person there, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This is based largely on one presentation I saw at a robotics conference but a lot of robotics people seem to think that the biggest hurdle to overcome in automated autonomous things is not the technology but rather people's fear of it. Like, even if a roboplane was demonstrably safer than a piloted plane, people would prefer the piloted plane because there's a person there, etc. Similarly a lot of push back against self driving cars isn't necessarily even fear but a mix of hubris and simple enjoyment of driving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Yeah I've read enough stories of undertrained humans planting perfectly good aircraft into the ground to pick the drat computer every time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
bewbies posted:This is based largely on one presentation I saw at a robotics conference but a lot of robotics people seem to think that the biggest hurdle to overcome in automated autonomous things is not the technology but rather people's fear of it. Like, even if a roboplane was demonstrably safer than a piloted plane, people would prefer the piloted plane because there's a person there, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:36
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:I've heard the exact same thing with regards to autonomous cars sharing the road with them. People think that human drivers would be more predictable, even though it seems clear that this would not be the case. IIRC every google car accident has been someone ramming it from behind rather than the system crewing up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:IIRC every google car accident has been someone ramming it from behind rather than the system crewing up. And all the news stories from a month or two ago about one being pulled over was for it driving too slowly. And it wasn't even being ticketed. The cop wanted to see what was causing some traffic build up and asked the car to pull over so he could quiz the engineers about how the thing worked. No violations were issued.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
There is a lot of fascinating stuff about self driving cars. I will miss the enjoyment of driving but I have no doubt a fully autonomous system will be far safer and more efficient. One interesting idea is how the software will prioritize injury/death if it is faced with a decision to either possibly kill its passenger vs killing a pedestrian or pedestrians. In some cases it may be possible for the software to have to make these decisions. Will some manufacturers prioritize safety of their occupants above all else? mlmp08 posted:IIRC every google car accident has been someone ramming it from behind rather than the system crewing up. It sounds like the google cars (and probably other ones too) are extra cautious and super law abiding which people don't expect. Tbh it seems almost like autonomous planes are an easier problem to solve than cars that have to interact with the awful lovely human drivers present on the roads today. Seems like anyway, I have no idea if that's actually the case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:05 |
|
|
Thwomp posted:And all the news stories from a month or two ago about one being pulled over was for it driving too slowly. It was going 24 in a 35 and caused a massive backup. The Google cars are limited to 24 mph and can drive in areas with speed limits up to 35. The problem with those rear end collisions is that the Google car will slam on he brakes if anything looks wrong. That includes if it has the green light, is in the middle of an intersection and sees someone with the red stopping too far into the intersection. To a human perspective the things can slam on the brakes at seemingly random and illogical times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:01
|
|