full Automation. are we ready for that?

[aeromotacanucks]

it started today as a brainstorm and I think it might be a good conversation...

 

in Aviation we´re already used with computers taking charge of things because planes are complex and the fast you fly more sensitive the controls became to the point you will need some assistance from the computers. for example I had an experience of Pilot manually and airplane at 850km/h and honestly it´s REALLY sensitive, you move the controls 5cm and the plane goes wild to the point you will need think 10x ahead of the machine only because of the "speed fator"

 

after my aviation school formation I flew in the jungle where most of the machines were pretty much junkyards with wings with no automation at all and only my GPS as computer I pretty much had to do all the job, the few times I got something similar to automation I felt strange and honestly had some problems with the machine doing everything I was supposed to be doing (fly the airplane)

 

luckly after some fast training I learned how actually understand the autopilot and computers and Interact with them but even so I never forget the motto "let the machine do the job but Always stays ahead of it"

 

and I considered it pretty valid and I do it since them...

 

the machine does what it´s supposed to do but I Always stay way ahead of it because if the computer fails I will be ready to take charge...

 

 

 

my question is simple and I want everyone answer it considering your own opinion...

 

we´re now on the verging of self-driving cars that will drive without you do anything, drivers will have to suffer the same process that Pilots suffer when they pass from "full manual" to "full integrated machines"

 

are drivers ready to become "car managers" instead of regular drivers? are drivers ready to operate and understand how full automated computers work and actually believe on these computers?  

 

some of you will say "sure no problem I can do it" but honestly i don´t think it will be that easy for a non trained person actually do this...

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by aeromotacanucks

[falcon45ca]

Full automation?

 

 

I still jerk-off manually

[aeromotacanucks]

I gonna give na example...

 

imagine that tomorrow 3 types of cars are avaliable to the public:

 

normal: it has self driving capabilities but you can switch to "full manual" at any time, however the "automatic mode" cannot park for you or drive offroad...

 

semi-automatic: you can still drive manually if you want but it´s not fully manual, it´s more like "manual with computer assistance", the computer will let you drive where you want but will limit your speed and your agressive ways if detected. however it can park for you and drive offroad most of the time

 

full automatic: here you´re no longer a driver instead you´re merely a "button pusher", you turn on the car and tell where you want to go and the car does all, no manual controls, no gears, no human interface. all automatic without any human autority

 

 

make your choices...

Edited April 2, 2019 by aeromotacanucks

[Generational.EP40]

5 minutes ago, aeromotacanucks said:

I gonna give na example...

 

imagine that tomorrow 3 types of cars are avaliable to the public:

 

normal: it has self driving capabilities but you can switch to "full manual" at any time, however the "automatic mode" cannot park for you or drive offroad...

 

semi-automatic: you can still drive manually if you want but it´s not fully manual, it´s more like "manual with computer assistance", the computer will let you drive where you want but will limit your speed and your agressive ways if detected. however it can park for you and drive offroad most of the time

 

full automatic: here you´re no longer a driver instead you´re merely a "button pusher", you turn on the car and tell where you want to go and the car does all, no manual controls, no gears, no human interface. all automatic without any human autority

 

 

make your choices...

Why be limited to just 1 when you can have all 3 in 1?

 

/Tesla.

[aeromotacanucks]

4 minutes ago, Generational.EP40 said:

Why be limited to just 1 when you can have all 3 in 1?

 

/Tesla.

it´s just a brainstorm scenario

 

personally I don´t think the regular driver is ready to let the machine have full authority, humans have a natural instinct of have the final word and cars are pretty much the "last bastion" of it since planes, ships and trains already have some sort of automation...

 

also my question is how reliable will be this things on cars?

Edited April 2, 2019 by aeromotacanucks

[Generational.EP40]

2 minutes ago, aeromotacanucks said:

it´s just a brainstorm scenario

 

personally I don´t think the regular driver is ready to let the machine have full authority, humans have a natural instinct of have the final word and cars are pretty much the "last bastion" of it since planes, ships and trains already have some sort of automation...

 

also my question is how reliable will be this things on cars?

I’m for a mix of all as Telsa offers as example.

 

You can drive manually, drive semi with things like brake assistance on to help if the car feels you get dangerously close to a car, or fully auto where you sit back and relax not having to worry about any of the tensions/awarenesses that being in charge of the wheel does...at the end of the day it comes down to preference. Hypothetically I think it’d be weird if ALL cars in the future were fully auto leaving you with a sense of uselessness not having a say or doing anything. I don’t think it’ll ever come to that as in some movies etc so I’m not worried. As long as there’s an option for people they can choose as they please 

[Boest-er]

As a relatively new driver (1.5 years) I can say that I love taking the wheel and driving.

 

It's a fun thing to do to just bump some music and take a nice little drive somewhere quiet where there's any traffic. So I would choose the first option of driving yourself everywhere.

[canuckistani]

46 minutes ago, aeromotacanucks said:

it started today as a brainstorm and I think it might be a good conversation...

 

in Aviation we´re already used with computers taking charge of things because planes are complex and the fast you fly more sensitive the controls became to the point you will need some assistance from the computers. for example I had an experience of Pilot manually and airplane at 850km/h and honestly it´s REALLY sensitive, you move the controls 5cm and the plane goes wild to the point you will need think 10x ahead of the machine only because of the "speed fator"

 

after my aviation school formation I flew in the jungle where most of the machines were pretty much junkyards with wings with no automation at all and only my GPS as computer I pretty much had to do all the job, the few times I got something similar to automation I felt strange and honestly had some problems with the machine doing everything I was supposed to be doing (fly the airplane)

 

luckly after some fast training I learned how actually understand the autopilot and computers and Interact with them but even so I never forget the motto "let the machine do the job but Always stays ahead of it"

 

and I considered it pretty valid and I do it since them...

 

the machine does what it´s supposed to do but I Always stay way ahead of it because if the computer fails I will be ready to take charge...

 

 

 

my question is simple and I want everyone answer it considering your own opinion...

 

we´re now on the verging of self-driving cars that will drive without you do anything, drivers will have to suffer the same process that Pilots suffer when they pass from "full manual" to "full integrated machines"

 

are drivers ready to become "car managers" instead of regular drivers? are drivers ready to operate and understand how full automated computers work and actually believe on these computers?  

 

some of you will say "sure no problem I can do it" but honestly i don´t think it will be that easy for a non trained person actually do this...

I don't think car industry is easily modelled after the trends of aviation industry. Cars, by definition, are driven by the owner themselves and not providing a service to a bunch of individuals like a plane is. 
Also, the same systemic pressures on aviation technology does not exist in automotive one : planes are designed to fly as fast as possible while being as fuel efficient as possible. Cars are not, since we have mandated speed controls in our roadways. 

 

Furthermore, driving is one of those things where a lot of people enjoy driving a car ( though I am yet to meet one who enjoys grinding gridlock traffic). As such, you may want to compare car drivers to those aviators who are strictly recreational pilots only - do they prefer a cessna where they have to take more controls or a bombardier business jet that is more automated ?

 

So all in all, i don't think self-driving cars will have as much of a traction as automated piloting systems for planes. They may find easy purchase amongst bus drivers and mass transit operators, but i don't see very many people wanting to give up driving as they do right now. 

[Nuxfanabroad]

I prefer cycling..you cats can choose. But we're 'tech-ing' our way to extinction..so I don't give a crap.

 

Back to wooden ships is cool too.(everyone just slow down, & make that footprint smaller!)

[canuckistani]

19 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

I prefer cycling..you cats can choose. But we're 'tech-ing' our way to extinction..so I don't give a crap.

 

Back to wooden ships is cool too.(everyone just slow down, & make that footprint smaller!)

mate, that is nonsense. Global warming, depletion of resources and collapsing of wildlife will have dire consequences on this planet and species homo sapiens. But extinction ? I think not. 70,000 years ago, lake Toba supervolcano went active. It is one of the mega-extinction events/doomsday scenario sci-fi people vacillate on all the time. See how many 'how screwed are we if Yellowstone went bang' documentaries exist. Well, Lake Toba event was quite literally that. During the stone age. reduced us to roughly 10,000-20,000 breeding pairs globally. And 70,000 years later we are at 7.5 billion.

Pretty sure whatever the effects of climate change are, unless we irradiate this entire planet in a nuclear holocaust, we are not going extinct. 

[aeromotacanucks]

1 minute ago, canuckistani said:

I don't think car industry is easily modelled after the trends of aviation industry. Cars, by definition, are driven by the owner themselves and not providing a service to a bunch of individuals like a plane is. 
Also, the same systemic pressures on aviation technology does not exist in automotive one : planes are designed to fly as fast as possible while being as fuel efficient as possible. Cars are not, since we have mandated speed controls in our roadways. 

 

Furthermore, driving is one of those things where a lot of people enjoy driving a car ( though I am yet to meet one who enjoys grinding gridlock traffic). As such, you may want to compare car drivers to those aviators who are strictly recreational pilots only - do they prefer a cessna where they have to take more controls or a bombardier business jet that is more automated ?

 

So all in all, i don't think self-driving cars will have as much of a traction as automated piloting systems for planes. They may find easy purchase amongst bus drivers and mass transit operators, but i don't see very many people wanting to give up driving as they do right now. 

really? by the owner themselves?

 

so UBER is what excatly? I´m paying somebody to drive my own car?

 

 

really? the Concorde disagree. Concorde was created to be "supersonic eficient", the purpose was to create a plane that would spend less fuel because it would fly faster, but obviously when you have massive turbojets and the transonic acceleration requires afterburners you will spend way more fuel. so not necessarily speed and fuel efficiency can be achieved at once...

 

and you´re not considering the ATC itself, doesn´t matter if you fly fast when you have to hold at 10000ft because a Cessna at 80kts is ahead of you and by law who comes 1st get 1st. because including these there´s a lot of rules that goes way beyond logic such as helicopters having their routes connected with airplane routes (happens in Vancouver) so it´s not only about the machine being eficient but the entire airspace being eficiente...

 

however that hydroplane flying at 2000ft crossing the final approach will force that Air Canada B777 do some hold or do the final segment slowly. this is why wings today are also being optimised to fly slowly so the plane can land short and use less runway possible allowing it use more airports and be more flexible...

 

just see the B787, a plane that can fly safely at Mach 0.84 yet has a VAPP of 140kts (or even less), a B767 much older than it fly at M0.80 and has a VAPP of 150kts

 

even recreational pilots want some sort of automation while others don´t, that´s why Cirrus is so popular to the point they´re creating a jet. is a great plane for professional but also for leasure flights yet people complain that sometimes Cirrus is more automated than an Airbus

 

some Cessnas are WAY MORE AUTOMATED THAN A BOMBARDIER. apparently you never entered on a Cessna Citation XLS with proline avionics and the XLS can make almost any Bombardier look like a B52 in terms of old tecnology. actually even some very old planes can be upgrated to new tecnologies.

 

you still classify a Cessna as "those single engine buzzy planes" but apparently never saw the state-of-the art of their jets or even props. the Cirrus is a 4 seat piston plane yet you can manage it on the same way you manage na Airbus

 

lot of people enjoy drive cars because they have only this option. when the "self driving car" option come many people will say "&^@# it I go automatic" because drive on a city sucks and even on highways you will drive manually only for short periods of time. studies show that on a 8 hour trip drivers will drive for not more than 1 hour...

 

and with computers taking charge you don´t have to put speed limits because pretty much the entire system will be "self communicative", cars will "talk" with each other on the same way airplanes do today (using the TCAS) so with better communication cars will know what´s happening many KMs ahead...

 

heck even the car my boss have has a HUD. a HUD. when I looked it I saw a very similar version I saw on a plane!  

 

 

 

 

[canuckistani]

Just now, aeromotacanucks said:

really? by the owner themselves?

 

so UBER is what excatly? I´m paying somebody to drive my own car?

 

Do you understand what bulk majority means ? Do you realize that over 90% of automobiles outside of the 'bus' class, are driven by the owners of said automobiles for personal usage ? 

 

 

Just now, aeromotacanucks said:

really? the Concorde disagree. Concorde was created to be "supersonic eficient", the purpose was to create a plane that would spend less fuel because it would fly faster, but obviously when you have massive turbojets and the transonic acceleration requires afterburners you will spend way more fuel. so not necessarily speed and fuel efficiency can be achieved at once...

Again, please improve your english before you contest a non-point. I said planes are designed to fly as fast as possible WHILE being as fuel efficient as possible. Its a sweet spot of intersection in a graph having two lines, in this case. Concorde failed because they were not meeting that graph's sweet spot and the only thing they had to offer was a 50% reduction in flight times at the expense of 5x the ticket price. 

Just now, aeromotacanucks said:

 

 

even recreational pilots want some sort of automation while others don´t, that´s why Cirrus is so popular to the point they´re creating a jet. is a great plane for professional but also for leasure flights yet people complain that sometimes Cirrus is more automated than an Airbus

I am simply stating that your comparison to planes in general is with busses or mass transit for the model employed. If you wish to compare cars, compare it more or less with recreational pilots who fly their own planes because they want to. 

Just now, aeromotacanucks said:

 

lot of people enjoy drive cars because they have only this option. when the "self driving car" option come many people will say "&^@# it I go automatic" because drive on a city sucks and even on highways you will drive manually only for short periods of time. studies show that on a 8 hour trip drivers will drive for not more than 1 hour...

And a lot of people will still want to drive their cars because they also like driving or won't trust technology to not screw up for a long, long time. 

Just now, aeromotacanucks said:

 

and with computers taking charge you don´t have to put speed limits because pretty much the entire system will be "self communicative", cars will "talk" with each other on the same way airplanes do today (using the TCAS) so with better communication cars will know what´s happening many KMs ahead...

Without complete rehaul of the road systems, we are not going to see much improvement on driving speeds anyways, not outside of the rural areas, as most city roads are already saturated. 

 

[aeromotacanucks]

Cessna Citation XLS+ as everybody can see not even the &^@#ing backup instruments are analog anymore...

 

[kingofsurrey]

My local McDonalds used to have 3 cashiers....

 

They renovated and installed 2 touch screen order machines.. and kept 1 cashier...

 

Now . - no one over the age of 10  uses either of the 2 touchscreens..   Big line ups to use the now ONE human cashier....

 

Inconclusive but  definately not a vote for Automation...

[aeromotacanucks]

13 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Do you understand what bulk majority means ? Do you realize that over 90% of automobiles outside of the 'bus' class, are driven by the owners of said automobiles for personal usage ? 

 

 

Again, please improve your english before you contest a non-point. I said planes are designed to fly as fast as possible WHILE being as fuel efficient as possible. Its a sweet spot of intersection in a graph having two lines, in this case. Concorde failed because they were not meeting that graph's sweet spot and the only thing they had to offer was a 50% reduction in flight times at the expense of 5x the ticket price. 

I am simply stating that your comparison to planes in general is with busses or mass transit for the model employed. If you wish to compare cars, compare it more or less with recreational pilots who fly their own planes because they want to. 

And a lot of people will still want to drive their cars because they also like driving or won't trust technology to not screw up for a long, long time. 

Without complete rehaul of the road systems, we are not going to see much improvement on driving speeds anyways, not outside of the rural areas, as most city roads are already saturated. 

 

Concorde failed because the FAA prohibited supersonic flights over USA. at the time PAN-AM wanted to buy 100 Concordes, then Boeing decided to buy the fight and design their SST...

 

at that time PAN-AM said if Boeing could build a 300 seat SST they would buy it instead of the Concorde. even J.F Kennedy supported the idea...

 

since Concorde didn´t have the range to fly from USA to South America Airlines in USA wanted to create a "supersonic domestic niche" like NY-LA, and with the FAA ban all these plans were destroyed

 

then when Boeing said it couldn´t do its SST the American aviation industry didn´t want see the Concorde taking their skies so American politicians and Boeing pressured the FAA to BAN SUPERSONIC FLIGHTS OVER POPULATED AREAS

 

without this ban the Concorde would sell at least 300 units and would be a hit, however when Boeing said "we cannot make our 300 seat SST" politics entered and said "nope"

 

concorde didn´t fail because it was expensive, it failed because it only had one Market, transatlantic flights...

 

if the Concorde was allowed to fly over inland areas the plane would sell more than any conventional jet...

 

 

it´s not only me saying this. it´s history and ANY AVIATOR KNOWS THIS

Edited April 2, 2019 by aeromotacanucks

[Nuxfanabroad]

My roboto French-maid is CUTE, perky, & she wheels around on solar power. Even has a vacuum-option!

[Guest]

I have a math background with enough comp sci sprinkled in to understand some parts of automation.  

 

It does make me sad that there aren't any substantial amounts of good jobs popping up though to replace the ones lost to automation.  

 

I'm a few years deep getting into the electrical trade, so I expect my job prospects to increase however things don't look that great for the regular Joe Blow unless there is a radicalized step forward taken by government to distribute the wealth more evenly.  

 

Those are my thoughts on automation, unrelated to your original post. 

[canuckistani]

9 minutes ago, aeromotacanucks said:

Concorde failed because the FAA prohibited supersonic flights over USA. at the time PAN-AM wanted to buy 100 Concordes, then Boeing decided to buy the fight and design their SST...

If that was the case, then Concorde would've continued flying out of NYC and Philadelphia, given how their airports are close to the seaboard.

Concorde to me, failed because the only discernable benefit - reducing a trans-atlantic flight from 7 hours to 3 came at a 5-6 times the ticket price. Very few people are in that much of a hurry. 

9 minutes ago, aeromotacanucks said:

 

if the Concorde was allowed to fly over inland areas the plane would sell more than any conventional jet...

it´s not only me saying this. it´s history and ANY AVIATOR KNOWS THIS

I completely disagree. If it would succeed if more than trans-oceanic flights were allowed, Concorde would've succeeded in nations that do not have bans on supersonic overland flights - like China for eg. 

[aeromotacanucks]

8 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

If that was the case, then Concorde would've continued flying out of NYC and Philadelphia, given how their airports are close to the seaboard.

Concorde to me, failed because the only discernable benefit - reducing a trans-atlantic flight from 7 hours to 3 came at a 5-6 times the ticket price. Very few people are in that much of a hurry. 

I completely disagree. If it would succeed if more than trans-oceanic flights were allowed, Concorde would've succeeded in nations that do not have bans on supersonic overland flights - like China for eg. 

does "transonic acceleration" mean anything to you? you need at least 300 miles to do this. AT LEAST 300 miles, not to mention the departure, noise reduction, descent, arrival and the procedure itself. there´s no way a Concorde would match a B737-200 on this route...

 

then you have to decelerate. and there we go with another 300 miles. meaning you need at least 900 miles just for the transitioning stage

 

you can´t simply go straight to the sea, accelerate then reduce. big jets do not accelerate like fighters. especially when you have to break the sound barrier...

 

really? so why China didn´t simply ignored the FAA and purchased some? have you actually stayed near a "sonic boom" area?

 

because I did and if a single F15 already make you feel the "stomp" imagine a thing with the size of a B727 rushing at mach 2. even USAF made na experiment about it...

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by aeromotacanucks

[canuckistani]

8 minutes ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I have a math background with enough comp sci sprinkled in to understand some parts of automation.  

 

It does make me sad that there aren't any substantial amounts of good jobs popping up though to replace the ones lost to automation.  

 

I'm a few years deep getting into the electrical trade, so I expect my job prospects to increase however things don't look that great for the regular Joe Blow unless there is a radicalized step forward taken by government to distribute the wealth more evenly.  

 

Those are my thoughts on automation, unrelated to your original post. 

well automation has always taken away from manpower. Automation in farming = less farmers pushing a plough while whipping a cow or a horse. Automation in weaving = less weavers in textile industry.

As such, automation will create more excess manpower. Which may or may not be channelled into other fields, such as R&D. IMO, automation or not, there is always scope for physicists, materials engineers etc to do research and while it won't absorb all the excess manpower, it will soften the blow ever so slightly.