• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Pilots are useless/dangerous

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
In light of the recent suicide/murder by the pilot at Germanwings, I think it's time to start seriously questioning: what the hell is the point of having pilots in an airplane?

Recent studies show that your average commercial airline pilot does about 7 minutes of real, actual, work during any flight. The rest is, presumably, idle banter, drinking coffee, sleeping (literally), and, fatally, using the restroom.

Google, Hyundai, Tesla, Toyota, and presumably every car manufacturer on the globe (except Tata and Lada) are coming out with self driving cars. The technology exists, it's just a matter of legislation and social issues before self driving cars hit the streets en masse. Driving a car is fantastically more complicated than flying a plane.

The best marketing the company from France can come up with is "airbus". Air ... Bus... I mean, anyone can come up with a more engaging name than "airbus", but they don't even bother. Why? Because that's what it is. A fucking bus. Nobody says "when I grow up I wanna be a bus driver." (no offence to bus drivers, your job is infinitely more difficult than a pilot).

Given that nearly all air incidents are pilot accidents, or, more recently, deliberate suicide, isn't it time we just call a spade a spade and get rid of them altogether? They're not needed. They don't do anything except make mistakes.

So Canada recently enacted law that makes it mandatory to have at least two people in the cockpit at all times. This is explicitly to protect passengers from the pilot. I suggest we take it a step further and make it law to have zero people in the cockpit. That would be the safest thing for everyone.

-jM
A&D
 
Stop Bill C-10

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
travel by plane is still statistically very safe. pilotless planes would be more susceptible to technical/mechanical errors which could still happen and could prove fatal without human correction.

Sometimes shit is going to happen. you can't account for every variable. we can't bubble wrap the world. there is always going to be some inherent risk in life. it's important not to over react to what can't be controlled.
 

Krzysiu

TRIBE Member
I would fly by remote pilot if necessary - drones seem super effective... against Terrorzard.

Terrorzard uses hypnotize... it is super effective! You are now a Terrorzard Lvl 7.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
travel by plane is still statistically very safe. pilotless planes would be more susceptible to technical/mechanical errors which could still happen and could prove fatal without human correction.

Sometimes shit is going to happen. you can't account for every variable. we can't bubble wrap the world. there is always going to be some inherent risk in life. it's important not to over react to what can't be controlled.

Well, this is where you are factually wrong. And, this is why I bring up the entire topic.

All fatal air transport accidents have occurred after the pilots disabled the autopilot, in the last 10 years. The only exception is MH370, and even then, if it were fully autopiloted would have reached safety.

Every single air accident has been related to human error in at least the last 10 years. Post here otherwise. Is that not proof enough that we should replace human wetbags with computers?

-jM
A&D
 

DJ Vuvu Zela

TRIBE Member
Well, this is where you are factually wrong. And, this is why I bring up the entire topic.

what exactly in my post is "factually wrong"?

All fatal air transport accidents have occurred after the pilots disabled the autopilot, in the last 10 years.

even if your statement was correct (which it isn't, more on that later) then it doesn't actually prove anything other than a pilot takes over the controls when there is a crisis.

you seem to be assuming that if a pilot didn't disable autopilot then it somehow guarantees a plane's safety. there is no data to support that.

you're also ignoring every incident where pilots have saved planes by their actions.

The only exception is MH370, and even then, if it were fully autopiloted would have reached safety.

this is pure speculation on your part with no evidence to support your claim.

Every single air accident has been related to human error in at least the last 10 years. Post here otherwise.

Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On February 25, 2009, a Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 (Turkish Airlines Flight 1951) crashed about 1500m short of the runway at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The Dutch Safety Board published preliminary findings only one week after the crash, suggesting the autoland played a key role in downing the plane. According to the Flight Data Recorder, the airplane was on a full autoland approach at a height of 1950 ft / 595 m, the left Radio Altimeter had been misreporting a height of −8 ft. The autoland system responded accordingly and configured the plane for touchdown, idling the engines. This made the plane lose speed and stall. When the flight crew received stall-warnings, they were already too low and too slow to recover. As a secondary factor, the Safety Board suggested the crew did not have a visual ground reference because of foggy conditions.

--------

just to be clear, i'm not saying autopilot isn't a great thing. I'm all for it. But the idea that it's some sort of panacea that will solve envy air crash isn't true. There are times where a "human wetbag" can act and access things that a computer can not (for various reasons)
 

mute79

TRIBE Member
Well, this is where you are factually wrong. And, this is why I bring up the entire topic.

All fatal air transport accidents have occurred after the pilots disabled the autopilot, in the last 10 years. The only exception is MH370, and even then, if it were fully autopiloted would have reached safety.

Every single air accident has been related to human error in at least the last 10 years. Post here otherwise. Is that not proof enough that we should replace human wetbags with computers?

-jM
A&D

There was an incident earlier this year in Scotland where the aircraft would have crashed were it not for the pilots. The aircraft got hit by lightning and made the autopilot go haywire by placing the aircraft in a nosedive. Pilots barely pulled the aircraft out of the nosedive with less than 1k feet.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

mute79

TRIBE Member
Newslash buddy, that "7 minute" idea wasn't pulled out of my ass.

Every time you fly, it really is already a computer who's getting you from A to B.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NFq2eZSDJE

In fact, I'd be quite unhappy if a fleshbag was doing my flight.

-jM
A&D

Sure, thanks. Might have also worked for you if you asked about my background before you tried to educate me on a field that I probably know much more about than you.

It's true that computer automation flies the aircraft, and that's great. What can't be automated is dealing with an emergency. There are many examples where pilots were integral to saving an aircraft from what would have been a catastrophe. NW Airlines over Alaska. Air Transat running out of fuel over the Atlantic. Gimly Glider. Most recent lightning strike incident over Scotland. The A380 incident with a damaged engine and wing where there were no casualties. And so on.
 

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
Sure, thanks. Might have also worked for you if you asked about my background before you tried to educate me on a field that I probably know much more about than you.

It's true that computer automation flies the aircraft, and that's great. What can't be automated is dealing with an emergency. There are many examples where pilots were integral to saving an aircraft from what would have been a catastrophe. NW Airlines over Alaska. Air Transat running out of fuel over the Atlantic. Gimly Glider. Most recent lightning strike incident over Scotland. The A380 incident with a damaged engine and wing where there were no casualties. And so on.

Korean Airlines Flight 007: Human error, failure to abide by autopilot, autopilot disengaged, all passengers dead
American Airlines Flight 191: Human error, failure of maintenance, all passengers dead
Iran Air Flight 655: Language confusion, autopilot disengaged, all passengers dead
1996 Air Africa Crash: Illegal Cargo, 348+ dead
Saudia Flight 163: Pilots asphyxiated by smoke 300+ dead
Iran Ilyushin Il-76 Crash: Pilot intrusion, 302 dead
Turkish Airlines Flight 981: Pilot distraction due to terrorism (muslims of course) This was 346 dead.

I can continue, through the record, of all commercial airline crashes in the last 10 years, but I think you see the obvious point.

People die in the air because human Pilots think they are smarter than the computer.

We need to ask that ZERO people are in the cockpit at all times.

A Human in the cockpit is the most dangerous place for all of us.

-jM
A&D
 

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
Sure, thanks. Might have also worked for you if you asked about my background before you tried to educate me on a field that I probably know much more about than you.

If this is really all you have to show for your background, I'm seriously unimpressed.

Air Transat running out of fuel over the Atlantic.

If a bonehead cannot put enough fuel into the jet, and the stupid pilot takes off anyway, this is not a computer problem, this is MORE than three humans making the same mistake. A COMPUTER WOULD SOLVE THIS.

Charkhi Dadri collision: Language problems, 349 dead
Japan Airlines Flight 123: FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY people dead. Autopilot disabled, pilots asphyxiated.

In all of these cases, people would have survived if the computer remained in control of the flight.

-jM
A&D
 

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
...on a field that I probably know much more about than you.

I really enjoy how you use the qualifier "probably".

Because in this, and likely every, instance, you do NOT know more than me.

I do not make it a habit, Mr. 800~ posts, to speak on topics about which I do not know.,

I completely welcome ideas from you, I suppose here is a fair enough place to put them.

I am actually busy with the Walter Scott case today, but I do have time for you.

Best regards,

-jM
A&D
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Jeffsus

TRIBE Member
I don't pretend to be a pilot any more than I pretend to be a finger painter. Both are fun and can be done by untrained children.

I do claim a particular knowledge of artificial intelligence and how it is much more trustworthy, especially in a fairly simple task of moving airplane from area A to area B.

I do leave room for aviation as sport, entertainment, recreation, that will always exist.

But when it comes to moving hundreds of people for commercial purposes, there no longer exists any excuse to have a human at the helm.

Plane landing in the Hudson river, is the only counterpoint so far mentioned. In a week. I can address that. Do you really think that computer intelligence is not capable of making the exact same decisions, or better?

Also, to choose one successful error out of hundreds of failures is, obviously, cherry picking.

-jM
A&D
 

Mephisto

TRIBE Member
one mentally ill person's actions kill 144 people

7000 flights airborne over the CONUS at any given time.

whether they knew it or not, i bet the people on board those 7000 tin cans on sept 26, 2014 were glad there was still a heartbeat in the front seat:
On Friday, September 26, 2014, a telecommunications contractor named Brian Howard woke early and headed to Chicago Center, an air traffic control hub in Aurora, Illinois, where he had worked for eight years. He had decided to get stoned and kill himself, and as his final gesture he planned to take a chunk of the US air traffic control system with him.

Court records say Howard entered Chicago Center at 5:06 am and went to the basement, where he set a fire in the electronics bay, sliced cables beneath the floor, and cut his own throat. Paramedics saved Howard's life, but Chicago Center, which controls air traffic above 10,000 feet for 91,000 square miles of the Midwest, went dark. Airlines canceled 6,600 flights; air traffic was interrupted for 17 days...

At any given time, around 7,000 aircraft are flying over the United States. For the past 40 years, the same computer system has controlled all that high-altitude traffic—a relic of the 1970s known as Host. The core system predates the advent of the Global Positioning System, so Host uses point-to-point, ground-based radar. Every day, thousands of travelers switch their GPS-enabled smartphones to airplane mode while their flights are guided by technology that predates the Speak & Spell. If you're reading this at 30,000 feet, relax—Host is still safe, in terms of getting planes from point A to point B. But it's unbelievably inefficient. It can handle a limited amount of traffic, and controllers can't see anything outside of their own airspace—when they hand off a plane to a contiguous airspace, it vanishes from their radar.

The FAA knows all that. For 11 years the agency has been limping toward a collection of upgrades called NextGen. At its core is a new computer system that will replace Host and allow any controller, anywhere, to see any plane in US airspace. In theory, this would enable one air traffic control center to take over for another with the flip of a switch, as Howard seemed to believe was already possible. NextGen isn't vaporware; that core system was live in Chicago and the four adjacent centers when Howard attacked, and this spring it'll go online in all 20 US centers. But implementation has been a mess, with a cascade of delays, revisions, and unforeseen problems. Air traffic control can't do anything as sophisticated as Howard thought, and unless something changes about the way the FAA is managing NextGen, it probably never will...

full story:
Why 40-Year-Old Tech Is Still Running America's Air Traffic Control | WIRED


still gonna have to put up with pilots for a while longer
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

LikeASweet

TRIBE Member
Jeffus is correct for the most part - majority of airplane crashes are down to human error. This was confirmed on that show Mayday on the Discovery Channel lol. Im not saying that we don't need pilots as they do come in handy during emergencies however for the most part, planes go down because of those who are in control of it not mechanical or computer error.
 

Mephisto

TRIBE Member
Jeffus is correct for the most part - majority of airplane crashes are down to human error.

agreed and further drilled down to human factors as a root cause in most cases. problem is, day in and day out there are many instances when the airplane/weather/atc shits the bed and real time human intervention is only thing that traps the error(s)....especially in today's environment of airlines/transportation companies becoming more concerned with cost cutting and unlocking shareholder value rather than being safety-minded.
what percentage of hospital deaths are caused by doctors?

automation is good but it's not up to the job yet. we will also have to find a way to implement it that protects against one person programming a stack overflow that crashes 7000 planes at once.
 
Top