Volvo have produced "road train" technology that appears to let you read the paper whilst driving, amongst other things.
Would you choose to use it?
volvo.qbrick.com/index.aspx?cid=2&mode=3&mid=564
|
|
Neighbour here does croasswords at the wheel of his Transit.
|
|
As long as he looks left and right there's no problem with that.
|
|
id use it. have a nice nap in the back get some work done on the laptop
|
The Airbus I fly has countless millions sunk into its autopilot technology, and I still end up taking control back on a fairly regular basis when it decides to do something phenomenally stupid.
Can't really see it working properly with cars at any point in the next 30 years. Having said that, I can perhaps see it working in specific lanes in very controlled circumstances, but never on particularly wide scale.
|
And there was me thinking pilots spend all the time during flights in the toilets with the air stewardes's!
It is interesting you should say that, but the autopilot can only ever work off sensors, and the human sensors will always be better than electronic ones.
|
>> and the human sensors will always be better than electronic ones.
>>
>>
>>
Then why do people need reversing sensors?
|
The problem with automated systems, is that there is no cognative reasoning or learned experience.
Take your autopilot. It has loads of sensors, trippled up and trippled channelled mostly.
Say it has three pitot heads (airspeed sensors), it will check all three, and if they all say the same thing its happy to work. If two say the same thing and one doesn't, its happy to assume one is defective, If all three show different things, its stumped and will drop out.
Which ideally is what you want to happen, and let the pilot take control.
Except, the plane is designed by computer, to be flown by computer. When you have a joystick, with no real feedback, and instruments fed by the same failing sensors, the pilot needs to be damn good.
The Airbus lost over the Atlantic out of Brazil, went down in such circumstances.
|
I don't think you can blame the Airbus for that, Zero. All pilots are taught to fly using pitch and power references in the event of a triple ADR failure. In fact, this works particularly well in turbulent conditions partly due to the Airbus's tendency to be stable in pitch.
The newer Airbuses (Airbi?) have an additional protection known as the backup speed scale, or BUSS. Instead of showing airspeed, it reverts to showing a scale based on angle of attack, where you fly the green section of the tape, with red "FAST" and "SLOW" indications above and below.
luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/george-4.jpg
I don't think the Airbus philosophy can be blamed for AF447 without knowing more information.
|
|
No Agreed, I was speaking more generically about fly by computer planes in general.
|
"read the paper whilst driving, amongst other things"
Look at porn and smoke crack.
|
>> "read the paper whilst driving, amongst other things"
>>
>> Look at porn and smoke crack.
>>
Do you work with me?
|
Volvo have produced "road train" technology that appears to let you read the paper whilst driving, amongst other things.
Hasn't someone already invented "train train" technology that let you do this?
|
>> Hasn't someone already invented "train train" technology that let you do this?
Yeah but Bob Crow derailed it.
|
|
That'll be something to see when something goes wrong. Road conditions, side impacts, level crossing gates...
|
Read the paper at the wheel - R.P.
