|
I think my biggest concern about autonomous cars (and drones for that matter) isn't the technology but rather the culture of the companies making them. These companies are accustomed to exponential growth, pushing the boundaries, skirting regulations, issuing patches after release and so on. That's fine for software. Yet it sets up some really lovely attitudes, habits and expectations when it comes to designing things that will contain people and transport them at speed in close proximity with others. I work in aerospace, and I like to remind my friends in tech that when one of my company's products crash, it's on the front page of every major newspaper in the world. The majority of the regulations we follow designing, building or maintaining our products were made because someone died. There are museums and memorials scattered all over the world dedicated to those who died because someone hosed up. One museum at Haneda Airport contains personal effects from the victims of JAL Flight 123, including handwritten farewell notes from victims to their families. 520 people died, as well as a maintenance manager and an engineer who both committed suicide for signing off on the faulty repair. I'm told that JAL employees visit each year to honor those who were lost and to remember why you don't cut corners. I know that cars aren't airplanes, but unlike everything else in tech, loving up/going cheap/ignoring regulations will get people killed and the attitudes of tech employees just aren't instilling me with much confidence.
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Well, if you look at Tesla, while they've been somewhat reckless with Autopilot (mostly just by naming it 'Autopilot'), their cars are still extremely safe overall, probably moreso than the industry average. Their biggest mistake here was treating something like that as an open beta test. I know something bad hasn't happened but this really isn't good policy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:The next time you're on an airplane, and you roll your eyes when they do the demonstration on how to unbuckle your seatbelt, realize that such a warning became mandatory after crash investigators finally figured out why they kept finding charred skeletal remains in plane wreckage with broken thumbs. Yeah, seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Ohio State BOOniversity posted:well there was that navy seal who got decapitated under a semi. Oh poo poo, I totally forgot. Even then, the techbros crawled out of the woodwork like cockroaches to explain how that wasn't really a big deal.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Cars kill 1.3 million and injure 50 million people a year, why only start caring now when a car kills someone? It's at this point in my life I have the experience and understanding to know the difference between company cultures that value safety and those that miss the whole loving point, much like your yourself. Why would you ask such a stupid question? Cicero posted:Because this time a robot was sort of in charge of the car! (even though you're still supposed to pay attention and keep your hands on the wheel in case something goes wrong) This is pretty much the definition of meeting effort with no effort. You can clearly see the companies that take shortcuts and don't have any experience with loving up on a scale that kills beside the drive to be "disruptive" is more important. Yet instead of dealing with your industry's lovely culture, you post this instead. Nice work. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jan 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah, it's not like other car companies have driver assist modes that require the driver to still pay attention right? Oh wait, tons of them do. Read my post again, I'm specifically speaking about tech companies that have little to no experience making vehicles or programming things that can have life altering consequences. Companies that completely lack the culture or standards to keep us safe. Look, folks like you just don't loving get it. You don't understand nor hold yourself to a standard that says, "if you gently caress up, people will be hurt or even die". The fact you can't understand this only serves to prove my point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:People will accept far higher risks when they have the illusion of control, or can mentally put themselves into the place of the controller. Some experiments show risk perception differs by a factor of 10 or more, for example more people being comfortable with driving after one drink than with flying in a commercial airliner, even though the statistical risk skews hard the other way. This isn't about the illusion of control, this is about lovely tech companies that have no idea what it's like to produce products that could kill people. My post wasn't that difficult to understand, most folks here seemed to get just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah and my point is that so far the one Silicon Valley car company we have has been doing fine overall as far as safety. No, your point is to completely disregard my post and put words into my mouth. Yeah, that code was a clusterfuck, but at least they do things like follow the law, submit themselves to inspections and famously allow anyone on the production line to stop it when they see a problem. Uber isn't doing this poo poo, and Tesla has their own production issues. Paradoxish posted:You keep hitting on this point, but the first true consumer AVs are almost certainly going to come from traditional automakers since they're almost all working on them at this point. That is likely the case, but the time to bring up issues is before this stuff is widespread, not after. I'm mainly concerned about shits like Uber though even Tesla gives me pause given their unrealistic production expectations and reports of build quality issues. I can certainly accept the latter only rises to the level of "might not last long, expensive to repair" rather than "deathtrap", but unrealistic deadlines aren't helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Car companies make cars that kill more people than any other product ever created. Why are they the gatekeepers on the one true source that can keep us safe? We are told the dead are the eggs that needed breaking to make the omelette of the modern world but we don't really have anything to check that against. Or at least when car companies tell us 1.5 million corpses a year need to be fed into the fire to keep cars running we don't actually know that is actually true and they are really our friends and that it couldn't be 1.1 million if they tried better. You're conflating a car driven by a human with a car driven by programmers that I fear don't take safety seriously enough. I said this before and directly asked you questions about it yet you couldn't even respond to them, why is that? The only "gatekeepers" I've mentioned are companies that embrace and understand what it means to make safety a priority. Uber clearly isn't doing this (have you seen their plans for air taxis?!), I'm on the fence with Amazon and their automated drone deliveries and Tesla seems to be trying and may well come out ok. Google? It's hard to say given that all their testing is internal and they experience twice as many accidents per mile than a human does. I don't understand why you think it's a great idea for companies who skirt basic regulations like Uber to become the unchallenged leaders in the transportation realm. This is a trivial thing for even my tech bro friends to understand, so why is it so difficult for you?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally have no idea if car manufacturers do or do not take good care of us and our safety. They kill 1.5 million of us a year and I literally have no idea if that is doing a very good or very bad job. I have no idea if they have a safety priority and they could have made twice as much money if they let that slip to 1.6 million a year but care about us and protect us so strongly they don't or if they could have shaved a hundred thousand off a year but their accountants told them they could make 4 cents a year more if they didn't. With nothing to compare to it seems unknowable. Trains and planes and space ships and boats and stuff seem to all kill less people per man hour. But that isn't apples to apples either. You're looking at the wrong thing here - this isn't about the question of safety performance being good or not, it's a question of having the experience and understanding of the effects of the design and production of a transportation vehicle. There's the simple issue that these companies are accustomed to following laws like the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and being monitored/tested by various regulatory agencies like the NTSB as well as being subjected to private testing like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests. These companies and the vast majority of their employees* understand that their customers, families and friends will be using these products and in my experience that heavily colors how you do your work. We're comfortable shutting things down, asking for more tests, building in larger margins for error and so on. No one wants to find out that their mistake lead to the death of someone else. These sorts of experiences are difficult to replicate at new sites even for the most experienced companies - some places take years of production to really get going. My concern stems from the fact that the SV companies that want to go whole hog in this (Uber, Amazon drones, Google, Tesla) industry don't have that sort of experience to begin with. Tesla I'm most optimistic about but even then the focus on production rates that dwarf Honda or Toyota is the wrong thing to focus on. Amazon wanting all sorts of exemptions from the FAA experimental flight rules was an absolute loving joke. Google, well who really knows? Everyone seems to lap up their private testing as though it were the gold standard, but if it were a pharmaceutical company no one would accept such results without outside scrutiny. None of the core competencies of these companies involve a heavily regulated industry like transportation. That's the key here. This doesn't mean these companies will never gain that experience or that I think these things will come to pass. All I'm saying is that when your new to this sort of standard, you need to watched like a hawk. You need to have plans for the inevitable failures. You need to focus on safety over disruption. I'm just not seeing that so far. *Compliance will never be 100% but these sorts of deviations are still heavily studied and taught as a lesson for others. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Jan 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Who will be allowed to fix 'self driving' cars? On a similar note, weren't there a few stories a few months ago about a Tesla customer that cracked his ECU? I seem to recall that he reflashed it with a custom piece of software only to find that Tesla has overwritten it remotely by the next evening. It's a tough question though - I can see why wouldn't want someone treating the ECU like an unlocked Android* phone and downloading the latest (possibly even infected!) rom off of the internet. Yet much of that development came from the fact that manufacturers refused to push out important security updates, crippled hardware due to incompetence or maybe they simply go out of business. I don't have any good answers here, but I'd love to hear some thoughts. *AMA owning a Samsung Vibrant. Nice phone, but crippled to hell and back due to lovely programming.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:To be fair, holding drones to the same regulations as manned aircraft is an absolute loving joke. Obviously there can't not be any regulations - any drone large enough to carry much of anything could do quite a bit of damage in a crash. It's just that for this sort of thing, FAA regulations are quite a bit more restrictive than what the potential risk would justify. Simply prohibiting flying beyond the pilot's line of sight would, in and of itself, make it effectively impossible to implement cost-effective drone delivery services. That's fair. I was mostly irritated that they clearly didn't understand the system they wanted to jump into. For insurance, they bragged about having a former astronaut on their team as one of the reasons for an exemption. Not anything about what that experience meant, just something like "we even have an astronaut on our team!!" Another reason given was that they would be changing and testing new parts so often they didn't have the time to go through any of the FAA inspections or record keeping or whatever. For those who aren't familiar, the amount of inspecting the FAA does is (very simply) based on the experience of the manufacturer and the newness of the parts. It was like reading a court motion from pro se lawyer - it's clear they had a lot to learn.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
rscott posted:The marginal risk factor has to be weighed against the equally marginal utility provided delivering packages with drones Not to mention the time it would take someone to test/inspect a drone part would be quite small.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That is how europe was for like a thousand years with trade guilds and their secret knowledge. So automation doesn't really factor into the ability of that happening. This doesn't make logical sense - there can be more than one path to being locked out of the ability to repair goods.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like you can look at this and just see very easily the action they would need to take to fix the traffic jam: This could easily be caused by AI cars with faulty sensors, differing precision, calibration issues and so on. Metrology still applies even if the car is automated. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Tasmantor posted:News just ran a story saying ⅔ of Australian businesses have or intend to install AI. The guy they interviewed talked about how they can do Jobs quicker and better than humans. Looking forwards to seeing the new jobs that will be made for the people who lost their jobs. Wait, for the businesses that have actually installed AI, what was it that was actually installed? Also, the "plan to install" category sounds donors to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... It only has that Luddite feel because folks are all too willing to ignore that costs and ineffectiveness of retraining or related issues such as rampant age discrimination or "lack of culture fit".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Amazon is planning on drive-up grocery stores: https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/14/amazonfresh-pick-up-retail-store-seattle/ Don't they have these all over the place in southern california?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Do they? I've never heard of a grocery store in the states that was solely for pickup orders before. Hmm, maybe not. The place I was thinking of was a drive through dairy in Rancho Cucamonga I always drove past in college. There are drive through liquor stores though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:For what it's worth, the argument isn't that technology is increasing unemployment yet outside of specific industries. The argument is that automation is eating away at middle income jobs (and has been for a couple of decades) and replacing them with a combination of higher and lower paying work. If you want to see a job market that's growing massively just take a look at home health care aides. This isn't something that's easy to automate, but it's also a low end job that pays ever so slightly above retail work. There's a lot of work that's available and that will continue to be available, but it's work that we've collectively chosen not to value. I really get sick and tired of this moralizing. You'll have to excuse people if they aren't particularly interested in the time consuming and difficult work that elder care entails. Not everyone is interested in bathing and cleaning up the bodily fluids of complete strangers and they shouldn't be guilted into such work as an meaningful alternative to more systematic solutions to our economic issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:what poo poo you're right, sorry for completely misunderstanding that post. I've just seen that sort of "gently caress you, you should be wiping the asses of elderly strangers for minimum wage, that's a job and thus you have no reason to complain about your lot in life" commentary way too often.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Why is it that folks are claiming that IoT toasters are more secure than the Iranian centrifuges that were hit with Stuxnet?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If the government wants to take down your toaster it will. Nothing you have ever owned or will ever owned is perfectly secure. But by being universally true people have learned to cope with that fact and life gets along using our imperfect phones and computers to imperfectly access our imperfect websites and it's not perfect but we generally keep things in a range where people generally live day to day without worrying overly much about it. This isn't about "taking down my toaster", it's about random assholes deciding that they want to turn on my future toaster oven, gas range or oven when I'm not around. Those are clear fire hazards that you pretend don't exist. EDIT:minor spelling Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I can definitely imagine enough of a market for "I don't want to have to use my phone to turn on my stove!" types to be satisfied. I don't take experimental drugs and had I not been distracted by Trump's son I would have posted the same thing. I shouldn't have to worry that the 5 neighbors I have that are too dumb/busy/etc to secure their wifi nodes aren't going to buy an IoT toaster oven that starts a fire. Look, this is really what pisses me off about you guys - you want your loving toys but you don't want to do the hard work to ensure that they're safe or don't otherwise gently caress us over. I hear the same poo poo whenever a plane crashes - oh, let's just fly the plane remotely without pilots, who gives a poo poo about malfunctioning sensors or ensuring the connection between the ground and the air is secure. Who gives a poo poo that the safety systems are integrated with everything else and that small changes can have huge ramifications? It's good enough for me and it sounds cool and you're a Luddite if you think otherwise. Instead of being dismissive, take these issues seriously and address them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They can shoot you win a gun or hit you with a rock if they want too. If someone murdering you is a concern that sounds like an absurdly convoluted way to do it. They can even burn your house wit a dollar of gas an a five cent match and not even need to hack anything. Stop being so loving obtuse! Do you not understand that many appliances in the kitchen, even when operating normally, can present a danger if operated without someone there to supervise? Have you ever used a kitchen before? Do you understand that ovens are hot, and gas ranges produce an open flame? Seriously, do you not understand this? If I can remotely turn off a gas range, it means it's possible to remotely turn on a gas range. You even showed the scripts allowing for an oven to start preheating. Why do you keep ignoring this poo poo when people keep bringing it up in a clear and direct fashion? Why do you keep acting like apartments and condos don't exist? Do you understand that despite the fact that someone can shoot me, we still require things to be built according to a minimum safety standards?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Also, I'm sorry, but even if my oven got turned on all day, it wouldn't burn my place down, it'd just make my electric bill go up. Do y'all have some sort of crazy oven that bursts into flame if left on for 8 hours? I said gas range, why in the gently caress is this so difficult for you to understand? Open loving flames. Why are you so loving dismissive of this?  Secondly, ovens get loving hot when you keep them on the clean setting for eight hours. Or a whole weekend. That heat has to go somewhere, and is vented at the top. If you have something sitting there (which happens from time to time if you aren't using it yourself) that's a loving fire hazard. Again I ask, why are you being so loving dense about this? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I don't think IoT ovens are going to even allow you to turn on the open flame remotely, so that seems overly paranoid. OOCC posted pictures of scripts that allow IoT ovens to preheat remotely, so once again you're full of poo poo.  Why do you keep dodging the case of unattended gas ranges?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
call to action posted:gently caress surveys, I guarantee you you'd fill a self-flying airline that was consistently 10% cheaper than its competitors Until one of those planes crash because a sensor got hosed up and didn't know how to deal with conflicting or incorrect information.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Then have a trained pilot sit in a room and play gameboy all day till the once a year mess up where he has to log in at a control panel that is exactly the same as the one he'd have if he was on the plane and have him fly it remote since it's not like pilots in 2017 fly the plane by looking out the front window anyway (although you can have a camera of that too if they want). Jesus Christ you're loving stupid. How in the hell are you going to maintain a perfectly secure connect to the plane that can't get hacked? How are you going to ensure that operating it remotely doesn't rely on the same loving sensors and doesn't even alert the pilot to begin with? How do you ensure that such a drastic change in how planes are flown integrates into our safety and regulatory system without negatively impacting the incredibly high standard of safety already in place? I know you get a huge boner for ovens that can be turned on and off remotely but you do not know what the gently caress your talking about when it comes to designing or building or flying aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Yeah the article seems to take a very pro-robot stance, going out of its way to describe almost all workers as unreliable drunks. And then it reveals that even the model worker earns so little she can barely cover the bills and can't afford new clothes. If that was reward for hard work I'd start drinking and slacking off too. Hmm, yes. Instead of simple fixes and better training/procedures that actually work and serve to keep the public safe you want to completely upend the apple cart over some very, very rare instances of flight problems. Why do you guys get to presume that your robot pilot will act perfectly in every instance? Won't a human being be programming it? Won't it be limited by whatever sensors it has, regardless of functionality? What happens if a remote connection is hacked or otherwise manipulated? Do you guys serious not understand how interconnected these human and mechanical systems are? You can't just swap out the human pilots just because a robot can technically take off or land a plane at some airports in perfect conditions. It doesn't work like that, you need larger margins of safety.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:How do they keep planes from crashing now? The onus is on you to explain how you're going to integrate such systems into the current aviation system. I'm not going to play your stupid game where you post bullshit and ignore everything else that counters your opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
call to action posted:Well I mean the data is pretty clear that pilot error kills more people than mechanical failure, so 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Fwiw I am surprised that even planes with human pilots don't have a on the ground real time monitor and command center. We already have wifi so it can't be that hard to get real time audio and data of the cockpit Planes are certainly sending data back to central offices of the airlines via satellite.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Maybe those of us who actually work in tech just have a better understanding of it than you do. Maybe those of us that work in commercial aviation have a better understanding of it than you do.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Or a vested interest in automation not happening. You proposed the "one guy" solution, so quit moving the goal posts when it becomes clear you said something stupid. I've given a poo poo ton of reasons why but you're too loving lazy to learn anything about commercial aviation. You're too lazy to understand that the safety of the current aviation system is built upon multiple different layers that all interact with each other. You think it's some trivial matter to completely remove the pilot without any of the understanding or testing or study that would require. You just jerk off to your technology and claim you know more than everyone else while demonstrating the exact opposite. And yeah, I have a vested interest. When folks like you jump into my industry without a proper respect for the lengths we go to for safety you're going to end up killing people. You guys think it's no big deal when something crashes, since that's an every day occurrence. In my industry, when our products crash it's on the front page of every news paper in the world. What's that bullshit I always hear? "Fail early! Fail often! DISRUPT!!!" The sort of ignorance you display will get people killed. We have an incredibly good safety record and and you aren't just jerking off to technology you'll know that you need to understand aviation before you can improve it. ElCondemn posted:I must have missed the explanation for why it's technically not possible, maybe the aviation experts commenting in this thread don't know better. You're not interested in actually learning about the industry, and the last time you and I discussed my job you expected me to lead a revolution against an employer that has armed guards. Do you still wonder why I have a hard time taking you seriously?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Clearly not enough if entire airliners can vanish in the south seas If you're going to make this complaint, would you at the very least show us all what sort of data you want, how much bandwidth it would take to transmit it, what would be needed to receive and store such data and around how many flights/day there are that would need to have such systems available worldwide? Then you might understand that there are still some practical limitations to this complaint, especially in cases where someone likely committed an act of sabotage in a single flight out of tens of millions that year. I'm not saying this is impossible, but it's only fair to point out that it's really hard to do everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2017 19:37
|
|