The end of the driver / pilot / driver ...

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
User avatar
Grelinette
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 2007
Registration: 27/08/08, 15:42
Location: Provence
x 272

The end of the driver / pilot / driver ...




by Grelinette » 31/08/14, 11:27

Hello everybody

I open this new post because the subject is more and more topical and seems interesting to me because it concerns most modes of transport.

In addition, it seems that many specialists from different fields are currently reflecting and debating on this sensitive subject (eg aeronautics).

Who will be the means of transport for the future in the next few decades?


You have all heard the recent announcements from Google which provides that his car without driver will be operational and reliable by 2020 at the latest, same for Nissan. (car without driver)

In the aeronautical sector, with in particular drones which already fly without pilot over thousands of km, at least no pilot on board because it is installed in an armchair on the ground, certain specialists affirm that by 2050 there n there may be more pilots on airliners!

Near future planes, for the transport of passengers or freight, should therefore be fully automated to allow their unmanned flight on board, from takeoff to landing.

Note that today, the automated landing of large aircraft is operational: an aircraft can approach the runway, land, move on the ground and reach its parking area without any human intervention.
(I believe that the takeoff phase is more complicated and still requires human intervention).



Will there nevertheless be a pilot on the ground for each flight, a technician, a computer scientist or a supervisor on board future planes, or someone who follows and can intervene on the flight of a control center of a particular place?

For example, a super control tower, aircraft in flight responsible for managing all unmanned aircraft in flight, or even "a system of self-control and self-management" of aircraft in flight between them. ("I control myself and I control others, who do the same") ! ...)


In short, planes and cars are concerned with the subject, and in the same terms, buses should therefore naturally follow. Some trains are already running without drivers, for boats I imagine that there are automatic navigation systems, but I have never heard of a future fully automated system allowing to navigate a boat without a captain.

The subject becomes more and more topical because regularly, especially lately with the black series of air disasters, it turns out that human error is often at the origin of the crash: misinterpretation of data, neglect, stress, fatigue, malaise, terrorism, suicide, ...

Some say that in most cases, an automated system without any human intervention could probably have avoided the disaster!

There will surely be an important phase of acceptance of passengers who embark on a mode of transport without driver or pilot (plane, train, bus, taxi, car, boat, etc.), but the fact is that an electronic and computer system should not exhibit the failures and flaws that represent a human being who is entrusted with the safety and lives of tens, even hundreds of passengers.

There are undoubtedly other flaws which will slow down this generalized automation, such as computer or electronic terrorism which can allow an action of destruction at a distance (there is always a flaw), or on a centralized control station, or even electronic and computer systems based on artificial intelligence and which behave erratically, but it seems that the process is now under way and that little by little we should be placing special trust in machines.

What do you think ?

NB: note that this automation process is also topical in the middle of the high frequency speculation (Ex. 2010 stock market crash), and the problems posed in terms of economic risks are ultimately the same as those posed for transport security.
0 x
Project of the horse-drawn-hybrid - The project econology
"The search for progress does not exclude the love of tradition"
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 31/08/14, 12:51

In an increasingly complex universe, man has less and less his place and this evolution is in conformity with the scientific-technical process ... (Sen-no-sen will tell us more about it).

Obviously, this is only an internal trend, nothing says that it will happen, because for that it must be assumed * that this same complexity does not find its internal limits and that its beautiful mechanics does not stop pitifully!

* We spontaneously adhere to this supposition by the effect of analogical reasoning (which is an unreliable mode of thinking), it is however the least likely occurrence, as soon as it becomes more and more credible. .. Paradox!
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: The end of the driver / driver / driver ...




by Obamot » 31/08/14, 15:46

Grelinette wrote:What do you think ?

For public transport modes, it's a revolution that will make traffic safer, no doubt about it: the weak link this is human being. It reminds me of the famous anecdote of R&D at Airbus, which said before the success of the aircraft manufacturer we know (it was at the time of the launch of "all electric" and the integration of computer redundancy on board) that"to improve air safety, soon there will only be a need for a dog in the cockpit if we really want to keep pilots there". And the journalist thinking of the diversions to ask: -"Why a dog?" and the developer to answer him: -"A dog trained to bite in order to absolutely prevent the pilots from touching anything during the flight, and coming to make a mess".

Alas the crash in 2009 of Flight 447 Paris-Rio was an illustrious example (pitot probes unsuited to the types of aircraft for transatlantic flights, a captain who will rest in a pre-critical situation of cumulonimbus thunderstorms during a night flight, pilots who are not well enough trained, who panic and ultimately lose control of the plane.)

For private vehicles, and if we were in a perfect world, we could say that this technology is fantastic, because it will decrease the road deaths in the long term (it is certain, when ALL vehicles will be equipped with it, mainly useful on long tiring journeys on the highway). But there will undoubtedly be a period at the beginning, when only a privileged few can afford them.

My answer goes in the same direction as the previous one, but with practical examples on the trend in the evolution of technologies in the automotive sector.

I think that before 1995, the cars were all "problem cases" but with a little prevention, we were able to get by fairly well at little cost, especially with the Japanese.

Then came the on-board computers and OBD, which were to herald a new era of driver "liberation" through self-diagnosis.

Only ten years later (around 2005) the electrical breakdowns had exploded, passing in approximately 56% of the cases:

Image
Source: Touring Club Switzerland

Whereas on the contrary, IT and electronics are extremely well mastered areas (in "proprietary" configuration), and should therefore only constitute a very small part of all breakdowns! But it would bring in much less ...

Since then, even those who hacked their vehicles somehow have become very limited. The European Commission even had to bang on the table, demanding that the OBD is not a captive system that requires going to the dealer (thus was born the OBD II, supposed to be an open architecture). But more and more voices are rising to say that OBD readers, unless you have a sophisticated one at 10 roros, do not have any latitude to resolve faults (at least those relating to detection by this system) at best we can clear the breakdown that appears on the dashboard (but that will reappear later necessarily, if we have not resolved the case, and there to do it, sometimes the troubles start at this stage , with some French brands for example, an electrical sensor part purchased for scrap cannot be reassembled in your vehicle in the absence of a code from the parent company, and which must be introduced the same day via the OBD / II: problem, your dealer will never give you this code!).

So what I think, not only good. What I would like is to leave the choice to the consumer, but there I dream, as much in the field of IT as that of the automobile (and some others), we do not ask their opinion! And if this technology seems very attractive, it only has an attractive name ...

A single example is the "immobilizer" system which was introduced by brands to prevent car theft. Try to unlock this system without being a dealer, it's almost impossible. And to unlock, it can cost you up to 2000 euros and more (with the most greedy) ... So be careful with your keys, always keep the "master" in a safe place, make copies if you don't. don't have any (even if it costs you a bit expensive ... And if you buy a used vehicle, make sure you have everything: the keys, the master, and the small card that contains a VIN * code for some manufacturers, and make sure everything is working) because the dealers tell you that without the master it is impossible to duplicate the RFID of the key transponder, and they will easily sell you the ECU (central unit) while in practice , it is possible to do it without changing everything. For example, some dealers of a brand do it in England with the registration card / chassis number, while others will tell you that it is impossible elsewhere in Europe ...

* VIN = Vehicle Identification Number.
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: The end of the driver / driver / driver ...




by sen-no-sen » 01/09/14, 15:24

Grelinette wrote:What do you think ?


The subject that you launched joins the idea developed in the following subject:
Tomorrow all the unemployed?
https://www.econologie.com/forums/demain-tous-chomeurs-t13279.html

It appears and those contrary to what we are willing to swallow, that automation is not at all a guarantee of absolute security.
He hides behind the sacrosanct pretext of security (as a problem, and automation as a solution ...) a great nugget!
If indeed the automation of means of transport can seem to be a guarantee of security of said means of transport, it includes two hidden variables:
1) More automation means less human beings at work ... and therefore less work, therefore more precariousness,therefore less daily security for the said workers / human being.

2) More automation means more machine, therefore more technique, therefore more destructive environmental modifications, therefore more health degradation for us human beings ...therefore less security.

In reality, automation is a clever way to reduce the number of accidents in a world where the process of "technicalization" becomes totalizing (not to say totalitarian!)
To make an analogy, it would be like taking increasing doses of painkiller in order to take hammer blows on your hands proportionally!

Now let's back up with the numbers:
Below the evolution of the number of travelers in PKT (passenger, kilometers transported) by plane over the period 1960/2006 ...
Image


(...) The transport of passengers by air is not to be outdone. Indeed, over the same period, the number of passenger-kilometers-transported (PKT) increased from 132 at near 4 billionEither 30 times more in 2006 than in 1960.

http://politique.eu.org/spip.php?article517

It appears clearly through his examples (I have many others!) That the excessive increase in a sector as sharp as that of aeronautics, leaves less and less room for piloting errors. .and human!
Rather than reducing the number of flights, the proposed solution is therefore to automate the last flights ... in order to maximize the number of people transported.
:|
Once again we find our retro-active loop amplifying problems ... of course, transport is not the only affected!

Some say that in most cases, an automated system without any human intervention could probably have avoided the disaster!


Why on earth put a bomb in the holds when a simple hack is enough!
Many drones have already been hacked ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 02/09/14, 15:04

In summary, if I summarize a few points: while automation would be supposed to free man, it makes him a contrario therefore even more captive of those who hold "the keys to the system".

The great paradox is not so much that it is automation that causes it, but what human beings have made of it.

The big question at this point is: a society founded on another paradigm, what would it do with it ?.

We see that Google and others are on the way to use drones to make their deliveries, again this will not solve anything except to delete workplaces, and again the sad downside is that these devices put in bad hands are also capable of the worst indiscriminate violence when armed ...

Automated stock market trading does no better, ruining industries as much as small farms in the primary sector.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972

Re: The end of the driver / driver / driver ...




by Christophe » 02/09/14, 17:32

sen-no-sen wrote:Now let's back up with the numbers:
Below the evolution of the number of travelers in PKT (passenger, kilometers transported) by plane over the period 1960/2006 ...
Image

(...) The transport of passengers by air is not to be outdone. Indeed, over the same period, the number of passenger-kilometers-transported (PKT) increased from 132 at near 4 billionEither 30 times more in 2006 than in 1960.

http://politique.eu.org/spip.php?article517


Interesting graph, but what is the ordinate scale? Because it does not correspond with the text (I read 3000 billion in 2006 and not 4000?)

If not a passenger, how many tonnes in civil aviation? 0.12? 0.15? History of comparing the Tonnes of passenger.km.transported :)

This info would have its place in a subject dedicated to air transport ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 02/09/14, 17:35

Obamot wrote:(...)

We see that Google and others are on the way to use drones to make their deliveries, again this will not solve anything except to delete workplaces, and again the sad downside is that these devices put in bad hands are also capable of the worst indiscriminate violence when armed ...

Automated stock market trading does no better, ruining industries as much as small farms in the primary sector.


Yes ... and unemployment is the luxury of too rich societies!
And it is not a paradox! Just an economic math!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 02/09/14, 18:05

Yes ... and unemployment is the luxury of too rich societies!
And it is not a paradox! Just an economic math!

No, it is not the richness of our society that is at stake, but the fact that it is based both on work (on a personal level) and on its ever greater exclusion from productive processes: it is where is the untenable paradox ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: The end of the driver / driver / driver ...




by sen-no-sen » 02/09/14, 18:47

Christophe wrote:Interesting graph, but what is the ordinate scale? Because it does not correspond with the text (I read 3000 billion in 2006 and not 4000?)

The ordinate scale corresponds to the number of passengers transported multiplied by the distance traveled expressed in kilometers, hence the astronomical figures which result from it ... I think that a small error must have crept into the texts concerning the 4000 to place of 3000 ...

This graph confirms (source United Nations).
Image

Some interesting data here:

Here are some other figures on the evolution of air traffic in the world:

The growth rate of air traffic in 2012 was 5.5%
The biggest growths were observed in emerging countries and in particular China (+ 9.5%) and Brazil (+ 8.6%)
By 2016, there should be more than 816 million more passengers compared to 2012 worldwide.
Air traffic is growing 2.5 times faster than global GDP.
There were 974 new connections between different airports in 2012.

http://www.toolito.com/chiffres-du-trafic-aerien-dans-le-monde/

Image

http://www.jcdecaux-airportparis.fr/Le-Media-Aeroport/Pourquoi-le-media-aeroport/Le-trafic
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 03/09/14, 02:11

Yes, I knew that there were mios of passengers every day in the air, permanently between 13 and 14 mios ... : Shock:

This represents nearly 7 billion passenger tickets transported per year!
These figures are accurate and mind-boggling!

With "only" 600 victims per year, which represents bad luck on 11,6 million, I still doubt that if we automated the piloting of planes and air traffic control we would have fewer accidents than that!

Besides, I don't think the passengers would accept flights "unmanned"in" large-body drones "...? I don't think that the conscience is ready for that! Even if it was a safer chouilla"without", I think I will never choose a flight without crew in the cockpit, as long as we let the passengers decide what they want! (It would be a shame to have only hostesses and flight attendants left on a plane, honestly I wouldn't feel reassured!)

What would possibly be needed would be expert systems, with which pilots would have to deal more and more, but which they would always have the possibility of "taking back control" by manual control in the event of a problem. Only a pilot can be aware that there are passengers on board and multiple "life risks" to deal with during the flight, a computer will never be able to and that still makes a huge difference, amha.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 188 guests