"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it be technically possible to have a fully automated airliner, well most likely. Is it practically possible, not likely when you account for all the variables. And there are several tangents to that.
Technology integration and possible investment failure is a line of thought. In fact prematurely introducing a technology before it is mature enough can deal a devastating blow to its image and potentially cripple it for a very long time.
So along these lines. It is one thing testing, its another thing introducing it to the real world. We know for a fact that real world use can bring out all sorts of bugs and faults that should have been foreseen, and others that where not, and could not have been foreseen. Now we don't need to go though a list of aircraft models and faults do we?
The effect is, apart from the general apprehension associated with Jo public in the first place, what do you think is going to happen after the first one or two aircraft inevitable drop out the sky?
Automation on ground vehicles is still in its infant stages, and has troubles. The mining industry is trailing automated haul trucks, and they barely work. We have a long way to go before we have practical automated aircraft.
Technology integration and possible investment failure is a line of thought. In fact prematurely introducing a technology before it is mature enough can deal a devastating blow to its image and potentially cripple it for a very long time.
So along these lines. It is one thing testing, its another thing introducing it to the real world. We know for a fact that real world use can bring out all sorts of bugs and faults that should have been foreseen, and others that where not, and could not have been foreseen. Now we don't need to go though a list of aircraft models and faults do we?
The effect is, apart from the general apprehension associated with Jo public in the first place, what do you think is going to happen after the first one or two aircraft inevitable drop out the sky?
Automation on ground vehicles is still in its infant stages, and has troubles. The mining industry is trailing automated haul trucks, and they barely work. We have a long way to go before we have practical automated aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Age: 33
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I can't see myself ever boarding a pilotless aircraft. I want someone up the front who wants to get home as much as I do. Even if they were to perfect the technology, what does the computer do when you're climing out of LaGuardia and lose both your engines at 2700ft. Does it have the decision making ability that will bring you to a safe stop in the Hudson River? Getting aircraft to fly from A to B on a predetermined flight path is all well and good, but what happens when the unexpected happens?
Cat 6050 - oops RH200
You have a point, but not a very good one.
The only doubt here is WHEN!
If not now, then sooner or later .....
You are correct in saying that introducing immature technology would be a disaster.
But the technology is maturing (refer drones) and will, eventually get there.
And undoubtedly, somewhere down the track, the first pilotless aircraft will come to a sticky end.
But that is unlikely to spell the end of pilotless aircraft.
A banner headline saying "pilotless aircraft flies into seawall at SFO" is no more likely to stop people flying than one that says "piloted aircraft flies into seawall at SFO"
I am not arguing the pros and cons - just stating the obvious / inevitable.
As for autonomous trucks "barely working" then I think you would get an argument from Komatsu / Rio / CRA about that.
"... to date, 19 autonomous haul trucks (AHT's) have moved 100 million tonnes of rock in the Pilbara region of Western Australia"
If not now... then when!
The only doubt here is WHEN!
If not now, then sooner or later .....
You are correct in saying that introducing immature technology would be a disaster.
But the technology is maturing (refer drones) and will, eventually get there.
And undoubtedly, somewhere down the track, the first pilotless aircraft will come to a sticky end.
But that is unlikely to spell the end of pilotless aircraft.
A banner headline saying "pilotless aircraft flies into seawall at SFO" is no more likely to stop people flying than one that says "piloted aircraft flies into seawall at SFO"
I am not arguing the pros and cons - just stating the obvious / inevitable.
As for autonomous trucks "barely working" then I think you would get an argument from Komatsu / Rio / CRA about that.
"... to date, 19 autonomous haul trucks (AHT's) have moved 100 million tonnes of rock in the Pilbara region of Western Australia"
If not now... then when!
Mixed up math
KCOCKAYNE :
You are quite correct about AVERAGE salaries, both in essence and mathematically.
But your first line is about MEDIAN salaries - not average.
And MEDIAN does mean "half above and half below".
You are quite correct about AVERAGE salaries, both in essence and mathematically.
But your first line is about MEDIAN salaries - not average.
And MEDIAN does mean "half above and half below".
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the vast majority of people here on pprune are totally missing the point. This is actually not a piloted-vs-pilotless aircraft debate.
There will always be 'pilots' in the future, especially on passenger aircraft. However that 'pilot' will also be called the 'purser'
There will always be 'pilots' in the future, especially on passenger aircraft. However that 'pilot' will also be called the 'purser'
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Alternative Universe
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Herod
The caption to the picture says "The 2009 Hudson River heroics could have been performed by a machine". OK, how do you programme a machine for "Ooops, we've just lost both engines. We can't turn back, we can't make Teterboro. I know, let's ditch in the Hudson"? It wasn't just Sully's flying skill that saved the day, it was his HUMAN decision-making.
In fact, the landing was highly aided by automation... The protections kicked in several times, and when the plane actually landed on the river, Sully inputs were practically being ignored.
Had Sully been piloting a Boeing, the outcome could have been very different.
Regarding fully automated airplanes, it's not going to happen in the short term... Not that's technically impossible, it's more than possible, but the costs and other factors (liability, when an accident happen, who is liable?) would never justify the adoption in the near future.
Now, it's obvious that in the long term, it's going to happen.
Regards.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London's Docklands Light Railway has been driverless since it opened in 1987 and in 2013 carried 101 Million people, its accident rate is way way less than rest of London Underground with drivers attached.
Reading the Boeing service bulletins in the flight crew operating manual of the 777 I fly is enough to convince me that I wouldn't want to ever fly in a pilotless aircraft - I personally don't think it will ever happen, even though it is technically feasible.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Alternative Universe
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wheels up
The docklands light railway has exactly one variable: speed. The amount of variables involved in flying an airliner to destinations around the world is orders of magnitude higher - there is no sensible comparison.
Reading the Boeing service bulletins in the flight crew operating manual of the 777 I fly is enough to convince me that I wouldn't want to ever fly in a pilotless aircraft - I personally don't think it will ever happen, even though it is technically feasible.
Reading the Boeing service bulletins in the flight crew operating manual of the 777 I fly is enough to convince me that I wouldn't want to ever fly in a pilotless aircraft - I personally don't think it will ever happen, even though it is technically feasible.
So, if it's possible to have a driverless car, why can't we have a pilotless airplane, which infinitely less complex?
Regards.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, they can drive themselves so long as the road is meticulously mapped out beforehand, and nothing unexpected happens. But the technology is a long way from being useful on urban roads where the unexpected happens all the time.
I seem to remember that Google cars can't handle rain, either? Not much use in the UK.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6050 It stopped being a real machine when they b@asterized it with Cat engines.
Its not about stopping people flying, its about choice and market pressure. The fact is if it was going to happen, it would start as a single model. The first major crash attributable to the automation will have a devastating psychological effect on the punters. Basically they fly on the competition.
Basically the standard to do it may make it uneconomic.
As for Komatapillars and Rio, 100 million tonne isn't that much. Also don't forget Cat is doing the same thing at FMG and elsewhere. Don't believe all the PR hype, there are significant problems ( the brake parts business is doing well out of it), but the potential savings are that great, it makes it worthwhile.
The point is, if autonomous systems, such as those in haulage in well structured system is having problems, any such system for the general public will be even worse. Throw in aviation and the falling out of the sky scenario, and it becomes even harder.
A banner headline saying "pilotless aircraft flies into seawall at SFO" is no more likely to stop people flying than one that says "piloted aircraft flies into seawall at SFO"
Basically the standard to do it may make it uneconomic.
As for autonomous trucks "barely working" then I think you would get an argument from Komatsu / Rio / CRA about that.
"... to date, 19 autonomous haul trucks (AHT's) have moved 100 million tonnes of rock in the Pilbara region of Western Australia"
"... to date, 19 autonomous haul trucks (AHT's) have moved 100 million tonnes of rock in the Pilbara region of Western Australia"
The point is, if autonomous systems, such as those in haulage in well structured system is having problems, any such system for the general public will be even worse. Throw in aviation and the falling out of the sky scenario, and it becomes even harder.
There will always be 'pilots' in the future, especially on passenger aircraft. However that 'pilot' will also be called the 'purser'
"... to date, 19 autonomous haul trucks (AHT's) have moved 100 million tonnes of rock in the Pilbara region of Western Australia"
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It Will Happen
I don't think it really matters much if at all what workers and professionals think about this issue, it's only a matter of time until it happens, for two main reasons. First, folks like this punditing Gent are in control of our world and when they find a chance to make another buck, it gets taken, no matter how many people get hurt. Second, humanity in general has an unfortunate and innate characteristic, namely that when something becomes possible, it eventually gets regarded as necessary.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual money will determine what happens. Equipment manufacturers have the ear of politicians and finance directors. There is a lot of pressure to install more 'black boxes' because it is claimed they will improve safety, cut costs, reduce emissions, let us all live happily ever after blah blah blah.
Increasing use of and eventual dependency on automation will probably result in jobs being 'evaluated' into a lower skill/responsibility category i.e much lower pay rates. Pilots and controllers will be retained to reassure the public BUT the airlines and ATC organisations will make sure the public are told how much less demanding their jobs are compared with the past.
Increasing use of and eventual dependency on automation will probably result in jobs being 'evaluated' into a lower skill/responsibility category i.e much lower pay rates. Pilots and controllers will be retained to reassure the public BUT the airlines and ATC organisations will make sure the public are told how much less demanding their jobs are compared with the past.
Hard Taskmaster
Thanks Fizz ... My thoughts also.
None of this is about whether they can do this right now.
It's whether they will go down that track at some undefined time in the future.
And why there is even conjecture about that I do not know.
The military is working now on getting pilots out of aircraft, though remote operation is likely to become common before autonomous fighters become a reality.
That may be an interim step for commercial aircraft too.
It will all depend on the economic argument at the time that the technology becomes available.
As for haultrucks vs aircraft ... again, no real comparison was implied.
But 15 years ago autonomous trucks were just somebody's crazy idea.
Now they are a reality. Maybe not perfect yet but they're getting there.
The fact that they are in a pit does not mean they use the pit walls for containment.
In fact the manufacturers have had to build some randomness into their tracking to prevent haul roads rutting from multiple loaded trucks all tracking within millimetres of each other.
And truck drivers salaries constitute a very small percentage of total operating costs. But the equipment owners still perceive real advances by getting rid of them.
And if you think that moving 5 million tonnes of rock from one place to another a few kms away (per truck) is "hardly working" then I'm bl...y glad I don't work for you.
None of this is about whether they can do this right now.
It's whether they will go down that track at some undefined time in the future.
And why there is even conjecture about that I do not know.
The military is working now on getting pilots out of aircraft, though remote operation is likely to become common before autonomous fighters become a reality.
That may be an interim step for commercial aircraft too.
It will all depend on the economic argument at the time that the technology becomes available.
As for haultrucks vs aircraft ... again, no real comparison was implied.
But 15 years ago autonomous trucks were just somebody's crazy idea.
Now they are a reality. Maybe not perfect yet but they're getting there.
The fact that they are in a pit does not mean they use the pit walls for containment.
In fact the manufacturers have had to build some randomness into their tracking to prevent haul roads rutting from multiple loaded trucks all tracking within millimetres of each other.
And truck drivers salaries constitute a very small percentage of total operating costs. But the equipment owners still perceive real advances by getting rid of them.
And if you think that moving 5 million tonnes of rock from one place to another a few kms away (per truck) is "hardly working" then I'm bl...y glad I don't work for you.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as SLF but one with a background in technology...
Will there eventually be pilotless planes? Maybe.
Will anybody working today be made redundant by such technology? Not you your or my lifetime.
Consider this. Trains have to be the easiest form of transport in the world to convert to driverless. There's no steering, route control is done remotely by changing points/switches, etc. Yet the number of rail lines all over the world that have converted to driver less is still relatively small--and many of those still have a driver on board, just changed to spend most of his time opening doors and such.
The next easiest vehicle to convert to driverless would be the automobile. After all, cars only operate in two dimensions, not three. They're working on driverless cars and debating liability issues but I'm not holding my breath.
So, of all the things a pilot should lose sleep over, I'd say that pilotless planes should be pretty low on the list.
Will there eventually be pilotless planes? Maybe.
Will anybody working today be made redundant by such technology? Not you your or my lifetime.
Consider this. Trains have to be the easiest form of transport in the world to convert to driverless. There's no steering, route control is done remotely by changing points/switches, etc. Yet the number of rail lines all over the world that have converted to driver less is still relatively small--and many of those still have a driver on board, just changed to spend most of his time opening doors and such.
The next easiest vehicle to convert to driverless would be the automobile. After all, cars only operate in two dimensions, not three. They're working on driverless cars and debating liability issues but I'm not holding my breath.
So, of all the things a pilot should lose sleep over, I'd say that pilotless planes should be pretty low on the list.
The military is working now on getting pilots out of aircraft, though remote operation is likely to become common before autonomous fighters become a reality.
Sometimes I get annoyed with pilots who devalue our profession. It's bad enough when members of the public loudly proclaim we just "sit in the cockpit and watch the autopilot fly the plane", but when pilots themselves do it?
I would argue now (and I know this is going to go against the general trend), that the profession of airline pilot is in some respects harder than the "good old days". With more congestion in skies and on the ground, cheaper budgets, tighter turnarounds, huge pressures to save costs and fuel, increased public awareness of our activities through social media, more competition and more complex aircraft, I believe we need our work to be valued more higher by ourselves first.
Patrick Smith is a currently serving airline pilot who hosts the blog "Ask the Pilot"
He writes about the myths of automated airliners with a passion, some links on this are below:
We are told that planes basically fly themselves. How true is this?
Cummings and Kelly: More Media Claptrap About Cockpit Automation
Automation and Disaster
And this quote from one of the articles:
Pilots too are guilty. “Aw, shucks, this plane practically lands itself,” one of us might say. We’re often our own worst enemies, enamored of gadgetry and, in our attempts to explain complicated procedures to the layperson, given to dumbing down. We wind up painting a caricature of what flying is really like and in the process undercut the value of our profession.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many, many things computers can do better than man. And if an autopilot controlled from the ground flew my aircraft, relegating me to little more than a passenger, my aircraft would probably have been flown more efficiently and more accurately. And probably safer too. Every approach would have been stable and every touchdown would have been in the right place. But we all know there is a 'but' coming... That is apart from the birds I've missed, the three autopilot disconnects, the two lightning strikes that removed chunks of avionics necessary for automatic (and full panel flying) flight, the decisions regarding diversions, the taxiing on icy taxiways, the missing of FOD, people and vehicles on the apron, etc. Banging my own gong, I have improved the ride quality for the passengers, saved time and money by selecting more efficient routes and pride myself on a reasonable number of early departure by working with my colleagues on the ground. Finally, I haven't had six updates of software (bug fixes and "reliability solutions") and I dont really care that CPDLC refuses to work on my aircraft.
When the automatics are better than me, replace me. But never think they will be. That because I'm self programming and generally capable of providing a solution to an unforeseen problem. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have to consider a pension. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure we'll get close to autonomous flight in my life. But this won't happen until we have perfect aircraft systems, airports and weather.
And while we are here, remember that the greedy will try and save a few coppers by out-sourcing the software to somewhere cheap. That will serve them right. Just ask the project managers in charge of large systems how much their 'savings' have cost them. Cheap software is generally nasty software and in aircraft terms, lethal.
PM
When the automatics are better than me, replace me. But never think they will be. That because I'm self programming and generally capable of providing a solution to an unforeseen problem. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have to consider a pension. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure we'll get close to autonomous flight in my life. But this won't happen until we have perfect aircraft systems, airports and weather.
And while we are here, remember that the greedy will try and save a few coppers by out-sourcing the software to somewhere cheap. That will serve them right. Just ask the project managers in charge of large systems how much their 'savings' have cost them. Cheap software is generally nasty software and in aircraft terms, lethal.
PM
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Lgw
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it will happen far sooner than people think . One of the security services biggest worries is 'sleepers' being employed by airlines . The minute that happens along with the outcome of the Malaysian crash , the next drunk pilot removed from the flight deck , the general public will be running towards aircraft which can be controlled or overridden by ground based controllers !