Speaking of faulty components and silly arguments, an excerpt from a report I read a while ago - 

The airline industry may be an occupational setting with specific health risks. Two environmental agents to which flight crews are known to be exposed are cosmic radiation and magnetic fields generated by the aircraft's electrical system. Other factors to be considered are circadian disruption and conditions specific to air travel, such as noise, vibration, mild hypoxia, reduced atmospheric pressure, low humidity, and air quality. This study investigated mortality among US commercial pilots and navigators, using proportional mortality ratios for cancer and noncancer end points. Proportional cancer mortality ratios and mortality odds ratios were also calculated for comparison to the proportional mortality ratios for cancer causes of death. Results indicated that US pilots and navigators have experienced significantly increased mortality due to cancer of the kidney and renal pelvis, motor neuron disease, and external causes. In addition, increased mortality due to prostate cancer, brain cancer, colon cancer, and cancer of the lip, buccal cavity, and pharynx was suggested. 

There is a similar report about the increased levels of heart disease in commercial pilots. Nothing to worry about though. 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Garys said:

I agree. Ai is not the answer. Automated systems designed for pilotless flying is though. The only reason this is a debate is becaue aircraft manuafactures have to design aircraft systems for pilots. If pilots were out of the equasion right from the beginning of aircraft design and manufacturing, not only would it be safer, ( over 90% of fatal accidents are pilot error) it would far cheaper for airlines to operate and consequently for us to travel.

So why not automate every potentially dangerous job? Oh that’s right, because a HUGE chunk of the population would be jobless. AI is not the solution. And it’s funny to think that would make it cheaper for us to travel. All it means is the management gets richer. When has a company EVER cut prices because they found a cheaper way to do things? 

3 minutes ago, Hatch76 said:

 And it’s funny to think that would make it cheaper for us to travel. All it means is the management gets richer. When has a company EVER cut prices because they found a cheaper way to do things? 

Actually your right. With governments moving towards clean energy, fuel prices are going to skyrocket by the time any of this came to frution anyway. So yeah it wont be cheaper. 

But think of all the redundacy that could be built into a newly  designed aircraft. Triple, quadruple redundancy mandatory for every system. Take the Max for example. One single system with the only redundancy being the pilots. Look at how that worked out.

I don't know, an airplane has a computer flying it with a potential to calculate 10000 corrective scenarios in a fraction of a second to make the correct action, human pilots all have to open the manual before the find the correct corrective maneuver or put a call into maintenance or dispatcher where they all whip out the book and the meantime clock is ticking. I would put money on the fact that the wrong engine in an engine failure would never be shut down in error as has happened in more than a few accidents before. So yeah, I'm open to progress.

18 hours ago, WestAir said:

Obviously the goal of automation is to enhance safety, efficiency, and provide a need; But I can't help but feel like one of our needs is to be needed. That's something you can't automate.

No, the goal of automation is to make the filthy rich 0.1% even more filthy rich. 

18 hours ago, David Mills said:

My silicone co-pilot:

 

Is that one of those $10k RealDolls? I saw a documentary on those years ago about an emerging market for those things. 

2 hours ago, Hatch76 said:

And it’s funny to think that would make it cheaper for us to travel. All it means is the management gets richer. When has a company EVER cut prices because they found a cheaper way to do things? 

Yes. Exactly this. To think this is about safety or economy for the average person is hilarious beyond imagination. 

11 hours ago, St Mawgan said:

At least they couldn't go on strike. 

Or constantly moan about a job with standby reserve , which they signed up to do.

6 hours ago, ailchim said:

I once saw an interview with an airline pilot.  He was asked if he felt a heavy responsibility for the passengers his flights carried.  He said that didn't concern him at all, in fact he never thought about it.  His one and only concern was not killing himself.  

That's the best recommendation for human pilots you can get I think.

 

Yes as I’ve said for the last 10 plus years on here, spend a day doing my job and you’ll find a lot (not all ) of pilots are not the hero’s and princesses they like to think they are. They are in it for themselves, no one else, unlike the Hero’s that treat and care for the sick  and vulnerable for example.

 

Edited August 18, 20232 yr by fluffyflops

6 hours ago, WestAir said:

And then they automate ops. And then dispatch. MX. 

And one day we wake up and every company has one employee: The CEO. But it doesn't matter how much he's paid, because 99.9% of people are unemployed, and his money has lost meaning, because the economy doesn't run on Linux.

I believe this is an issue we will have to tackle in our lifetime. There's nothing a human can do that a machine eventually cannot.

I agree I’d be out of a job.  But managing robots would be a lot easier than single mums and arrogant pilots

38 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

Or constantly moan about a job with standby reserve , which they signed up to do.

Yeah. Let's get rid of all the pilots for the sake of the 0.01% just to satisfy a blatantly obvious disdain for 'arrogant pilots'.

Because safety and stuff.

On 8/17/2023 at 12:44 PM, andymandy said:

Video: Korea's Science Institute Introduces Robot that Flies Aircraft Safer than Human Pilots (airlinerwatch.com)

 

I wonder if they can Parallel Park??? 🤭🤭🤭

48 minutes ago, fluffyflops said:

Yes as I’ve said for the last 10 plus years on here, spend a day doing my job and you’ll find a lot (not all ) of pilots are not the hero’s and princesses they like to think they are. They are in it for themselves, no one else, unlike the Hero’s that treat and care for the sick  and vulnerable for example.

 

But I bet that if you'd become a pilot you would have done it all because of how you are the complete opposite of the interesting description above? You absolutely would do it out of the goodness of your heart, right? Never complain about hours or over-night stays?

Because unlike those pesky pilots YOU are not in it for yourself? Your bitter diatribe kind of makes me interpret you this way.

3 hours ago, Hatch76 said:

All it means is the management gets richer. When has a company EVER cut prices because they found a cheaper way to do things?

No. 

Quote

Technological advances that improve production efficiency will shift a supply curve to the right. The cost of production goes down, and consumers will demand more of the product at lower prices. Computers, televisions and photographic equipment are good examples of the effects of technology on a supply curve. 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Consumer Price Index for computers declined 96 percent from 1997 to 2015. In the same period, the price index for televisions decreased 94 percent. Electronics manufacturers continue to improve the quality of their products and lower the cost of production. 

At lower prices, consumers can purchase more TVs and computers, causing the supply curve to shift to the right. Laptops that cost several thousand dollars a few years ago can now be purchased for a few hundred dollars, and they have more storage and faster processor speeds.

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/market-supply-curve-determined-by-37866.html

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/10/why-is-tech-getting-cheaper/

 

1 hour ago, Swe_Richard said:

No, the goal of automation is to make the filthy rich 0.1% even more filthy rich. 

Farmers are part of the 0.1% now?

Didn't realise that Combine Harvesters using automated processes made them part of the "filthy rich".

 

AI isn't going to work for airliners at any time in the next 20 years.

What happens when conflicting or erroneous data is passed between faulty or damaged sensors and the airliner's computers? Multiple systems create redundancy, however, we've seen that humans can still diagnose better than computers to bring a flight to a safe conclusion.

How would these flights have ended if it weren't for two flight crew up-front?

https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/travel-leisure/article/2146418/five-miracles-airline-pilots-pulled-saved-lives-hundreds

36 minutes ago, Swe_Richard said:

But I bet that if you'd become a pilot you would have done it all because of how you are the complete opposite of the interesting description above? You absolutely would do it out of the goodness of your heart, right? Never complain about hours or over-night stays?

Because unlike those pesky pilots YOU are not in it for yourself? Your bitter diatribe kind of makes me interpret you this way.

No Richard as I said before come sit in ops for a week you’d change your mind , I’d guarantee you. 
 

alas back to driverless planes

Edited August 18, 20232 yr by fluffyflops