Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 19, 2018, 03:22:55 PM
Post by: kimmer on March 20, 2018, 12:14:24 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 20, 2018, 09:18:50 AM
The death of the pedestrian may have happened regardless of what/who was driving the vehicle. Regardless of the ads we see, it is physically impossible to stop a mass like a car (much less an 18-wheeler) in an instant. It takes time and therefore distance. If the object is within that distance, it will be hit. From what I've read/heard, the pedestrian entered the roadway mid-block and possibly from between other vehicles/obstacles making it difficult, if not impossible to have been seen before the time required in the equation above. Unfortunately, "fault" does not make the loss of life any less painful or tragic.
I can only assume that the law will continue to hold the owner/driver of these kinds of vehicles responsible of the safe operation of them. My question is how can we expect a "driver" to be any more alert while being a passive passenger than when they are actively controlling the car? We already see folks doing all sorts of things while "driving". And we can't blame all that on cell phones, people have been putting on make-up, shaving, reading, talking to passengers, etc. almost since passenger vehicles were invented. Of course, a horse would usually avoid running/walking into a building/tree or at least slowing down...
Perhaps I should have put this on the Community side. My comments are certainly straying from the technical side of things...
Post by: Highmac on March 21, 2018, 06:03:23 AM
QUOTE(Xairbusdriver @ Mar 20 2018, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Perhaps I should have put this on the Community side. My comments are certainly straying from the technical side of things...
I reckon it's fair enough, since it's a topic where it's difficult to separate the human/tech aspects
London's DLR (Docklands Light Railway) addition to the capital's rail transport network has been operating driverless for more than 25 years. Searching for "DLR crash" finds only one incident. Ironically, it was during a test run before the line opened when a human was in control. The DLR is quite good fun to use, since there is no driver's cab, just a locked (of course..!) control panel at the front seat. This means that if they are lucky, a child can sit there and pretend they are driving. I would add that there is no upper age limit on childhood
Continuing the 'humans and tech' theme, we watched the film "Sully" last night. I'd be interested to hear from you, Jim, whether you've seen the film and, if so, how accurate the portrayal felt to you. Generally every profession - whether it's lawyers, cops, judges taxi-drivers or journalists - complains about how Hollywood treats their particular job. I accept you were not there, so you can't say how accurate it really was, as opposed to how it felt to you.
The inquiry was told simulations by Airbus showed the plane could have made it to La Guardia or another whose name I can't recall. They were shown the simulations and Sully picked up that they made no allowance for reaction time on the part of the crew. "We could have done it if we'd been told in advance what time it would all happen..." The simulations were then rerun to allow for 35 seconds "reaction time" which proved the humans (it was rightly emphasised that it was a combined crew effort) had got it right.
We saw archive news clips alongside the end credits and Hanks seemed to have got the 'character' of the real-life pilot.
Found this on a UK aviation website - interview with Clint Eastwood about the making of the film and definitions of "heroism".
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 21, 2018, 10:11:58 AM
I think the best line in the linked interview is from Captain Richard de Crespigny;"Sully shows us a better way to investigate safety. Safety officials generally only research events where things go wrong. The answers uncover ignorance, inadequate training or lack of experience. Rarely do the positive influences emerge." Of course, most events that get investigated don't have 'successful' outcomes, so the findings are usually pointers to out to prevent a re-occurance. That doesn't leave a lot of room for 'positive influences'.
A couple of key factors enhanced Capt. Sulley's chances.
- He was an accomplished sailplane pilot, that gave him great experience in situational awareness, especially in understanding how fast he was losing altitude. That directly affected how far the aircraft could go.
- He was not working alone. He had a great First Officer.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 21, 2018, 10:47:14 AM
After a congenial discussion with "Customer Service" and supposedly thorough search, I returned with the free replacement. Unfortunately, the 'new' package still had a fungus-growing berry. At least it was not at the dripping stage...
Post by: kimmer on March 22, 2018, 02:16:36 PM
http://abc13.com/dashcam-shows-deadly-cras...ehicle/3234502/
Highmac, I haven't seen "Sully" as I read too many reviews that said it failed to follow the book and real events; however, I did read the book when it came out and it was great. I recommend you read the book, and forget what you saw in the film.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 22, 2018, 02:59:50 PM
I hope that job description strongly identifies what the safety observer was supposed to be doing! I’m also betting there is a bit of a delay in the video display. As we say in aviation, “Who’s flying the plane?!” That’s always the first question no matter wether “George” is there or not...
Post by: Highmac on March 23, 2018, 09:02:19 AM
QUOTE
Richard is more than a professional pilot, he is committed to giving his passengers the best possible experience and being a positive representative of the Qantas, Airbus and Rolls-Royce brands.
Shortly after landing...
QUOTE
No-one had been injured but the Twitter-sphere and Internet were abuzz. The Qantas CEO, Alan Joyce, was travelling in a car with his head of Corporate Communications when they received a phone call asking why Qantas’ share price was falling dramatically. For them this was the first sign of a problem and highlights the instant speed of social media and its power to impact a brand in real-time.
It's a fascinating read (IMHO!) and would that more businesses took the "customer-centric" view seriously.
Sorry folks - is this getting TOO far off topic?
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 23, 2018, 09:18:35 AM
QUOTE
Sorry folks - is this getting TOO far off topic?
Not in my humble opinion! While "Tech" is fairly new consumer area, all outstanding businesses need to keep in mind the reason they can stay in business. If they don't treat their "masters" with respect and honesty, they will cease to exist. I have always been proud to have worked at the "fly-by-nyt" package delivery company during my working career. They not only treated customers but their employees better than 95+% of industry. 
They never questioned me about any decision I made, even as a junior crew member. Questions? Yes, but not to punish, only to learn and improve operations/safety.
Post by: kimmer on March 27, 2018, 03:03:08 PM
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/self-dri...-crash-arizona/
Post by: Xairbusdriver on March 27, 2018, 03:13:10 PM
"Our Lidar can see perfectly well in the dark, as well as it sees in daylight, producing millions of points of information. However, it is up to the rest of the system to interpret and use the data to make decisions. We do not know how the Uber system of decision-making works" It didn't take long before the blame shifting started...
Amazing how many times people are quoted as being "baffled" by this event. Really? I would simply suggest that some managers and executives be used as "obstacles" in further tests. Perhaps that would instill some well needed oversight in the programs.