On 4/1/2022 5:13 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 01/04/22 12:32, Don Y wrote:
>> On 4/1/2022 3:44 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:

>>>>>>> Sorry, that's not how an autopilot works. It doesn't fly the plane. It
>>>>>>> simply maintains a heading and altitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> They have been doing more than that for for > 50 years.
>>>>> Cat 3b landings were in operation when I was a kid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Someone still has to be watching
>>>>>>> for other aircraft and otherwise flying the plane. In other words, the
>>>>>>> pilot is responsible for flying the plane, with or without the autopilot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that's the original idea of a plane autopilot. But modern ones are
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> sophisticated and handle course changes along the planned route, as well as
>>>>>> being able to land automatically. And more important than what plane
>>>>>> autopilots actually /do/, is what people /think/ they do - and remember we
>>>>>> are talking about drivers that think their Tesla "autopilot" will drive
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> car while they watch a movie or nap in the back seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> And, to put it kindly, aren't discouraged in that misapprehension
>>>>> by the statements of the cars' manufacturers and salesdroids.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, what's the best set of techniques to get that concept
>>>>> into the heads of twats that think "autopilot" means "it does
>>>>> it for me".
>>>>
>>>> "Pilots" and "drivers" approach their efforts entirely differently
>>>> and with different mindsets.
>>>
>>> They should do in one sense (differing machine/automation)
>>> and shouldn't in another (both are lethal instruments).
>>>
>>> Problem starts with the marketing.
>>
>> Cars are far more ubiquitous. And, navigation is a 2-dimensional activity.
>>
>> An "average joe" isn't likely to think hes gonna "hop in a piper cub" and
>> be off on a jaunt to run errands. And, navigation is a 3-dimensional
>> undertaking (you don't worry about vehicles "above" or "below", when driving!)
>
> True, but it doesn't change any of my points.

If access to a technology -- or ability to make use of that technology -- is
limited, then it diminishes as a source of problems.

I don't worry about someone (young/old/qualified/not) climbing into the cockpit
of an A-10 at the military base down the street and strafing my neighborhood
with it's 30mm Gatling gun -- despite the fact that there are many dozens of
them sitting on the tarmac. And, nothing prevents an airman from getting
unhinged and taking out his frustrations with his "vehicle of choice".
Access is constrained as well as the know-how required to put it into use.

OTOH, a 14 year old climbing in a (stolen?) vehicle presents a very real danger
to me on my local roadways (note the articles cited in previous post). There
are hundreds of such vehicles within a stone's throw -- regardless of where you
happen to be throwing the stone!

Even "heavy equipment" is operated (driven) in virtually the same way as cars
(as we've had cases of joyriders in dump trucks, back hoes, graders, etc.)

Can't recall any "average joe" taking an aircraft for a joyride, though!
(they wouldn't know HOW)

>>>> ANYONE can drive a car. By contrast, a fair bit more understanding,
>>>> reasoning and skill is required to pilot an aircraft.
>>>
>>> Not entirely sure about that. 14yo can be solo, and a
>>> very few are even aerobatic pilots.
>>
>> And a "youngster" can drive a car (or other sort of motorized vehicle, e.g., on
>> a farm or other private property). The 16yo (15.5) restriction only applies to
>> the use on public roadways.
>
> 12yo fly across the country with an instructor behind.
> 14yo can do it on their own.
>
> Daughter was driving my car and a double decker bus at 15yo,
> on the runway and peritrack :)

It doesn't matter what LEGALLY can be done. What matters is what can be
TECHNICALLY performed. The 14 yo's in the articles I cited were each
breaking the law. But, were still ABLE to access and operate the vehicles
in question. Invite them to take your aircraft for a joyride and you'll
find them sitting on the tarmac, hours later, still trying to figure out how
to take off!

I was driving (on private property) at 10. As were most of the (males!) in
my extended family. Grandpa owned a large car business so all of the cousins
would "work" at the shop. It was not uncommon to be handed a set of keys and
told to bring the "white chevy" into bay #6 for new tires. And, once the
new rubber was mounted, told to drive the car with the ass-end raised so they
could be spin-balanced (<https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NJd-AnU71nQ/maxresdefault.jpg>
in lieu of dynamic balancers). Then, around to the alignment pit. Finally,
gassed up and parked waiting for the customer to pick it up.

[Grandpa had a rather loose interpretation of what was "legal" -- and spent
a fair bit of time behind bars for other "misinterpretations" :> ]

>> Cars are "simple" to operate; can-your-feet-reach-the-pedals being the only
>> practical criteria. I'd wager *I* would have a hard time walking up to
>> an aircraft, "cold", and trying to sort out how to get it off the ground...
>
> Same is true of a glider. There are only 4 controls: rudder,
> stick, airbrake, cable release. Two instruments, airspeed
> and barometer (i.e. height differential).

And a piper cub? Lear jet? Not all aircraft are gliders. And, a glider
requires a "co-conspirator" to get it airborn! A car just requires
"opportunity".

> You are taught to do without them, because they all lie to
> you.
>
>>> The main difference is that you can't stop and catch
>>> your breath, or stop and have a pee.
>>>
>>> Overall learning to fly a glider is pretty much similar
>>> to learning to drive - in cost, time and skill.
>>
>> But not opportunity. I'd have to spend a fair bit of effort researching
>> where to gain access to any sort of aircraft. OTOH, I can readily "borrow"
>> (with consent) any of my neighbors' vehicles and operate all of them in
>> a fairly consistent manner: sports cars, trucks, commercial trucks, even
>> motorcycles (though never having driven one, before!).
>
> True, but it doesn't change any of my points.

The number of "flying" accidents vs. the number of "auto" accidents makes
the point very well.

>>> The training
>>> is more rigorous, though, and isn't a one-off event.
>>
>> It's likely more technical, too. Most auto-driving instruction deals
>> with laws, not the technical "piloting" of the vehicle. The driving test
>> is similarly focused on whether or not you put that law knowledge into
>> effect (did you stop *at* the proper point? did you observe the speed
>> limit and other posted requirements?)
>
> Not much is required to go solo.
>
> Does the glider's responsiveness indicate you are flying
> fast enough; are you at a reasonable height in the circuit;
> what to do when you find you aren't and when the cable snaps.

Piper cub? Lear jet?

>> [When taking the test for my *first* DL, the DMV was notorious for
>> having a stop sign *in* the (tiny) parking lot -- in an unexpected
>> place. Folks who weren't observant -- or tipped off to this ahead
>> of time -- were "failed" before ever getting out on the roadway!]
>
> Pre-solo tests include the instructor putting you in a
> stupid position, and saying "now get us back safely".

Automobiles just try to catch you breaking a law. Damn near anyone who
has driven a vehicle prior to being tested can get it from point A to
point B.

Commercial vehicles focus more on safety (and any ADDITIONAL laws that
may apply -- e.g., a commercial vehicle must clearly be labeled and there
are special enforcement units that will ticket for such violations) because
they assume you already understand the basics of the legal requirements
for a motor vehicle.

I can't recall ANY "legal" issues in my forklift certification. But, lots
of technical issues regarding how to safely operate the vehicle, transport
loads, derate lifting capacity based on lift height, etc. And, a strong
emphasis on how NOT to suffer a "crush injury"!

>> Testing for a CDL (commercial) is considerably different; you are
>> quizzed on technical details of the vehicle that affect the safety of
>> you and others on the roadway -- because you are operating a much more
>> "lethal" vehicle (< 26,000 pounds GVW). You also have to prove yourself
>> medically *fit* to operate (not color blind, not an insulin user,
>> "controlled" blood pressure, nonepileptic, alchoholic, etc.!
>
> Ditto being an instructor or having a passenger.
>
>> And, other "endorsements" have further requirements (e.g., hauling
>> tandem/triples, hazardous products, etc.)
>
> Ditto flying cross country or in clouds.

Do you really think opportunists are going to hijack an aircraft
and "hope" there are clear skies?

There are simply too many impediments to aircraft being misused/abused
to make it a real issue.

>>>> I.e., a pilot is a lot more likely to understand the function
>>>> AND LIMITATIONS of an (aircraft) autopilot than a driver is to
>>>> have similar appreciation for an (automobile) "autopilot".
>
> That's true for the aircraft, but nobody has developed
> an autopilot. You have to stay awake feel (literally,
> by the seat of your pants) what's happening. The nearest
> to an autopilot is a moving map airspace display.

Commercial aircraft rely on autopilots. In a sense, it is
an easier (navigation) problem to solve -- there's no real "traffic"
or other obstacles beyond the airports (assuming you maintain your
assigned flight corridor/speed). The same is true of railways
and waterways (more or less).

Cars operate in a much more challenging environment. Even "on the open
road", a condition can arise that needs immediate driver attention
(witness these 50-car pileups).

Note how poorly "seasoned" drivers adapt to the first snowfall of
the season. (Really? Did you FORGET what this stuff was like??)
Do they do any special (mental?) prep prior to getting behind the
wheel, in those cases? Or, just "wing it", assuming "it will
come back to them"?

>>> Pilots often don't understand what's going on; just
>>> listen to the accident reports on the news :(
>>
>> I think those events are caused by cognitive overload, not ignorance.
>
> Not always, e.g. the recent 737 crashes.

So, a defect in an autopilot implementation can be similarly excused?