Euclid I use some 150 watt incandescents, and they seemed to only last about 1/8th of their rated life. I began writing the date of installation and date of failure on them, and saved them. I wrote to GE and told them about it and made the case that they owed my about 45 bulbs as an adjustment for the short life over some time. They said they would look into it and wanted me to send the failed bulbs to them. I had about 25 that I sent them. After several more phone calls and letters over 10 months, they finally told me they could not find any problem, but they sent me the 45 replacement bulbs.
I use some 150 watt incandescents, and they seemed to only last about 1/8th of their rated life. I began writing the date of installation and date of failure on them, and saved them.
I wrote to GE and told them about it and made the case that they owed my about 45 bulbs as an adjustment for the short life over some time. They said they would look into it and wanted me to send the failed bulbs to them. I had about 25 that I sent them. After several more phone calls and letters over 10 months, they finally told me they could not find any problem, but they sent me the 45 replacement bulbs.
No wonder GE would rather change the world.
When I was growing up in SE Michigan, it was a regular thing to take burned out bulbs to the local office of Detroit Edison, where they gladly exchanged them for new bulbs. Talk about customer service!
That practice died long ago, as has the concept of a "local office."
I didn't get too far into CFLs. Most of my lights are now LEDs. Most of mine seem to be doing OK. CFLs actually are a disposal problem...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
rrnut282 Only if it is affordable for the masses, insurable, maintainable, convenient, and flexible, will [the self-driving car] take off. If it comes to pass, Amtrak will lose a big selling point. i.e. arrive relaxed and refreshed.
Only if it is affordable for the masses, insurable, maintainable, convenient, and flexible, will [the self-driving car] take off. If it comes to pass, Amtrak will lose a big selling point. i.e. arrive relaxed and refreshed.
daveklepper I have to keep repeating a refrain that nobody on this thread seems to notice ---- and thus lack realism. Driverless airplanes are with us, even, today, takeoff and landing! But all still require a pilot, and for commercial aircraft, a pilot and copilot. And they have to "drive" on occasion to keep their skills up to put them to use in emergencies. Driverless trains are with us. Most heavy rail modern rapid transit systems are such or going in that direction. But all still use operators, one to each train. Ditto heavy freight railroads, usually one-comodity, mining or other industry owned. Why are you assuming driverless cars, driverless buses, driverless trucks, will really be driverless? Any different than driverless trains and airplanes? I think any government road authority would be absolutelyl crazy, out-of-their minds, to consider such a thing. Even 50 years from now.
I have to keep repeating a refrain that nobody on this thread seems to notice ---- and thus lack realism.
Driverless airplanes are with us, even, today, takeoff and landing! But all still require a pilot, and for commercial aircraft, a pilot and copilot. And they have to "drive" on occasion to keep their skills up to put them to use in emergencies.
Driverless trains are with us. Most heavy rail modern rapid transit systems are such or going in that direction. But all still use operators, one to each train. Ditto heavy freight railroads, usually one-comodity, mining or other industry owned.
Why are you assuming driverless cars, driverless buses, driverless trucks, will really be driverless? Any different than driverless trains and airplanes? I think any government road authority would be absolutelyl crazy, out-of-their minds, to consider such a thing.
Even 50 years from now.
The Muskingum Electric was completely automatic. I recall reading that they at first had an operator but were able to eventually remove him. One of the Australian mining railroads wants to automate their trains, removing the lone operator. (They say they can't get people to work in the remote areas they operate in. It's probably more like they don't want to pay the wages needed to get people to work in remote areas.) I've read that some overseas transit systems were to be automatic, with no human operator on board.
While I and people I know, older adults mostly, wouldn't want to get on a pilotless plane or in a driverless car/bus, that sentiment may be changing. Young people growing up surrounded by technology of some kind in almost every facet of life may not hold those feelings. Frank Wilner in a Railway Age column said as much. In the future it could very well be that a majority of people will be accepting of operatorless transportation systems. When that happens, who knows what 'requirements' for onboard operators will be.
Pilotless airplanes may be not happen anytime soon. (I hope) However, I wouldn't say it can't or won't happen eventually.
Jeff
PS. This is my fourth attempt at posting. I've been havin internet problems (Someone is supposed to come out tomorrow. I got lucky, they had a cancellation and moved me up from my original appointment of next week.) and it keeps dropping out before it will post. Isn't technology wonderful.
My next door neighbours (husband and wife) are both airline captains. They say automation is already here, and most of the time they're just along for the ride. They're more systems managers than pilots.. the only "real" flying they do is in their off hours piloting their own Cessna 150.
UlrichMy next door neighbours (husband and wife) are both airline captains. They say automation is already here, and most of the time they're just along for the ride. They're more systems managers than pilots.. the only "real" flying they do is in their off hours piloting their own Cessna 150.
And a number of the recent avaiation disasters have had as a contributing cause a flight crew that just thought they were along for the ride, and when it came time for them to utilize their actual flying skills, it was found they had forgotten them (if they ever possessed them) on the planes they were operating.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDAnd a number of the recent aviation disasters have had as a contributing cause a flight crew that just thought they were along for the ride, and when it came time for them to utilize their actual flying skills, it was found they had forgotten them (if they ever possessed them) on the planes they were operating.
Please be more specific with these. All the ones I can think of (the Air France fiasco with the lousy Airbus airspeed-indicator design, for one) were either failures of 'expected' aircraft instrumentation or performance, on the one hand, or distractions and personality quirks leading to inattention. That's by no means saying there aren't examples where 'the knowledge' got rusty, but given the attention most carriers give to keeping up proficiency (e.g. with simulator time in type) I suspect your concern is far less significant as stated.
And of course there are several rather high-profile examples where automation systems might have precluded, not contributed to, aviation disasters -- Germanwings being an obvious example, and Flight 93 perhaps only marginally less so... you can fix stupid; fixing evil can take a bit more work.
RME BaltACD Please be more specific with these. All the ones I can think of (the Air France fiasco with the lousy Airbus airspeed-indicator design, for one) were either failures of 'expected' aircraft instrumentation or performance, on the one hand, or distractions and personality quirks leading to inattention. That's by no means saying there aren't examples where 'the knowledge' got rusty, but given the attention most carriers give to keeping up proficiency (e.g. with simulator time in type) I suspect your concern is far less significant as stated. And of course there are several rather high-profile examples where automation systems might have precluded, not contributed to, aviation disasters -- Germanwings being an obvious example, and Flight 93 perhaps only marginally less so... you can fix stupid; fixing evil can take a bit more work.
BaltACD
One incident I recall - there may be others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
BaltACDOne incident I recall - there may be others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
Asiana wasn't at all what you describe - it was an explicit result of poor HMI between the autopilot system and the crew at a time the crew was distracted by other circumstances. Review the NTSB report if you have any questions.
This was in no way an issue involving either 'flying skills' or familiarity with the flying characteristics of the aircraft type, other than to get into an unrecoverable envelope in the first place (and I agree with you that that particular crew shouldn't, and showed poor judgment in getting there.)
On the other hand, one thing the Asiana accident demonstrated compellingly is that an 'automatic' flight-director system that produces improper control inputs based on poor algorithms is NOT well designed. (I find myself making this point far more often that I should have to in machine and systems design!)
The first place I saw this starkly demonstrated was in a different context, at Three Mile Island in 1979. There, adherence to 'documented systems' applied deterministically was frankly disastrous. And only a more modern version of safety-system control, one which managed emergent outcomes and dynamic recovery rather than attempting to 'can' deterministic responses to 'every possible combination of contingencies', would have helped that situation.
Sometimes the systems work ..
rdamonSometimes the systems work ..
According to a former USAF fighter crew chief I know, instances of fighter pilots blacking out and flying into the ground (or sea) are more common than one might think... Usually right after a high G maneuver...
I've also read that another cause of "controlled flight into terrain" is spatial disorientation in a whiteout condition. It causes the pilot to no longer believe his instruments and completely forget which way is up.
CSSHEGEWISCH ...spatial disorientation in a whiteout condition.
Isn't that thought to have been JFK, Jr's issue, in effect?
tree68 CSSHEGEWISCH ...spatial disorientation in a whiteout condition. Isn't that thought to have been JFK, Jr's issue, in effect?
I believe that he did not have an instrument rating and flew into IFC so it would be possible.
JFK Jr did NOT have an instrument rating. It was legal to fly VFR where he was going. Metorologic conditions were OK for VFR flight. What was lacking was visual reference as he crossed the sound. Pilots who are not instrument rated tend to follow their senses rather than beleiving their instruments. That cost him dearly.
Oh, and while on the subject of instruments, it was posted on another board by an airline captain who flies a 777 that they are not capable of taking off by themselves. They can autoland, but do not take into consideration runway conditions such as rain, snow or ice. They can not taxi themselves to the gate or to the runway. Given that every airport has a different configuration, programming the flight director to do that would be a monumental task.
Norm
Norm48327 What was lacking was visual reference as he crossed the sound.
Which is what I was thinking of.
tree68 An airliner may be able to land "automatically," but that does not necessarily take into account that errant Cessna 172 (PSA 182).
An airliner may be able to land "automatically," but that does not necessarily take into account that errant Cessna 172 (PSA 182).
From what I remember about that incident, the C-172 pilot was flying IFR and following instructions from ATC after doing a simulated missed approach from Lindbergh Field. PSA 182 was on a visual approach to Lindbergh. The hard nosed analysis was that the PSA flight failed to see and avoid the 172, with the 172 being hit from behind by the 727. Both airplanes were on the downwind leg of the airport traffic pattern. Note that ILS at Lindbergh is available only from the less commonly used direction on the main runway, the active runway for that day still is VFR only.
A more complete account was there was a whole bunch of extenuating circumstances, such as a lack of Conflict Alert radar display at the Lindergh tower, lack of any civil ILS's in San Diego County outside of Lindbergh, lack of collision avoidance systems, etc. The public clamor to "DO SOMETHING" led to the establishment of a Terminal Control area around Lindbergh, ironically the most important change is that jet aircraft have to make a long straight in approach to Lindbergh and can no longer take the VFR short cut being used by PSA 182 on that fateful day. FWIW, my oldest sister was about 8 blocks away from where the wreckage of the two planes hit North Park.
This does remind me a lot of PTC discussions, where PTC is being proposed as "THE SOLUTION", when simpler and less expensive alternatives may actually be more beneficial.
Here is a pretty good overview of what happened to PSA 182.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFaTl30e2c4
In the late 1950s I worked as an instructor and charter pilot. I flew to and from Lindebergh Field on numerous occasions. Landing to the west, I believe it is Runway 27, does not allow for a lot of wiggle room.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
[quote user="jeffhergert"]
JPS1 Here is a pretty good overview of what happened to PSA 182. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFaTl30e2c4 In the late 1950s I worked as an instructor and charter pilot. I flew into and from Lindebergh Field on numerous occasions. Landing to the west, I believe it is Runway 27, does not allow for a lot of wiggle room.
In the late 1950s I worked as an instructor and charter pilot. I flew into and from Lindebergh Field on numerous occasions. Landing to the west, I believe it is Runway 27, does not allow for a lot of wiggle room.
For JPS1 and RME:
This is the site I like to get information on commercial airline accidents and incidents from. It is a factual site. No speculation other than what may be posted in the comments section. The link will take you to the report on Asiana 214. It does not go back to the days before the internet.
http://avherald.com/h?article=464ef64f&opt=0
spsffanOf course there is (was) infamously, BART. You will recall that it was supposed to be driverless, and, I think was for a while. Until way too many problems cropped up. These days, the driver generally does not much more than look to see that all the doors are closed before leaving a station. But the original concept was for driverless trains.
That's because computers are great, but as great as they are, they are not intelligent and cannot think. As soon as even a little bit of judgement and intelligence is required we're back to having a human in charge. This is why I believe completely self driving vehicles are further off in the future than most people believe. As yet we have a very limited understanding of how the brain works, and we're likely centuries away from replicating a machine that can duplicate or improve on how our brain works.
Google's cars reached the 2M mile mark.
https://www.wired.com/2016/10/googles-robo-cars-hit-2m-miles-confirm-driving-dadgum-tricky/
Recently, no less an eminence than our own Fred Frailey expressed some concern over the possibility of the development of "self-driving" (autonomous) autos and trucks. This subject has drawn a cionsiderable amount of attention at City-Data.com, a site I've been posting on regularly for the past five years. Below is a link to a long thread:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/automotive/2077630-do-you-want-self-driving-car.html
The original poster of the discussion above probably typifies the most vocal of the "self-drving" advocacy -- a 20-something male with the anxiety issues which seem to be incerasingly common among young men raised in single-parent, female-headed households.
Having spent the earliest years of my career in trucking, and continuing to follow industry trends, I really think a lot of years are going to pass before autonomous trucks will pose much of a threat. Within our own favorite industry, little progress has been made toward auronomous rail movements, despite the much smaller route structure, fixed right-of-way and guidance, and well-developed Centralized Traffic Contol systems. When the additional factors of weather, much more frequent movements, and the programming needed to negotiate as simple a matter as a left turn, we're a very long way from implementation -- even in streets with a stable grid pattern, or the closed confines involved in spotting trailers at dock doors..." [snipped]
Been following this Thread for some time...as it went from various autonomous vehicles [cars, and trucks] and on to airplanes [computerized, involving the so called 'glass cockpits' that when data is set in their 'puters sort of fly themselves(?)] I am reminded of a story that circulated around FedEx some years back of the three person cockpit- Pilot,Co-pilot, and Rotweiler. Every one prettty much knew what the job of the pilot and co pilot were: Pilot 'set' the flight computer, Copilot ordered the Catering, But the Rottweiler(?). The dog was there to bite anyone who tried to reset the computer after its initial setting...
Back on topic; The airport at Atlanta ( Call it whatever you want to, they keep adding local politicians names to its title.) If you have ever flown in or out of ATL, chances are pretrty good that you have had to ride that "Train under the Concourse" It is automated and runs in tunnels under each of the concourses [14 stops on two lines ( turns back at the terminal on each end of line) It went into operation in 1980, a product of Westinghouse and Adtranz. It has been rebuilt and orupgraded since opening, now Bombardier is responsible for operations. Point is this is an autonomous system of 80/90 vehicles operating in a closed system that has claims of 175,000 rider a day(?) and in 2002 claimed 64,000,000 people had ridden it(?) Safe? Make you own judgements
Link@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plane_Train
And a You Tube video @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9ld_akpRAI
And future plans @ http://www.aviationpros.com/press_release/12254277/atlnext-project-to-extend-plane-train-tunnel
samfp1943...Atlanta...
Seems like I've ridden such trams at other locations. Detroit Metro has one, albeit much shorter.
But this is the realm where autonomous vehicles work the best - as you say, a closed system.
Clearly this is not full sized, but take a look at www.miniatur-wunderland.com. The vehicles follow traces in the roads, but are smart enough to make their way to charging stations when their batteries get low.
Given a PTC-type position reporting system in all vehicles, autonomous gets a little closer.
I have ridden the people carrier in the Atlanta airport; I think I rode one in Las Vagas. Also, my wife and I rode Vancouver's Skytrain, which also has no driver. In each of these, I simply trusted that the system would take care of the passengers. ALl, of course, are kept on tracks and do not go wandering around the cityside.
Johnny
rdamonAutomation will happen, it is a matter of technology and cost.
I read some time back, in an article about RFID tags, that the day would come when you would walk your grocery cart right through the checkout. Every item would have an RFID tag, and so would your "courtesy card," which would be tied to a credit card. The cart would be scanned for all items, your bill totalled, and charged to the appropriate account. Maybe pick up a copy of your receipt on the way through the door.
tree68 rdamon Automation will happen, it is a matter of technology and cost. I read some time back, in an article about RFID tags, that the day would come when you would walk your grocery cart right through the checkout. Every item would have an RFID tag, and so would your "courtesy card," which would be tied to a credit card. The cart would be scanned for all items, your bill totalled, and charged to the appropriate account. Maybe pick up a copy of your receipt on the way through the door.
rdamon Automation will happen, it is a matter of technology and cost.
Remember a few years back when the credit card people came out with the card that you just waved near the reader? I always worried that I could walk by a checkout counter and pay for someone else's groceries.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/08/31/delta-leads-quest-end-lost-airline-luggage/89641986/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.