Plane crash in French Alps
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2015, 09:25 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
Ah gotcha. Big Grin Yeah. I hope they start introducing stricter controls to see if pilots are able to fly, with the proper mental and physical conditions to do so.

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, 09:31 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 09:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  We have to have humans actually flying planes for there to be capable human backup if the computer control goes south.

Given your recent winter in the northern US, I'd think you'd want to go south....
Drinking Beverage

OK, I'll go quietly...

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
27-03-2015, 09:36 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 09:16 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 07:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  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....

I read this quote somewhere a while ago which I think is true.

Quote:An airplane can fly itself as much as an operating room can perform an operation by itself.

"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, 11:53 AM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
I don't think the entire world would be willing to go automated even if it could theoretically work, seeing as how the U.S. Air Force administers and is in complete control of GPS. That would be economically risky because of the leverage that would give us Smile

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 12:19 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2015 12:36 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 09:08 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  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.

So, what you're saying is, we... shouldn't get rid of all possible failsafes?

I mean, that's good enough advice, I suppose, but it's not exactly what you'd call a controversial opinion, now, is it?
(certainly nobody has been advocating the converse, so far as I've ever known)

Incidentally an electromagnetic disruption such as would shut down electronics to that degree would already kill every plane in the air and every person on them. Right now. With current technology. So... there's that?

(27-03-2015 09:08 AM)JDog554 Wrote:  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.

Computers already factor into - to greater or lesser extent, albeit generally greater and progressively more so - the control and maintenance of literally everything on modern life. It's not particularly relevant whether you like that idea or not.

"What if things go wrong?" is not an argument. "What if things go wrong?" is baked into every step of every competent design process.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 11:53 AM)yakherder Wrote:  I don't think the entire world would be willing to go automated even if it could theoretically work, seeing as how the U.S. Air Force administers and is in complete control of GPS. That would be economically risky because of the leverage that would give us Smile

The Russians have a completely independent global satellite navigation system of their own (GLONASS), and the Chinese and Europeans are both deploying the final stages of their respective navigation constellations (Galileo and Beidou). India and Japan have local indigenous satnav coverage as well.

Because of literally that exact reason.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 12:34 PM
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.

Is... is that a line of reasoning you've ever actually encountered?

There's an old saying, you know: "when computers screw up, people take over; when people screw up, people die".

It's a strange assumption to suggest that every task a human being is presently best suited to will always be best suited by a human being. That's just silly.

(27-03-2015 09:16 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Start controlling them from the ground - and you WILL see it happen. It's just a matter of time, and commitment from whackos....

There is no possible situation in which it will not be possible for someone to maliciously interfere. So what?

Of course, most if not all military drones are remotely controlled, not autonomous. How many of those are hijacked?

(27-03-2015 09:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  We have to have humans actually flying planes for there to be capable human backup if the computer control goes south.

You guys keep saying things like that as though someone's been disputing it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 12:34 PM)cjlr 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.

Is... is that a line of reasoning you've ever actually encountered?

There's an old saying, you know: "when computers screw up, people take over; when people screw up, people die".

It's a strange assumption to suggest that every task a human being is presently best suited to will always be best suited by a human being. That's just silly.

(27-03-2015 09:16 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Start controlling them from the ground - and you WILL see it happen. It's just a matter of time, and commitment from whackos....

There is no possible situation in which it will not be possible for someone to maliciously interfere. So what?

Of course, most if not all military drones are remotely controlled, not autonomous. How many of those are hijacked?

(27-03-2015 09:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  We have to have humans actually flying planes for there to be capable human backup if the computer control goes south.

You guys keep saying things like that as though someone's been disputing it.

Did you miss airportkids post where he did suggest exactly that?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 12:36 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Did you miss airportkids post where he did suggest exactly that?

Yes.

EDIT:
But I'd still point out that that is literally how modern militaries operate combat drones. And one would think they, if anyone, might be a little concerned with things like security, no?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Plane crash in French Alps
(27-03-2015 12:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 12:36 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Did you miss airportkids post where he did suggest exactly that?

Yes.

EDIT:
But I'd still point out that that is literally how modern militaries operate combat drones. And one would think they, if anyone, might be a little concerned with things like security, no?

Yes they would but one would imagine that a system for operating all commercial flights would be much much larger and therefore much more vulnerable to a sustained attack.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: