"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article

[Cough]

We have made this problem for ourselves. Everyday we go to work we strive to give our best and occasionally slip up. Then we write a safety report about the moment and what we did next to correct it.

Thus the aviation regulators have a whole host of pilot errors in their database. They sit there and comment on how many of these rather minor reports that they get so it must of course be safer to remove the pilot for the equation.

The thing they forget is how much intervention we actually do. My jet is reliable, but regularly throws it's toys out of its pram for no good reason.... Thus we intervene rather regularly, but as they don't have ANY statistics to prove any of it, the regulator is only going to come out on one side of this...

[wiggy]

Wheels up made a good point a while back:

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

We are still seeing reports of what could be quite potentially quite serious CPDLC and/or FMC glitches being reported, due to "ghosts in the machine", that could have interesting consequences if there isn't a carbon based life form on board with the ability to intervene. We are a long way from seeing commercial pax aircraft being let lose on their own. It will happen, I'm sure, but not for several decades.

the general public will be running towards aircraft which can be controlled or overridden by ground based controllers !

Um.....no problem there then

[Aluminium shuffler]

Pilt, I hope you're selling yourself short - there is no way that an automated or ATC controlled flight is going to be safer or more efficient than many of us manage ourselves - they don't see the short cuts available and don't have the situational awareness or ability to assess performance and options that we pilots have dealing with our one aeroplane, and automatics are not just inflexible but unreliable. I have had many more than three AP disconnects and dozens of FMC failures. Just three nights ago, my autoland lined up with the runway edge just prior to the flare in CatIII conditions and would have stuffed the aircraft into the grass without manual intervention. When the RVRs had dropped so the touchdown zone was below minima, I had to ask for a R/W direction swap to get in because ATC didn't think of it, probably because they can't learn the minima for each and every type they handle. The FMC wouldn't allow the aircraft to descend on the same sector on three consecutive days this week (and I'm sure that is happening every day to others) and almost never gets the descent profile wrong.

So, I'm with you in your assertion that we have to intervene, but I'd dispute how often - I'd say repeatedly on every sector.

[Tourist]

I think you are all delusional.

Various Militaries are already utilising unmanned and autonomous fixed-wing and rotary vehicles at war.

These are point and click UAVs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoCFE8xVhKA

This is orders of magnitude more difficult for a computer than operating an airliner as anyone who has ever operated a helicopter like this knows.

The difficulty level between a vehicle operating in a war zone and one flying airways between airfields with approach aids is astronomical.

The autopilot has been perfectly capable of operating the aircraft to a successful landing since forever. Since then technology has moved into different realms.
Those who say that computers will never beat Sully to land an airliner on the water or fly an aircraft with bad damage like Siux City are exactly wrong. That is exactly what computers are good at. We all know that a 70s airliner consistently flies more accurately and smoothly and economically than a human. Modern fly by wire systems are astoundingly good at working around faults.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...anding-12.html

Spacecraft have gone unmanned not because space is easier(oh my god the lunacy of that statement!) but because manned is not up to the job.

The airliners you fly are 70s tech, and even then the man is usually just an interference.

We are currently in a transitional phase.

For example.

A malfunction happens.
The ECAM tells us what to do.
It know when we have done it then it moves to the next line.
We are worse than useless. All we can do is mess up and get it wrong.

The sooner they remove the man from that sort of system the better.

Those who think that humans are better in bad weather are even more delusional!
Humans are at their best in VMC because sight is our only valid input when flying. All of our other senses are liable to be spoofed.

A computer can integrate Sight (360degree/spherical) IR, Microwave, radio aid, g, laser, gps the list is endless to find the correct solution. They don't get the leans. The don't get somatographic effects.

Its is a bit like those who are convinced that they are better than ABS breaking in a car.
You are not.
Early ABS was rubbish, but it got better. It is now vastly better than us.

Computers in aircraft are the same.

Don't think I want this to be true, it unfortunately just is.

I got out of flying airliners when I realised thatwas just an interference and went back to flying an aircraft that need me!

Cargo military is already flying unmanned in warzones.

Next I predict USAF Cargo freighters go single pilot. After a few years of exceptional safety next will be civvy cargo single pilot.
Then somebody will take the plunge probably USAF cargo again no pilot.

Before you know it low-cost will dive in.

The manufacturers know it and are spending the money now

http://www.baesystems.com/innovation...3D19va2aj2vn_4

Don't bury your head in the sand. Every pilot error crash brings it closer.
Asiana must be desperate to get one now.

[Tourist]

Incidentally, Air Traffic are even more ripe for unmanned.
It's crying out for an integrated computerised system. Simple fuel economics will force the hand to avoid all the holding caused buy the system being beyond the capability of a human to run efficiently.

[wiggy]

Those who say that computers will never beat Sully to land an airliner on the water or fly an aircraft with bad damage like Siux City are exactly wrong. That is exactly what computers are good at.

With the benefit of hindsight the computers might handle the mechanics however I'm far from convinced "AI" is anywhere near able to handle the decision making processes that saved lives in both those accidents, and of course not everything is in the ECAM - the BA Triple with the double engine failure probably only cleared the fence/buildings/road traffic in the 27 left undershoot at LHR because the commander made an inspired out of the box decision to reduce the landing flap setting - that's not an action listed in the ECL/QRH.

[qwertyuiop]

Originally Posted by Herod

It's ironic the constant talking about the Hudson landing as an example of human vs machine.
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.

Herod,
Can you explain which protections kicked in and how were the inputs being ignored

[joe two]

I am glad you are a tourist

[Basil]

When fully automatic airliners* are demonstrated (difficult) AND passengers are willing to fly in them (easier if the price is right) then we will have them. I think I can safely say that it will not happen in my lifetime.
* Yes, I am aware that some outside the profession think it's all automatic now; it ain't.

A good example of human thought process is a situation where all engines on one side have failed accompanied by drag inducing damage on the same side.
If speed is reduced in level flight to configure for landing then speed will drop below Vmca for the damaged condition and, as power on the live engine(s) is increased, more than full rudder will be required and the aircraft will yaw uncontrollably.
The solution is to configure in the descent from, say, 30nm at 10,000ft HAT.
More than moderate power will not then be required - just don't screw up the final approach
That's only one of any number of scenarios which may give a computer difficulty.

Re the perfectly valid comments about human pilot stuff-ups: more and better training! Ah, but that costs money

[slast]

from thread starter

The Times letters page lead with my response to Ridley's article this morning, and there were several others on the same lines. They edited out the remarks about bankers and about product liability.

I have just found a paper I gave at the Flight Safety Foundation Safety Seminar in Tokyo in October 1987 (27 years ago!). The conference subject was "Human/Computer Technology: Who's in control?" , and my paper was "Should Technology Assist or Replace the Pilot". This was prior to delivery of the first 747-400. Re-reading it for the first time in probably 2 decades I am frankly amazed by how little I would change.

E.g. early on, "Many aspects of the design of current transports indicate a desire to automate as many "routine" elements as possible, leaving the crew with the task of "managing" the flight and resolving anomalies. Is the next stage to automate response to anomalies (emergencies), whilst "management" is transferred to the ground via data-link?

The basic argument appears to be that we should welcome this as it makes the aeroplane safer, and in essence prevents the crews from making the blunders which are the primary cause of accidents to serviceable aeroplanes. The theme is "prevent the pilot from interfering and everything will be OK" - leading to "and if you can prevent him from ever having a role in it then you will eliminate accidents altogether".

Arguably, ALL accidents in a technical endeavour are caused by human error. Usually when an accident occurs there seems to be some failure by the crew. The crew are the last line of defence: when there has been a failure of design, construction, maintenance, or environmental control agencies, the pilot is usually able to rectify the situation to the extent of preventing a catastrophe; however none of the other parties can normally intervene after the pilot has made an error of similar magnitude. Hence there may be a false belief in the inherent fallibility of crews, compared with a sometimes unspoken belief in the infallibility of engineering and other judgements.

This potentially leads to a serious misapplication of technology, illustrating that when it comes to this conference's question: "Human/Computer Technology: Who's in Control?", the answer might be "People with some Wrong Ideas about what civil transport aviation needs."


Can make it available if anyone wants it - reply or PM me.


Also PS: re infallibility of other parties: just read in today's Times about the NTSB criticism of Boeing / FAA errors in design - manufacture - test - certification of 787 battery system.....

[Hotel Tango]

Incidentally, Air Traffic are even more ripe for unmanned.
It's crying out for an integrated computerised system. Simple fuel economics will force the hand to avoid all the holding caused buy the system being beyond the capability of a human to run efficiently.

Actually, you would be surprised how uneconomical to the user it would be to have a fully computerised ATC system. They've already been working on it for years and still can't eliminate the human element.

[PLovett]

It's ironic the constant talking about the Hudson landing as an example of human vs machine.
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.

Actually, they got in the way and prevented Capt. Sullenberger from attaining the correct nose up angle that is recommended for a ditching. If, the crew had gone through the ditching check-list instead of the double engine failure then the automatics would have allowed the correct angle to have been achieved but without a pilot the automatics would have to know it was going to be a ditching rather than a mere double engine failure.

QF32 got a mention earlier. That was a situation where the crew basically ignored the automated system that was telling them what wasn't working because as quick as the relevant check-list was performed the system told them it had reoccurred. It was eventually decided to work out what was working and make a decision on that information. I cannot see any automated system coming to that conclusion.

There are numerous other examples of where a crew has basically stepped in over the logic of their aircraft systems to achieve a safe outcome. However, eventually there will be non-crewed flights but with people on the ground who can manually intervene when required. Automation and security of communications needs to be much further developed than its current state before that will be achieved but achieved it will be, eventually.

[CargoOne]

Dont get me wrong I really respect Cpt Sully for his exceptional skills and performance but if I recall correctly it is proven that his aircraft would have landed Teterboro (or LGA) if that decision would have been taken immediately and executed right? This kind of decision by human is only possible on "best guess" basis, however computer could calculate it in less than a second having all the data available

[Superpilot]

Statistically computers can perform better given good programming or given extremely large data samples which they can build patterns out of. However, if you are still stuck with the mind-set that computers are more "capable" than the human mind you really ought to learn what the word "compute" means. It doesn't imply an innate ability to do something a human can't. To compute reality (as one would expect a truly automated passenger jet aircraft to do) accurately and successfully you need an interface to the real world. The issue is not with computing power, rather the interface that enables the computing power to be used.

If that interface is unreliable; uneconomical to build and maintain; liable to interference; can be hijacked; breaks when it rains or whatever then you have a fundamental problem in delivering reliable end to end automation. That's what I was talking about when I was saying a billion years of evolution cannot be outdone by something we are going to build, at least in this century.

The arguments involving war machines and UAVs are wrong. They don't carry human payload for starters and are much lighter by comparison. If one of them crashes no big deal, we build more. If people get hurt because they crashed, no big deal they were probably enemies!

Here's an interesting statistic. Today's level of AI has only just managed to mimic the intelligence of a fruit fly and AI is a field being advanced for at least 50 years now. From that is posed a question to the yes brigade, what would you consider to be a safe automated passenger jet? Is it one that can think as well as human (i.e. have the same level of intelligence) or one that can think a billion times faster given the same (known problems)?

Amazing that this just made front page on the BBC: BBC News - Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind

[MATELO]

Dont get me wrong I really respect Cpt Sully for his exceptional skills and performance but if I recall correctly it is proven that his aircraft would have landed Teterboro (or LGA) if that decision would have been taken immediately and executed right? This kind of decision by human is only possible on "best guess" basis, however computer could calculate it in less than a second having all the data available

Would have landed ??

[OldLurker]

Arguably, ALL accidents in a technical endeavour are caused by human error.

Indeed. Perhaps I may go a little off-topic and quote a character of Nevil Shute's:
“Accidents don’t just happen of themselves. ... Accidents happen because men are foolish, and reckless, and negligent, and lazy. Sometimes, because there isn’t enough money for what they want to do. One crash in a hundred may have been because God willed it so. Not more than that.”

— An Old Captivity, 1940

[FakePilot]

Thinking AI will replace the role of the pilot in a system such as today's is simply silly.

Seriously, look up AI research in these areas. It's all military (calculated losses ok) or using AI to solve a specific part of the problem.

[Methersgate]

Crew costs are the biggest item in ship operating costs, after fuel. A ship operates in two dimensions and sits still when stopped.

There are no unmanned ships.

[MATELO]

Thinking AI will replace the role of the pilot in a system such as today's is simply silly

AND IS IF BY MAGIC.... A LEADING WORLD AUTHORITY PUTS IN HIS TWO PENNETH.

Professor Stephen Hawking....

...one of Britain's pre-eminent scientists, has said that efforts to create thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence.
He told the BBC:"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."
His warning came in response to a question about a revamp of the technology he uses to communicate, which involves a basic form of AI.
But others are less gloomy about AI's prospects.
The theoretical physicist, who has the motor neurone disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is using a new system developed by Intel to speak.
Machine learning experts from the British company Swiftkey were also involved in its creation. Their technology, already employed as a smartphone keyboard app, learns how the professor thinks and suggests the words he might want to use next.
Prof Hawking says the primitive forms of artificial intelligence developed so far have already proved very useful, but he fears the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans.

BBC News - Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind

[Superpilot]

Crew costs are the biggest item in ship operating costs, after fuel. A ship operates in two dimensions and sits still when stopped.

There are no unmanned ships.

Excellent reality check

Thank you