Cockpit of the future
12-13-2014, 11:53 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
Fully automated airliners ain't gonna happen in our lifetimes.
Computers just can't handle that level of complexity and constantly changing variables-along with unique situations which have never been planned for.
All these "skynet is self-aware" guys need to ask themselves why we don't have self-driving locomotives carrying all our passengers and freight? Why aren't there unmanned cruise ships sailing to the Bahamas?
Those are much simpler machines, operating in much more predictable environments. The logic that computers are gonna take over all passenger transportation-just because computers are getting "smart" is flawed. If that were the case, locomotives would definitely have become fully automated at least 50 years ago.
The type of intelligence required to operate airliners in complex environments is something computers fall far short of. They just can't handle approximations, novel situations, and analogy well at all. Not even on the level of a small child.
I am not worried at all about that threat to our careers. There are many much bigger fish to fry.
Computers just can't handle that level of complexity and constantly changing variables-along with unique situations which have never been planned for.
All these "skynet is self-aware" guys need to ask themselves why we don't have self-driving locomotives carrying all our passengers and freight? Why aren't there unmanned cruise ships sailing to the Bahamas?
Those are much simpler machines, operating in much more predictable environments. The logic that computers are gonna take over all passenger transportation-just because computers are getting "smart" is flawed. If that were the case, locomotives would definitely have become fully automated at least 50 years ago.
The type of intelligence required to operate airliners in complex environments is something computers fall far short of. They just can't handle approximations, novel situations, and analogy well at all. Not even on the level of a small child.
I am not worried at all about that threat to our careers. There are many much bigger fish to fry.
12-13-2014, 12:01 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,989
The "It'll never work!" is a little ridiculous, given how much of that existed in relation to aviation in general.
Replace horse drawn carriages with automobiles? Crazy talk!
12-13-2014, 12:49 PM
#34
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
The technology is essentially the same for 1 no pilot ops. This isn't a Citation where no one cares if some Fortune 5000 mid level VP gets augered in. 1 or no pilot ops would both require total and complete automation at a level exponentially greater than merely remote control of existing autopilots/FMS. Not only that, but the cross check error trapping environment of 2 pilot ops is something that vastly transcends the issue of the ATC interface.
The tech is there. The tech has been there for 2+ generations. The cost to do it at current safety/redundancy levels isn't even remotely close.
The tech is there. The tech has been there for 2+ generations. The cost to do it at current safety/redundancy levels isn't even remotely close.
12-13-2014, 01:37 PM
#35
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,728
The technology that reliably allows a computer to assess the overall state of the aircraft, and reason how to deal with information it is receiving including failures is rather recent. You will no longer make any inputs into the autopilot except as an overrride. At that point, the pilot flying becomes the aircraft/dispatch/atc, and the pilot monitoring is the human. That would make the second pilot, just there for the ride, or in case the pilot monitoring dies or goes to the bathroom. Really, that person can be replaced by a flight attendant.
HUMANS!
The only reason you need a human in the aircraft is to hope for one last chance to 'fix' the problems caused by the other humans in the chain of technology failures.
12-13-2014, 07:45 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 1,681
I am not very good at explaining these things, but this article does a much better job:
10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers ? Developing Intelligence
There are serious, fundamental differences in the way a computer processes info vs a brain. In order for AI to really work, some very radical type of processing system would need to be created-something which would work like our brains do.
It would require scrapping the current processing architecture and starting from scratch. It is hundreds if not thousands of years away. Don't worry about it anytime soon.
AI is an illusion. Chess is "solved" which means that for any move you make, a computer can counter it with a better move-leading to a stalemate at best. But intelligence is not involved in that situation at all. There are limited number of pieces, a limited number of positions and a limited number of counter moves. Those chess-playing supercomputers are often referred to as AI. They have nothing to do with intelligence. They are simply pulling a cheap parlor trick. Most people think there is more to it than that. There is not.
The most simple novel problem like "hey let's land on water rather than on those buildings, since we have no power" can't be solved by any AI system if it is unanticipated. And you would need an AI which could do stuff like that.
Very long way off. Definitely not in our lifetimes.
10 Important Differences Between Brains and Computers ? Developing Intelligence
There are serious, fundamental differences in the way a computer processes info vs a brain. In order for AI to really work, some very radical type of processing system would need to be created-something which would work like our brains do.
It would require scrapping the current processing architecture and starting from scratch. It is hundreds if not thousands of years away. Don't worry about it anytime soon.
AI is an illusion. Chess is "solved" which means that for any move you make, a computer can counter it with a better move-leading to a stalemate at best. But intelligence is not involved in that situation at all. There are limited number of pieces, a limited number of positions and a limited number of counter moves. Those chess-playing supercomputers are often referred to as AI. They have nothing to do with intelligence. They are simply pulling a cheap parlor trick. Most people think there is more to it than that. There is not.
The most simple novel problem like "hey let's land on water rather than on those buildings, since we have no power" can't be solved by any AI system if it is unanticipated. And you would need an AI which could do stuff like that.
Very long way off. Definitely not in our lifetimes.
12-14-2014, 08:51 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,537
The technology that reliably allows a computer to assess the overall state of the aircraft, and reason how to deal with information it is receiving including failures is rather recent. You will no longer make any inputs into the autopilot except as an overrride. At that point, the pilot flying becomes the aircraft/dispatch/atc, and the pilot monitoring is the human. That would make the second pilot, just there for the ride, or in case the pilot monitoring dies or goes to the bathroom. Really, that person can be replaced by a flight attendant.
To install that technology, which does exist and has existed for at least 2 generations, would be so incredibly cost prohibitive compared to what the obsolete FO it would create would save in the first place.
They could have fully remote control self diagnosing self correcting airlines with one monittoring pilot anytime they wanted. But they can't afford it in the 121 environment and won't be able to for a very long time.
12-14-2014, 08:57 AM
#39
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,728
Gloopy, don't forget about the importance of standing in the cockpit door and thanking our passengers!
How is a Computer going to do that??
THAT's why the airlines will ALWAYS need a real live human Pilot on board!
(and to have someone to blame after the crash)
Now, put your hat on, button up that jacket, stand up straight...and SMILE!
How is a Computer going to do that??
THAT's why the airlines will ALWAYS need a real live human Pilot on board!
(and to have someone to blame after the crash)
Now, put your hat on, button up that jacket, stand up straight...and SMILE!
12-14-2014, 09:16 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,537
Gloopy, don't forget about the importance of standing in the cockpit door and thanking our passengers!
How is a Computer going to do that??
THAT's why the airlines will ALWAYS need a real live human Pilot on board!
(and to have someone to blame after the crash)
Now, put your hat on, button up that jacket, stand up straight...and SMILE!
How is a Computer going to do that??
THAT's why the airlines will ALWAYS need a real live human Pilot on board!
(and to have someone to blame after the crash)
Now, put your hat on, button up that jacket, stand up straight...and SMILE!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
