Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: More interesting ineractions between automation and humans for safety of trasnport

  1. #21
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Um, no the title of this thread is not as black and white as your mind (yet again) makes it.

    It is on the interaction of automation and fundamentals.
    Yes. While using automation. Or is that still too black and white for you?

    Madam Uber driver was supposed to watch the road ahead and brake. Hui Theiu Lo was supposed to monitor airspeed...
    Indeed. Reread my post #6, where I say the same thing.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Pst, Evan. It was you who said "3WE wants to believe that the SFO Asiana crash was the result of too much baffling technology".
    3WE is just explaining that that's not the case, that he believes that the Asiana crash was the result of too poor airmanship in general. And, for whatever is worth, I agree. No "and what is it doing now" can bit a "click click, clack clack".
    Read my post #3. Do you disagree with that?

  3. #23
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Read my post #3. Do you disagree with that?
    Depends on how you define "all these systems".

    And it is my impression (and I can be wrong) that pilot training make a lot of focus with procedures and when do what and what no to do when. But not so much in the why.
    With that kind of training, you fundamental error mistake becomes more a procedural mistake.

    So a pilot may be "well trained" by those standards but not be "well trained" in the sense you used it.

    And YET, the pilot could have observed the engines at idle, the airspeed decaying, the pitch going up, not understand what the heck is going on, and performed the click-click-clack-clack maneuver and save the day.
    As Mr Magenta said, you never ask what is it doing now. You take control, make it do what you want it to do, and then ask why was it doing that.
    Of course, for that you first need to realize that it is not doing what you wanted it to do.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  4. #24
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Indeed. Reread my post #6, where I say the same thing.
    Sometimes we do say similar things; however you want more training to regurgitate that cryptic acronym Otto pilot modes turn off the speed control.

    Given that guys are forgetting that relentless pull ups are part of many stall procedures and forgetting that airspeed should be monitored on short final-and given that it's kinda universal stuff and therefore time efficient to teach/remind folks...maybe...just maybe interject a little of that into the acronym barfing exercises...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #25
    Junior Member NikiMn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2

    Default

    hmm, not all of the mentioned innovations are such a great idea as I see it...

  6. #26
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NikiMn View Post
    hmm, not all of the mentioned innovations are such a great idea as I see it...
    Wow...a smokin' hot avatar and great summarization skills. At you married?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    753

    Default

    I don't think bots are allowed to get married... yet.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  8. #28
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    I don't think bots are allowed to get married... yet.
    The forum is functioning on autopilette?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    The driver involved in the UBER crash was WATCHING TV at the time:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44574290

    Concentration when using automation that requires monitoring is problematic enough with trained airline pilots. It's NOT going to work with everyday drivers.

    These things have to be banned until the automation can be trusted without human monitoring.


    That means not only proven reliability to detect and react, but also FAA levels of redundancy, i.e. multiple CPUS and 'carvionics', multiple sensors and fail-operational capability.

    That's not going to happen tomorrow...

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    It's NOT going to work with people who are functioning at the intellectual level of a turnip.
    Corrected.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  11. #31
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    It's NOT going to work with most people.
    Specifically corrected.

  12. #32
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,367

    Default

    I still question why "automatic emergency braking" is disabled during automatic driving...(given the way "most people" operate, anyway).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    753

    Default

    I can't answer really specifically, but in general it seems like a bad idea to have two different computer systems programmed by different people with different parameters, both controlling the brakes.

    In theory no matter how many computers you have, if one of them thinks the car is going to hit something (/someone), the brakes probably should be applied. That's why airliners have multiple autopilots. However in the case of airliners the computers are designed to operate together to provide redundancy and they contain algorithms to handle cases of the computers disagreeing. The systems in self-driving cars are not designed to interoperate.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  14. #34
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    I can't answer really specifically, but in general it seems like a bad idea to have two different computer systems programmed by different people with different parameters, both controlling the brakes.

    In theory no matter how many computers you have, if one of them thinks the car is going to hit something (/someone), the brakes probably should be applied. That's why airliners have multiple autopilots. However in the case of airliners the computers are designed to operate together to provide redundancy and they contain algorithms to handle cases of the computers disagreeing. The systems in self-driving cars are not designed to interoperate.
    Actually, no. If we are using the autopilot analogy, if one system thinks the car is going to hit something and the other doesn't, they both disconnect and hand things over to the pilot (with a very aural alert). But it's more complicated than that because the thinking part of each system depends on the data input of three or more sensors and the data translation of multiple ADIRU's, where one sensor can give different input than the other two and be ruled out, leaving both systems fail-passive and thus still safely operational. The reason aircraft have two autopilots is to allow autopilot function to continue if one unit fails, not if one unit 'disagrees' with the other. But it's more complicated than that because some autopilots are using three or more flight control guidance computers which are designed to detect faults within themselves and to rule out a unit that differs form the others.

    In other words, the 'autopilots' in cars today are nothing near what they need to be to provide the kind of reliablity and safety that commercial aviation autopilots provide. And without that, we need to get them off the streets.

    And then there's the whole issue of keeping the driver focused on driving when he is not "hand-driving'. And that is NOT going to happen. Ever.

    Therefore, until cars can drive themselves without the need for driver intervention, it's a dead-end.

    But they will continue to be produced and allowed on the streets because... money.

  15. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Can't wait till we unleash 'flying cars' to Joe Public HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But they will continue to be produced and allowed on the streets because... money.
    Specifically because many people are willing to hand over amazing amounts of it (money) for this year's Bright Shiny Objects because they're new and therefore so much better than last year's Bright Shiny Objects.

    But I'm not cynical... really!
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •