Airbus A320 Crashes in Alps

Hikari Kisugi said:
Indeed, I agree.
But remember, they still wouldn't have done as much damage to 'passengers' as suicidal pilots...... ;)
Click to expand...

Well as I've pointed out the actual risk to passengers of getting killed whilst in the air by suicidal pilots is nil. Now a terrorist with a bomb may kill some in the air. So if we are going to just focus on one silly aspect at the expense of the actual whole picture, ie the really relevant thing, then why not eh!
 
Xordium said:
Well as I've pointed out the actual risk to passengers of getting killed whilst in the air by suicidal pilots is nil. Now a terrorist with a bomb may kill some in the air. So if we are going to just focus on one silly aspect at the expense of the actual whole picture, ie the really relevant thing, then why not eh!
Click to expand...

If your going to act like a child then I'll point out that mid air collisions can also kill passengers in the air. So a suicidal pilot could indeed kill passengers in the air.
 
ianh said:
Don't worry MattG, I understand your point and your statement is factually correct but people here won't just won't let go once they start an argument.
Click to expand...

I've been here long enough to have a thick skin against keyboard warriors who want to one up themselves. Picking up on every typed word and trying to turn it into something its not:D
 
mattyg said:
If your going to act like a child then I'll point out that mid air collisions can also kill passengers in the air. So a suicidal pilot could indeed kill passengers in the air.
Click to expand...

I am merely demonstrating to you how your comment was meaningless as it didn't account for the most significant thing. And what you propose there is theoretical it has never happened with a civilian jet.
 
Xordium said:
I am merely demonstrating to you how your comment was meaningless as it didn't account for the most significant thing. And what you propose there is theoretical it has never happened with a civilian jet.
Click to expand...

Are you really going to take it upon yourself to point out EVERY meaningless post on this forum..


Your gonna be busy.


Maybe I should have wrote. At this point in time the risk of being killed by a suicidal pilot is greater than being killed by a terrorist pilot
 
Gentlemen please...

Jz4mH0m.gif.png
 
Werewolf said:
Computers are only as good as their programming, and several possiblr crashes have been averted in the past because the aircrew were able to spot things that they hadn't been trained for and work out a solution on the fly.
That has from memory included doing things that went against what would normally be acceptable, not to mention the number of times aircrew have averted an accident because they've realised that one of the instruments feeding them (and the computers) was at fault.

As examples how many autopilots are programmed to find an out of service airfrield, do a visual approach and landing when the engines have all run out of fuel?
A situation that was thought to be impossible before it happened, but the pilot of the jet had fortunately got a lot of experience in gliders and was able to combine his knowledge of the aircraft, knowledge of gliders and history of the area he was flying over to work out how to get a passenger jet down relatively safely (IIRC they managed to repair it enough that it flew on to a functioning airport within a week).

At the moment the situation with the Pilots AND a good modern autopilot is about the best you can get, and will likely remain so for a very long time as humans are almost always going to do better in unexpected situations that haven't occurred before than the computer (for one thing humans can make use of their own senses if an engineer has forgotten to uncover one of the instruments).
Click to expand...

Whilst a lot of what you say is true, there have also been several cases where the pilots have either ignored or misinterpreted the alarms/errors thrown by the computer systems. If the aircraft was completely automated and authorised to make decisions by itself then accidents may have been avoided/less severe in these cases.

Obviously, there are cases to be made for both sides of the argument and I do agree that having some level of human involvement is still wise for now; however I think that the future is in completely automated aircraft, especially given recent advancements in the field of artificial intelligence where computers can be given situations with no rules and very limited information about the environment and still be able to find optimal solutions to the problem at hand.
 
You're almost to Australia.
Your statement is utterly pointless, with put including all deaths.

As pointed out to you by pretty much everyone in this thread.
 
Funny how you have no support for you statement.

I said you failed, you have. That doesn't mean it's not factually correct. It means it fails. Its an utterly stupid statement.
I thought you said it didn't mean anything, so you are also lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom