Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 Early speculation is that the Airbus that crashed in Switzerland today had a computer related malfunction and the pilots were unable to override the automated systems That's the type of thing I was referring earlier about jumping on the one in million event in an industry where computerization has reduced accidents to negligible. If you fly, your life is every bit as dependent on the computers on board and at air traffic control as it is on the pilot, and computer errors on aircraft are miniscule compared to operator error. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Early speculation is that the Airbus that crashed in Switzerland today had a computer related malfunction and the pilots were unable to override the automated systems That's the type of thing I was referring earlier about jumping on the one in million event in an industry where computerization has reduced accidents to negligible. If you fly, your life is every bit as dependent on the computers on board and at air traffic control as it is on the pilot, and computer errors on aircraft are miniscule compared to operator error. Dave If true, it is the second incident (that we know of) since December. How many 150 lives lost incidents do we need? Edited March 24, 2015 by eth2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 My attitude is this, as I've seen it in a number of "scary" technologies over the years: The official statements are directed at those like you guys who fear technology. Actually, Musk clearly says the Model S is already good to come when you call it...but people aren't. I'd be more shocked if the official spokespeople were more truthful in the state of the technology, and in this having read more than I had in the past (thank you, gents) I am surprised at the statements they are actually making. It's actually pretty weird. Seeing video on line of a vehicle operating in totally autonomous mode, and being told they don't exist. That does not compute... Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 I feel pretty safe flying with the numbers we have, Earl. I often go to sleep before plane leave the ground and don't wake up until it's hitting the runway. I feel safe because the pilots are trained on advanced computer based VR simulators and because of the incredibly complex and proven software and hardware they depend on to keep them flying. Pilots are better trained than 40 years ago, but much of the constant improvement in the safety record has nothing to do with pilots getting better as much as them having better technology to rely on. But believe me when I say Captains Alfred Haynes and Wesley Sullenberger are giants in my opinion. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eth2 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 The issue is not whether we "feel safe" or not. I spent three years constantly on a plane flying around the world to the point I did not even know what country I was in when I woke up in the hotel. I didn't worry about crashing, but I also believed that I was in capable (human) hands. I avoided Airbuses when possible. I recommend a book to you - "Normal Accidents." It is a bit old, but it describes our inability to understand system interactions in three industries including the airline industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 So, you declare that car was not autonomous? That's pretty weird. Seeing video on line of a vehicle operating in totally autonomous mode, and being told they don't exist. Dave I consolidated to make my point clear. That car was not totally autonomous - it wasn't even close, it was standard assistive technology. The driver had to steer the car onto the highway, the driver brought the car to speed and set the cruise control, the drive led the vehicle off the road, the driver was necessary to avoid an accident. The car provided basic functionality: it could stay between painted lines and it could decrease/increase speed from its set limit. It could not avoid an accident, it could not drive to a destination, it could not respond to an emergency situation. It was a level 2 automated vehicle - it was not fully autonomous, it was not a self-driving car. Level 3 is what Volvo plans to have on the road in 2020. You keep claiming level 4 is around the corner; it is not. Level 4 (autonomous or self-driving) won't happen prior to 2030 because we don't have the technology to do it today. This doesn't work unless you actually read the posts and the reference material and can speak to the topic with some actual knowledge. We currently have no way to deliver Level 4 (full autonomy) - it remains the stuff of science fiction. Stating the experts (who point out the technology is a far way out) are simply lying to the public is not an argument. With regards to the Wright Brothers, we put a man on the moon in the 60's. That didn't usher routine trips to the Moon and certainly didn't open us to put a man on Mars. Hell, we can't even put one back on the moon in the near future. Autonomous has a definition, it isn't whatever you want it to be. NHTSA defines vehicle automation as having five levels: No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls – brake, steering, throttle, and motive power – at all times. Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone. Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering. Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. The Google car is an example of limited self-driving automation. Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes both occupied and unoccupied vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 If you fly, your life is every bit as dependent on the computers on board and at air traffic control as it is on the pilot, and computer errors on aircraft are miniscule compared to operator error. As more automation is introduced, more accidents will be caused by said automation. There will simply be more opportunity for failures, and they will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I bought a new autonomous car this afternoon. They said it would make its own car payments. Keith automatically edited for poor spelling. Edited March 25, 2015 by T2K 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Those are AUTOMATION levels. I said nothing about automation levels. Red herring. What I said was the vehicle in the video was autonomous. That's all. No human intervention for the duration of a pretty complex trip. I was stuck in yet another Houston traffic jam caused by your average Houston idiot today and wondered to myself if one of you guys had a car with the available technology, would you insist on letting you legs cramp and the constant annoyance of creeping ahead to avoid simply letting the car handle it? After all, it is SO much fun! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 As more automation is introduced, more accidents will be caused by said automation. Any science to go with that, or just religion? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchist Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) What I said was the vehicle in the video was autonomous. That's all. No human intervention for the duration of a pretty complex trip. Dave And I said you were incorrect. There was human intervention during the trip (in fact, the human took over when they hit the section of highway that had lane detours.) There is NO complexity involved in staying between the painted lines once on a highway. Pretty freaking simple. Your definition of autonomous is nebulous at best and doesn't correspond to Websters or the 'experts' you make passing reference to without quoting. Given your definition, cars were autonomous back when they got cruise control. I provided you with the established definitions for the levels of autonomy. Autonomous corresponds to level 4. End of story. I provided you with quotes from the manufacturers which are intended to educate you to the realities. I provided you with reports from the insurance industry that say while the risk from a human is reduced, the risk from the technology increases and their rates will reflect that increased risk. Here is more clarification for you although I doubt it will make any impact on you. In any case, I am done. Levels of autonomy: Characteristics Assistive (lowest): Driver assistance system can perform certain driving tasks autonomously, human driver is always needed. Managed (medium): Car drives fully autonomously but relies on regularly updated external knowledge (and possibly services) provided remotely Independent (high): Car operates fully autonomously and matches human driving ability even in unknown terrain without external communication. Volvo is at Assistive. In 2020, it will be at assistive. Edited March 25, 2015 by Autarchist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) As more automation is introduced, more accidents will be caused by said automation. Any science to go with that, or just religion? Dave He's not making any larger leaps than you are. It is one thing to discuss and debate the technology, capabilities, pros, cons, etc.. but it is another when you claim to know time lines and how it will be implemented and accepted by society. How any technology fits into a culture can be full of surprises. I wish I had more time. This could be fun. Edited March 25, 2015 by muel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted March 25, 2015 Moderators Share Posted March 25, 2015 disengaged from computers, starting at least 25 miles out. Living in an astronaut neighborhood I have been told reliably the shuttle, like the FB117, and B2 are not flyable without computers. The computers provide a pilot with an illusion of stability that is entirely produced by the machine to allow them to steer it as they normally do. RB-72 may be normally entirely unmanned, as well as the B3. I will certainly agree this is a whole other ball game than a ground vehicle. Perfect example. As for take off and orbit...never have seen a hand on the controls. Dave The shuttle was most definitely digital fly by wire, but the computer does not assist with stability control as in the case of the F-117 and B-2 which are flying wings and inherently unstable and probably incapable of routine manual flight on a sustained basis just like Northrop's original flying wing was. No liftoff has been done manually by any rocket, not Mercury, Gemini or Saturn/Apollo. They didn't even have computers to get into orbit initially. The first living thing into space was a dog, our first living thing was a chimp. Getting up requires no automation at all, just escape speed, it is the getting back that is the hard part. The shuttle did have an autoland system available but it was never certified for use, and never used. Deviations in orbit had, at times, a man at the controls. For example, docking, every docking operation with ISS was completely manual. The Space Shuttle was never capable of automonus "flight" nor was it meant to be, the landing gear had to be lowered by the actual flick of a switch. My source is Ret. Col. Gregory Johnson, pilot on two shuttle missions (pilots don't land it, the commander does, but have to be able to do so) who was a classmate of mine at UT in a management course. The B-3, if made, will most certainly have flight controls (a stick), and two seats for people to sit in. Whether they will actually sit in it remains to be seen. It won't even be nuclear capable initially if it is built. The X-37B is a pretty much autonomus spacecraft, so we are capable of doing so but have chosen not to in the case of manned spaceflight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted March 25, 2015 Moderators Share Posted March 25, 2015 And that is a function of cost, which none of the manufacturers/experts are talking about. Volvo hopes to have less than a hundred cars made in 2017, in Sweden. Tesla S, a level 3 car, is what 85K? I have seen two in Austin, a lawyer at my office has one, and one on the road. The price the average consumer can pay for a car based on the average wage earned in the U.S. is about 30K. The Infinity that is being tested has over 200K in equipment in it. When you can get a level 4 car down to 25 to 30K in today's dollers, like oldtimer said, you are looking at about 50 percent ownership in a decade. As more automation is introduced, more accidents will be caused by said automation. Any science to go with that, or just religion? Dave He's not making any larger leaps than you are. It is one thing to discuss and debate the technology, capabilities, pros, cons, etc.. but it is another when you claim to know time lines and how it will be implemented and accepted by society. How any technology fits into a culture can be full of surprises. I wish I had more time. This could be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) He's not making any larger leaps than you are. It is one thing to discuss and debate the technology, capabilities, pros, cons, etc.. Agreed. I should respond with my brain. My initial response was biased, and bias inhibits learning. Obviously, as there is more automation there will be more accidents caused by automation. However, massively offset by those prevented by automation. As to your comments on the shuttle, my understanding from my local contacts in NASA is that there was more computer involved with manual flight than yours...however, it was indeed landed manually from computed trajectories. The shuttle design itself was very old technology. The Spacex Dragon V2 is designed for fully autonomous ISS docking. Dave Edited March 25, 2015 by Mallette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacksonbart Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I find my Bose equipped 11 speaker car sounds better the faster I go..... why? Perhaps related to the electrical currents running under the auto frames being impacted by the soul electrons that are accumulating in my glove box? Who Knows for sure?? Cheers! Stuff happens and sometimes we hear it, I guess,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 As more automation is introduced, more accidents will be caused by said automation. Any science to go with that, or just religion? Dave There's a whole lot of experience behind that statement. For nearly 50 years I've worked on control systems used in refineries, chemical plants, paper mills and oilfields. The first 17 years I was an Instrument/Analyzer Technician and the last 30 or so as a designer. I guarantee this stuff fails and I guarantee automated control systems on a vehicle will also fail. To make a triple redundant aerospace grade control system for cars would be cost prohibitive, and would only reduce chances of failure, not totally eliminate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Most drivers are incompetent. Maybe 1% or so are anywhere near "race car competency." For the 99% I have no doubt a computer will do far better in all conditions than a human. Did you know that even today, MOST drivers still don't understand how to operate anti-lock braking systems? It's true! Something like 90% of the drivers are still "pumping the brakes" in a panic stop in cars that are equipped with anti-lockers. So, how on earth are people arguing that individuals are superior? This is not about anecdotal evidence of "one" specific driver - like you. It's about statistics. Insurers will easily recognize that on average, the computers will reduce accidents. That's really a no-brainer. I see that as an issue with education moreso than an inherent limitation of the drivers themselves. The thing is, we have the technology available today to train people to be better drivers. Btw, I agree with you on the legal implications, and I also believe automation is the direction that cars are headed. I just think it's going to be a much longer time and it's going to be relegated to a closed system format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I just want people to pay insurance or not drive and I want states to realize their minimum requirements are a joke. We have some states where 15/30/5 is the state minimum. Florida is worse at 10/20/10. I wonder who this is accommodating? The majority of domestic vehicles today cost twice the limits or more . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 Eventually. Not putting numbers on it as it scare people to death. But sooner than most here would like It will start with HOV lanes and designated lanes and move outward. You want to minimize the disruptions to a smooth flow of traffic. Yes, I am sure many, if not all, here would find a good place and stay safely in it at the prevailing speed of traffic. But others wouldn't and since AVs will drive defensively by nature the inveterate lane changers would really mess things up once they know they can charge into any lane and the AVs will defer to them. There's going to be a rather messy in between time. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.