This is your captain speaking
Mar 1st 2004, 12:06 am
#16
Not here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,621
Originally posted by PeteY
Oi Oi, i know im not one anymore but steady on
Actually....another one you might appreciate.
Ever heard of a yak 52? Its a pretty powerful prop job, ex military training plane i think. Well i was working a shift and some flashy bloke in his yak thought it would be clever to run his engine up on the apron. Thing is he had'nt checked what was behind him, and there was a cessna 152, not tied down i might add, parked behind him. The cessna actually did a back-flip and landed upside down..... The pilot of the yak did'nt believe me when i told him what he'd done....
Oi Oi, i know im not one anymore but steady on
Actually....another one you might appreciate.
Ever heard of a yak 52? Its a pretty powerful prop job, ex military training plane i think. Well i was working a shift and some flashy bloke in his yak thought it would be clever to run his engine up on the apron. Thing is he had'nt checked what was behind him, and there was a cessna 152, not tied down i might add, parked behind him. The cessna actually did a back-flip and landed upside down..... The pilot of the yak did'nt believe me when i told him what he'd done....
As for thick...that's just a description of a civil air traffic controllers wallet!!!
Mar 1st 2004, 1:50 pm
#17
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
I repeat - it's perfectly possible to build an airplane to taxi, take off, fly from A to B and land. It's just that making it do all that, fitting in with the air traffic system and with 10^-7 safety, just isn't.
There's no point in eliminating the human who at present diagnoses and cures faults on the aircraft and transferring the mistakes that the human makes to software programmers and system designers who try to cover every possibility. They can't.
And the IFE still doesn't work!
There's no point in eliminating the human who at present diagnoses and cures faults on the aircraft and transferring the mistakes that the human makes to software programmers and system designers who try to cover every possibility. They can't.
And the IFE still doesn't work!
Mar 1st 2004, 1:54 pm
#18
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,613
Originally posted by Rog Williams
I repeat - it's perfectly possible to build an airplane to taxi, take off, fly from A to B and land. It's just that making it do all that, fitting in with the air traffic system and with 10^-7 safety, just isn't.
There's no point in eliminating the human who at present diagnoses and cures faults on the aircraft and transferring the mistakes that the human makes to software programmers and system designers who try to cover every possibility. They can't.
And the IFE still doesn't work!
I repeat - it's perfectly possible to build an airplane to taxi, take off, fly from A to B and land. It's just that making it do all that, fitting in with the air traffic system and with 10^-7 safety, just isn't.
There's no point in eliminating the human who at present diagnoses and cures faults on the aircraft and transferring the mistakes that the human makes to software programmers and system designers who try to cover every possibility. They can't.
And the IFE still doesn't work!
Mar 1st 2004, 2:07 pm
#19
Not here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,621
Originally posted by Rog Williams
I repeat - it's perfectly possible to build an airplane to taxi, take off, fly from A to B and land. It's just that making it do all that, fitting in with the air traffic system and with 10^-7 safety, just isn't.
There's no point in eliminating the human who at present diagnoses and cures faults on the aircraft and transferring the mistakes that the human makes to software programmers and system designers who try to cover every possibility. They can't.
And the IFE still doesn't work!
I repeat - it's perfectly possible to build an airplane to taxi, take off, fly from A to B and land. It's just that making it do all that, fitting in with the air traffic system and with 10^-7 safety, just isn't.
There's no point in eliminating the human who at present diagnoses and cures faults on the aircraft and transferring the mistakes that the human makes to software programmers and system designers who try to cover every possibility. They can't.
And the IFE still doesn't work!
Mar 1st 2004, 2:10 pm
#20
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Originally posted by pleasancefamily
Surely it's only a matter of a few years' software/ hardware development and it'll be a lot cheaper and safer to get rid of the human element?
Surely it's only a matter of a few years' software/ hardware development and it'll be a lot cheaper and safer to get rid of the human element?
Plus they don't have their ass on the airplane - that does concentrate the mind somewhat even if it does sometimes overload it and cause confusion.
One of the cries that seems to go up nowadays in the cockpit is "what the hell's it doing now???" And that's just with the automation and logic that is in the things today. One aircraft series in particular has had quite a history of crashes caused because the designers were too clever by half, allowing the crew to get behind the airplane. That's not IMO an argument for eliminating the crew, more for questioning whether theoreticians can actually do a better job.
Mar 1st 2004, 7:15 pm
#21
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Originally posted by Rog Williams
My point is that the human element is still there - probably more so. The people trying to "program" - and I use the word loosely - are human, and will make mistakes. Fact.
Plus they don't have their ass on the airplane - that does concentrate the mind somewhat even if it does sometimes overload it and cause confusion.
One of the cries that seems to go up nowadays in the cockpit is "what the hell's it doing now???" And that's just with the automation and logic that is in the things today. One aircraft series in particular has had quite a history of crashes caused because the designers were too clever by half, allowing the crew to get behind the airplane. That's not IMO an argument for eliminating the crew, more for questioning whether theoreticians can actually do a better job.
My point is that the human element is still there - probably more so. The people trying to "program" - and I use the word loosely - are human, and will make mistakes. Fact.
Plus they don't have their ass on the airplane - that does concentrate the mind somewhat even if it does sometimes overload it and cause confusion.
One of the cries that seems to go up nowadays in the cockpit is "what the hell's it doing now???" And that's just with the automation and logic that is in the things today. One aircraft series in particular has had quite a history of crashes caused because the designers were too clever by half, allowing the crew to get behind the airplane. That's not IMO an argument for eliminating the crew, more for questioning whether theoreticians can actually do a better job.
Poorly written software could crash a plane but that could happen now.
Mar 1st 2004, 7:44 pm
#22
Not here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,621
Originally posted by bondipom
Nowadays with fly by wire humans are only virtually in control with a software interface to the controls. Grounding the pilot is just the next logical step with remote diagnosis.
Poorly written software could crash a plane but that could happen now.
Nowadays with fly by wire humans are only virtually in control with a software interface to the controls. Grounding the pilot is just the next logical step with remote diagnosis.
Poorly written software could crash a plane but that could happen now.
Mar 2nd 2004, 12:44 am
#23
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
I wish I had your faith in the technological solution! (Not true - I don't wish that!)
Like the majority of passengers I would not be at all happy if the crew disappears. I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime so I'm not getting too upset about it though!
Like the majority of passengers I would not be at all happy if the crew disappears. I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime so I'm not getting too upset about it though!
Mar 2nd 2004, 1:13 am
#24
Not here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,621
Originally posted by Rog Williams
I wish I had your faith in the technological solution! (Not true - I don't wish that!)
Like the majority of passengers I would not be at all happy if the crew disappears. I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime so I'm not getting too upset about it though!
I wish I had your faith in the technological solution! (Not true - I don't wish that!)
Like the majority of passengers I would not be at all happy if the crew disappears. I don't believe it will happen in my lifetime so I'm not getting too upset about it though!
Mar 2nd 2004, 1:26 am
#25
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Originally posted by Florida_03
Here you go...would this make you feel more comfortable?
Here you go...would this make you feel more comfortable?
Mar 2nd 2004, 1:29 am
#26
Not here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,621
Originally posted by bondipom
Not the fish.
Not the fish.
Mar 2nd 2004, 1:44 am
#27
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
Originally posted by Florida_03
I am serious - and don't call me Shirley!
I am serious - and don't call me Shirley!
Mar 2nd 2004, 1:52 am
#28
Not here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,621
Originally posted by bondipom
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
Mar 2nd 2004, 1:56 am
#29
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,149
This could go on all day. BTW Why was the film called flying high in Australia and Airplane everywhere else?
Roger Roger
Roger Roger
Mar 2nd 2004, 2:00 am
#30
Not here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,621
Originally posted by bondipom
This could go on all day. BTW Why was the film called flying high in Australia and Airplane everywhere else?
Roger Roger
This could go on all day. BTW Why was the film called flying high in Australia and Airplane everywhere else?
Roger Roger
