Talk:Autopilot

message: The most recent additions to this article adds information but is desperately in need of editing.  I'm not an expert on this subject someone who's more knowledgable to edit it.
Comatose51 02:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: It is not very informative to say that modern autopilots use software to control the aircraft, without specifying exactly what the software does, we might as well claim they work by magic.
It is more accurate to say that modern autopilots are implemented as computer software.  As far as concepts are concerned this is mere implementation detail. The methods of autopilot design remains the body of knowledge called control engineering, which makes no assumptions concerning the implementation; the design may be implemented conceptually as analogue circuits, shift registers, computer code or even electro-mechanically. Gordon Vigurs 19:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Software Science or Control Engineering

message: An anonymous user from the address  recently added the following note to the CAT IIIc entry in the Aviation Autopilot Categories of Landing section:
:(Please look for Globalhawk, which might be the 1st to have such capabilty as of 2006)
"Globalhawk" presumably refers to the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV.  I have reverted the addition, as it was unreferenced and not written in an encyclopedic tone, but if someone with more knowledge about the subject than me could dig up a reference, the mention should presumably be included in some form.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalhawk? 

message: The descriptions of categories CAT III a/b/c don't match those in the Instrument Landing System-Article. I assume that they are both describing the same thing? 80.139.138.5 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A dual-channel system means that TWO autopilots are controlling the airplane during a fully automatic landing. The Triple-channel means that THREE APs are controlling the plane, during a fully automatic landing. I think the B-737s use the dual channel for auto landings, while planes like the 777 and A350 use triple channels. The only time the rudder is joined into an AP control of the aircraft, is during those fully auto approaches and landings.  At all other times, the APs move only the elevators, horizontal stabilizers, ailerons and spoilers, to maintain the plane on proper course and altitude.EditorASC (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aviation Autopilot Categories of Landing 

message: This article doesn't credit any sources. It looked like a good building block for me to go from on a university essay I'm writing, but the lack of sources means I can't chase up what's said and verify for myself, and quite frankly referencing wikipedia for a piece of coursework isn't a great idea...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.94.238 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources? 

message: I know of no situation where an autopilot will take action in a TCAS RA situation, and have removed this line from the article.  The first step is invariably to disconnect the autopilot and flight directors if fitted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.216.106.86 (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. A TCAS resolution can be followed ONLY by a human pilot manipulating the controls, in respond to that command.EditorASC (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopilots and TCAS 

message: The statement "IRU's are completely self-contained and use gravity and earth rotation to determine their initial position (earth rate)." doesn't ring true to me.  I'm happy that IRUs can self-align (to find North and Up) without external inputs, but believe that they all need an external Initial Position - either in the form of a manual IP insert, or from some alternative navaid like GPS.  I'm inclined to trim this suspect detail out rather than to expand (since it's a long way off-topic), but thought I'd better give others a chance to comment first since my detailed interest in IN design ended almost twenty years ago.
Zeusfaber (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When a flight is begun, the pilots MUST enter an accurate Lat-Long position that is accurate for that gate, where the plane is sitting. The IRU can take it from there and usually will be only a few miles off at the end of a flight from LAX to Tokyo, for example.  However, today, the information from the IRUs are constantly updated via reference to the GPS system, so that the FMCs remain highly accurate at all times, as to their actual position over the globe.EditorASC (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-locating INS? 

message: When did the first autopilot capable of successfully landing a plane come into use? 206.57.41.114 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopilots capable of landing a plane 

message: After reverting the edit by 76.126.123.225, it appears that there were several different dates involved.  The original work on *aircraft* autopilots appears to have been done by Sperry in 1912, and publically demonstrated in 1914.  1911 was the year in which the US Navy accepted a *marine* gyroscopic gyrocompass/autopilot (http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/sperry.html), and development of that dates several years further back (patents seem to date back to at least 1908 - #1,242,065, for example).  Rwessel (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Gyrocompass bases on a quite different physical phenomenon than gyroscope, as explained in the article. I doubt if gyrocompass could be used for a marine autopilot, as (in its early forms) it reacted very slowly. The gyro_scope_ was used for marine (even submarine) autopilot much earlier than 1911, if I remember correctly around 1890s? --Kubanczyk (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopilot invention date (1912/1911) 

message: I have a WP:COI with Honeywell Aerospace, who has donated several images under a Creative Commons license. I added an image of a modern autopilot system they contributed. Since the image is not clearly distinguishable as a Honeywell product and I did not mention them in the caption, I didn't feel this was a COI edit and went a head and put it in. Corporate Minion 22:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Autopilot Image 

message: The cite states one possible etymology for "George" was George Debeeson.... "one of the key contributors to its development.[1]"  This seems dubious.
That same cite article contains a section written by George Debeeson's son, Max.  In that article, the son writes, "Whether George's invention was incorporated into the popular mechanism of the day or not is uncertain."
 
Prior to World War II, I can find no references to the term "George" as an autopilot.  After the war, the term is quite common.  It is highly doubtful pilots of that era would be aware of an individual who's son isn't certain of his father's contribution to a device invented and commercialized by the well known Elmer and Lawrence Sperry of Sperry Corporation.  Why not, "Let Sperry Do It?"
 
According to a number of World War II pilots, the term was coined by the RAF.  There are three theories: 1) "Let George Do It," referred to the aircraft's owner, King George VI (reigned 1936:1952);  2. The device is essentially a gyroscope. During World War II, the military phonetic for G (Gyro) was George (it is now Golf)<^ "The International Phonetic Alphabet for Radio Communications". Communications Specialists. http://www.comm-spec.com/phonetic-alphabet.php. Retrieved 2009-02-27. ></ref>;  3) A popular phrase from the first half of the twentieth century and the 1940 George Formby film, To Hell with Hitler ("Let George Do It" was the original title). The phrase means when something has to be done, let somebody else do it.  From 1934 to 1945, George Formby was the top comedian in British cinema and in 1939, was the number one film star of all genres.<^ "FORMBY IS POPULAR ACTOR.". The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954) (Hobart, Tas.: National Library of Australia): p. 5. 25 February 1939. Retrieved 24 April 2012.></ref>
I would propose that at minimum, these alternative explanations be included.Jjlaughlin (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. I've simply removed the dubious statement, as it is clear it is incorrectly sourced. It has minimal relevancy but introduces a great risk of misinforming the readers. --Kubanczyk (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source of the term "George" 

message: I have removed from this article the alleged picture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:737NGAutopilot.png) of the autopilot from a B737-800 as the picture was clearly a screenshot from a flight simulator program that was then cropped. As an encyclopedic article, I believe this did not constitute an accurate real-life representation of a real B737-800's autopilot interface.
As an aside, I am unfamiliar with nominating images for deletion. As the picture in question is not in use anywhere else (as of writing) and is clearly not a photograph of an actual B737-800's autopilot, perhaps it would be prudent to nominate this image for deletion? King Arthur6687 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed picture of B737-800 autopilot, picture is clearly a screenshot from a flight simulator program. 

message: I think this article really needs an "In popular culture" section with a reference to the most well-known autopilot system amongst the American general public: Otto the blow-up doll from the movie Airplane! Thoughts? Carguychris (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: This really needs a better picture of an auto-pilot console. Current one is blurry, not taken at a level angle, text on the labels is hard or impossible to read and it has all sorts of light and flare artifacts. 103.106.91.178 (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopilot console example picture 

message: — Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture