Will driverless cars help remote resorts?

[abc]

To go back to the example of driving instead of flying, "better outcome on average" doesn't work for me personally but you agree that drivers like me should be able to override computer automation. Been driving 45 years with zero accidents. Mostly because I'm attentive and have been able to take corrective action when needed. So to me it would be a big step down in outcomes and this is usually the case when you dumb things down to account for the below average participants. I don't want to be treated that way. Besides, I also enjoy driving so why should I give that enjoyment up because other drivers don't like driving or suck at it?

I do agree with what you have written in general.

JimG, your post I’m afraid shows a huge and grave misunderstanding of automation.

You will always be able to drive. Driverless cars however, will allow those who don’t feel like driving to not drive!

You fear of not being allowed to drive is irrational. The rest of your argument are wrong largely because you started with the wrong assumption.

That said, over-automation is a legitimate concern, as illustrated in the airplane designs. On the other hand, we had already accepted quite a lot of automotion in cars. We even took them for granted so much most people can’t name some of those automated functions of the cars! I’ll start the list with the obvious: auto-transmission and anti-lock brakes, please add to the list...

 

[mister moose]

How do the experienced pilots get their experience?

In the past, most came from the military. That has slowed, and at the same time (after along period of oversupply) the demand for pilots is increasing. Civil experience comes from a wide arena; flight instructing, banner towing, charter flying, freight, commuters.

Just like skiing, New England is a great training ground. We have frequent IFR, icing, fog, some short runways, frequent crosswinds, lots of obstructions and special procedures, and one of the most crowded and pressure cooker environments there is in NYC airspace. If you learned in sunny Florida (Home to several flight academies) you are lacking in all that. If you believe some of the forecasts I've read, we're headed for a pilot shortage. A recession will change that in a hurry.

I believe this is a true story from decades ago -

A Pan Am 707 landed a little hot and had brake trouble, ended up off the end of the runway in the over-run with some scratches and little else, but still needed a tow. The Captain got on the intercom and said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for flying with Pan Am, the world's most experienced airline, and well, we just had another damn experience."

 

[JimG.]

JimG, your post I’m afraid shows a huge and grave misunderstanding of automation.

You will always be able to drive. Driverless cars however, will allow those who don’t feel like driving to not drive!

You fear of not being allowed to drive is irrational. The rest of your argument are wrong largely because you started with the wrong assumption.

That said, over-automation is a legitimate concern, as illustrated in the airplane designs. On the other hand, we had already accepted quite a lot of automotion in cars. We even took them for granted so much most people can’t name some of those automated functions of the cars! I’ll start the list with the obvious: auto-transmission and anti-lock brakes, please add to the list...

I drive a 6 speed. So to me an automatic transmission is over automation.

It is a bit presumptive of you to assume I do not understand automation because I reject it. I am not discussing "automation", I am referring to autonomous driving where there is no human interaction and there is no option for humans to drive. That is the ultimate goal of this whole technology push for driving is it not? A moving box with no steering wheel or control inputs.

My 2 oldest sons are engineers and they talk to me the same way, like I'm too stupid to understand modern tech.

 

[abc]

That is the ultimate goal of this whole technology push for driving is it not?

No, that is not.

In that, you’re wrong.

like I'm too stupid to understand modern tech.

It’s not about your understanding (or the lack of) of technology. It’s you assumption of intent that isn’t there that’s bordering paranoia.

 

[JimG.]

No, that is not.

In that, you’re wrong.


It’s not about your understanding (or the lack of) of technology. It’s you assumption of intent that isn’t there that’s bordering paranoia.

Check the title of this thread: "Will DRIVERLESS cars help remote resorts?"

Clearly the intent, according to the OP, is to produce cars that are DRIVERLESS.

I have read articles postulating whether Uber and Lyft can survive long enough financially to produce DRIVERLESS cars. Clearly that is the goal.

Maybe you need to look up the definition of "driverless" and "autonomous" before you accuse anyone of paranoia.

I'm sorry if my distaste of that concept causes you discomfort; how dare I contest the ultimate societal wisdom of computer engineers. Sheesh!

 

[abc]

Driverless cars will coexist with drivable cars.

Are you also against motorcycles and buses? Those are nothing like cars, but you’re obligated to share the road with them. God forbid you have bicycles to deal with. Aren’t you afraid you’ll be forced not to drive but ride a bicycle or motorcycle just because someone dare to invent those? (like they dare to even THINK about inventing driverless cars!)

My “discomfort” isn’t so much caused by your distaste of driverless cars, it’s your distaste of anything other except cars. Did you not profess your distaste of anything YOU don’t personally drive?

 

[deadheadskier]

Driverless cars will coexist with drivable cars.

/QUOTE]

For a short time, not forever.

Eventually the machine will prove to be more reliable and safer than human operation. At that point, control will be relinquished to the machine.

I see this every single day professionally in critical care ICUs; Life or death healthcare environments. Every year, more and more control/trust is relinquished by clinicians to the machines keeping these folks alive.

It will be no different in the automotive industry long term.


Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[speden]

Attitudes may differ based on a person's age. If you grew up in the pre internet/social media era, then driving a car represented freedom to get out of mom and dad's house and to socialize/show off with your friends, so cars were important. A lot of young people now don't really care that much about driving and just see it as transportation. They'll happily summon an uber when they need to go somewhere and wouldn't care if the uber had a human driver or a computer driver.

I've also seen that cars are getting more generic. All the different brands are starting to look alike since the laws of physics dictate the most efficient design. That trend should accelerate as we transition to electric drivetrains. The diehards will hate electrics too and want their loud v8's and stick shifts, but the electrics will be much less expensive and almost maintenance free. When transportation becomes a cheap, generic commodity, many people won't even bother owning a car.

The diehards can become driving hobbyists, just like audioholics still listening to vinyl records. As long as the hobbyists don't cause too many accidents in their dangerous manual drive mode, it will be a long time before they are completely banned. If they are eventually banned, it would probably happen first in the big cities.

 

[Glenn]

I can see the 737 analogy, but I'm not sure it's pertinent. First and foremost, people died; I don't want to gloss over that at all. I can't even imagine all the families impacted.

With the 737, it's a statistically small sample set. I'm sure since this thread was bumped the number of people who died in the 373 incidents was far eclipsed by motor vehicle crashes...caused by humans.

I don't have the stats, but flying is safer than driving statistically speaking. And from what I know, it's a heavily automated system. Yes, there are still pilots there to take over if needed.

We can pound on the keyboard and argue the merits of self driving cars. I feel that it's coming. I don't have exact dates, but I'm sure at some point in my life, we'll see vehicles driving themselves.

 

[kbroderick]

Relative to the Boeing crashes, this is rather informative (albeit based in part on preliminary findings):

https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et302-used-the-cut-out-switches-to-stop-mcas/

In car terms, it sounds like similar to being required to disable power steering in order to disable lane-keeping assist, while also having a steering rack that was never really intended for use without power assist (with the key difference is that power steering is much less necessary at speed, while the airplane controls in question apparently got harder to use at higher speed). The hypotheses presented is that the pilots couldn't provide enough control input without the assistance of the electronic control motors, and re-enabling those motors allowed the computer to provide the errant inputs to create a large crater and kill everyone on board.

If you want to talk about this in terms of autonomous vehicles, I think there are a few key points that get easily overlooked:
1. statistically, commercial air travel is still one of the safest ways to travel, and these crashes—two in five months—are in the news precisely because of how rare they are
2. yes, it's still horribly tragic for anyone onboard, and for the family and friends of those onboard, but as already noted, there have probably been more human-induced traffic deaths since this thread got bumped
3. if the preliminary reports are correct, this is a combination of a significant engineering muck-up (why the heck didn't the MCAS verify the input from both airspeed sensors and disable itself if they disagreed?), a failure in training, a prioritization of profit over safety (apparently in the certification process for the aircraft, and definitely in the way aircraft were sold with features that could help alleviate this issue as optional add-ons), and quite possibly a side effect of reduced regulation in the aircraft certification process

 

[AdironRider]

Not quite.

Both accidents are related to cockpit confusion on what the automated system was doing, coupled with sensor failure. Boeing took it further with a stronger mandatory stall response.

With Air France, the FO's low experience, and almost zero real world non-automated experience hindered his recognition and recovery from a stall. There was no crew coordination. No one said "My Airplane", which essentially means get your effing hands off the joystick. And as the Vanity Fair article points out if you read far enough, the inherent danger of non replicated movements for both joysticks, ie they could each provide differing inputs, was an accident waiting to happen. I fault the FO for 1) over controlling, a sure sign of low experience, 2) not discussing his control inputs, 3) Not understanding the correct assertions of the NFP FO #2, and lack of assimilation of data through other instruments. I didn't see it in the article, but those sensors are always heated, and I didn't see any discussion of whether the heat was turned on. Sorta important.

This isn't garden variety training "Now we're going to do a stall demonstration" stall recovery. It's in the weeds, confused cockpit, defective instrument, full IFR stall recovery. Few of you understand the difference, but it's always amazing how many accidents result from ignoring the first rule of aviation: Fly the damn airplane. 3 thousand hours of autopilot operation does not get you the needed experience to hand fly the damn airplane, and that was the problem on Air France. The FO simply couldn't fly a partial panel, and he couldn't fly without over controlling. In fact, there was no real problem at all until the FO pitched the nose up for no good reason. In addition to all the other snowball factors.

Automation is great, but you still need solid basic aviation skills and a solid background in weather, icing, turbulence, manual instrument flying, instrument failure, engine failure, fire, the list goes on... because stuff breaks. Because some mechanic, refueler, baggage loader or avionics technician didn't leave things quite right. In the recent 737 crash, the ability and training to turn off the defective autopilot and fly the damn airplane would have saved that flight.

Turns out there is such a thing as too much automation, (Together with a false sense of security and woeful lack of needed experience) and it's a real shame so many had to die to make that point.

We are saying the same thing.

 

[mister moose]

Driverless cars are going to drive at or below the speed limit. I don't know about you guys, but that drives me crazy on some roads. 25mph is painful. The vast majority of the US drives at +5 to +12, and that is going to cause major rebellion when all the driverless cars are now slow-clogging the roads. Will the trial lawyers allow automated cars to drive at the maximum speed allowed? Everyone is a grandma driver all of a sudden.

As for airplanes, it's technically possible now if everyone else stays out of the way, but so far we just don't do it.

Who will take over when something breaks?
Who will do the pre-flight inspection?
Who will be responsible for the flight, compute the take-off weight and CG point, and check the runway charts?
Who will check the weather, the forecasts, decide on an alternate airport, and evaluate the fuel needed?
Who will talk to ATC?
Who will sign off the MEL list? (Minimum equipment list) That's a list of all the stuff that doesn't work on an airplane, but still be legal to fly. That's right folks, everyday hundreds, thousands of flights take off with stuff broken, because, news flash, stuff breaks in airplanes. There's a huge amount of mechanical gadgets that endure a tough environment and break. Enough stuff breaks and can't get fixed soon enough that pilots carry around lists of stuff that is broken. So realize that stuff breaks on a regular basis, and it's because someone is there to deal with it that 99% of the time you never hear about it.

How is a computer going to accept a visual clearance behind a visually identified 2nd aircraft?
How is a computer going to make the decision to go around when a last minute runway incursion happens?
How is a computer going to deal with poor signal strength and stepped on transmissions from ATC?
How is a computer going to deal with an un-programmed emergency, a la Scully? Or United 232, that required several crew members to control what was left of the airplane?

Why do we not have driverless trains yet? They even have their own unshared road, they don't have to steer, and they run on a schedule. (Yeah, there's a few driverless self contained shuttle type trains, for those of you that like to niggle and point out technical flaws in any statement, so lets just get that out of the way)

It seems to me that automation shines when you have repetitious tasks with low risk if something fails. In an aluminum beer can rocketing through -20F air so thin you'll die of hypoxia, sitting on wings full of jet fuel at 600mph, it might be nice to have someone up front checking on things. Because while the overall sequence in a flight is repetitious, the real world details never are. Because weather surprises you. Because human error is everywhere around you, in ATC, in the cockpit, in the dispatch office, in the control tower, in the cabin, and in the maintenance shop. Because stuff breaks.

Every time I book a flight involving a regional operator, I cringe. Knowing how poorly trained SOME of those pilots are, I wish they make smart computer faster, so that pilotless planes will become a reality.

Actually, while the average experience level is lower in regionals*, the importance of the pilot is greater. The workload is higher with more take-offs and landings per day. They fly lower longer, which means they deal with bad weather far more. The aircraft has more critical performance, meaning the weight of 1 passenger and CG matters far more, and performance with an engine failure is (generally) lower, more difficult to deal with. Mainline aircraft are actually easier to fly, but with (usually) more systems to manage and more people on board to be responsible for.

*Because the pay is less. If pay was detached from aircraft size, that situation would change.

 

[abc]

The diehards can become driving hobbyists, just like audioholics still listening to vinyl records. As long as the hobbyists don't cause too many accidents in their dangerous manual drive mode, it will be a long time before they are completely banned. If they are eventually banned, it would probably happen first in the big cities.

Totally.

A high proportion of air collisions are from small planes flown by hobbyists. Or when small planes without transponder hitting big planes and bringing them down. But small planes are still allowed in most sky except the most congested airports.

Human driven cars will be on the road for a very long time. But as time goes by, it will be mostly be for hobbyists. Parts (steering wheels, brake pedals etc) will be harder and harder to come by for pre-computerized cars, just like vinyl record players. All manufacturers will probably only make a few performance models for the hobbyists.

But that's still a long way off. Computer driven cars aren't all that great yet, even in the mundane street driving task in good weather. It'll be a while before they can handle snow and ice as well (or as poorly) as the average drivers.

 

[mister moose]

We are saying the same thing.

The problem was way more than just identifying a stall. It was the inability to fly a partial panel. It was the automation design team thought-could-never-happen issue of 2 pilots on the controls (shouldn't happen, but did) moving them in opposite direction (shouldn't happen, but did) It was lots of other contributing details, which was why I took the time to write a page instead of a sentence.

 

[mister moose]

Totally.

A high proportion of air collisions are from small planes flown by hobbyists. Or when small planes without transponder hitting big planes and bringing them down. But small planes are still allowed in most sky except the most congested airports.

Source? None of this fits the data I've seen. And as far as I know you can still land any properly equipped civilian aircraft at any civilian airport.

 

[bigbog]

Autos:
Think they may appear for those grandmas, grandpas and eccentrics who challenge the minimums anyways and who, on occasion, apply the gas pedal by mistake...ending in tragic accidents. More on the Testing end should be happenning..imho. The issues are parking....nobody wants to design upwards = we're still in the Ponderosa era where RE wants as many units as physically possible developed = so ugly.

Aircraft:
Learned, tested up, flew long before I could drive = prehistoric times. I kind of cringe when the limited, required number of hours, due to automated systems, are mentioned now & then via media...usually in cases of company pressure to get to market...even before the flight schools, much less airlines(ie pilots/near future pilots) get adequate info on the systems...so nobody really has any idea of what they're flying. These days the excrement is covered up for profit...always seem to learn of these conditions AFTER crashes....not cool.

 

[Not Sure]

The problem was way more than just identifying a stall. It was the inability to fly a partial panel. It was the automation design team thought-could-never-happen issue of 2 pilots on the controls (shouldn't happen, but did) moving them in opposite direction (shouldn't happen, but did) It was lots of other contributing details, which was why I took the time to write a page instead of a sentence.

Actually that scenario happened some time ago and should have some type of warning system built in !!!! https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/11/the-crash-of-egyptair-990/302332/

 

[bigbog]

Good stuff mister moose....

 

[JimG.]

This topic admittedly makes me lose my mind.

Glad to see the discourse continues. I don't get avocado toast either.

 

[JimG.]

Driverless cars will coexist with drivable cars.

Are you also against motorcycles and buses? Those are nothing like cars, but you’re obligated to share the road with them. God forbid you have bicycles to deal with. Aren’t you afraid you’ll be forced not to drive but ride a bicycle or motorcycle just because someone dare to invent those? (like they dare to even THINK about inventing driverless cars!)

My “discomfort” isn’t so much caused by your distaste of driverless cars, it’s your distaste of anything other except cars. Did you not profess your distaste of anything YOU don’t personally drive?

Hey I'm good with whatever you want to call your wheels be it a bike, motorcycle, roller skates, scooter, or unicycle. Or a driverless car or a flying car for that matter.

Just don't try to take the steering wheel out of my hands, that's all.