PixelFlight wrote:Boeing already ask workers and suppliers to keep everything secret. What would you expect ? That Boeing will attack anyone that try to analyse there total failure to communicate reliable and verifiable information since a full year on all there ongoing aircraft developments ?
Boeing asked "to protect the company’s reputation" not "to keep everything secret", but IMO both would be legitimate requests from an employer to an employee.
Most employees sign NDAs when hired and these often include clauses to protect the company's reputation.
frmrCapCadet wrote:speedbored wrote:morrisond wrote:Human's just aren't good enough or fast enough to handle complex systems especially when they do unexpected things
Humans are far far better at dealing with systems "when they do unexpected things" than any autonomous system can be.
Until we have true artificial intelligence, systems can only be programmed to handle expected things.
Though I do not doubt that we should be able to design systems that will be able to cope with "expected things" better than most pilots could.
There are any number of military planes which 100% rely on computers to do the flying as I understand. The pilot tell the computers what it wants the plane to do. FBW in civil aviation already means that the computers can do 100% of the flying in some cases.
FBW exists to deal with aerodyamic control and have advanced to the point to deal with aircraft such as F117 that cannot be flown without computers making all the minute adjustments to keep the "Hopeless Diamond" flying in the right orientation.
Commercial airliners have "flight management systems" that handle all the routine aspects of navigation and feed the autopilot to do the actual flying but it was a human who did the command function and it's a human that acts as backup when things go wrong.
It's the same idea as military drone: it can fly with zero pilots on board but it's a human that does the command function and takes over if things go wrong.
https://www.flightglobal.com/systems-an ... 05.article tells us:
Lohwasser says that the eventual target is for a fully-autonomous aircraft that does not require pilots. “Even in the single-pilot operating case, you have to create dual safety. Our ambition is that single-pilot operation must be safer than current aircraft.”
Airbus is investigating single-pilot operation of freighter aircraft as “a stepping stone” to this arrangement on passenger aircraft, says Lohwasser. “It will not be a one-step approach [to single-pilot passenger operations].”
So the first step we should see is single pilot operation of freighters, and that will only happen after they can show this mode of operation is safer than current dual pilot operation.
PixelFlight wrote:The problem is that the duration of the "temporarily suspend production" is entirely in the hand of Boeing to comply with regulation and that Boeing not only failed since a full year to reach that goal, but give no insight about what are the problems exactly and how there could be resolved in a way that regulators publicly agree with. The alarming part is not a "temporarily suspend production", but the lack of the part that communicate a plausible roadmap to terminate the "temporarily suspend production". The worst part in a communication is the missing one.
Boeing has been asked (commanded?) by the FAA Administrator to stop releasing time line estimates. Its hands are tied.