|
Just because human error causes more accidents than mechanical failure DOES NOT MEAN that "no humans would lead to safer planes". The data we don't have is "how many mechanical failures would have resulted in crashes had a trained human not intervened."
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
GEMorris posted:The data we don't have is "how many mechanical failures would have resulted in crashes had a trained human not intervened." What mechanical components are crew accessible by the pilot in a modern commercial airplane? Nothing in the cockpit is even 'real' anymore, none of the dials connect to any sensors, none of the controls control anything mechanically. It's all just UI. The whole control panel in the plane just connects to a server rack of computers. Pilots already aren't physically moving the wings or anything like a 1950s plane, the dials already aren't real dials, they are just UI stuff a computer shows. I don't think the pilot even has much access to any of the actual mechanical parts of the plane. Just to a bunch of buttons connected to fiber optics connected to machines. They have a big video game controller and that is about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What mechanical components are crew accessible by the pilot in a modern commercial airplane? Yeah, but what about all the stories in the news about pilots heroically scaling the underside of the plane to repair the landing gear mid flight? Surely these stories would convince you that human intervention is necessary at least some of the time!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Just because human error causes more accidents than mechanical failure DOES NOT MEAN that "no humans would lead to safer planes". It very much implies this, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yeah, but what about all the stories in the news about pilots heroically scaling the underside of the plane to repair the landing gear mid flight? Surely these stories would convince you that human intervention is necessary at least some of the time! You could still have that guy on the plane and not have him be the pilot if data showed that helped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
A stunt man on every flight. I dig.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
In other news, I would already prefer a google doctor to a human one, but alas, no such option exists. A computer doctor has all the research available at all times and can accurately estimate prognosis for the patient. The moment a new paper is published, it can assimilate it to its database instead of basing its views on 1970s med school knowledge. A computer doctor doesn't stubbornly stick to the first diagnosis it comes up with even in the face of contrary evidence. Once we'd have a large scale system running some sick neural network algorithms for a while, the quality and accuracy of medical treatment would skyrocket. MARK MY WORDS!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Substitute "automation failure" for "mechanical failure" you pendants. Having a trained redundant system on board, in the form of a human, is a good idea until you have gobs of data that shows the human never needed to intervene, ever, over a long period of time. We aren't there yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
GEMorris posted:Just because human error causes more accidents than mechanical failure DOES NOT MEAN that "no humans would lead to safer planes". The data we don't have is "how many mechanical failures would have resulted in crashes had a trained human not intervened." It strongly suggests that the role of humans in the system should be reduced, however, at least if safety is a goal. For example, maybe we don't need pilots. Maybe what we need is an onboard technician who can properly identify certain failure modes and take corrective action, but without the ability to ever directly fly the aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:It strongly suggests that the role of humans in the system should be reduced, however, at least if safety is a goal. For example, maybe we don't need pilots. Maybe what we need is an onboard technician who can properly identify certain failure modes and take corrective action, but without the ability to ever directly fly the aircraft. Won't there always be a need for a redundant human pilot, though, in case of a lightening strike or something that temporarily fries the system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Again, is there any meaningful mechanical systems that are exposed to the pilot? Everything in the cockpit is just a big fancy videogame controller, it connects to fiberoptics and not wing flaps or anything. If the computer goes out and the backups all go out (internet says planes typically have 4 entirely separate copies of the computers) you already just die commercial airlines are already all the way digital. Like you are already trusting computers when you fly, but just a guy pressing the buttons on the computer. The guy already can't do anything outside of "stuff the computer is able to do".
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:Won't there always be a need for a redundant human pilot, though, in case of a lightening strike or something that temporarily fries the system? You can't fly a modern commercial jet mechanically. It's all fly-by-wire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
SnowblindFatal posted:In other news, I would already prefer a google doctor to a human one, but alas, no such option exists. This actually is done in some cases, albeit in a far-less-sophisticated form. It's consistently better than humans. I'm too occupied to find the source atm but I'll try to post it later if no one else does
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Again, is there any meaningful mechanical systems that are exposed to the pilot? Everything in the cockpit is just a big fancy videogame controller, it connects to fiberoptics and not wing flaps or anything. If the computer goes out and the backups all go out (internet says planes typically have 4 entirely separate copies of the computers) you already just die commercial airlines are already all the way digital. Like you are already trusting computers when you fly, but just a guy pressing the buttons on the computer. The guy already can't do anything outside of "stuff the computer is able to do". But lighting is scary and I think it makes electronics not work. I heard a story once about someones cable box getting fried because of a lighting storm, why do you want people in planes to not have cable TV?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Taffer posted:This actually is done in some cases, albeit in a far-less-sophisticated form. It's consistently better than humans. I'm too occupied to find the source atm but I'll try to post it later if no one else does Companies like LexisNexis have been doing this this kind of work for ages. Doctors, universities, companies and professionals of all kinds pay for access to their network of data. In fact, when you see your doctor and they go away for a while and then come back with information they're probably spending time looking up stuff on LexiNexis (or some equivalent service).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:Won't there always be a need for a redundant human pilot, though, in case of a lightening strike or something that temporarily fries the system? Anything that severed the ability of the computers to fly the aircraft would also prevent human pilots from doing so. There are more failure points between the human pilots and the physical control surfaces than there are between the plane's computers and the physical control surfaces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Anything that severed the ability of the computers to fly the aircraft would also prevent human pilots from doing so. There are more failure points between the human pilots and the physical control surfaces than there are between the plane's computers and the physical control surfaces. Also it's so easy to just yell 'BUT HACKERS!" but if there are situations only a human can do it you can still have the one expert master pilot sitting at every airport at a giant airplane console playing nintendo switch 80 hours a week waiting for a plane to have difficulties so he can take over remotely. You can even have the remote control radio physically separated and have it only activate if the 4 isolated flight computers then three observer computers (running linux, windows and mac os, and three separately written observer programs by three separate companies) all detect problems and move one solenoid each to connect wires to activate a fingerprint scanner that a registered flight attendant has to stick their hand into a handcuff to reach then have a radio data channel that will open with a one time pad from a vial of radium stored at each airport and each plane getting a unique single use pad every single time it refuels. Or whatever nuclear submarine poo poo you want to add to make hacking a plane down more unlikely than just building missiles and shooting it down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What mechanical components are crew accessible by the pilot in a modern commercial airplane? The pilot doesn't have to have access to mechanical systems to attempt to prevent a crash caused by a mechanical failure, they simply need to compensate for the loss. Your automated systems aren't going to be able to deal with situations they weren't designed to handle, human pilots can at least make a good attempt. Now answer the question I posed: Solkanar512 posted:Actually those situations are incredibly complicated and groups like the NTSB never stop at simple one cause unless it's something like a bomb. This is really loving lazy thinking, and you still need to prove that the new systems you and OOCC keep jerking off to are going to prevent more problems than they cause. You haven't provided any data whatsoever that completely removing the pilot and replacing it with a completely automated system would save more lives that without throughout the scope of commercial aviation. Just show us the data, because your hypotheticals don't cut it in the real world - as someone with FAA regulatory experience, you don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also it's so easy to just yell 'BUT HACKERS!" but if there are situations only a human can do it you can still have the one expert master pilot sitting at every airport at a giant airplane console playing nintendo switch 80 hours a week waiting for a plane to have difficulties so he can take over remotely. So again, it's really clear you don't know the first thing about commercial aviation. The last person you'd want flying a plane is a pilot who, rather than flying on a regular basis, is doing pretty much anything else. Then you have to consider the issue of type certifications. Why didn't you mention that, as if to imply that an out of practice pilot sitting on the ground could simply fly any loving plane in the sky? You do understand that there are significant differences between planes, right? That these differences are so important that pilots are often only certified for one major model at a given time? Add all that to your bullshit rube goldberg machine security that leads to the plane being shot down anyway, how in the gently caress are you convincing anyone that lives are going to be saved? What's the improvement here? Can you seriously not understand that because safety standards are already so high that more improvements must be weighed extremely carefully lest the additional changes lead to unexpected death down the road. In 2016, not a single person died in a crash of a regularly scheduled, US certified airline, anywhere in the world. That's the seventh year in a row. (Colgan Air 3407 was the last). The accident rate hovers around a couple per million hours of aircraft flight time. To get a record that consistent and that safe means having a clear understanding of all the interconnected physical, mechanical, economic, social and psychological systems at play. You can't just yank out the pilots and lazily yell "LUDDITE" at anyone who puts in a good faith effort in showing you why you're loving wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
I get mad when this thread isn't talking about how Peter Thiel is going to replace us with robots and turn us into nutrient paste, can we get back to that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:So again, it's really clear you don't know the first thing about commercial aviation. The last person you'd want flying a plane is a pilot who, rather than flying on a regular basis, is doing pretty much anything else. Then you have to consider the issue of type certifications. Why didn't you mention that, as if to imply that an out of practice pilot sitting on the ground could simply fly any loving plane in the sky? You do understand that there are significant differences between planes, right? That these differences are so important that pilots are often only certified for one major model at a given time? I don't know why you took the nintendo switch part literally. Clearly they'd have him training. They would need so few of these master pilots he could be more highly trained than any pilot who had ever lived before. if they only need one pilot for every 1000 planes or something they could even run him through a couple drills where they actually crash planes or whatever extreme high level training they wanted. And 90% of that rube goldberg machine wouldn't be needed, just the one time pad stuff which would add zero overhead (but people might want the theatrics of some other stuff because people don't like to accept stuff like one time pads being perfectly mathematically secure against hackers, I'm not even sure what the handcuff did in my little story other than make that part seem more dramatic)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Again, is there any meaningful mechanical systems that are exposed to the pilot? Everything in the cockpit is just a big fancy videogame controller, it connects to fiberoptics and not wing flaps or anything. If the computer goes out and the backups all go out (internet says planes typically have 4 entirely separate copies of the computers) you already just die commercial airlines are already all the way digital. Like you are already trusting computers when you fly, but just a guy pressing the buttons on the computer. The guy already can't do anything outside of "stuff the computer is able to do". Pilots aren't going to fix things but they can adapt to problems. There are plenty of stories of pilots successfully gliding or controlling significantly damaged planes after adapting to the conditions for example by varrying the speed of engines to steer a plane with no control. I'm not sure if this outweighs pilot caused crashes or not but there are real instances of humans dealing with situations computers probably can't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
There will still be jobs in the future, I haven't seen anyone automate being a blood boy yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Pilots aren't going to fix things but they can adapt to problems. There are plenty of stories of pilots successfully gliding or controlling significantly damaged planes after adapting to the conditions for example by varrying the speed of engines to steer a plane with no control. Is there any stories about modern planes where the solution was really anything super creative that would need the human spirit? Having a bunch of profiles on how to fly a plane with broken wings and engines and rudders with all the answers written in correctly by engineers and the physics worked out ahead of time seems like exactly what an autopilot would be good at. And I know people don't like the idea for whatever crazy reason but you could have a team of 50 pilots sitting in control centers all working like it's NASA on apollo 13 if one of the 10,000 planes they oversee went crazy and only the creative spark of the human heart could save it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
I like that post when that guy responded to you by quoting a heavy-hitting NASA expert and then you ignored it. That was a good post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
Boon posted:I like that post when that guy responded to you by quoting a heavy-hitting NASA expert and then you ignored it. It was because there was no response I could give that wouldn't dox myself. I already mentioned that I have professional experience with FAA regulatory issues, do you expect me to post a full resume or what? Speaking of responses, why did you completely ignore everything else I've posted on the matter? Do you honestly believe that I have to respond to every jackass posting in bad faith or is it ok if I keep the number down a little bit? Furthermore, why are you holding me to this standard when OOCC refuses to answer Le my most basic questions? He completely ignored the issue of type certification, why aren't you busting his balls over that? Or like OOCC, do you just not have a loving clue about how commercial aviation even works?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It was because there was no response I could give that wouldn't dox myself. I already mentioned that I have professional experience with FAA regulatory issues, do you expect me to post a full resume or what? Certification of the master remote emergency pilots? You could literally certify them more than any pilot that ever lived because you would need so few of them. You could spend 50 pilots salary on training a year if they handle 1000 planes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It was because there was no response I could give that wouldn't dox myself. I already mentioned that I have professional experience with FAA regulatory issues, do you expect me to post a full resume or what? Well you responded to mine and I'm posting in bad faith, so... yes. Boon fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Certification of the master remote emergency pilots? You could literally certify them more than any pilot that ever lived because you would need so few of them. You could spend 50 pilots salary on training a year if they handle 1000 planes. Explain to the thread what it takes to get and maintain a type rating, for say, the entire family of Boeing 737s? I'll go easy and restrict it to NG and MAX model families. How many different certifications is that? What are the requirements prior to training? What do you have to do to receive certification? What do you need to do to maintain those certifications? How long do they last? You keep acting like this is a trivial matter so you either know what you're talking about and have it all figured out or you don't. Now that you have that done, you expect the same person to pick up and maintain certifications for 747/767/777/787 as well? What about the similar planes made by Airbus? Do you expect a pilot to hold type ratings for all of those as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:this is something I'm actually incredibly excited about, since it might level the playing field for normal folks by reducing legal costs. How long before we end up with two barrister bots arguing in court using arguments/speech patterns algorithmically honed to exploit the human judge or jury's biases?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Mr Chips posted:How long before we end up with two barrister bots arguing in court using arguments/speech patterns algorithmically honed to exploit the human judge or jury's biases? Pfff, we'll have robot juries programmed to have no bias. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
I'm reminded of how Robocop turned out to be a pretty good cop, despite the unconscionable methods to create him, because he's capable of assessing situations and applying minimum necessary force while also exercising human judgement. Of course, the company wanted to push failed military killbots for the role instead, and the police went on strike anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Pfff, we'll have robot juries programmed to have no bias. In the robots apocalypse, the robots will kill all races, except blacks, because they will not recognize them on their cameras. http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954643,00.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 11:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Explain to the thread what it takes to get and maintain a type rating, for say, the entire family of Boeing 737s? I'll go easy and restrict it to NG and MAX model families. I guess this seems like an extremely minor quibble. Like I guess they would have to be careful on which 1000 planes they assigned each guy to watch? and someone would have to sit down and see if "1000" was the exact right number or if it was a number someone just made up as a good round number. It's the same idea if each pilot watches 100 planes or 10 planes or 16.875 planes or whatever is determined to be the exact amount of planes a pilot can oversee safely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
I'm more worried about a pilot feeling suicidal or having consumed too much sodium that day than computers failing to control the plane tbqh Like, to me, the fact that I'm vulnerable to some cryhard retard in the cockpit is 100,000% scarier than relying on a computer
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Now that you have that done, you expect the same person to pick up and maintain certifications for 747/767/777/787 as well? What about the similar planes made by Airbus? Do you expect a pilot to hold type ratings for all of those as well? Your arguement here assumes regulatory changes to the licensing/certification structure aren't possible... On the maritime side (remote / automated bridges are a thing being discussed in my industry too) they have "unlimited" licenses (tonnage and horsepower) for mates and engineers who can just do everything. There is no reason a similar thing can't exits for pilots. Now making it exist and changing international treaties / national laws for these things to be kosher, is a different matter. It's all hard to change, but not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Also an autopilot isn't like, a robot man that would be sitting in a chair piloting the plane. Why would planes even have current flight consoles? Stick some first class passenger in the front and put the servers wherever you want. The guy on the ground waiting to assist the plane could have whatever setup they decided was the best design to solve issues the computer can't solve. Since there wouldn't even be a console on the plane you'd be duplicating exactly because there isn't a robot pressing buttons or reading gauges in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Can our robot planes at least speak in soothing voices? And have names. And wacky personalities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I guess this seems like an extremely minor quibble. Like I guess they would have to be careful on which 1000 planes they assigned each guy to watch? and someone would have to sit down and see if "1000" was the exact right number or if it was a number someone just made up as a good round number. It's the same idea if each pilot watches 100 planes or 10 planes or 16.875 planes or whatever is determined to be the exact amount of planes a pilot can oversee safely. You don't get to call it a minor quibble when you haven't come back to the thread an answered what it takes to apply for, earn and maintain a type rating. If you had, it would become self evident as to why it's much more complicated than you make it out to appear. I'm not trying to be a jackass here, I want you to stop handwaving this stuff as it's it's a trivial matter when it's not. I'm not trying to argue that it's never ever going to be possible, but you need to have an appreciation for how loving complicated this stuff actually is, how good the safety record already is and how you're going to transition from one to the other Look, let me throw you a loving bone here - you mentioned one time pads for secure remote connections and yeah, I'll grant you that. I'll even drop the fact that you need a secure way to distribute those pads to all the scheduled and alternative airports those planes can fly to. BrandorKP posted:Your arguement here assumes regulatory changes to the licensing/certification structure aren't possible... It's not an issue of "it's just a law that needs to be changed", it's an issue that it takes a huge amount of experience to even get to the point of training to fly a single aisle jet (B737/A320), and even more so to get to your larger medium and large twin aisle. There's so much that is needed that pilots generally only hold a current type rating for a single family of planes at a time. You need flight hours on a consistent basis, you need initial and recertificaiton training or those ratings expire. Furthermore, the physics and requirements of flying different sized aircraft change dramatically from plane to plane. That's even before we get into the major differences in how automated systems work in Boeing vs. Airbus planes. There's also the fact that frankly, every FAA rule is written in blood. All the things you see as a passenger, the way procedures are made, pilot training is organized is for the most part because not doing it that way was a partial cause in a serious incident. You wear a seatbelt because tons of injuries are caused by being thrown out of your seat, pilot checklists are designed a certain way to ensure that interruptions don't cause important items to be missed and so on. You can't just throw all that out without examining why those rules are there in the first place. The training and certification of pilots is regulated in the same way. The ongoing experience is why I made a big deal about OOCC's quip about a pilot sitting around and playing games all day - the best pilots are those that have thousands of hours of flying their current plane and that those hours are recent and ongoing. Those are the pilots that save planes in emergencies. Having someone who's rusty and "certified" on dozens of different types (if that's even possible) is likely to screw up if they've recently only been practicing on an Airbus and need to remotely fly a Boeing or some random Learjet. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also an autopilot isn't like, a robot man that would be sitting in a chair piloting the plane. Why would planes even have current flight consoles? Stick some first class passenger in the front and put the servers wherever you want. The guy on the ground waiting to assist the plane could have whatever setup they decided was the best design to solve issues the computer can't solve. Since there wouldn't even be a console on the plane you'd be duplicating exactly because there isn't a robot pressing buttons or reading gauges in the first place. The differences in how commercial aircraft are designed go much, much deeper than just how the consoles are laid out. There are completely different philosophies between Airbus and Boeing with regards to how much direct control you can allow the pilot to have and in what circumstances. Not that one has been shown to be better than the other, but like I've said several times, you need to appreciate how much more complicated this is than you're making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also an autopilot isn't like, a robot man that would be sitting in a chair piloting the plane. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
All those things sound like mechanical tasks a computer would be excellent at solving. Computers take crafts onto mars and people are having doubts about standard flights which are straightforward as hell. Imagine someone talking about cars driving by themselves 20 years ago. What a lunatic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 19:54
|
|