SW17LS

I don't know that I agree with this. True in a commercial airliner a lot of the routine stuff is handled by computers, but I can't see a computer using the benefit of experience and instinct it took for the Sully Sullenberger to land that plane in the hudson river. Look at the Malaysian flight, largely accepted that plane was under computer control...and its never to be heard from again. When things get hairy or unusual...pilots take over.

I like the idea of automation and technology helping to make driving safer, but to replace drivers? I'm not sold yet.

GISguy

The 1995 UZZ31 Soarer would beg to differ (GPS nav, 4WS, active hydro-pneumatic suspension).

RXSF

It wasn't a century ago when japanese manufacturers were pioneers in technology. They have since gone downhill from their peak in the late 90s though.

I hope Lexus continues to roll out lane keep assist to all models like the mercedes distronic plus systems

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

yes, but there's nothing stopping a pilot from taking over remotely if FAA/etc. considers that a computer couldn't handle the situation. commercial planes (starting with cargo flights) will essentially become huge drones in the future.

if the pilots were dead they wouldn't be of much use.

SW17LS

I dunno, theres so much that goes with being there in the moment...

True enough lol

Interesting article about the "myth of automated planes", might not be as automated as you think:

http://www.askthepilot.com/questiona...omation-myths/

Mr. Burns

In the 90s it was the opposite.

spwolf

new systems are being rolled out in 2015 in the US... i posted links and videos on the front page. It looks smarter actually, using GPS to predict what it cant handle and warning you ahead of time.

As to the people thinking it is similar to airplanes, obviously it is a lot more complicated than airplanes... one of the videos posted shows busy intersection in Japan and how system stops at the cross walk, turns right at intersection, etc... there situations are extremely delicate.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

90s, so what?

the past is in the past, doesn't matter what they did 20 years ago, what they are doing now is reality. i won't go into details but in my line of work, i actually get exposed to some future technologies in automobile, and guess what, most are on board except japanese.

and imho, this is not a bad thing. being a pioneer a lot of times means you are the one working out all the bugs. i would rather have lexus master technology and come out right

Sulu

Japanese manufacturers (especially Toyota) may be conservative in applying new technologies here in North America, but back home in Japan, they are quite innovative, because the society demands it from them.



I believe that the technology is available now for driverless cars; the problem is that we do not yet know HOW to put that technology to use.

Yes there are countless variables that must be taken into account, and the problem is that we do not yet know what we need the sensors to measure and how to combine the signals from all the sensors that we may need.

The problem is that we do not know what we need and what we DO NOT KNOW.




Pilots and computers have come to a healthy symbiosis in the cockpit: pilots monitor the computers and computers monitor the pilots, as both keep watch on the aircraft in flight. Automation is very good at flying the aircraft in routine, predictable circumstances are not good at flying in crisis situations.

Captain Sullenberger did take advantage of some computer control while controlling the aircraft into the Hudson River, but only so that he could concentrate on flying and controlling the aircraft.

The automated systems on Airbus aircraft are known to second-guess the pilots, trying to avoid what the computers believe are movements that are wrong for the aircraft. But what may be wrong to the flight computer may be right to the experienced pilot.

Human pilots are very good in crisis situations because we can make instantaneous re-wiring of our sensors to combine signals in fashions that automated systems cannot yet do. Automated systems are hard-wired for routine situations; human pilots (and drivers) are soft-wired to take full advantage of all sensors that we have, at all times.

I disagree. Part of what makes drifting fun is the risk inherent in it. It takes great skill and concentration to do it, and the driver knows that if something out of the ordinary happens, it could mean the difference between a successful drift and a crash into the wall. Each driver-controlled drift is also different because human drivers never do anything the exact same way, and is what makes it fun.

But automated systems are very good at doing things in the exact same manner time after time (that is why they are very good at flying aircraft in routine situations). Do you want the exact same drift time after time? After 2 or 3 computer-controlled drifts, they would get completely boring -- "been there, done that".