apparently scripted by John Cleese (at full Argument pay ;-)

Only personal experience I can relate these ideas with (though I have er 'flown' light planes sort of) is:

Motorcycle - no way in Hell could you introduce a *#%!@^# \ufffdP between self and the man-machine-road Singularity. (Yes I'm aware that ABS has struck there - and the best of those are allegedly pretty well subordinated to the rider's exact 'lever feel' - haven't tried the BMW compromise yet)

But as to the sensory inputs, literally at the speed of the nervous system, in a milieu inherently more demanding than much of flying is, (there is no 3rd dimension to escape via), and when I notice How actually "I" am Doing this, I see a serial/parallel process completely intertwined and not analyzable for anything but academic wonderment. Entire body, CG, memorized control/tire/brake 'feels' and many more inputs - working synergistically or: you lose it.

I can only surmise that in a 3-D emergency like: that one wherein the pilot had lost all tail controls? and made that Iowa? landing on pure engine throttling - No Machine could have helped him, or remotely anticipated the need for his invented 'algorithm'. Everyone who tried his performance in a simulator: crashed. (Which may be as much about human limitations as.. the simulator's) That pilot may not have accomplished a 'miracle' - but he certainly illustrated what the word virtuoso performance means. Machines can never achieve virtuosity.

Ditto Apollo 13, when they 'forgot' to disengage servo system from turned-off CModule while running from the LEM lifeboat - and the thrusters were going gollywampus till ___? went to manual and 'taught' himself to fly that configuration and damp the osc. They came This close to losing gimbal-lock!

I can see why there will be lots of ranting and armed camps on this "we only want to Help you" proposition == we want to eliminate as many backup HUMANS as we $ee we Can. Hey! maybe One can do it all, with a hot NT mirror {}

Thanks for the exposure to Windoze Does Flying. Scary. I really WILL eschew Airbus, but see that the idea is bound to spread. It's a virtual MBA Certainty. Let the MBA take up an empty plane for his beta.



A.
{sigh} is there no surcease from the techno-mindset? Can transistorized artists brushes be far behind?

Ever read Airframe, Michael Crichton's take on the industry via a fictional particular 'incident' ?

It contains a pretty persuasive argument for 'letting the computer help', along with a reminder that most fighters today could not be flown without servo-loops making weird airfoil, pressure and other calculations, second by second.

We'd be really stupid though - not to see the transparent bizness goal of: a traineee in every automated plane, in cel-fone contact with one of the dozen remaining actual pilots. Most big air wanna-be monopolies are morphing to MBA operation, the CIEIO having 0 knowledge of flying.

So while Airbus might not be That naive (let M$ design our controls) they Must remain in death-struggle with Boeing, lest there be just The One US Monopoly. What will they risk to demonstrate 'higher profitability' ??

(Yes the NT epithet ought to be reserved for clear-cut boondoggles. I will do better, er less..)

A.