backtop

Print 61 comment(s) - last by Fritzr.. on Aug 15 at 10:05 PM

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II could take advantage of the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System (Auto-GCAS)
Auto-GCAS software will take over flight controls from pilot to prevent controlled flight into ground

According to the United States Air Force, the current manual “warning only” collision systems don’t prevent many of the controlled-flight-into-terrain accidents. This is partly due to the fact that warning lights or tones don’t offer any help if the pilot has lost consciousness or has lost their situational awareness.

To help reduce these accidents, the Air Force recently announced that it will begin implementing a new piece of software into some of their advanced fighter jets including the F-16 Fighting Falcon, F-22 Raptor, and the F-35 Lightning II.

The new software application is called Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System, or Auto-GCAS. Auto-GCAS takes into account data from a number of factors including the aircraft weight, performance, positional information and digital terrain elevation data to calculate the aircraft’s relative position to the earth. It then calculates the maneuvers required to prevent a collision with the ground.

Rather than simply telling the pilot what to do to avoid the collision, Auto-GCAS actually takes over control of the aircraft and performs the maneuvers autonomously when the software finds that the aircraft is within 1.5 seconds of the point of no return for collision with the ground and no action has been taken by the pilot.

“Initially, we put the ( GCAS ) program on aircraft for flight safety during other tests, but discovered it may have a lot more importance than for just the prime things we were asked to look into,” said Mark Skoog, Auto-GCAS test director and chief engineer at NASA. “We realized we might have a technology that’s very useful and that nobody even considered was feasible at that point in time.”

Officials said that the technology has so far performed over 2,500 automated recoveries over flat terrain and 700 automated recoveries using digital terrain. Skoog went on to say, “The main focus of our testing is to make sure we have a nuisance-free system that isn’t going to come on when an aggressive pilot doesn’t want it to.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Might be good
By Comdrpopnfresh on 8/8/2007 12:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
If this could get exploited by other countries, as the F-22 will be sold abroad, then I feel someone will be kicking themselves.

I feel this is a proving ground to replace pilots. The one thing the military and designers of the F-22 keep dwelling on is the 'disappointing' fact that the machine is held back by the pilot. I feel this is a step in a potentially bad direction given my first problem with the premise. Plus I don't want multi-million dollar software protecting the skies of my country- I would like pilots worth multi-millions of dollars in training, that have a stake in what's on the ground, protecting it...




RE: Might be good
By mcturkey on 8/8/2007 1:11:50 AM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of automated "drones" in use right now, and they're not just equipped with cameras anymore. I likewise would rather not see machines take over control of our military resources, but as long as there is a human behind the decision to use that resource, I am alright with it - for now. We've all been trained by Hollywood to believe that we must never allow machines to conduct all the thinking in a military engagement. Of course, scientists and engineers like to believe they can control it anyway.

But all that is beside the point. It's a far cry from ground collision avoidance software to software that does all the flying for you. Auto-GCAS is little more than the system in new luxury cars that applies maximum braking power when it detects that a collision is unavoidable, only this system does it 1.5 seconds before that point. This kind of software isn't really adaptable to doing the actual flying, although the ability to do that already exists elsewhere to a limited extent.


RE: Might be good
By Christopher1 on 8/8/07, Rating: -1
RE: Might be good
By Lord 666 on 8/8/2007 6:46:21 AM , Rating: 3
I bet you also prefer your hand over a real female too.

Overall, the US military are professionals with the rare exception of crimes as you mention.


RE: Might be good
By nomagic on 8/8/2007 2:21:03 AM , Rating: 2
I am so convinced that the U.S. air force has ways to take down US-exported fighter jets "unconventionally."

Of course this is just a theory.


RE: Might be good
By helios220 on 8/8/2007 9:09:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am so convinced that the U.S. air force has ways to take down US-exported fighter jets "unconventionally."


Ironically, we sort of do but it is not as cool as you might imagine. Rather than having some hidden 'You go boom now!' button on the plane we generally just do our best to ensure that no spare parts are available to countries who happen to have US technology that we no longer care for. Complex military aircraft require constant maintenance and support to keep flying, so a owning a jet alone is not generally enough.

Case in point, Iran. Before the revolution we sold the Shah F-15 Eagles, at the time the best air superiority fighter in the world. After the revolution we had a hard-line Islamic government in possession with some of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. The capabilities of the Iranian F-15s were greatly reduced by the US embargo on both material and technical support pertaining to the aircraft, however nonetheless while many of the original aircraft have been long since grounded the Iranians have managed to keep some F-15s operational for decades.


RE: Might be good
By dwo on 8/8/2007 9:49:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Before the revolution we sold the Shah F-15 Eagles, at the time the best air superiority fighter in the world.


We sold the Shah F-14 Tomcats. 79 of them to be exact. They chose it over the F-15 because of some bugs that the F-15 was having at the time of purchase.

http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F14/f14.h...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/...


RE: Might be good
By helios220 on 8/8/2007 11:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
You are of course correct but it doesn't really change the point at all.

I didn't have a chance to double check earlier and even though I kept thinking it was the F-14 when I was writing but then I laughed and said, 'why would an arid Middle Eastern country purchase a maritime (carrier-borne) fighter'. Apparently I should trust my gut insticnt.


RE: Might be good
By P4blo on 8/8/2007 9:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
Aircraft have to be very carefully maintained. They are constantly stripped down and rebuilt. If just one 'gadget' was found which could do this, America's military contracts would dissolve over night. It would be about the stupidest thing they could possibly do.


RE: Might be good
By donttrustme on 8/8/2007 3:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
This sure will be very much helpful when there is a lot of atmospheric disturbances. The biggest problem the pilots face is the wind pressure(Correct me if im wrong) a slight miscalculation and they might end up shattering the plane.


RE: Might be good
By Ringold on 8/8/2007 3:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of planes don't cruise significantly higher than their maximum maneuvering speed, but what you say may have significance for high speed travel, where a powerful gust could indeed bend some metal.

But on the other hand, I thought the computer significantly "assisted" at high speeds anyway, with the human hand not being able to effectively make the minute inputs for high speed maneuvering?


RE: Might be good
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/8/2007 7:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
I would point out that the F-22 will never be sold to other countries.


RE: Might be good
By masher2 (blog) on 8/8/2007 7:45:18 AM , Rating: 2
Never say never in science or politics. The F-22 is currently barred for foreign sale. But if I remember right, the F-16 was likewise barred initially...but within 5 years, we sold them to Israel, and 5 years after that, were selling slightly watered-down versions all over the world.


RE: Might be good
By bolders on 8/8/2007 8:12:55 AM , Rating: 2
I agree but don’t think its likely to happen until the US has a new design/ technology that will outshine the F22 in the same way that the F22 currently outshines its predecessors. If you supply your allies military hardware but dont ever sell your latest and greatest technology then you will ensure you always maintain technological superiority over them


RE: Might be good
By helios220 on 8/8/2007 9:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
While it is true that the original intention was never to export the F-22, as stated I would not go as far to say 'never'.

The overall enormous cost of the F-22 program has resulted in reduced production numbers, which has in turn driven up the cost per plane. Increasing production by permitting additional sales to trusted key US allies is a good way to boost production and reduce costs, potentially even allowing the US to afford more F-22s.

quote:
Japan has expressed interest in purchasing the F-22A Raptor aircraft from the U.S., the report says. "Although the export of the plane is now prohibited by U.S. law, Congress has recently and may again consider repealing this ban."
--AviationWeek

However it is kind of a moot point anyway. While the F-22 was not a multinational program from the start, the F-35 which is mentioned in the article is. The F-35 will be widely exported; we are even selling them to Turkey.


RE: Might be good
By Ringold on 8/8/2007 3:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
Turkey shouldn't be a big surprise; our only NATO ally in the area.

A question, though; does the cost to us for an F-22 go down by promising LockMart & Boeing we'll let them export it eventually and they therefore agree to lower prices, or do we still pay top dollar now and later make LockMart & Boeing fork over a piece of the action when they export?

Just curious how that works is all, and those are the two setups that came to mind.


RE: Might be good
By mdogs444 on 8/8/2007 8:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
The F-22 is not being sold to other foreign countries for quite some time. Sure they sold the F-16, but this is no longer the glory days of the Top Gun movie. The items we sell abroad are considered obsolete technology which we have replaced with 2+ generation newer technology. So as opposed to scrapping billions and billions worth of old tech, we sell them and help fund our R&D for newer technology.

All in all, it really is a win win for us. They get our old technology - which we already know the limits of, how they can be used, and what we can do against them. Its like planning the enemies attack for them, so we know it ahead of time.


RE: Might be good
By masher2 (blog) on 8/8/2007 10:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
> "Sure they sold the F-16, but this is no longer the glory days of the Top Gun movie...The items we sell abroad are considered obsolete technology which we have replaced with 2+ generation newer technology"

The F-16 was being sold to Israel in 1980, just two years after the Air Force received their first models. At the time, it was our newest fighter and top of the line technology; a far cry from "2+ generations" out of date. A year later, it was being sold to Pakistan and Egypt.

Trusted allies like Britain, Israel, etc, tend to get hardware equal or very near to what we possess. The further one goes down the trust ladder, the older the hardware one gets.


RE: Might be good
By Cygni on 8/8/2007 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
The F-16 was never our latest and greatest fighter, however. The F-16 slotted into the role now being replaced by the F-35. A light, manuverable, cheaper fighter with multi role capability and greater numbers than its more expensive and larger cousins in the US Air Force. By the time the F-16 was delievered, the F-15... arguably the greatest fighter ever produced... was already serving in operational units.

The F-16, just like the F-35, was designed as a multinational program from the very start. It was always assumed that foreign countries would buy a large number of F-16s, just like it was assumed that the F-35 would do well abroad as well.

The F-15, however, did have tight export controls placed on it for much of its life... to this day infact. There are only THREE non US operators of the F-15. Japan, Saudia Arabia, and Israel... and trust me, this isnt from lack of interest. The F-22's export will be even more stringent for one simple reason:

Stealth. The F-22's stealth capabilities, as well as its advancements in its cockpit, and of course supercruise, make its expert incredibly unlikely to anyone but Isarael for the forseeable future... were talking 30+ years. As of right now, the F-22 is so incredibly ahead of any other fighter made or even on the drawing board that the USAF is planning its operational life well well down the road.

The short of it is this: The F-22 is so far ahead of the rest of the world, that we arent going to be giving that advantage away any time soon.


RE: Might be good
By Cygni on 8/8/2007 2:37:22 PM , Rating: 2
I should also note that South Korea and Singapore have recently been allowed to place orders for the ground attack focused F-15E Strike Eagle. It should be noted that they are taking delivery of the F-15E's some thirty five years after the first F-15 took flight... that should give some glimpse into the future of the F-22.


RE: Might be good
By Chillin1248 on 8/8/2007 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget, the first 25 F-15A/B were reconditioned USAF evaluation machines with degraded-systems, equipping IAF (Israeli Air Force) squadron 133rd.

-------
Chillin


RE: Might be good
By 1078feba on 8/9/2007 11:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, we sell them stripped down version of our platforms, but never underestimate what those countries are capable of doing on their own when it comes to mods and upgrades.

The Israeli's, all by their lonesome, have made some incredible leaps forward in homegrown avionics/weapons packages. Every once in a while it even outclasses the latest stuff we have have on the same platform, necessity being the mother of invention and all.

I shudder to think what the Indians are capable of, seeing as how, it seems to me, that a very, very high percentage of them go on to higher education and concentrate in science and math.


RE: Might be good
By hellokeith on 8/8/2007 11:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
The F-22 will not be sold to other countries, including the US' biggest allies of UK, Israel, & Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21222473-2,00...


Nice work
By HrilL on 8/8/2007 1:20:19 AM , Rating: 1
I think this has more to do with saving the $180 million aircraft more than it does the pilot that operates them. Pilots come a lot cheaper then these planes do. But either way it seems like a very good idea since they are capable of do maneuvers that will can knock the pilots out and this will save both the pilot and the aircraft.




RE: Nice work
By bolders on 8/8/2007 7:47:54 AM , Rating: 2
Errr no... The cost to fully train a pilot is huge and the process is ongoing. You cannot replace a pilot in a few months like you can an aircraft... IT takes years.
I cant give you figures for the total training costs for a pilot but im sure its a lot more than the aircraft.

Also $180 million is a massively overestimated cost. The F22 costs about $85 million which is almost double the cost of the next most expensive planes (F15, Eurofighter etc) and is one of its biggest drawbacks hence one of the reasons for the development of the F35.

Further more this is all numerical data without even taking into account the human aspect and the fact that a life is irreplaceable.


RE: Nice work
By 1078feba on 8/8/2007 1:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
Aahhh, you may have been correct in saying that a 30-40 years, but not today. Not when you take into account the Fleet Life Expectancy (FLE) of a given platform. Naturally FLE and associated maint costs are going to vary platform to platform, fixed vs rotary wing, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's go with your figure of $85 million per acft for the Raptor.

That is just the inital purchase cost. It doesn't take into account maint costs, or airframe/hardware/software upgrade costs, which during the roughly 25 year lifespan of an average air superiority/strike fighter acft will easily be in the 10's of millions of dollars range. What about the salaries of all those maintainers, be they service members or civilian artisans, both at the squadron level (O-level) and the maintenance squadron level (I-Level, while civilian artisans are D-Level)? For every pilot who walks the flight line at a given Marine Corps VMFA (Hornets)squadron, there are, at an absolute bare minimum, 30 maintainers throughout the all other levels of command dedicated to keeping that acft operational. The Air Force, which is going to deploy the Raptor, has quite a bit more. The average O-level VMFA has 120 Marines, only 16-18 of which are pilots (F/A-18A's and C's/single seat, double the number for D's with a WizzO). I'm not even mentioning the the cost of the inventory of spare parts/engines. That figure is astronomical. Even at $4 million/pilot for flight school training and their time at the RAG (approx 2.5-3 years), it's an absolute bargain. I'll be generous and tack on another $10 million per pilot for all the training and flying done until they reach mid-LtCol, which is the last rank one can reach and still reside at a gun squadron and fly a couple of times a week. Col's and higher command at the MAG level and higher, thus don't fly combat mission usually.

Strictly in the sense of dollars to produce and maintain, today modern military jet aircraft are far more expensive than the pilots who fly them.


RE: Nice work
By Black69ta on 8/8/2007 3:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
True that is part of Cost of ownership but once the plane is confetti then it no longer counts, those support crews aren't fired if one Jet is destroyed, you don't have to re-train them so they can learn to maintain the next jet in the hanger, not talking about next Generation here, so that isn't a factor in the losses involved by a jet crash. and I think that the pilots are worth a lot more than the Jets for the simple fact that even ignoring the money part of training, the time is enormous and even if they have a class start fighter training is there even 10% that make it to the end? Crash a plane on the front lines and they could have a new one delivered in days. The training of our Pilots has always been our advantage, even during WWII when the Japanese had a better plane they had to resort to Suicide Planes because that was a lot easier than dogfighting our pilots.


RE: Nice work
By 1078feba on 8/9/2007 10:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True that is part of Cost of ownership but once the plane is confetti then it no longer counts,


quote:
Crash a plane on the front lines and they could have a new one delivered in days


These two statements contradict each other. The acft that made a smoking hole in the ground is a sunk cost, and the "new" one to which you blithely refer is not a freebie, it has to be paid for also, otherwise all you are doing is shifting assets around and shorting some unit somewhere an acft. Do you have any idea how much it takes to restart a production line at Boeing once it's been shut down? Think "Act of Congress". Or how about the costs of upgrading that line so that the "new" acft has all the latest avionics/weps systems?

Any idea how much just the Corrosion Control Program alone costs at one of the B-2 squadrons with their top secret radar energy absorbing paint? You can't just repaint it anytime you feel like. You can't do that to ANY military aircraft because it adds, depending upon size, at least a hundred pounds every time you do it without first stripping off the old paint.

Apart from crew rest considerations, why is it that every squadron in every service has more pilots than aircraft? Why, if pilots are so much more expensive to train and keep current than buying and maintaining the acft, is it highly likely that the entire command structure of a squadron is likely to be cashiered if some junior O-3 fresh out of the RAG crashes an acft? I've seen it happen. There goes a senior LtCol, another junior LtCol/senior Major, and that junior Capt, right out the door, never to fly again, all that experience already paid for, lost.

quote:
they have a class start fighter training is there even 10% that make it to the end?


This is superfluous. In the Navy/Marine Corps, you get assigned a platform based on your performance at flight school. Doing it this way ensures that the more technically demanding aircraft get the better pilots, and has no effect on overall cost.

The arguement I am making is strictly in terms of dollars and cents. Humanistically, I agree, life is invaluable. But don't kid yourself, acft are more expensive than pilots.


RE: Nice work
By Fritzr on 8/15/2007 10:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
Fly the plane into the ground and you've lost the 'sunk' cost ... loved that in this usage :D However you save the future maintenance and operation costs of this aircraft. The replacement is a new unit for accounting purposes so the cost is lower than for an aircraft that continues to the end of it's service life.

The replacement cost of a pilot includes time which is budgeted by the calendar, not the bankbook.

The British and the Germans learned this lesson in WWII. The Germans were turning out bleeding edge aircraft that were quite effective, but did not have combat pilots to put in the seats.
The Brits won the Battle of Britain after Germany stopped attacking the airfields. By not destroying the aircraft support system they failed to knock off the RAF.

Attack the personnel & you have replacement times measured in years and combat experience that cannot be trained. Attack the hardware and you force the factories to ramp up production. The latter has worked every time it has come to a crunch.


RE: Nice work
By HrilL on 8/8/2007 11:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know where you get your price from...

quote:
Had they been, it could have been a disastrous folly by the U.S. Air Force to have to admit that their aircraft which cost $125+ million USD apiece were knocked out of the sky due to a few lines of computer code.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6225

So I might have stated something a little high but with all the other costs it wasn't too far off imo.


RE: Nice work
By bolders on 8/9/2007 7:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
I got the price of the F22 from here

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/con...

although i do recognise that the report was written in 1999 and so cost may have changed a bit since then


Great stuff
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/8/2007 8:20:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think something like this should start to be used on conventional planes, specially in some south American countries where plane accidents due to miss coordination are almost every week news.




RE: Great stuff
By mdogs444 on 8/8/2007 8:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
But can they afford to equip their planes with this type of technology?


RE: Great stuff
By threepac3 on 8/8/2007 8:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't some commercial airliners now equip with lasers? -To disrupt missile guidance systems.


RE: Great stuff
By mdogs444 on 8/8/2007 8:50:56 AM , Rating: 2
I dont believe those are in full production planes yet, and not sure if they've really been fully tested either.

I remember when i was back in college at Kent State U around 2000, KSU had a govt grant to attempt development of a missle defense system on planes by using LCD. The liquid crystal would act similar to looking into a crystal and seeing several identical images, thus making the missle not truly know which was real. Not sure how far they ever got on that though. Note that KSU actually invented LCD a long long time ago, on a small scale, and has since been changed so many times into what we see today in watches, monitors, etc.


RE: Great stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 8/8/2007 10:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
> "Note that KSU actually invented LCD a long long time ago"

Actually, a KSU researcher invented TN-based LCDs, but LCD displays were already in use prior to this.


RE: Great stuff
By stromgald on 8/8/2007 11:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont believe those are in full production planes yet, and not sure if they've really been fully tested either.


I believe they are in full production and have been authroized for use by the FAA. Right now, they're first being implemented on FedEx (or was it UPS?) cargo planes. Most airlines are waiting for this pilot program to be completed before jumping aboard.


RE: Great stuff
By Ringold on 8/8/2007 3:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why this would be significantly more expensive; commercial planes already have three or four auto-pilot systems that cross check each other, and ground avoidance systems.

A couple extra wires and software patches.. why not?

I read about ADS-B equipment in AOPA Pilot this week though -- now if they can get *that* down to the cost of a Mode C transponder, then we'll all be much, much better off.

Most CFIT (controlled flight in to terrain) in the US however comes largely from scud-running in marginal VFR. Forgive me if I don't shed a bunch of tears over that one. Might be useful in aerobatics, but couldn't support it as part of a minimum equipment rule, as if most planes need it then they're breaking the rules or not following their IFR clearences very well.


Thwarting 9/11-type Incidents?
By blaster5k on 8/8/2007 7:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this sort of technology could be used on commercial airliners as well, perhaps making it difficult for someone to deliberately crash a plane.




RE: Thwarting 9/11-type Incidents?
By borowki on 8/8/2007 9:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm, obviously the pilot must be able to turn off the system--otherwise you can't land!


RE: Thwarting 9/11-type Incidents?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/8/2007 10:38:52 AM , Rating: 2
Just spitballing here, but I assume a hypothetical system would maintain a GPS-accurate list of acceptable runways, and automatically prevent landing at any but those sites.

It'd still need some sort of override for emergency landings outside these areas...but that could be handled via a ground control authorization, and not possible directly via the cockpit.


RE: Thwarting 9/11-type Incidents?
By 1078feba on 8/8/2007 1:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
Ultimately, it has to be overideable from the cockpit.

No American pilot in their right mind is ever going to strap a hypersonic-capable aircraft to their six and punch holes in the sky without being the final arbiter of authority in that cockpit.

It's an article of faith among the zoomies...


RE: Thwarting 9/11-type Incidents?
By Ringold on 8/8/2007 4:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. In an accident, communication may be disabled, decisions may have to be made fast, and if PIC's are going to be the ones to be roasted or praised depending on the outcome then PIC's should have full authority.

I think the risk is a little overblown, too. Post-911, maybe they'd get a bomb on a plane, but take one over? If passengers dont believe they're going to use the plane as a flying cruise missile then they've been under a giant rock.

http://www.secretsauce.tv/ (their united 300 clip)

That'd probably be the scene (minus the spears).

I've come up with really inventive ways to relay a particular squawk, and I'm not sharing, but I'm sure all "zoomies" have a few things in mind. Hopefully I wont have to eat these words, but I don't think there will be another 9-11 where a bunch of terrorists successfully hijack a passenger plane and hold it long enough to hit anything important. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm vigilant when I fly commercially. I was on a Northwest flight recently and they kept the cockpit door open almost until we were holding short of the active, and I didn't relax until it was sealed.

Though, I can understand why it was open. FFS, somebody needs to figure out how to make airconditioning on the ground more effective, especially when we have people sitting there for hours.


By 1078feba on 8/9/2007 10:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
Me too, as far as keeping my head on a swivel on commercial flights. I eyeball every swingin' Richard on that plane and take mental notes on who I think looks sketchy...

And by sketchy, yes, I do most definitely racially profile when the opportunity presents itself...


Oh hell no
By Polynikes on 8/8/2007 10:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
I would hate to fly in a jet that tries to save my ass in an emergency. I hate to say it, but a computer is only as good as its programming, and if the engineers forget about some value, or make an error, the computer will mis-read something and make a stupid move and the pilot gets dead. I'd rather trust the pilots, because they have senses, so even when the gauges stop working they still have a chance.




RE: Oh hell no
By masher2 (blog) on 8/8/2007 11:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
And yet pilot error is still the largest cause by far of fatal aircraft crashes. Yes an engineer may forget something...but once its in the software, it never gets forgotten. That stands in sharp contrast to a pilot which may have only a split-second to remember some obscure fact or procedure from all his years of training.

Planes will eventually be computer-piloted entirely, and while accidents will still occur, they'll be less frequent than they are today.


RE: Oh hell no
By Ringold on 8/8/2007 4:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how I feel about full computer control of passenger flights. As good as they are, I'd like to see what a computer does when it's engine goes down, alternator fails, or otherwise loses it's power -- for example. Perhaps, in an engineers infinite wisdom, they rely on adanved GPS setups, and the military jams them during an attack, leaving the computer to dead reckon it's way to a tiny strip of pavement only 50 feet wide 30 miles away in an atmosphere that's never "standard".

If we keep things as they are, on the other hand, we could just beef up auto-pilots (which already are amazing pieces of equipment, even the cheaper systems that are in 172s), and keep a stick in the cockpit directly connected to the control surfaces. No mechanical failure, short of a catastrophic one, will drain the power of a cheeseburger-powered pilot, even if a pilot ends up flying for years without ever taking manual control -- much like a police officer can spend a decade on the force and never fire a shot.

Also worth noting there's only been 1 fatal commercial accident in the last two years in the US if I recall.. impressive, given the massive number of flights. Of course, it was human error, but many arent.

There's probably a GA plane or three that ends up in a corn field every day, probably with one fatal crash a day, but that's a little different.


RE: Oh hell no
By masher2 (blog) on 8/8/2007 5:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'd like to see what a computer does when it's engine goes down, alternator fails, or otherwise loses it's power"

What does a pilot do in this case? He (hopefully) remembers something he was taught in a simulator years earlier, and (again, hopefully) executes it correctly. An expert system can take that knowledge, codify it, and ensure it never gets forgotten, misremembered, or poorly executed.

Many things are far beyond machine intelligence...but flying is just an exercise in reflexes and a few simple rule-based algorithms. Machines will soon do it better and more reliably than humans ever will.


RE: Oh hell no
By stromgald on 8/8/2007 6:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
I would agree that a computer can easily be a better than a human pilot. But IMO, the irrational fear of having a computer as the primary pilot will keep human pilots in control of most commercial jets during takeoff and landing for at least a decade or two, if not more.


Not the greatest idea.....
By CyborgTMT on 8/8/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not the greatest idea.....
By White Widow on 8/8/2007 6:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Auto-GCAS takes into account data from a number of factors including the aircraft weight, performance, positional information and digital terrain elevation data to calculate the aircraft’s relative position to the earth. It then calculates the maneuvers required to prevent a collision with the ground.


I don't think a "simple beacon" could have the kind of effect you describe, unless it could send out a radar reflection with the profile of a mountain, which - as far as I can tell - is either impossible or prohibitively difficult and expensive.


RE: Not the greatest idea.....
By leexgx on 8/8/2007 12:42:08 PM , Rating: 2
most big aircraft have radar and is norm used in the warning as well as beacon as well (on approach to landing but Ground level Must be set you get what happens on Die hard movie)


RE: Not the greatest idea.....
By CyborgTMT on 8/8/07, Rating: 0
By geddarkstorm on 8/8/2007 3:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it may not be totally that hard. After all, radar works by bouncing electromagnetic rays off stuff and measuring the Doppler shift IIRC, like with sonar. If you had a beacon that was tuned to the same frequency range that a plane used, and then programmed it to emit a phase and frequency shifted pulse when it was struck by a pulse that the plane would interpret as a close object.. it could work. You'd have to do a lot of spying--know what frequency the plane used, how its software was programmed to interpret data, etc. Still, it's all just electromagnetics and common physics principles, and those can always be tapped into and emulated.


RE: Not the greatest idea.....
By TxJeepers on 8/8/2007 10:12:13 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care who you are, that was funny. Not likely, but funny.


Obsolete!
By Highbuzz on 8/8/2007 12:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
Nifty software it sounds like, could save countless lives after years.

Sooner or later human pilots will become obsolete!




RE: Obsolete!
By vanka on 8/8/2007 2:20:21 AM , Rating: 2
Until they discover melange and the Spacing Guild starts recruiting pilots for the Heighliners.


RE: Obsolete!
By Nfarce on 8/8/2007 7:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
The same thing was said in the 1950s when the 3-axis autopilot was advancing in development (pitch, roll, and yaw only, no autothrottle capability). Now here we are a half century later, and with all the technology we have, the only more flying automation that's been handed to non-drone aircraft is CAT III-C landings, which basically means the autopilot can fly all the way to touch down and centerline rollout in zero visibility conditions. Drones and flying aerial targets like QF-4s (a mothballed F-4 taken from the Davis-Monthan boneyard) will be the only non-human flying machines as long as humans choose to leave the ground. Yes, I'm a pilot. (:


Pic
By v1001 on 8/8/2007 1:11:03 AM , Rating: 3
Flight of the Navigator lol.

That's going to be really erie some day looking up into the sky and seeing a formation of f-16's with no pilots. I think this is a first step to that.

1.5 seconds though before impact? Wow that would be some serious manuevers and G's to alter course fast enough.




RE: Pic
By nomagic on 8/8/2007 2:04:20 AM , Rating: 3
Read again. It is not 1.5 seconds before impact.

quote:
...the aircraft is within 1.5 seconds of the point of no return for collision with the ground...
The software is not designed to avoid collision but rather designed to avoid entering destined collision course.


WeI have it since EF2000...
By tyildirim on 8/8/2007 12:31:37 AM , Rating: 2
Well I remember and old and trusty game EF2000 (Eurofighter, the f22 villain for my American friends :)) where it had a "Automatic recovery Initiation" system. When you were in collision course it was first saying "pull up! with a nice lady voice and if you don't, same lady with the word "recovery initiated" realigns the craft with raising the nose giving throttle etc.. . Ah oh good old days.. I supposed it was the feature of the plane rather than the game itself :)




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki