Plane crash in French Alps
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2015, 07:08 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(26-03-2015 06:52 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 06:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  The chemtrail dispensing nozzles were clogged so the co-pilot had to crash the plane to distribute the chemicals as widely as possible because the mission couldn't be allowed to fail. The science doesn't lie.

^ this guy knows the score.

Yep, I'm all scienterrific and such. Smartass

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 06:36 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:08 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  One more nail in the coffin of the human piloted airliner.

When you consider that well over 99% of all airline flights are not just successful but incident free, and that when incidents do occur the crew does not always save the day, or is, as here, THE monkeywrench, there's no good reason to expose the flying public to human fallibility, and at high salary expense personally aboard every airplane.

All the world's flights could be safely overseen by, say, a few dozen pilot/engineers who would handle, from a ground station and satellite repeaters for global coverage, the rare glitch that inflight monitoring equipment would pick up amongst the thousands of flights aloft at any given moment.

Yes, of course, such a system would produce crashes that could only have occurred by such a system, but I venture that the passenger casualty rate per seat mile would drop overall. And that, after all, is the second most important objective of airline flying, the first being able to misdirect baggage the furthest distance away from where it was supposed to go.

The biggest hurdle is bandwidth: transmitting all the essential telemetry in real time for all those flights. But that's a lot easier hurdle to surmount than trying to keep a system failsafe with fallible humanity still moving levers that machines can operate more competently. Or keep it failsafe from fickle human emotion and delusion.

That is a bad idea and would leave airplanes more open to hijackings because instead of terrorists having to physically take over a plane, all they would have to do is jump on a computer and hack the systems. Airplane crashes, though what may seem like a common occurrence now and days are actually rare and airplane travel is one of the safest. Nothing is perfect and you cannot make it perfect so why change something that is already working pretty well just because of a couple rare occurrences? Also humans have better and faster reactions than computers, in the seconds it would take for a signal from the control room to reach the airplane, a human pilot could already start performing a life saving maneuver because I can guarantee you a human could probably react a it faster than a signal reaching the aircraft. Also there is a chance the systems could fail and if there is no pilot to take over then there's no chance to save the plane and if it were not for actions of great pilots, there would be more deadly crashes.

Hacking doesn't work like Hollywood may have led you to believe.

Planes already rely extensively on computerised and automated controls. When's the last time you heard about one being "remotely taken over" by "terrorists"?

Humans sure as hell don't have faster reactions than computers. We're slower by orders of magnitude. At sufficiently complex decision points our reactions are currently still better, but the set of problems at which we're better than computers is a rapidly decreasing one.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2015, 08:02 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
Just heard on the radio, the copilot appears to have kept some sort of "ailment" from his company. They would not elaborate but they seemed to indicate it was some sort of disabling condition.

Odd... even the report seemed incomplete.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
Quote:Documents in the apartment showed Mr. Lubitz received a note from his doctor excusing him from work for a period covering the day of the incident, according to the statement. Other such notes were also found.

“The fact that [such documents] were found, including sickness notes that were torn up, still valid, and that covered the day of the act, supports…the assumption that the deceased had concealed his condition from his employer and colleagues,”

Link

Couldn't accept that he shouldn't be flying planes?

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
27-03-2015, 09:08 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 07:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 06:36 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  That is a bad idea and would leave airplanes more open to hijackings because instead of terrorists having to physically take over a plane, all they would have to do is jump on a computer and hack the systems. Airplane crashes, though what may seem like a common occurrence now and days are actually rare and airplane travel is one of the safest. Nothing is perfect and you cannot make it perfect so why change something that is already working pretty well just because of a couple rare occurrences? Also humans have better and faster reactions than computers, in the seconds it would take for a signal from the control room to reach the airplane, a human pilot could already start performing a life saving maneuver because I can guarantee you a human could probably react a it faster than a signal reaching the aircraft. Also there is a chance the systems could fail and if there is no pilot to take over then there's no chance to save the plane and if it were not for actions of great pilots, there would be more deadly crashes.

Hacking doesn't work like Hollywood may have led you to believe.

Planes already rely extensively on computerised and automated controls. When's the last time you heard about one being "remotely taken over" by "terrorists"?

Humans sure as hell don't have faster reactions than computers. We're slower by orders of magnitude. At sufficiently complex decision points our reactions are currently still better, but the set of problems at which we're better than computers is a rapidly decreasing one.

No but still is a threat if we rely on fully computerized airplanes and none because we have human pilots to take control of the plane if something were to happen, I'm sure they have manual overrides. What if a powerful solar flare hits and disrupts all electronics? That's hundreds of airplanes down and thousands of deaths because we would rather rely on technology to do everything for us. Technology is only reliable to a certain extent but if I were on a damn airplane I would feel much safer knowing a human was flying or at least ready to fly if something were to go wrong rather than some computer that could easily crash or make a mistake much easier than a human can. There's also a reason why this isn't the case now when we obviously have the technology with drones and what not. If this does become the case they better make sure they develop the software perfectly because one wrong line of code could very well spell death for a lot of people.

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 09:14 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
I'd also rather have human pilots, thank you.

The line of reasoning that "computers fail less" doesn't really work, because the computers and software would still be programmed by people, and any piece of technology can fail. I'd like to have some human able to gain control if something is not working.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
27-03-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 09:14 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  I'd also rather have human pilots, thank you.

The line of reasoning that "computers fail less" doesn't really work, because the computers and software would still be programmed by people, and any piece of technology can fail. I'd like to have some human able to gain control if something is not working.

I'd like to have some trained, capable, practiced, healthy human able to gain control if something is not working.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 09:16 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 07:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 06:36 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  That is a bad idea and would leave airplanes more open to hijackings because instead of terrorists having to physically take over a plane, all they would have to do is jump on a computer and hack the systems. Airplane crashes, though what may seem like a common occurrence now and days are actually rare and airplane travel is one of the safest. Nothing is perfect and you cannot make it perfect so why change something that is already working pretty well just because of a couple rare occurrences? Also humans have better and faster reactions than computers, in the seconds it would take for a signal from the control room to reach the airplane, a human pilot could already start performing a life saving maneuver because I can guarantee you a human could probably react a it faster than a signal reaching the aircraft. Also there is a chance the systems could fail and if there is no pilot to take over then there's no chance to save the plane and if it were not for actions of great pilots, there would be more deadly crashes.

Hacking doesn't work like Hollywood may have led you to believe.

Planes already rely extensively on computerised and automated controls. When's the last time you heard about one being "remotely taken over" by "terrorists"?

Humans sure as hell don't have faster reactions than computers. We're slower by orders of magnitude. At sufficiently complex decision points our reactions are currently still better, but the set of problems at which we're better than computers is a rapidly decreasing one.

The ONLY aircraft in recent memory (with passengers) that was controlled by the ground was the space shuttle.

Aircraft are computerized - but all control input must be from the cockpit, by pilots.

That's why you haven't seen a plane hacked from the ground.

Start controlling them from the ground - and you WILL see it happen. It's just a matter of time, and commitment from whackos....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
27-03-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 09:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 09:14 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  I'd also rather have human pilots, thank you.

The line of reasoning that "computers fail less" doesn't really work, because the computers and software would still be programmed by people, and any piece of technology can fail. I'd like to have some human able to gain control if something is not working.

I'd like to have some trained, capable, practiced, healthy human able to gain control if something is not working.

How does that contradict what I said? I agree with you.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 09:20 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 09:18 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 09:15 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'd like to have some trained, capable, practiced, healthy human able to gain control if something is not working.

How does that contradict what I said? I agree with you.

Just adding some opinion. Smile

We have to have humans actually flying planes for there to be capable human backup if the computer control goes south.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: