Fact is, even a well-placed 9mm round can kill instantly if you hit the attacker in the right spot... but most shootings don;t really involve accuracy.
That is true... a.22LR will do the same thing...
But I don't see anyone using them in the military...
A.45 ACP has about twice the hitting power as the 9mm round does...
Everything is a tradeoff, but usually in war, more is better.
Nope, it died when they started taking movie stunts as actual things that can happen.
Actually, some of that stuff was quite fun, and it turns out some of it is actually possible.
It is called fan service, the same thing happened when they did the pointless test of "do girls with bigger boobs get bigger tips". Like that is a real myth, everyone knows it is true.
But it was an excuse to have fun with her boobs.:)
IIRC, she was originally hired because she was willing to let them make a mold of her ass for the airplane toilet segment in episode 2, and they realized they need a hottie to counterbalance the walrus mustache and the annoying childishness.
She already worked for M5 before that point, she was building stuff off screen. When they needed someone's rear end, poof, she was on the show.
Then somehow the producers noticed, "hey, she is kinda hot!", and there you go...
I suspect this was just a case of the show being on for a very long time and the two stars having retirement money. At this point they're simply not having fun anymore and want to move onto something new. From the article it sounds like Hyneman wants a job where he just wants to build stuff while Savage wants to do some new TV.
You're correct... but in a year they may really miss it... Well, maybe not, I don't know them, but sometimes you don't know the best time of your life until it is over...
There's not a lot of defensive measures you can take against a well aimed shotgun - presumably the gun of choice for forcefully removing drones from the air.
Sure there is... altitude...
Shotguns are not useful against a drone at 1,000ft above the ground...
It was easier to reply to each section, otherwise it becomes a really long post.
You were asking about why magnetos (an ancient technology) were used in aircraft engines, not why they weren't used in cars. But the answer is just a few months ago, when the battery failed and because there was no electrical power the spark plugs could not fire.
I wasn't asking, it was a rhetorical question, and the battery shouldn't fail, you should have a spare for one thing, and a redundant electrical system.
What you should NOT be doing is using magnetos.
So why the hell are you arguing with me when I tell you why aircraft engines have magnetos?
Because the electrical system shouldn't fail. It is a badly designed airplane that is old and out of date and needs to be replaced. That they can keep making it is a flaw in how the FAA works.
Car companies don't get to keep making the same car, just because they made it last year, but airplane companies do. When airbags were made required equipment, Ford didn't get to say, "well since we haven't redesigned the F-150 in awhile, we'll just not put those in".
The Cessna 172 hasn't had a serious redesign in, well, ever... 1978 is when the 14 volt system was replaced with 28 volt, but it isn't much of an improvement, other than having less loss between the battery and electronics. 1996 of course saw a few changes, but the reality is the airplane is over 50 years old.
Cessna should not be able to keep making it, but the volumes are so low, there is no money in designing a new one. They have tried with the new C-162 light sport plane, but that was a failure for a number of reasons.
Bruce is spot on, but he is bring drowned out by mass media and indifference. I think you can have the future and have privacy, but it will require a new situation from what we have today.
I will say, this is the grand flaw of allowing everyone to have one vote, most people frankly aren't paying attention and don't know what is going on, yet they elect our leaders based on media control and spin.
I don't have a good solution for this, I only see the problem.
Why doesn't Bruce run for office? Without people like him in the system, you just get more of Bush and Clinton.
But you were promoting how advanced those same autopilots
I think you completely misunderstood that as well.
This might be where it went off the rails.
If memory serves, my point was the airplanes have been able to autoland airplanes since 1968 with paying passengers aboard. Someone made the comment that "airplanes can even land themselves these days", to which I was pointing out, "it isn't just these days, it has been a long time".
The same is true in the mililary, when a F/A-18 pilot takes off from a carrier, watch his hands, they are not on the controls.
I marked that video to start at the 3m 38s point so you can see it. Both pilots have their right hands up on the visor. The officer on deck will not launch the plane if the pilots have their hands on the controls.
The computer does the takeoff and initial pitch up and bank, then the pilot can take control.
Frankly, computers can fly better than humans, it is only in decision making that we are generally better, unless split second timing is required, in which case the computer has the benefit of a faster reaction time.
Yes, I know there are so many other wonderful new shiny things being done in automotive engines. Isn't it great? But I also know that magnetos are a simple device that don't require an electrical system to operate. I can have a complete electrical system failure in an airplane and the engine keeps running! I like that. Having an electronic fuel-injection system with computer control of mixture and timing -- computer "blue screen of death" takes on a whole new and more serious meaning.
Yes, it is... when is the last time your car's engine just quit? When is the last time your had an electrical system failure in your car?
Me? Never. I don't know anyone else who has had it happen in a long time either.
I had the electrical system completely fail on me in 2005 while flying with a student, this was in a 2003 172SP with less than 2,000 hours on it. Of course the engine kept on running, but if it was a modern design, it wouldn't have failed either.
The primary problem with airplanes is they are simply not modern machines, the 172 is very old, the electrical system is old, they are hand built, the parts are very old designs, and they are not nearly reliable enough.
Various attempts have been made to change this, but due to the way FAA certification happens, the cost of doing it, and the low volumes involved, you're still flying around with a 35 year old engine in your brand new 172/182/206 Cessna airplane.
This is why you still have lead in your gas, the engines are so old, they aren't all that happy running on non-leaded fuel. The 172 will do it well enough, the 182 would have a much harder time with it and either will take gas with ethanol in it.
If you are a pilot who has any experience with aviation autopilots and you do not consider that fear to be justified
You read what you wanted to read, you did not read what I wrote. Or you picked out just the part you wanted to, either way...
Lets try this again...
If the 747 had a people rated version of the Global Hawk's autopilot, then it would be a very safe machine indeed. As it stands, it does not, it is old and simple and of course is not useful without human pilots.
However, if you wished to, you could build such an autopilot for the 747 and it would be safe, but it might also end up costing as much as the whole plane is worth due to R&D costs.
Why? Because you have less than 2,000 copies of the 747 ever built and likely less than 1,000 still in the air. That isn't very many to spread the R&D costs around on.
you've already admitted that there have been Global Hawk crashes.
Did you miss the whole, "it was in prototype stage, 9/11 happened, and it was operationally deployed without being finished?"
We sent a not-finished prototype to war, no kidding it had issues. Frankly it worked well considering how early the technology was and that it wasn't finished.
I would like to think that if we were in the same room together, it would be possible to communicate more effectively...
It feels like we're talking past each other, rather than with each other...
---
You started talking about business and commercial jet autopilots where tens or hundreds of lives are at stake and saying how perfect and safe such systems are, and now you want to change to unmanned vehicles where passenger safety is irrelevant and crashes are relatively meaningless.
The irony is that the autopilot in the Global Hawk is MUCH more advanced than the one in a 747, yet there is no one on board.
All that means is the autopilot in the 747 is old and basic.
Given a reason and enough money, that can be fixed, but there aren't enough 747s to justify the development cost and even then people wouldn't get into a 747 without pilots because of "fear".
There will be enough cars to do so and make it work well.
Keep in mind that your C182 that you fly still uses magnetos to fire the spark, those are only about 80 years old at this point. The fuel-injection technology is from the 70s, it is ancient. The 6 cylinder engine in that airplane is equally ancient, yet costs about $40,000 just to overhaul.
When you can answer the question as to why that is, then you'll understand why most airplanes have such basic autopilots that haven't really been improved on in many decades.
You will find it in a small fraction of the aircraft flying today, at a small fraction of the airports. It requires special certification for the aircraft and the pilot and the airport. It is not a commodity item that Joe Pilot can have Frank Mechanic install in his C182 and then pass control of the airplane over to Joe Junior the eight year old prodigy.
All true, but not likely for the reasons you might think...
Everything in aviation is just stupid expensive, for several reasons... The first is that it is an amazingly small market, so there is no volume to absorb R&D costs... The second is that it is completely and totally regulated by the FAA which is a very conservative organization. Perhaps rightly so in many ways, but having witnessed it firsthand, I can say that it has no incentive to change.
Using such systems does not make getting the pilot license easier, either. A large part of the training for pilots of those aircraft is not "how to use the autopilot", it is "how to disable the autopilot when it fails".
Actually, most aircraft that are used for learning to fly, don't have autopilots. The newer 172s do, sometimes, but the vast majority of training planes have no autopilot.
As for not learning "how to use the autopilot", you'd be correct, but that is a massive mistake. There is some very old thinking that says that using an autopilot makes you a worse pilot. Nonsense, the autopilot can fly better than you can, what you need the human for is decision making and problem solving, something the computer isn't as good at. If you're busy moving the controls, you're not paying as much attention to the big picture.
I have thousands of hours of dual instruction given, I spent 3 years as the chief flight instructor of a FAA part 141 flight school, I've signed off dozens of initial CFI applications. Pilot training is really outdated.
As I recall, the C182 I fly that has a G1000 glass cockpit has at least nine different ways of disabling the autopilot, and at least two of those methods are part of every pre-flight check before every flight just to make sure they still work.
The autopilot in that system is amazingly basic and it should be easy to disable. There is just no money to make a good one, it would raise the price of the plane too much due to the low volume of sales of light aircraft. They already are crazy expensive.
This problem won't exist with cars. In one month, more passenger vehicles are sold than all the light aircraft in the history of aviation. Cessna has only ever made just over 50,000 C172 in the history of the company, all their aircraft combined barely breaks 100K, and that is over 50 years and they are one of the largest light aircraft builders in the world.
Build 30 million of something in a year and suddenly spending $10 billion to develop it properly becomes reasonable.
No, I'm sorry, the aviation autopilot is a much simpler device and is not the proof-of-concept for AV cars.
"Global Hawk is intended to operate autonomously and "untethered" using a satellite data link (either Ku or Ultra high frequency) for sending data from the aircraft to the MCE."
It is not a "Remote control airplane", it has to be able to take off and fly anywhere in the world without direct control from a pilot. It is expensive and there have been crashes, but it also was tossed into operations while still in prototype stage due to 9/11.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your assessment of Windows 7. I run a Windows 7 VM, and I find that it suffers from the same affliction that all Windows before it suffer.
Then the problem is either having it in a VM, or what you're doing with it.
I've got 12 test machines of various configurations, everything from Windows XP to Windows 10 on them, and Windows 7 was the first version that could be left for years without issues.
Why do you say that? What are these "various reasons"?
There is no "one version" for people to install, there are too many flavors.
There is no "one company" promoting and pushing it, there are many vendors, and sometimes no vendor at all.
Not all Linux software actually runs on all flavors, if the marketshare ever grew, you'd end up having to merge them, or end up not running software on it.
If it did become successful, you'd just end up with a commercial version of it that became well known and you'd end up paying for that, and at some point it wouldn't be "open" anymore. The commercial software purchased for it wouldn't run on the other flavors, rendering them useless.
To understand all this, requires that you understand that this is not a technical issue, but rather a business/economic one.
I find your reasoning flawed. Since most Windows 9x/Me applications were compatible with Windows XP
Most? Some, to various degrees... It was the single biggest jump requiring a change of programs since the move from DOS to Windows... If that jump didn't do it, nothing today will...
---
Note: I'm not saying Linux is a bad thing, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't use it if you like it. What I'm saying is that it has exactly zero chance of becoming a major desktop OS. For reasons that have nothing to do with its technical ability, it just won't.
I see lots of people say, "oh, but it supports more hardware, you have WINE, it is easier to use, etc.". Yea, but none of that matters as to why it won't be successful.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize it's heresy, but price isn't everything.
Agreed, we have stopped shopping at Walmart for the same reason.
Low price isn't enough, they have to run a proper store and treat the employees right at the same time.
Do you feel better now?
Need a hug?
*hugs you*
The .45 ACP hits with about twice as much energy as the 9mm, to suggest it is a toss up tells me you don't understand the situation.
1. The amount of kinetic energy imparted on the target when the round hits.
2. The amount of damage caused by the round when it hits the target.
It really isn't complex, you shouldn't mock when you don't understand such things.
That might be true, but how many people are we shooting at on the battlefield that are wearing body armor that 9mm will penetrate but .45 ACP won't?
Against a soft target (read: human without body armor), which does more damage per hit?
Fact is, even a well-placed 9mm round can kill instantly if you hit the attacker in the right spot... but most shootings don;t really involve accuracy.
That is true... a .22LR will do the same thing...
But I don't see anyone using them in the military...
A .45 ACP has about twice the hitting power as the 9mm round does...
Everything is a tradeoff, but usually in war, more is better.
You can link, good for you...
"Introduced July 27, 2006"
It isn't yet July 27, 2016... when it is, then 10 years becomes true...
But that would be beside the point, a 6700K is at least 3x faster than a E6600
Oct 2005, you couldn't buy a E6600, your only option was a NetBurst based system, which is the P4 line.
Nonsense...
10 years ago the Pentium 4 was the top of the line Intel...
The current chips are well north of 3x faster than the Pentium 4 was, even the dual core versions of that chip.
I'm sure it does... on a 27" monitor... try that resolution on a 12" monitor on Win 7 and report back...
Nope, it died when they started taking movie stunts as actual things that can happen.
Actually, some of that stuff was quite fun, and it turns out some of it is actually possible.
It is called fan service, the same thing happened when they did the pointless test of "do girls with bigger boobs get bigger tips". Like that is a real myth, everyone knows it is true.
But it was an excuse to have fun with her boobs. :)
IIRC, she was originally hired because she was willing to let them make a mold of her ass for the airplane toilet segment in episode 2, and they realized they need a hottie to counterbalance the walrus mustache and the annoying childishness.
She already worked for M5 before that point, she was building stuff off screen. When they needed someone's rear end, poof, she was on the show.
Then somehow the producers noticed, "hey, she is kinda hot!", and there you go...
I suspect this was just a case of the show being on for a very long time and the two stars having retirement money. At this point they're simply not having fun anymore and want to move onto something new. From the article it sounds like Hyneman wants a job where he just wants to build stuff while Savage wants to do some new TV.
You're correct... but in a year they may really miss it... Well, maybe not, I don't know them, but sometimes you don't know the best time of your life until it is over...
There's not a lot of defensive measures you can take against a well aimed shotgun - presumably the gun of choice for forcefully removing drones from the air.
Sure there is... altitude...
Shotguns are not useful against a drone at 1,000ft above the ground...
My gosh, how many replies are you going to post?
It was easier to reply to each section, otherwise it becomes a really long post.
You were asking about why magnetos (an ancient technology) were used in aircraft engines, not why they weren't used in cars. But the answer is just a few months ago, when the battery failed and because there was no electrical power the spark plugs could not fire.
I wasn't asking, it was a rhetorical question, and the battery shouldn't fail, you should have a spare for one thing, and a redundant electrical system.
What you should NOT be doing is using magnetos.
So why the hell are you arguing with me when I tell you why aircraft engines have magnetos?
Because the electrical system shouldn't fail. It is a badly designed airplane that is old and out of date and needs to be replaced. That they can keep making it is a flaw in how the FAA works.
Car companies don't get to keep making the same car, just because they made it last year, but airplane companies do. When airbags were made required equipment, Ford didn't get to say, "well since we haven't redesigned the F-150 in awhile, we'll just not put those in".
The Cessna 172 hasn't had a serious redesign in, well, ever... 1978 is when the 14 volt system was replaced with 28 volt, but it isn't much of an improvement, other than having less loss between the battery and electronics. 1996 of course saw a few changes, but the reality is the airplane is over 50 years old.
Cessna should not be able to keep making it, but the volumes are so low, there is no money in designing a new one. They have tried with the new C-162 light sport plane, but that was a failure for a number of reasons.
Bruce is spot on, but he is bring drowned out by mass media and indifference. I think you can have the future and have privacy, but it will require a new situation from what we have today.
I will say, this is the grand flaw of allowing everyone to have one vote, most people frankly aren't paying attention and don't know what is going on, yet they elect our leaders based on media control and spin.
I don't have a good solution for this, I only see the problem.
Why doesn't Bruce run for office? Without people like him in the system, you just get more of Bush and Clinton.
You may "rather" all you like, that doesn't mean it is going to be option. Or at least not an easy one.
But I suppose the Amish exist, so perhaps a version of them will exist outside of the all wired world too.
And that is ok. It just won't be common, that's all.
But you were promoting how advanced those same autopilots
I think you completely misunderstood that as well.
This might be where it went off the rails.
If memory serves, my point was the airplanes have been able to autoland airplanes since 1968 with paying passengers aboard. Someone made the comment that "airplanes can even land themselves these days", to which I was pointing out, "it isn't just these days, it has been a long time".
The same is true in the mililary, when a F/A-18 pilot takes off from a carrier, watch his hands, they are not on the controls.
https://youtu.be/Kf1N-PyJddk?t...
I marked that video to start at the 3m 38s point so you can see it. Both pilots have their right hands up on the visor. The officer on deck will not launch the plane if the pilots have their hands on the controls.
The computer does the takeoff and initial pitch up and bank, then the pilot can take control.
Frankly, computers can fly better than humans, it is only in decision making that we are generally better, unless split second timing is required, in which case the computer has the benefit of a faster reaction time.
Yes, I know there are so many other wonderful new shiny things being done in automotive engines. Isn't it great? But I also know that magnetos are a simple device that don't require an electrical system to operate. I can have a complete electrical system failure in an airplane and the engine keeps running! I like that. Having an electronic fuel-injection system with computer control of mixture and timing -- computer "blue screen of death" takes on a whole new and more serious meaning.
Yes, it is... when is the last time your car's engine just quit? When is the last time your had an electrical system failure in your car?
Me? Never. I don't know anyone else who has had it happen in a long time either.
I had the electrical system completely fail on me in 2005 while flying with a student, this was in a 2003 172SP with less than 2,000 hours on it. Of course the engine kept on running, but if it was a modern design, it wouldn't have failed either.
The primary problem with airplanes is they are simply not modern machines, the 172 is very old, the electrical system is old, they are hand built, the parts are very old designs, and they are not nearly reliable enough.
Various attempts have been made to change this, but due to the way FAA certification happens, the cost of doing it, and the low volumes involved, you're still flying around with a 35 year old engine in your brand new 172/182/206 Cessna airplane.
This is why you still have lead in your gas, the engines are so old, they aren't all that happy running on non-leaded fuel. The 172 will do it well enough, the 182 would have a much harder time with it and either will take gas with ethanol in it.
If you are a pilot who has any experience with aviation autopilots and you do not consider that fear to be justified
You read what you wanted to read, you did not read what I wrote. Or you picked out just the part you wanted to, either way...
Lets try this again...
If the 747 had a people rated version of the Global Hawk's autopilot, then it would be a very safe machine indeed. As it stands, it does not, it is old and simple and of course is not useful without human pilots.
However, if you wished to, you could build such an autopilot for the 747 and it would be safe, but it might also end up costing as much as the whole plane is worth due to R&D costs.
Why? Because you have less than 2,000 copies of the 747 ever built and likely less than 1,000 still in the air. That isn't very many to spread the R&D costs around on.
you've already admitted that there have been Global Hawk crashes.
Did you miss the whole, "it was in prototype stage, 9/11 happened, and it was operationally deployed without being finished?"
We sent a not-finished prototype to war, no kidding it had issues. Frankly it worked well considering how early the technology was and that it wasn't finished.
I would like to think that if we were in the same room together, it would be possible to communicate more effectively...
It feels like we're talking past each other, rather than with each other...
---
You started talking about business and commercial jet autopilots where tens or hundreds of lives are at stake and saying how perfect and safe such systems are, and now you want to change to unmanned vehicles where passenger safety is irrelevant and crashes are relatively meaningless.
The irony is that the autopilot in the Global Hawk is MUCH more advanced than the one in a 747, yet there is no one on board.
All that means is the autopilot in the 747 is old and basic.
Given a reason and enough money, that can be fixed, but there aren't enough 747s to justify the development cost and even then people wouldn't get into a 747 without pilots because of "fear".
There will be enough cars to do so and make it work well.
Keep in mind that your C182 that you fly still uses magnetos to fire the spark, those are only about 80 years old at this point. The fuel-injection technology is from the 70s, it is ancient. The 6 cylinder engine in that airplane is equally ancient, yet costs about $40,000 just to overhaul.
When you can answer the question as to why that is, then you'll understand why most airplanes have such basic autopilots that haven't really been improved on in many decades.
You will find it in a small fraction of the aircraft flying today, at a small fraction of the airports. It requires special certification for the aircraft and the pilot and the airport. It is not a commodity item that Joe Pilot can have Frank Mechanic install in his C182 and then pass control of the airplane over to Joe Junior the eight year old prodigy.
All true, but not likely for the reasons you might think...
Everything in aviation is just stupid expensive, for several reasons... The first is that it is an amazingly small market, so there is no volume to absorb R&D costs... The second is that it is completely and totally regulated by the FAA which is a very conservative organization. Perhaps rightly so in many ways, but having witnessed it firsthand, I can say that it has no incentive to change.
Using such systems does not make getting the pilot license easier, either. A large part of the training for pilots of those aircraft is not "how to use the autopilot", it is "how to disable the autopilot when it fails".
Actually, most aircraft that are used for learning to fly, don't have autopilots. The newer 172s do, sometimes, but the vast majority of training planes have no autopilot.
As for not learning "how to use the autopilot", you'd be correct, but that is a massive mistake. There is some very old thinking that says that using an autopilot makes you a worse pilot. Nonsense, the autopilot can fly better than you can, what you need the human for is decision making and problem solving, something the computer isn't as good at. If you're busy moving the controls, you're not paying as much attention to the big picture.
I have thousands of hours of dual instruction given, I spent 3 years as the chief flight instructor of a FAA part 141 flight school, I've signed off dozens of initial CFI applications. Pilot training is really outdated.
As I recall, the C182 I fly that has a G1000 glass cockpit has at least nine different ways of disabling the autopilot, and at least two of those methods are part of every pre-flight check before every flight just to make sure they still work.
The autopilot in that system is amazingly basic and it should be easy to disable. There is just no money to make a good one, it would raise the price of the plane too much due to the low volume of sales of light aircraft. They already are crazy expensive.
This problem won't exist with cars. In one month, more passenger vehicles are sold than all the light aircraft in the history of aviation. Cessna has only ever made just over 50,000 C172 in the history of the company, all their aircraft combined barely breaks 100K, and that is over 50 years and they are one of the largest light aircraft builders in the world.
Build 30 million of something in a year and suddenly spending $10 billion to develop it properly becomes reasonable.
No, I'm sorry, the aviation autopilot is a much simpler device and is not the proof-of-concept for AV cars.
Try a Global Hawk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Global Hawk is intended to operate autonomously and "untethered" using a satellite data link (either Ku or Ultra high frequency) for sending data from the aircraft to the MCE."
It is not a "Remote control airplane", it has to be able to take off and fly anywhere in the world without direct control from a pilot. It is expensive and there have been crashes, but it also was tossed into operations while still in prototype stage due to 9/11.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with your assessment of Windows 7. I run a Windows 7 VM, and I find that it suffers from the same affliction that all Windows before it suffer.
Then the problem is either having it in a VM, or what you're doing with it.
I've got 12 test machines of various configurations, everything from Windows XP to Windows 10 on them, and Windows 7 was the first version that could be left for years without issues.
Why do you say that? What are these "various reasons"?
There is no "one version" for people to install, there are too many flavors.
There is no "one company" promoting and pushing it, there are many vendors, and sometimes no vendor at all.
Not all Linux software actually runs on all flavors, if the marketshare ever grew, you'd end up having to merge them, or end up not running software on it.
If it did become successful, you'd just end up with a commercial version of it that became well known and you'd end up paying for that, and at some point it wouldn't be "open" anymore. The commercial software purchased for it wouldn't run on the other flavors, rendering them useless.
To understand all this, requires that you understand that this is not a technical issue, but rather a business/economic one.
I find your reasoning flawed. Since most Windows 9x/Me applications were compatible with Windows XP
Most? Some, to various degrees... It was the single biggest jump requiring a change of programs since the move from DOS to Windows... If that jump didn't do it, nothing today will...
---
Note: I'm not saying Linux is a bad thing, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't use it if you like it. What I'm saying is that it has exactly zero chance of becoming a major desktop OS. For reasons that have nothing to do with its technical ability, it just won't.
I see lots of people say, "oh, but it supports more hardware, you have WINE, it is easier to use, etc.". Yea, but none of that matters as to why it won't be successful.
https://media.ford.com/content...
Give me a call when one of these clever cars can back my boat down a crowded ramp.
Ok, in fairness, this isn't automatic, it is simply an assist feature, but give them a few years, and it'll be automatic.
Flying is in some respects much simpler than driving; and, auto-pilots can now take off, cruise, and land.
Airplanes have been able to do that safely since before a lot of people on this site were born.
With paying passengers no less:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The first aircraft to be certified to CAT III standards, on 28 December 1968, was the Sud Aviation Caravelle
Today you'll find autoland in both business jets and almost all airliners. It really isn't that hard.