Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    And this brings up the debate over whether it would be wise to have people capable of flying the plane on board. Let's just say that AF 447 is travelling over the ocean when the computer system makes a fatal error, and the plane enters a deep stall. While it is undeniable that the actual events were the result of pilot error, is it better to have a computer system which might make a mistake from which no one is capable of rescuing, or have a computer with this flaw, plus a human who also has the potential to make mistakes.

    As I mentioned, until we can create computers that program themselves, these machines are powered by the knowledge that we, as the systems' designers, have. If the information held at the time is flawed and is programmed into the system, you're setting yourself up for disaster.

    Although in another field, apparently a chemical plant that was fully automated very nearly suffered an explosion because when the system was programmed, an error was included that meant the computers used commas instead of decimal points while measuring chemicals.
    Yes but ultimately this is a matter of statistics. How many errors are caused by the automated system behaving inappropriately (either because of a programming error or because the scenario was outside the scope of the programming) compared with how many are caused by humans intervening inappropriately?

    Almost invariably, when once technology has reached the point of being able to fully automate a system, the fully automated system is more reliable than an automated system moderated by a human.

    And the problem gets worse in that the less often the human is called upon to intervene, the less the likelihood that he will intervene correctly.

    Pilots like to fly sectors manually and undertake manual take offs and landings to keep their skills high, but increasingly airlines are banning them from doing so and insisting that manual flying is confined to the simulator because manual flying increases the risk of an accident.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Parachuting from the typical cruising altitude of airlines with only a parachute would kill everybody. It's too high and too cold and too lacking in oxygen. These aircraft typically fly 3x higher than aircraft that people parachute from.
    If there is a faliure in the plane, what about the option of the plane descending to parachutable heights?

    Either way, parachuting into the atlantic or mediteranian or indian ocean isn't great either.

    But solid points on your posts, great addition.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I would pay more to go on a flight i know is by an experienced captian, by people not overworked, and people well paid, in addition to an aircraft that has been thoroughly checked, as well as an airline that won't even tolerate terror suspects onboard.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    I would pay more to go on a flight i know is by an experienced captian, by people not overworked, and people well paid, in addition to an aircraft that has been thoroughly checked, as well as an airline that won't even tolerate terror suspects onboard.
    Case and point. Time and time again, people on planes have been saved, not by the computer, but by the pilots themselves. When the Aloha plane had its roof torn off, its autopilot failed because the explosive decompression buckled the floor and damaged critical electronic wires that fed the AP. Had the pilots not known what to do, a lot more than just one person would have died that day.

    Likewise, do you think a computer would have been able to fly a plane with both engines disabled by Canada geese and safely land it in the Hudson? No. The computer wouldn't be able to do anything, as it has been proven multiple times that computers are incapable of handling such a situation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    what's that?
    A large scale aircraft on the same scale as the Boeing 747 or the Airbus 380 that was manufactured by Douglas Company in the United States in the 70s or 80s. It rates lower on the safety scale than Boeing, BaE and Airbus.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    Case and point. Time and time again, people on planes have been saved, not by the computer, but by the pilots themselves. When the Aloha plane had its roof torn off, its autopilot failed because the explosive decompression buckled the floor and damaged critical electronic wires that fed the AP. Had the pilots not known what to do, a lot more than just one person would have died that day.

    Likewise, do you think a computer would have been able to fly a plane with both engines disabled by Canada geese and safely land it in the Hudson? No. The computer wouldn't be able to do anything, as it has been proven multiple times that computers are incapable of handling such a situation.
    Perfectly true but the GermanWings and MH370 passengers would have lived if the planes had not had a pilot aboard.

    In the last 15 years more people have died because of the presence of pilots than have been saved by their presence.

    Think on this railway example. In 2000 following the Hatfield rail crash serious maintenance problems were discovered across the entire rail network. As a result the rail network was virtually shut down for weeks whilst emergency repairs were undertaken. Subsequent work has shown that more people were additionally killed and injured on the roads over that period than if trains had continued to operate over the substandard track.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Perfectly true but the GermanWings and MH370 passengers would have lived if the planes had not had a pilot aboard.

    In the last 15 years more people have died because of the presence of pilots than have been saved by their presence.

    Think on this railway example. In 2000 following the Hatfield rail crash serious maintenance problems were discovered across the entire rail network. As a result the rail network was virtually shut down for weeks whilst emergency repairs were undertaken. Subsequent work has shown that more people were additionally killed and injured on the roads over that period than if trains had continued to operate over the substandard track.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And that, my friend, is why you train people. So, more people died on the roads in the interim while they repaired the track. That's a simple correlation. Because no trains are running, more people use the roads. But, as any pilot would tell you, learning to fly commercial jets is nowhere near as comparatively easy as it is to drive. People get complacent on the roads, and that is where they make mistakes. However, if someone on the road makes a mistake, at worst three or four people die. If someone in the air makes a mistake, hundreds of people could die.

    That is why you train people.

    That is also why you train the person programming the computer. You seem to be missing the point I made about a computer having to be programmed by a human programmer. If that programmer makes a mistake and indirectly causes a plane crash, who's fault is that?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    And that, my friend, is why you train people. So, more people died on the roads in the interim while they repaired the track. That's a simple correlation. Because no trains are running, more people use the roads. But, as any pilot would tell you, learning to fly commercial jets is nowhere near as comparatively easy as it is to drive. People get complacent on the roads, and that is where they make mistakes. However, if someone on the road makes a mistake, at worst three or four people die. If someone in the air makes a mistake, hundreds of people could die.

    That is why you train people.

    That is also why you train the person programming the computer. You seem to be missing the point I made about a computer having to be programmed by a human programmer. If that programmer makes a mistake and indirectly causes a plane crash, who's fault is that?
    You have drawn the wrong point from the railway example.

    I said more people have died from the presence of pilots than would have died from their absence. That doesn't depend on drivers being less well trained than pilots. The point I was making is that safety may be counter-intuitive.

    A programmer's error is as much a human error as a pilot error. The statistics seem to show that an automated plane is safer than one with a pilot on board taking account of the fact that humans other than pilots (computer programmers, ground engineers, very occasionally cabin crew, loaders, fuel deliverers, security staff) can also make errors with fatal consequences
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It's also worth mentioning that with MH370, we don't know who or what was the cause (only that whatever happened caused the plane to crash), so that can get thrown out of the window.

    Furthermore, the Germanwings crash wasn't the result of human error but instead a deliberate act, the Co-Pilot was suicidal, locked the pilot out of the cockpit and then slammed the plane into a mountain, so that's bunk to this scenario too.

    You also seem to have missed another piece of choice info - If a plane runs entirely on computers, it could be hacked. In today's world, an act of Cyberwarfare is becoming more and more possible, and so is Cyberterrorism. If they had the resources to do so, a terrorist organisation could bring down planes by controlling them remotely.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrLovejoy)
    A large scale aircraft on the same scale as the Boeing 747 or the Airbus 380 that was manufactured by Douglas Company in the United States in the 70s or 80s. It rates lower on the safety scale than Boeing, BaE and Airbus.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    They renamed the later versions of DC-10 the MD-11

    I've flown on one and I'm still here :top:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    They renamed the later versions of DC-10 the MD-11

    I've flown on one and I'm still here :top:
    I like the design of the DC-10 and MD-11. It's sad that there's not a single one in any museum anywhere...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    I like the design of the DC-10 and MD-11. It's sad that there's not a single one in any museum anywhere...
    3 engine jets with 2 under the wings and one in the tail were briefly fashionable and all the large companies made them... but it was costly to reach that 3rd jet for maintenance.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    I like the design of the DC-10 and MD-11. It's sad that there's not a single one in any museum anywhere...
    Variants are still in service. Freight versions are still in use commercially and the KC10 is still active with both the US and Dutch air forces.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Variants are still in service. Freight versions are still in use commercially and the KC10 is still active with both the US and Dutch air forces.
    Yep, that's very true. The RNAF also operate a KC-10 variant called the 'KDC-10', which is basically a PAX DC-10 that's got air tanker capabilities too.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    Upon closer inspection, there is a single DC-10 that's been 'preserved' in Manchester, but it's not really preserving a plane when you do this to it.

    Here's G-DMCA, Monarch's DC-10 as she was when she was still flying:

    Spoiler:
    Show

    And here she is now:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    It's like they've decapitated a deer and mounted its head on a backing board. The difference between the DC-10 and a Deer is that one is dying out and the other isn't.

    I really do hope they manage to put at least one in a museum before they're all either in storage or sold for scrap. They were originally going to put S2-ACR (the last non-military PAX DC-10) into Bruntingthorpe, but a scrap-buyer in India trashed those plans.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    I really do hope they manage to put at least one in a museum before they're all either in storage or sold for scrap.
    Why? It's just another wide body airliner. It doesn't have the popular appeal of the 747, it's not a particularly ground breaking design (3 engined aircraft had been around long before it) and nobody's mourning their loss.

    They're also massive, so it would take up a lot of museum space.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Why? It's just another wide body airliner. It doesn't have the popular appeal of the 747, it's not a particularly ground breaking design (3 engined aircraft had been around long before it) and nobody's mourning their loss.

    They're also massive, so it would take up a lot of museum space.
    Quite a bit of their notability comes from their notoriety, but also from how reliable they eventually became. Furthermore, one particular DC-10-30F owned by FedEx is especially famous for its role in FedEx Flight 705, in which in a successful attempt to shake off an attempted hijacking by a disgruntled employee, the crew pushed the jet well beyond its designed limits and even carried out acrobatic feats with this airliner that you'd only expect smaller aircraft to be capable of doing. Add to the fact that all three crewmembers were suffering grave injuries from the hijacker at the time, and that makes the jet and the crew who flew it on that fateful day especially remarkable.

    Trijets are quite a rarity as a whole in museums, it seems. The similar L1011 TriStar also only has a handful of examples in museums, for example.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    Quite a bit of their notability comes from their notoriety, but also from how reliable they eventually became. Furthermore, one particular DC-10-30F owned by FedEx is especially famous for its role in FedEx Flight 705, in which in an attempt to shake off an attempted Hijacking, the pilot pushed the jet well beyond its designed limits and even carried out acrobatic feats with this airliner that you'd only expect smaller aircraft to be capable of doing.

    Trijets are quite a rarity as a whole in museums, it seems. The similar L1011 TriStar also only has a handful of examples in museums, for example.
    That makes that aircraft worthy of being in a museum, but not because of the type.

    I don't really think any airliner should be in a museum, there's just nothing interesting about them, they're glorified buses. The only two exceptions are the B747 and Concorde.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That makes that aircraft worthy of being in a museum, but not because of the type.

    I don't really think any airliner should be in a museum, there's just nothing interesting about them, they're glorified buses. The only two exceptions are the B747 and Concorde.
    If anything, if there's any other example of the type that will probably find its way into a museum, it'll either be a KC/KDC-10 (as most military heavies usually do end up somewhere once they've finished being used), or the Orbis Flying Hospital - Their old DC-8 airliner hospital is in a museum, and it isn't a far stretch to say that it might be put on display once it's finished its useful life.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destoroyah)
    If anything, if there's any other example of the type that will probably find its way into a museum, it'll either be a KC/KDC-10 (as most military heavies usually do end up somewhere once they've finished being used), or the Orbis Flying Hospital - Their old DC-8 airliner hospital is in a museum, and it isn't a far stretch to say that it might be put on display once it's finished its useful life.
    But that's my point, they're not in museums because they're airliners, they're in because they became something afterwards and that something is of interest.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    But that's my point, they're not in museums because they're airliners, they're in because they became something afterwards and that something is of interest.
    Ah, my bad. I do like your reasoning!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 22, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.