111–120 of 125 posts
>The PIC advised the Jakarta ACC that BTK6723 experienced radio communication problem and currently the problem has been resolved. Did they self report after or was there a review triggered somehow? Their excuse actually was pretty impressive honestly, almost like this has happened before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> More evidence of the importance of mandatory paternal leave. With negative population growth being such a concern I’m really surprised that there’s not far reaching, comprehensive, pro-family policies being enacted. Society seems stuck in the “productivity” graveyard spiral.
Where is negative population growth a concern? I’m concerned about the opposite.
If you are still hearing about population explosions with the same urgency that we heard about 20 years ago, then you’re being fed information meant to vilify the “others”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s true, but there are plenty of other options. For example, a dead-man switch could: Send an alert via transponders that it has been activated. Maintain level flight but avoid terrain. (After a waiting period in which a pilot can deactivate this feature.) Or descend to a safe altitude if cabin pressure is lost. Activate a mode in which the plane could be remotely flown or directed to land itself. Alert flight cr…
I recall reading that certain aircraft manufacturers do offer more robust security features if the airlines are willing to pay for them. I don't have a link or source handy, but it's entirely possible that these features have been discussed, but through the lens of how much more would it cost to implement them.
https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/garmin-autoland-thi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some planes can land themselves now: https://discover.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/#autoland
Autopilot and autoland have been around for a while, but they still need to be set up by the pilot, only operate under certain conditions, and autoland in particular only works at some airports. This is probably not a solution, not for quite a while at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often. From context I guess you meant either "I wouldn’t be surprised if this happens more often" or "I would be surprised if this doesn’t happen more often." ( https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=273 has many fun examples of this sort of thing)
Oops. And this is what happens when you accidentally double your negatives, thanks for the point out even if it’s too late to edit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the reasons the current "Self Driving" cars kinda suck. Majority of the time you're just not doing anything, but still have to be 100% attentive.
It really is comically reversed. Robots are far better than humans at watching for a long time and jumping in to help instantly with an acute problem when needed (like braking or swerving to avoid an obstacle). Humans are better at interpreting a complex scene and making a high level plan.
My wife’s car has adaptive cruise. It just needs to watch constantly and adjust your speed to ensure the distance between you and the car in front remains relatively constant.
It has lane keeping assist and lane departure alerting. It constantly tracks where the lines on the road are and either gently nudges you back in the lane, or beeps at you if you cross a line.
It has emergency braking, it’s constantly watching and if it sees you approaching something at a rate or distance that suggests you are likely to hit it, it will alert you. If you continue, it will apply the brakes for you.
If you’re stopped for a period of time (like at a light) and the car in front of you pulls away and you don’t after a brief moment, it will ding to get your attention and let you know traffic is moving.
Pretty much all of this is making use of the strengths of the computer (uninterrupted attention, quick reaction times) to make up for the weaknesses of the human (distractable, slower reaction times) instead of trying to do the reverse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you could interpret "100% attentive" as "at the same level of attentiveness as being without the current generation of 'self driving' technology"?
Yeah, pedantic attacks like this just end up trolling the conversation rather than helping it.
Can someone explain to me why we still need pilots? Could we at least have pilots serve as a backup to a fully autonomous system?
This is such an “armchair expert” take on this. Planes are not fully autonomous. They will not be for a very long time due to the regulatory environment aviation is entrenched in.
They didn't make a point, they claimed ignorance by making it a question. Chillllll
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Happens all the time. Both asleep, though, is a big problem. About ten years ago there was a (Delta?) flight to Vegas (?) with both pilots asleep. They flew past their destination and went on their merry way until a flight attendant check up on them.
> flew past their destination and went on their merry way until a flight attendant check up on them. That... doesn't seem like a great illustration of why both pilots asleep is a big problem :)
That's not a huge deal in Vegas, but if you miss Honolulu that's a big problem.