[Viffermike]

There's a reason why things such as air traffic and wartime actions are still controlled by humans, folks. We simply don't have the computing and processing power of nature.

Yet.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

There's a reason why things such as air traffic and wartime actions are still controlled by humans, folks. We simply don't have the computing and processing power of nature.

Yet.

Even the latest Boeing Planes can be 100% autonomous, from takeoff to landing.

Glad to know that missies etc in war are not self guided....

Wait a minute......

Guess you are wrong there.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Even the latest Boeing Planes can be 100% autonomous, from takeoff to landing.

Glad to know that missies etc in war are not self guided....

Wait a minute......

Guess you are wrong there.

Fact: No airspace is managed by computer. Machines intermingle with other machines, with human action key in all of it.

A commercial airplane is, by far, the single most complex vehicle on the face of the planet. Why? Safety and redundancy. Yet even those systems are still not even close to being totally autonomous within the framework of air travel. Why? The risk is still too great, even with an extra axis of space to work with (altitude) and exponentially far, far less vehicular traffic to contend with. Doesn't that tell you something?

Question for you: Would you fly on a plane that taxied, took off, flew, landed, and taxied again, with absolutely no human guidance? Didn't think so.

Fact: No wartime action is engaged by computer. I'm sorry, but I want an actual human being firing that guided missile, and an actual human being destroying that guided missile if it's found that the target is illegitimate. Don't you?

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Fact: No airspace is managed by computer. Machines intermingle with other machines, with human action key in all of it.

A commercial airplane is, by far, the single most complex vehicle on the face of the planet. Why? Safety and redundancy. Yet even those systems are still not even close to being totally autonomous within the framework of air travel. Why? The risk is still too great, even with an extra axis of space to work with (altitude) and exponentially far, far less vehicular traffic to contend with. Doesn't that tell you something?

Question for you: Would you fly on a plane that taxied, took off, flew, landed, and taxied again, with absolutely no human guidance? Didn't think so.

Fact: No wartime action is engaged by computer. I'm sorry, but I want an actual human being firing that guided missile, and an actual human being destroying that guided missile if it's found that the target is illegitimate. Don't you?

Wrong

Actually have.

You most likely have as well. You just were not aware of it.

And yes, a human being will send a command to start an autonomous car, just like your missle example. But literally nothing more, again, just like your missle example.

Airspace isn’t managed by computer because most people know the FAA Computer System is 50 years old.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Wrong

Actually have.

You most likely have as well. You just were not aware of it.

And yes, a human being will send a command to start an autonomous car, just like your missle example. But literally nothing more, again, just like your missle example.

Airspace isn’t managed by computer because most people know the FAA Computer System is 50 years old.

Not wrong. Besides: You're missing the point. Humans still initiate and monitor automata, and are held responsible if that automata results in unintended harm. Even in flight, and especially during wartime. Why? Aberrational decisions can't be handled by a computer.

Planes still have pilots. Air traffic is still monitored and directed by controllers. Armies still have generals. Missile systems still have soldiers that press a button/turn a key/enter a code.

You can't possibly argue against that.

That is all.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Wrong

Actually have.

You most likely have as well. You just were not aware of it.

And yes, a human being will send a command to start an autonomous car, just like your missle example. But literally nothing more, again, just like your missle example.

Airspace isn’t managed by computer because most people know the FAA Computer System is 50 years old.

Well not exactly.. Go read up on something called FAA NextGen. The FAA has a good website on the subject matter. I've been apart of putting the new "computer system" in. We started a bit over 10 years ago.

Stick with topics you know about.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Well not exactly.. Go read up on something called FAA NextGen. The FAA has a good website on the subject matter. I've been apart of putting the new "computer system" in. We started a bit over 10 years ago.

Stick with topics you know about.

There you go again making unfounded assumptions.

Very well aware of Next Gen.

What about the start to replace, billions put in, and how “upgrades” were abandoned over the last few decades?

You conveniently omit that, for someone claiming to know about this.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

There you go again making unfounded assumptions.

Very well aware of Next Gen.

What about the start to replace, billions put in, and how “upgrades” were abandoned over the last few decades?

You conveniently omit that, for someone claiming to know about this.

Sure, you think you know what you are talking about. That was pre NextGen. None of the FAA air traffic management system is 50 years old, except the radar locations. Even MEARTS isn't 50 years old...

LOL

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Sure, you think you know what you are talking about. LOL. That was pre NextGen.

And as pointed out, that is why FAA is not computer controlled as the technology is 50 years old, as I stated in OP.

Thanks for proving my point.

Suggest you reread my post again and quit assuming what is posted.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

And as pointed out, that is why FAA is not computer controlled as the technology is 50 years old, as I stated in OP.

Thanks for proving my point.

Suggest you reread my post again and quit assuming what is posted.

Proved what point? I'd bet Lock Mart and Raytheon would tend to disagree with you. They might program one or two FAA computer systems. And not with punch cards.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Proved what point? I'd bet Lock Mart and Raytheon would tend to disagree with you. They might program one or two FAA computer systems. And not with punch cards.

It’s Lockheed Martin.

Guess you really aren’t that in the know.

The system the FAA has used for essentially the last 50 years is a disaster and that is why the system was not automated, which was the response to why the air system is not automated.

The current system depended on controllers writing info on paper and placing it on a board.

Next Gen received initial funding in 2007 and is only half way complete, with completion not scheduled until 2030.

Guess you can claim a lot, but evidence showing you clearly are not that up on that subject either.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

It’s Lockheed Martin.

Guess you really aren’t that in the know.

The system the FAA has used for essentially the last 50 years is a disaster and that is why the system was not automated, which was the response to why the air system is not automated.

The current system depended on controllers writing info on paper and placing it on a board.

Next Gen received initial funding in 2007 and is only half way complete, with completion not scheduled until 2030.

Guess you can claim a lot, but evidence showing you clearly are not that up on that subject either.

Well most people in the industry and employees (like me) back in the day when Martin Marietta merged with the Lockheed Corporation affectionately call it Lock Mart for short (kinda a play on WalMart because the merger made Lockheed Martin the largest defense contractor in the US and the world for that matter). So until you can tell me which machine in B Building of the Martin Marietta Corporation manufacturing plant in Middle River, Maryland built part of the tooling for the Space Shuttle, then I'll consider you know what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to Lock Mart, or Martin Marietta, or the Glen L. Martin Aircraft Company for that matter.

And perhaps you'd like to research a bit on STARS and ERAM and see what Google tells you about FAA automation. And the FAA has been using parts of NextGen going on the better part of 7 years already, but as you wouldn't understand, the FAA can't and doesn't for flight safety reasons just switch over from the Radar-based surveillance system to the GPS-based system over night. And ATC does not use paper and board technology to track and control aircraft. So stop being an ass, and get back to discussing how drivers in Arizona are free to run over jaywalking pedestrians without legal repercussions.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Well most people in the industry and employees (like me) back in the day when Martin Marietta merged with the Lockheed Corporation affectionately call it Lock Mart for short (kinda a play on Wall Mart because the merger made Lockheed Martin the largest defense contrator in the US and the world for that matter). So until you can tell me which machine in B Building of the Martin Marietta Corporation manufacturing plant in Middle River, Maryland built part of the tooling for the Space Shuttle, then I'll consider you know what the fuck you are talking about when it comes to Lock Mart, or Martin Marietta, or the Glen L. Martin Aircraft Company, for that matter.

And perhaps you'd like to research a bit on STARS and ERAM and see what Google tells you about FAA automation. And the FAA has been using parts of NextGen going on the better part of 7 years already, but as you wouldn't understand, the FAA can't and doesn't for flight safety reasons just switch over from the Radar-based surveillance system to the GPS-based system over night. And ATC does not use paper and board technology to track and control aircraft. So stop being an ass, and get back to discussing how drivers in Arizona are free to run over jaywalking pedestrians without legal repercussions.

Lock mart is store in the Bronx.

http://www.lockmart.com/

Once again, suggest you read posts and quit inventing what I said, as clearly I am more informed of how FAA operates than you.

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

It’s Lockheed Martin.

Guess you really aren’t that in the know.

The system the FAA has used for essentially the last 50 years is a disaster and that is why the system was not automated, which was the response to why the air system is not automated.

The current system depended on controllers writing info on paper and placing it on a board.

Next Gen received initial funding in 2007 and is only half way complete, with completion not scheduled until 2030.

Guess you can claim a lot, but evidence showing you clearly are not.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

And ATC does not use paper and board technology to track and control aircraft. So stop being an ass, and get back to discussing how drivers in Arizona are free to run over jaywalking pedestrians without legal repercussions.

Who to believe?

You or FAA?

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Who to believe?

You or FAA?

Both. So at least you are trying to educate yourself. That's the system that assigns aircraft tracking to controllers at an ATC facility. The tracking of aircraft in enroute and terminal airspace utalizes automation.

The last time two commercial aircraft ran into each other in flight was? The last time a GA and Commercial ran into each other in mid flight was?

If the system used by the FAA to control aircraft is 50 years old, the where does the flight tracking data for such commercial internet sites such as FlightAware and FlightView come from? Graphical .pdfs of paper strips made on a copier machine?

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Both. So at least you are trying to educate yourself. That's the system that assigns aircraft tracking to controllers at an ATC facility. The tracking of aircraft in enroute and terminal airspace utalizes automation.

The last time two commercial aircraft ran into each other in flight was? The last time a GA and Commercial ran into each other in mid flight was?

Sorry. You both are not correct.

I have a pilots license and have been in tower multiple times.

You seem to forget this started with post Automation was decades away, even though Boeing 777 can takeoff, fly and land without any human intervention.

The response was that FAA had systems of computers, when in fact, they have a paper system in use and have for around 50years. That is why Airspace cannot be automated - the system is paper based and antique computers. Paper cannot be automated.

Then you stated no paper.

That was proven wrong as well.

Nice try, but both of you are wrong as proven by FAA and people that do know what the facts are.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

Sorry. You both are not correct.

I have a pilots license and have been in tower multiple times.

You seem to forget this started with post Automation was decades away, even though Boeing 777 can takeoff, fly and land without any human intervention.

The response was that FAA had systems of computers, when in fact, they have a paper system in use and have for around 50years. That is why Airspace cannot be automated - the system is paper based and antique computers. Paper cannot be automated.

Then you stated no paper.

That was proven wrong as well.

Nice try, but both of you are wrong as proven by FAA and people that do know what the facts are.

Good for you. Air traffic is not controlled from just airport towers.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I have a pilots license and have been in tower multiple times. .

Tower has little to do with real air traffic control. Tower just provides separation on the runway. Go visit an enroute facility (well, you can't...but if you could...), it is bristling with technology and computer systems that integrate multiple sources of data into one, not to mention all of the quality control equipment that is used to analyze those data. They may use flight strips at some facilities, but that's not the equipment that is providing the information and doing all the work. I have been to a facility within the last few months, as well as seen the next generation oceanic enroute control in action. Those centers are about as high-tech as anyone will ever see. They aren't open to the public, but rest assured it's not some guys looking at antiquated "scopes" and what you see in movies. Most facilities are probably in the billions of dollars of computing equipment.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Tower has little to do with real air traffic control. Tower just provides separation on the runway. Go visit an enroute facility (well, you can't...but if you could...), it is bristling with technology and computer systems that integrate multiple sources of data into one, not to mention all of the quality control equipment that is used to analyze those data. They may use flight strips at some facilities, but that's not the equipment that is providing the information and doing all the work. I have been to a facility within the last few months, as well as seen the next generation oceanic enroute control in action. Those centers are about as high-tech as anyone will ever see. They aren't open to the public, but rest assured it's not some guys looking at antiquated "scopes" and what you see in movies. Most facilities are probably in the billions of dollars of computing equipment.

Nice post. I really didn't want to get into the alphabet soup of FAA air traffic control and explain all of them such as SWIM, ADS-B In, ADS-B Out, ATCRBS, ACARS, WAM, ASDE-X, ASSC, MEARTS... blah blah blah... all paper-based ATC systems. It's why the FAA's biggest NextGen contract is with Parker Brothers for ink pens.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Fact: No airspace is managed by computer. Machines intermingle with other machines, with human action key in all of it.

A commercial airplane is, by far, the single most complex vehicle on the face of the planet. Why? Safety and redundancy. Yet even those systems are still not even close to being totally autonomous within the framework of air travel. Why? The risk is still too great, even with an extra axis of space to work with (altitude) and exponentially far, far less vehicular traffic to contend with. Doesn't that tell you something?

Question for you: Would you fly on a plane that taxied, took off, flew, landed, and taxied again, with absolutely no human guidance? Didn't think so.

Fact: No wartime action is engaged by computer. I'm sorry, but I want an actual human being firing that guided missile, and an actual human being destroying that guided missile if it's found that the target is illegitimate. Don't you?

I mean, heck, you've seen the movie The Terminator, right? Scary stuff

[Wolf 335]