Originally Posted by oblivia
The history of commercial aviation to date is one of increasing automation, reduced cost and reduced real incomes for pilots. I don't think these things are unconnected and see no reason why further levels of automation would produce an opposite trend.
The costs of processing power and wireless communication are only going in one direction. And computers don't need rest breaks, hotel rooms, sick leave or holidays, don't sue for wrongful dismissal, don't ask for pay rises and are already responsible for fewer mistakes than humans. They would probably also mean lower insurance premiums.
Of course, if we use computers aboard airplanes to do what pilots do today … the uninformed may well conclude that the direct operating costs would decrease. The point I was making in my earlier post on this issue did not address pilots being replaced with computers (more on that in a moment) … I was addressing the point brought out by
Chronus when he posted…
The airborne pilot is now basically a computer monitor, not long before taking a seat alongside his ATC counterpart.
…in which he was clearly referencing the on-board pilot being replaced with an “off-board” pilot (taking his/her seat next to his Air Traffic Controller counterpart) flying the airplane through air-ground “telemetry” … much like the “UAVs” drawing such public and private rumblings in current news stories. It was on
this basis that I made the statement that the costs involved would likely soar out of sight and the only recouping of such costs would likely fall to an increase in airline ticket prices – and, while I’m not an expert at such economically driven issues (an woe were that to ever occur!) but it seems logical that this would be the most direct and meaningful way to disperse that increased cost.
Originally Posted by oblivia
IBM's Watson is already better at medical diagnosis than the average doctor — and that's not based on it being given a data set; it speaks to patients. Is flying a plane vastly more difficult than medical diagnosis? And yes, I realise the challenges are different, but they're still just computational.
Indeed, the obstacles probably aren't even technological at this point. The obstacles are pilots and passengers, neither of whom are massively keen on the idea. But it will be passengers who make the final decision — and they will vote with their wallets, as they've done throughout the history of aviation.
Not being a medical doctor, I’m probably not the best person to determine if flying a plane is vastly more difficult than completing medical diagnosis. But, to get to the full effect of such an analogy, all of the difficulties in flying an airplane should not, in my not-so-humble opinion be compared to medical diagnosis, but, rather, to actually performing the operation for which the diagnosis was indicating is necessary.
However, all of that not-with-standing, I am of the opinion that when medical patients, with the full confidence and agreement of the families of those patients, are willingly wheeled into an operating room, completely devoid of medical staff (doctors and nurses) and are, instead, staffed with the most current version of computer-run robotics, complete with anesthetics, antiseptics, and other drugs, scalpels, saws, drills, clamps, swabs, sutures, and all the other paraphernalia that are typically used/required in even the most basic of surgical operations – all of which will be under the control of, and actually wielded by, a preprogrammed computer, or a bank of such computers – I think we may have reached the point where some healthy persons may think it appropriately safe to place their lives in the hands of a preprogrammed computer flying from one point to another point on the globe – but until that medical scene becomes reality, I think the airplane load of passengers at the mercy of an autonomous computer is still some distance in the future.
As I understand the current “state of the art” in what I believe is referred to as “robotic surgery,” the use of “robotic systems” is limited to
aiding in surgical procedures where the surgeon uses one of several methods to control the instruments; either through some kind of direct manipulator or in rare situations, through computer control. Again, as I understand it, the primary benefit of using such “robotic capabilities” is in performing certain actions with much smoother, controlled motions than could be achieved by a human hand. The main object is to reduce or eliminate the tissue trauma traditionally associated with open surgery without requiring more than a few minutes' training on the part of surgeons. All of which are controlled by and under the direct participation of the surgeon. This sounds to me like a pilot using an “autopilot” to fly the last portion of an instrument approach procedure … and the very advanced systems actually land the airplane at the conclusion of the approach. Pretty smart stuff, I’d say!
Originally Posted by oblivia
And if we don't do it, the Chinese will — because they won't care about firing pilots and their passengers only care about price, not least because their mistrust of humans is ingrained by decades of experience at the hands of incompetent and corrupt institutions.
I’m not at all sure about the accuracy of this opinion … however, … if someone with a similar disregard for the potential problems were to determine what part of the world would be most suitable to introduce such a program, it might just be thought that a section of the world that could most likely endure the potential sacrifice of a good portion of its population to verify the viability or confirm the absurdity of such a practice, perhaps those countries with burgeoning populations might prove to be the most logical to attempt such a feat. I sincerely believe that the pivotal aspect of such an enterprise would not be the hiring or firing of airline employees … but the potential longevity of its customer base might be critical in such business decisions.
Originally Posted by oblivia
Indeed, the industry's growth is not going to be in Europe or the US — it's all in poor countries where passenger growth can be in the double digits. Where will all the pilots come from? Will they be adequately trained? Would you be so sceptical of automation if you lived in Bangladesh or Uganda?
I’m not at all sure that my position is correctly described as being “skeptical of automation,” and I have virtually NO knowledge of what level of skepticism currently exists, toward anything, among the populations in those countries. Personally, I am a very big proponent of properly designed and properly employed automation – and I believe we haven’t yet seen the end of improvements and capabilities. Additionally, I would suspect that the younger citizens of the kinds of countries you reference are likely not as “current” with the existing status of automation, nor its potential problems, solutions, or applications as some younger citizens are in other parts of the world, but I am at a loss as to how that might affect the design, development, deployment, or anticipated problem areas with any current or future capability or desire for the application of automation.