Falcon 10X

[kent olsen]

Your going to love this. The new Falcon 10X (comes out in 2025) will have a "single power lever connected to the digital flight control system, which will enable the addition of Recovery Mode that will return the twinjet to stable flight after an upset in any configuration." AIN online.

Pretty soon they'll only require one pilot and that pilot will taxi out to the runway and taxi back, everything else will be automated.

[BoeingBobby]

Evans f*****g dream!

[Gabriel]

Your going to love this. The new Falcon 10X (comes out in 2025) will have a "single power lever connected to the digital flight control system, which will enable the addition of Recovery Mode that will return the twinjet to stable flight after an upset in any configuration." AIN online.

Pretty soon they'll only require one pilot and that pilot will taxi out to the runway and taxi back, everything else will be automated.

Not sure what is the relationship between a single power lever and an automatic upset recovery mode (which already exists in several general aviation piston singles and in my $175 RC plane).

[Evan]

Evans f*****g dream!

Evan's f*****g dream for commercial aviation is that pilots adapt to the job of flying via the automation but also, when the automation malfunctions or is otherwise incapable of managing the situation, have the skills and the means to safely get the plane back on the ground. When the automation is functioning (99.999% of the time), it is safer and more reliable than the average human pilot in performing the rote tasks of piloting along a smooth, gradual flight path. It isn't vulnerable to over-confidence, get-there-itis, memory lapse, distraction, procedural lapses, stress, panic or confused situational awareness. This makes air travel immensely safer. On the other hand, automation isn't as good at adapting to unforeseen challenges (although ai is getting remarkably good at it) and this is where the pilot is essential (and the second pilot is essential for task sharing and human redundancy).

So, in Evan's dream, we still still have two pilots. But their job is to manage an automated flight environment. By the way, that's allso everyone's reality.

Evan's other f******g dream for entertainment is to have a light single engine aerobatic plane with no automation to fly rodeo style where he presents no risk to anyone but himself.

Do you see the difference?

[BoeingBobby]

Do you even have a license to be able to fly in that rodeo?

[BoeingBobby]

I will take your lack of a response as a no. As I was pretty sure of.

[3WE]

Evans f*****g dream!

I'll raise you one less pilot: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/xwin ... 57111.html
(Or should I say lower you one?)

[Evan]

Do you even have a license to be able to fly in that rodeo?

It's included in the dream Bobby.

[Schwartz]

Evan's f*****g dream for commercial aviation is that pilots adapt to the job of flying via the automation but also, when the automation malfunctions or is otherwise incapable of managing the situation, have the skills and the means to safely get the plane back on the ground. When the automation is functioning (99.999% of the time), it is safer and more reliable than the average human pilot in performing the rote tasks of piloting along a smooth, gradual flight path. It isn't vulnerable to over-confidence, get-there-itis, memory lapse, distraction, procedural lapses, stress, panic or confused situational awareness. This makes air travel immensely safer. On the other hand, automation isn't as good at adapting to unforeseen challenges (although ai is getting remarkably good at it) and this is where the pilot is essential (and the second pilot is essential for task sharing and human redundancy).

So, in Evan's dream, we still still have two pilots. But their job is to manage an automated flight environment. By the way, that's allso everyone's reality.

Evan's other f******g dream for entertainment is to have a light single engine aerobatic plane with no automation to fly rodeo style where he presents no risk to anyone but himself.

Do you see the difference?

Curious why you think AI is getting good at it. AI doesn't typically deal with the unknown very well at all. It has no context.

A lot of incidents occur from one of the following: Pilots losing context and crashing the plane. Instruments/sensors failing, autopilot stopping and pilots unable to gather context quick enough to save the plane.

[Evan]

Curious why you think AI is getting good at it. AI doesn't typically deal with the unknown very well at all. It has no context.

I said 'unforeseen', not 'unknown'. The unexpected. AI is getting better at that.

A lot of incidents occur from one of the following: Pilots losing context and crashing the plane. Instruments/sensors failing, autopilot stopping and pilots unable to gather context quick enough to save the plane.

In those cases, pilots are of no use at all and actually a detriment. In those cases, pilots tend to be unskilled at the automation oversight part of the job, which is most of the job today. Part of that job is being prepared and practiced at taking control without causing an upset or departure from the prior flight path before the situation is fully assessed. Part of that job is knowing the ramifications of system malfunctions on other systems and instrument accuracy. Part of that job is being practiced on CRM and ECAM/EICAS procedure and prioritization. If you are the world's greatest DC-8 pilot, with masterful hand-flying skills and no modern systems proficiency, you are not prepared for the job of modern airline pilot.

[BoeingBobby]

I said 'unforeseen', not 'unknown'. The unexpected. AI is getting better at that.



In those cases, pilots are of no use at all and actually a detriment. In those cases, pilots tend to be unskilled at the automation oversight part of the job, which is most of the job today. Part of that job is being prepared and practiced at taking control without causing an upset or departure from the prior flight path before the situation is fully assessed. Part of that job is knowing the ramifications of system malfunctions on other systems and instrument accuracy. Part of that job is being practiced on CRM and ECAM/EICAS procedure and prioritization. If you are the world's greatest DC-8 pilot, with masterful hand-flying skills and no modern systems proficiency, you are not prepared for the job of modern airline pilot.

So says the NOT pilot!

[Evan]

So says the NOT pilot!

...who knew more about the autobrake function on your type than you did. That's not a dig Bobby. I don't expect pilots to have systems knowledge that deep. You don't need it. You pull back the TL's and the autobrakes do their magic. But I shouldn't have to keep reminding you that much of what gets passengers safely from take-off to landing has nothing to do with pilots.

[BoeingBobby]

...who knew more about the autobrake function on your type than you did. That's not a dig Bobby. I don't expect pilots to have systems knowledge that deep. You don't need it. You pull back the TL's and the autobrakes do their magic. But I shouldn't have to keep reminding you that much of what gets passengers safely from take-off to landing has nothing to do with pilots.

And again, so says the NOT a pilot!

[LH-B744]

Your going to love this. The new Falcon 10X (comes out in 2025) will have a "single power lever connected to the digital flight control system, which will enable the addition of Recovery Mode that will return the twinjet to stable flight after an upset in any configuration." AIN online.

Pretty soon they'll only require one pilot and that pilot will taxi out to the runway and taxi back, everything else will be automated.

First of all, the name 'Falcon' rings a bell in my head. That's why always a weblink is helpful when you start such a topic.

Well. I am old enough, I have found a weblink for the topic that you started. But it is a German source. That always happens when I try to find weblinks here in Germany.
Most of them are in German. But I can translate. Let's see how far we can come. Here is the weblink:

https://www.aerotelegraph.com/falcon...usinessjet-auf

Ahm. Ok, a beautiful aircraft. But that's not what rang the bell in my head. Now, we can see how important weblinks are. This one really rang a bell in my head:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_4.0

I must say, Thank You, Kent. Today I have learned that (at least) two jet families wear the name 'Falcon':
1. The Dassault Falcon Business jet

and, what I always have in mind,

2. The F-16 Fighting Falcon, inaugurated February 1974:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...ighting_Falcon

PS: The Dassault Falcon 10X is Evan's wet dream? Can somebody explain me why? Is he so into cute little business jets?

length 33,4 meter - wingspan 33,6 meter - MTOW 52 metric tons .
As I said, that's the problem with German sources. They are in German. Where only the metric system seems to be valid,
at least for small business jets...
maximum range 13900 kilometer. At least that's a number which I can translate immediately. 13900 kilometer or 7499 nautical miles nonstop.
That's not a bad number, as I would say, with my avatar...

[LH-B744]

And again, so says the NOT a pilot!

Baby, can't you just leave the room?!