man machine interface

[khan 95]

the modernization of aviation where computers have taken over most of the jobs of the pilots....has it really helped?....why still there are accidents despite the state of the art technologies?...is there a place for the actual "throttle and stick pilot who loves flying himself" in future

[vecvechookattack]

Journo alarm......Journo alarm.....Journo alarm........

[soddim]

Computers have most certainly helped pilots to operate aircraft because he or she now has much more capacity to cope with the role rather than the flying. However, although this spare capacity can also be used to fly safer, the computers cannot change the basic equation - flying is inherently dangerous and aircraft don't always meet the ground in an agreeable fashion.

Having accepted the usefulness of computers, should they be given more control of basic flying functions? I think it is important to consider why before designing more computer-reliance into an aircraft. If it is not going to confer an advantage why do it?

[BEagle]

I don't think that khan 95 is a journo....

Interestingly, the recruiter for a certain airline recently told me that they won't consider anyone who does not have an enthusiasm for aviation. He threw out an application from a type-rated applicant who had no real interest in aviation in favour of an application from an enthusiastic, hard working youngster.

So yes, the right airlines still want real pilots, not machine minding drones.

[Onan the Clumsy]

I wonder why (military) flying hasn't been reduced to operating an advanced sim linked to a pilotless drone. Perhaps future requirements for maneuverability will dictate that no humans are carried in the actual craft.

(c) 2005 Onan the Clumsy - permission required for reproduction (at least that's what my my wife says )

[Tarnished]

Khan 95, I think you have either posted this on the wrong thread or have little or no understanding of what military aviation (tactical) is all about.

There is no technical reason why modern airliners could not dispense with flight deck crew in toto. You ride between terminals at a lot of the world's airports on trains without drivers. However, I suggest that Joe Public just isn't ready to ride in the back of an aluminium death tube with no driver...yet. But in most airline scenarios the AP goes in very soon after lift off and might not come out again until after and autoland in near zero viz.

On the other hand in tactical military aviation I was once told that any idiot can be taught to fly an aircraft, but to "operate" one of her Majesty’s fine fighters was a whole different ball game. You are constantly appraising the tactical situation and making decisions. The take off, landing and getting from A to B is about 10% of the job. (45.7% of statistics are made up on the spot!)

True computers have made a huge difference to the working life of a fighter pilot, but having computers to reduce workload does not mean the pilot sits there doing nothing, it means he can now do much more than before or do it "better" than before.

As Soddim points out flying is inherently dangerous, the only way to ensure that accidents don't happen is to keep the hangar doors locked. But here again computers have helped reduce accident rates (GPWS, TCAS depend on computing power to function). High speed computers and FBW flight control systems no allow previously "unflyable" aircraft to fly and reap the benefits in the process.

Here's a thought to ponder; what about an aircraft that features an "auto pull-up", an "auto-recover" and an "auto-eject" capability? An improvement or an intrusion?


T

Just seen Onan's question prior to posting, I believe you will always need a set of eyes, ears and a brain in the cockpit to be able to relate back to the commander on the ground what even the most capable of modern sensors and systems can't appreciate. Intercepting a hijacked airliner is a good example, can you get a UAV to formate in a position such that its camera can see into the flight deck as might have helped in a 9/11 scenario? Not yet.

[buoy15]

KHAN

Computers and FBW have been installed to assist the pilot to fly the aeroplane safely within it's design spec and help reduce the workload. They are intended to keep the ac within the the flight envelope and keep the pilot and machine safe.

You still have the option to overide and fly manually, but some computer functions will prevent you doing anything it considers dangerous or out of limits.

Unless in an emergency, why would you want to do this anyway unless your getting bored, so why should you be flying in the first place?

[AfricanSkies]

When computers become good enough to eliminate airliner crews, everyone will be staying at home playing with their virtual reality games and shaqqing their clones instead....

[Darth Nigel]

Technically, there is a lot of bandwidth required to send information back from the unmanned combat vehicle to the pilot on the ground. And there's a problem that you need to be able to send control inputs to the combat vehicle in real time, without risking interruption from the bad guys (either your enemy forces or a bunch of bored chavs on a council estate).

For a UAV with no (or v. limited) combat capability, you can get away with sending less information back, but in a combat situation (whether dog-fighting or ground attack), you need a fair amount of info to maintain situational awareness. This can be video feed of some kind, as well as radar and other sensor feedback -- updated in real time.

What can you do in designing such a system?
One choice is to give the unmanned combat vehicle more autonomy, via smarter computers/skillful programming (shameless plug), so the beast can make some decisions on it's own. Downside of this is obvious -- the damned unmanned combat vehicle might start shooting at the wrong target (which is clearly not a problem with human pilots :E )

Another thought is to tie the pilot's workstation (OK, we'll call it a 'cockpit' if you want) in to other "god's eye view" systems as well as data from other sources. Then you can minimize the data needed from the unmanned combat vehicle, as well as adding some significant computing power on the ground to present the tactically useful information coherently.

Real advantages of an unmanned system:
(a) airframe can be made to survive more extreme G-forces
(b) don't need to carry "life-support" or indeed human-readable cockpit displays
(c) if it all goes horribly wrong, air vehicle can be blown up or steered into the ground at great speed without having to worry about a pilot getting out.

[Onan the Clumsy]

I think (a), (b) and (c) above will mean that it will eventually happen in some fashion or other and I think (a) will be the deciding factor with (b) second and (c) a disappointing third. :(

because (a) will be required, (b) will reduce expenses and (c) has no bearing on "moving General Haig's drinks cabinet six inches closer to Berlin".



...that's assuming of course that future warfare will be between two superpowers or earth v aliens (well you never know). If it's between a superpower and a primitive opponent, well you could just as readily start producing Spitfires again :ok:

[Safeware]

Why do accidents still happen? Well, taking Tarnished's "45.7% of statistics are made up on the spot!" (almost), around 80% of military aircraft accidents are caused by human error. But, as illustrated, we need aircraft to operate military aircraft in an operational environment. So, while we can continue to push technology to make unstable aircraft flyable etc etc, and continue to try and make systems safer, the biggest risk area is still putting someone in the cockpit, and its is a risk are that engineers will continually strive to reduce. But it is a risk 'we' (society, our lords and masters and above all, military aircrew) are prepared to take. When societal perceptions change, that's when you'll see unmaned airliners. But the military will still want the man in the loop.

sw

[hanger_pilot]

Controversial to say the least, but here goes…..

FJ Pilots are taught how to fly and fight, which from experience I have found that they are currently the best at doing. However, now the bad news, the days of manned Fast Jet piloting is nearly over, but the traditional stick and rudder mentality is still with us for some reason. They (i.e. you) cannot seem to objectively accept any piece of technology that has the slightest chance at putting you out of a job.

Ask any aircraft designer – the weakest part of any FJ is the tangible margins that accommodate the pilot (G – tolerance, weight, cost and morality factors if they killed in combat, etc).

Why can’t you accept that the technology is there to replace the function that you once provided and move on - Incidentally, passenger aircraft don’t want a computer to fly the aircraft because they want a human face at the front of the aircraft regardless of ability (but wait a minute …….. a computer never gets pissed the night before a sortie …. go figure!)

You can vent your spleen in the following pages as I expect you will……..

[5 Forward 6 Back]

I'm not sure. You can't jam the signal from my brain to my hands as easily as you jam the signal from a ground station to a UCAV.

Likewise, SA and sensation's important. We have chaps crashing the sim due to the lack of feedback; sometimes you need someone there in the cockpit. I don't think I've seen a system which can readily replicate the feeling and view from inside a cockpit properly.

Besides, have you seen the packages needed to support a single UCAV? ;)

[plane of motion]

I think that the UAV transition is one day inevitable, but a few comments I must make.
With everything in Air to Air combat being driven to avoiding the merge (AMRAAM+Capable Radar), and if you are driven to the merge not having to turn (HOBS heater misslies, AA-11, ASRAAM, Aim 9X) why do people think it is important to have a 12g+ aeroplane.
In such roles as CAS, where human interaction is critical in terms of talking a pilot on to a target from the ground, and avoiding fratricide. How the hell is a UAV expected to perform this function? CAS or KI are the two roles where by far the most weapons have been dropped in combat in the past 5 years.

It will be interesting to see the the whole new field of countermeasures that are deployed to defeat these things. Jamming being the first one that comes to mind, but also I think there will be a whole bunch of CMs developed to fool the autonomous ones.

Obviously i am a fighter pilot who is biassed, but I do think that fighter pilots jobs are safe for at least till 2025. If anyone disagrees I would like to hear your argument for Lockheed scrapping the JSF project!!!!

[glum]

I forsee CAS being carried out by a UAV under the direct control of the ground force commander. It hangs out in the upper atmosphere, armed to the teeth and awaits an order from the ground. When required, the force commander points his laser target designator at the target and in comes the support.

[Onan the Clumsy]

You can't jam the signal from my brain to my hands as easily as you jam the signal from a ground station to a UCAV Good point and a flimsy response, but it happend with an airliner coming into Vegas and a hand held laser on the ground. Unless the television reports were...exagerated.

[Tarnished]

That'll teach him for looking out the window!

Happened more than once, good excuse for ageing airline pilots to have to stop cheating at their eyesight exams and blame a laser for the deterioration.

Retire on disability no doubt.

Ooops thread creep

T

[Pontius Navigator]

Talking of sensation and feedback, if the pilot is in a battle station aircraft then there may be a question of false sensation. The Ex is in a gentle left and the UCAV in a hard right.

I understand there was this sort of problem in the Brigand. The nav rad sat sideways. A hard turn had him leaning forwards of back and acceleration rolling left/right. Quite unnerving.

[Spotting Bad Guys]

The Predator already carries out highly effective and precise CAS:

See here (http://www.dod.mil/news/Feb2005/n02092005_2005020913.html)

The system also has the advantage of being able to transmit the imagery directly to ground forces (suitably equipped with a 'ROVER' system). It can self-lase Hellfire or buddy lase for another aircraft's weapons, and stick around to conduct BDA.

However, the feedback and SA issue remains key, as the article suggests.

Cheers

SBG