Virtual pilot lands Qantas jet

[apacau]

If this keeps on, in 30 years there won't be any pilot jobs around any more...

Virtual pilot lands Qantas jet
By Geoff Easdown
April 14, 2004

THE Qantas jumbo was at cruise altitude heading to Melbourne when aviation's latest gee-whiz tool took charge in the cockpit last week.

For 45 minutes last Wednesday the flight from Singapore responded to commands despatched from the tower at Tullamarine.

Flight QF10, carrying 400 passengers, went from 39,000ft to a standing stop on the tarmac without the pilots or tower talking.

A revolutionary landing process driven entirely by digitised commands was transmitted to the aircraft via the tower computer.

Qantas head of flight operations, Chris Manning said yesterday that the new "tailored arrival system" would be tested over the next six months and hopefully adopted afterwards by safety regulator Airservices Australia.

Except for a couple of relatively minor issues, the first trial went exceptionally well, he said yesterday.

Qantas is using Boeing 747-400 and Airbus A330 jets for the trials on selected in-bound international and domestic flights to Melbourne and Sydney airports. Capt Manning said the trial would involve about 100 flights until October.

Conducted in association with Boeing, Air Services Australia and Europe's Air Traffic Alliance, the aim is to find solutions to the go-around landing problem for pilots and passengers at busy airports.

Capt Manning said that, unlike present landing strategies, the new system gave controllers more time to plot procedures and give incoming aircraft direct glide paths.

"It will reduce noise, cut fuel burn and noise and generate substantial savings," he said.

It's estimated that a jumbo using the system operating between Melbourne and Sydney could save 300kg of jet fuel and about 200kg on an A330jet.

Details about the trial and last Wednesday's landing emerged yesterday when the national flag carrier demonstrated the technology at its new flight simulators at Essendon.

An Airbus A330 simulator, operated by Capt Duncan Pudney, was used to demonstrate a tailored landing from 41,000ft.

Tower commands received via a data uplink were loaded by Capt Pudney into the simulator's flight management system.

From that point on, Capt Pudney simply followed a voice command from the onboard computer. "It is just a matter of monitoring the auto flight system through to the auto-land arrangement," he said.

The only instruction was an order to adjust the thrust levers to idle. After touchdown, Capt Pudney manually activated reverse thrust to assist braking.

"Using reverse thrust and the automated breaking system the plane decelerates taxi speed," Capt Pudney said.

With the aircraft near to standstill, he deactivated the auto braking system and the automatic pilot. He was then able to manually move the plane off the centreline of the runway.

Capt Manning said the new system allowed pilots a "limitless range of flight path options."

"This ensures the most efficient arrival path possible," he said.

He said Qantas crew and air traffic controllers would constantly evaluate each flight during the landing and arrival phases. Qantas is also testing an initiative where computers coupled to glass displays are being tested on 737-800 aircraft to further improve precision landings.

The new system does away with the conventional way pilots scan flight instruments. Pilots need only glance at a see-through glass panel for a readout of instruments in front of the windscreen.

[virgindriver]

Captain Pudney? That didn't take Duncan long- time to command in QF is now 2 years is it?

[The The]

The only instruction was an order to adjust the thrust levers to idle.

Impressive; no flaps, no gear!

[Buster Hyman]

Err...do the SLF have a choice during this "trial"?
Details about the trial and last Wednesday's landing emerged yesterday when the national flag carrier demonstrated the technology at its new flight simulators at Essendon.Whisch were supposed to be at Tullamarine! ;) :p

[NAMPS]

Impressive; no flaps, no gear!

I guess that would cut the noise of a 146 by another 50% :} :ok:

[Going Boeing]

Yet again a journalist displays his lack of knowledge about aviation in particular and anything technical in general. He obviously has no idea about how the new system works. GB

[fartsock]

Good to see the 'lawnmower man' has $cabbed his way to the top yet again..............

[Z Force]

I didn't realise commands happened that quickly in Qantas.

[Desert Dingo]

the aim is to find solutions to the go-around landing problem for pilots and passengers at busy airports.
Gee, the "go around landing" would be very spectacular even if only the pilots could solve the problem. Imagine how difficult it would be for passengers at busy airports to do it as well.
Journalists ( once again ...:yuk: )

[ROB-x38]

So how does this system work then? Is it through CPDLC or something similar? Anyone know where this is heading?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Can't keep a 'good':mad: :yuk: man down.

'Virtual pilot' is one discription of him I hadn't heard.

Chuck.

[funbags]

Don't panic - he is a second officer. The paper got it wrong. He is the technical pilot A330 as a second officer.

[lame]

I hope nobody gets hurt using the "automated breaking system"......... ;) :uhoh:

[Buster Hyman]

From my experience, if it says Captain on your letterbox, drivers licence, Medicare card and bus tickets, then you must be a Captain! Hang on...scratch the bit about bus tickets!

:p :} :ouch:

[Ushuaia]

Can a -400 bloke explain what this gee-whiz system does that a simple radar vector doesn't? I mean, can't a set of verbal instructions give you the same sort of direct-glide, continuous descent flight-path?

I would have thought the current inefficiencies are actually the convoluted flight-path/STAR/SID arrangements (particularly referring to SYD) that are politically imposed due to noise sensitivities. No whiz-bang CPDLC method will necessarily absolve us of following those requirements in the general sense.

I am genuinely trying to understand what this is all about - there seems a lack of info available within QF. Maybe I'm just driving the wrong bus though...

[longjohn]

What I want to know is, does it work on lawn mowers or not?

:E

[*Lancer*]

It's a shame that this is seen as an increased level of control automation... it's not in the slightest. Its an increased level of communication automation.

My understanding is that the system invovles the CPDLC uploading of a clearance (STAR/ILS), and bridges the gap between the end of a STAR and the beginning on an ILS - eliminating the need for the vectors and level-offs that normally take place between the two procedures. It will be interesting to see whether CPDLC is dynamic enough in practice for use within the terminal area.

One wonders that if one aircraft has been cleared all the way through, then all the others must be geting vectored, and levelled off all over the place to avoid any conflict!

I wonder why the journo didn't indicate that the only command the 'gee-whiz tool in charge' made, was to call the actual person in command a 'RETARD, RETARD!' ;) :p

Lancer

[Kaptin M]

In FACT, almost all RPT aircraft have STARS and SID's incorporated into their FMC software these days.

It's only because of ATC trying to "regulate" the flow, that intervention is needed by the pilots.

IMO, with TCAS and the current systems we employ, it would be possible to do away with ATC right now, in Primaries.

Weather avoidance will always be the responsibility of the pilot-in-command..........New Flash - 1 pax died, and 10 pax required hospitalisation following an encounter with severe turbulence - the ATC'er guiding the aircraft has been held responsible" :}....................as will be the responsibilty for keeping the aircraft within tolerance on descent - otherwise expect to see frequent excursions through the Barbers Pole, which will happen if the aircraft is left to its own devices on a Path Descent.

Hate to say it guys, but I think we'll more than likely witness a BIG reduction in controllers (to skeleton levels), due to the technology being introduced, before we see "remote controlled", passenger-transporting aircraft.

However, That didn't take Duncan long- time to command in QF is now 2 years is it?The way the industry is (rapidly) heading, I won't be at all surprised to see this - not specifically THAT "individual" - but in another 5-10 years (my guesstimate), that will be the norm, imho!
The "experience" limits are being tested right NOW.
I am seeing people who - in my opinion - are being put into the lhs of RPT aircraft, who (imo) are just not ready, but management are now calling the shots (here), as the unions - which traditionally insisted on a seniority system - have been watered down.
Aviation is undergoing a monolithic change on the flight deck, by people who are NOT aviation-experienced.

Like termites in a building, nothing is noticed for a considerable period - unless by chance, someone leans too hard here or there.
But once gutted, the WHOLE lot will collapse completely, totally, and irreparably.

Only mugs are going to be involved in aviation insurance!

[ferris]

Kaptin.
I can certainly see where automation will reduce not only ATCers, but pilots as well.
It is still a few years off, but not as far as some want to believe.
It is only a matter of time until something like maestro (obviously it would be better) gives the flow instructions to the CPDLC straight into the FMS, and neither pilot or controller is doing anything except watching.
Let's face it- how much hand flying does the modern pilot actually do? If all he is doing is inputting commands into the FMS which end in an autoland........

[404 Titan]

ferris

I think it is still a way off before we see no pilots on aircraft. If you ask the general public, “would you hop on a fully automated aircraft without a pilot?”, the resounding answer is no. If and when they are introduced, it will only take one accident with one, which I believe will be very easily blamed on the automation, to bring it all crashing down around the airlines ears.

In regards to what we do during decent and on approach, yes it is correct to say we don’t do much flying, but it is equally true to say that we have to do have to do a lot of intervention through the auto-pilot because the FMS or FMGEC isn’t doing the job that is programmed into it. Also any time ATC give us a heading or speed, this is through the autopilot not the FMS. In most cases trying to reprogram the FMS because of an ATC instruction on decent or approach or because the aircraft isn’t following the profile as programmed isn’t a viable solution because it isn’t fast enough. Even if it was, it can’t respond quickly to handle the very dynamic environment it may be operating in that a human pilot can.

[DutchRoll]

I've got in the vicinity of 20 years before 'nominal' retirement.

I predict when I retire:

1) there will still be pilots sitting in the drivers seats.
2) the airlines will have spent at least 5 fruitless years of market research trying to convince the public that pilotless aeroplanes really are safe.
3) the systems and technology will be pretty good, but manufacturers will be reluctant to invest huge amounts of money producing said aeroplanes lest noone wants to fly on them.

There is a huge difference between having an aeroplane which can fly from A to B without a pilot (including taxi, takeoff, landing, etc) and getting Mr & Mrs Joe Public to buy a ticket on one. They (pilotless aeroplanes) are great for sending into war zones, but not much good for passenger transport.

[*Lancer*]

As much as we'd like to hope pilotless passenger aircraft never fly, if the ticket is appropriately cheaper, the public will buy them.

How many people would have said they would travel on a driver-less train 100 years ago??? Millions do it every day now...

[The_Cutest_of_Borg]

There is no doubt that the technology can be developed; what is often overlooked is the issue of ultimate responsibility.

[Capt Claret]

Whilst folk might ride on a two dimentional driverless train I can't forsee the day when they will, en-mass, board a pilotless three dimentional aircraft.

And for the sake of our future security, I hope I'm right and you're wrong.

[mcdude]

"The only instruction was an order to adjust the thrust levers to idle"

strange, the airbus normally inhibits the "retard" call on a normal autoland.

[mainwheel]

The old days of multiple crews . A distant memory of a navigator and a radio operator on board..............

Will Lassie have to obey the 8 hour rule as well??

[lame]

I had some very interesting discussions with people at Boeing back in the 1980s, and also similar discussions with people at McDonnell Douglas in the early 1990s, about this subject. ;)

At both places, they were confident back then, that they had the technology to build Commercial Airliners that could quite safely be flown without a Pilot, in fact they thought it would be much safer without a human Pilot. :uhoh:

There was only one thing stopping them all those years ago, they didn't think the Public would wear it.

[404 Titan]

lame
There was only one thing stopping them all those years ago, they didn't think the Public would wear it.
And they still won't. People who think they will have rocks in their heads.

[cloudcover]

404, whilst I agree with your comments, the problem as I see it lies with the children being born today and in the future. They will probably have a completely different view on computers etc than we do. They prob wont have to deal with temperamental electronic failures and computer crashes.
By the year 2030, such things as MS Windows 2030(or similar) will probably be ultra reliable(we hope) and will cause younger people to have alot more trust in technology making the idea of automated flight etc.. seem safer in their eyes than the eyes of old arm-chair ridden ex-pilots at the retirement village!!:ugh:

Geez I hope Im full of :mad:

[lame]

404 Titan,

I did not say otherwise.

I was just saying that I know that all those years ago, both Boeing and the then McDonnell Douglas, wanted to build Airliners with NO Pilots. ;)

However in those days they knew the Public would not wear it.

Mind you that was before all the FBW technology we have now, and all the computer controls on the Airbuses, there is probably much more of a case for no Pilots now than there was way back then. :uhoh:

BTW they were not planning on having NO Humans in the flightdeck, just NO Pilots.

They wanted to have (to soothe the passengers) one (or even two if necessary) computer technicians.

Much like as Pilots are mainly only there now just in case, these technicians would be there just in case of multiple computer failure, to change the computers during flight. :ok:

They also said that statistics prove that there are many more accidents caused by Pilots over riding the technology, than are ever caused by a fault in the technology. :(

All that said, I don't know if I would be too keen to travel like that myself, however as someone pointed out already, generations growing up now with computers may be quite okay with it in the future.

Best regards,

Lame.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Lame the problem with their (computer geek engineer) theory is that there are NO statistics for accidents avoided when the human overode the gadgets...nor for accidents avoided from various other human pilot interventions.

IMHO the result of total automation/replacement of the pilots with computer nerds would be lots of dead bodies and broken aeroplanes.

Fundamental difference between people and machines is machines have no fear.

Classic case of spending $10 to save 0.10 cents!!!

Chuck.

[ferris]

I don't think I've ever seen so many heads in so much sand.

Frequently, military applications have crossed over to commercial applications once the technology has been suitably refined. The number of UAV used ATM is growing at a fantastic rate (you should see what I see...). Now, it may not be palatable, but it's only a matter of time, gents, before UAV technology is commercialised. If you can have a single pilot sitting at a console, safely operating an aircraft anywhere else in the world (ala Global Hawk etc), how long before someone works out it's cheaper than 2/3/4 pilot's travelling with the aircraft, hotels etc. etc. Along the way if the 'pilot' doesn't actually have to do anything except monitor the ADS-B commands, or the automated ATC computer driven CPDLC instructions, all the better (maybe he can monitor half a dozen flights simultaneously).
UAV technology is available, now. Every change I see in the ATC side of things is another step toward automation. Only a matter of time.

And as for 'the public won't wear it'. The same thing was said about horses and cars. Old people don't like ATM's. Do you?

[404 Titan]

ferris

Remote controlled aircraft like the Predator have been around for years. What we are talking about here is a completely autonomous aircraft. No pilot on the ground or in the air to intervene. This is the technology used on the Global Hawk. They have already lost a few because of malfunctions in this technology as well. When most people think of pilot less aircraft they think there is a pilot on the ground flying it. If they realized there wasn’t and that they were on their own, I think their perception of pilot less aircraft would very quickly change.

[DomeAir]

Such an interesting topic - couldn't just watch from the fence on this one...

An airline pilot today works with very different "tools" to that of someone flying the same route/s 50 years ago...so where will we be in another 50 years? Given the undoubted improvement/enhancement/future invention of aircraft systems, the role of the pilot as we understand it today has to change - but to what?

Personally, I think there will always be someone on board who'll be referred to as the aircraft's "Captain", but like a ship, he/she does not necessarily need to personally drive it. As has been pointed out, even the current generation flight control systems can do a better job than most humans...even when an a/c suffers major structural damage, the FBW can do amazing things...and if it got really bad, how about a direct feed to the flight test pilots/engineers at the manufacturer who could quickly analyse the situation and provide input back to the a/c and/or "Captain"?

Of course when everything is ops normal, our a/c "Captain" would probably be more like the Cabin Manager we know of today, mingling with pax (or not) and ensuring they're kept happy/entertained (but probably still dealing with IFE problems), whilst a bunch of systems "engineers" (read computers) on the ground monitor the flight progress and flag/report back any abnormalities to the "crew".

Stuff of dreams? Certainly in the short term, but in 50 years?

BTW, I don't necessarily like the concept, but progress is inevitable...:hmm:

[Oz Ocker]

Me mate flies a little airaplane, and I've ad a go a cuppla times when i've been up with him, it ain't no big deal I reckon, and if it had an auto matic lander then I reckon I could take 'er up and bring 'er down all by me pat malone.
Anyways, it ain't the every day joe's who are stoppin' 'em from sendin' them airliners up with no pilots. It's the insurance companies.
They ain't gunna risk havin' ta fork out sqillions for a crashed airaplane and dead passengers because some computer mucked up, are they!

Be seein' youse round.

[404 Titan]

Oz Ocker

Maaate, it is a pain reading your posts (your spelling and vocabulary is atrocious), ;) but I have to agree, it will be the insurance companies that will dictate this, not the public, airlines or the manufacturers. If they think the risks are too high, it is dead in the water.
:)

[Duff Man]

Tactical ATC wouldn't be possible with computer-piloted aircraft, especially in response to bad weather scenarios and abnormal aircraft or ground facility operations.

I'm envisaging huge fuel penalties for diversions that can't quickly be negotiated in departure/approach phase.

The comment earlier about millions traveling on driverless trains - where?

The cost isn't the staff, it's the risk (already stated, insurance companies will make the decision).

[lame]

"The cost isn't the staff, it's the risk".

This was exactly what people at Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were saying.

They were not suggesting removing Pilots from their Aircraft to save money, it was because in their opinion it would make their Aircraft safer, less risk. :uhoh:

[*Lancer*]

I've been on driverless trains in Paris, and Singapore (the entire MRT is automated). The TGV, Bullet and ICE are both semi-auto, with the TGV designing the driver entirely out of the operation in an emergency...

You can sit right at the front of these trains looking forward past a non-existant driver, or back at the millions of other travellers that use similar systems worldwide. 100 years ago, people would scoff at the concept of a driverless train for exactly the same reasons you would write off the same happening in aviation. The comparision of 2D trackwork against 3D international aviation is irrelevant - technology will continue to advance making the apparently impossible possible. Technical faults will cause a few bingles, but so do we!

Dynamic ATC will be possible - after all it will probably be a computer driving that as well. They're apparently already looking at auto-rotate on the A380... That's just the next step.

The public will accept the things to come, because it will be cheaper, and it will be the future's public.

[ferris]

404 TitanWhat we are talking about here is a completely autonomous aircraft. No pilot on the ground or in the air to intervene. This is the technology used on the Global Hawk. I beg to differ.
If your objection to the viability of commercial ops is When most people think of pilot less aircraft they think there is a pilot on the ground flying it why couldn't there be a pilot on the ground, 'flying' it?

Duffman. Driverless trains; HK as well. When you talk about risk; why do you think some companies won't accept visual approaches? Less risk if the pilot doesn't hand-fly. You can't see Next- Gen TAAATS linked to Next-Gen CPDLC linked to NG ADS-B etc? Really busy places have very little tactical ATC- it's sausage machine stuff. Computers are very good at sausage machine stuff. You don't think ATC procedures could be 'dumbed-down' enough to be computer driven within, say, a decade?

They keep changing the rules in Formula 1 so that the drivers still can have some input. 3 dimensions they all cry! Just a bigger program.

[Kaptin M]

"I've been on driverless trains in Paris, and Singapore (the entire MRT is automated). The TGV, Bullet and ICE are both semi-auto, with the TGV designing the driver entirely out of the operation in an emergency..." - courtesy of *Lancer*.

And in an emergency - or a complete failure of these driverless vehicles - where do they end up?
They come to a grinding Stop - on a line, on the ground, and the pax disembark on to the grass at the side.

And if the same were to happen to a pilotless aircraft, where would IT end up?
In a smouldering great hole in the ground, in a scene perhaps reminiscent of the Twin Towers on Sept 11, 2001.
And the Pax???
No prizes for guessing the right answer to that one!

[Duff Man]

Thanks for the driverless train info. The contingency or fallback position for failure on the ground is significantly different than in the air; again that becomes a risk argument. (I remember when Sydney was conned into the monorail it was designed to be driverless - the thought of passengers stranded 4m above street level during power failure with no human guidance was enough for them to reintroduce drivers.)

I've no doubt technology poses no barrier for total automation of flight, whether this is a real cost saving for passenger transport is the point to be argued. So if the point in pilotless airliners is to reduce costs, the first adopters will surely be LCCs not established full service airlines running a reputation on safety. And I'd never suggest that LCCs would compromise on safety aspects of the operation for efficiency gains.

Has anybody mentioned the security issue? The hijack scenario changes somewhat.

However, I return to congested terminal and enroute airspace and the weather diversion issues... are we returning to an argument of free flight, with ground and aircraft-based computers negotiating strategic and tactical trajectories completely omitting the human element? Perhaps, ultimately, human ATC could go (I'd like to see it on the train system first), and certainly not before every single aircraft is equipped with the required hardware (cost saving my arshe). The human airline captain may, however, be integrated with a cabin manager - in the cockpit for takeoff/landing; serving drinks and throwing drunks in the brig during cruise. That's the obvious cost saving.

[lame]

Good point about hijacking. :uhoh:

IF anything there would I guess be LESS chance of hijackings. :ok:

NO Pilots to threaten with harm unless they do what they are told.

Don't know how computers would react to hijackers, suspect they would ignore them. ;)

[Keg]

May be less chance of hijacking but one well aimed RPG or a decent truck bomb could take out the transmitter/ guidance station and you may have serious issues for more than just the one aircraft! :rolleyes:

Besides that, the weather radar systems will have to be a LOT better than they are now if these pilot less aircraft are to have any hope in avoiding some of the cells and bouncing passengers, crew, trolleys, etc off the roofs!

[404 Titan]

ferris

This information is from the US Air force web sight.

RQ-/MQ-1 PREDATOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
The basic crew for the Predator is one pilot and two sensor operators. They fly the aircraft from inside the GCS via a C-Band line-of-sight data link or a Ku-Band satellite data link for beyond line-of-sight flight.

GLOBAL HAWK
Once mission parameters are programmed into Global Hawk, the UAV can autonomously taxi, take off, fly, remain on station capturing imagery, return and land. Ground-based operators monitor UAV health and status, and can change navigation and sensor plans during flight as necessary.
Notice the term pilot isn’t used to describe the person who monitors the Global Hawk UAV health and status. That is because they aren’t pilots.

[ferris]

404Titan.
Eh? You just proved my point ie; airliners could be flown from the ground, if that was an issue for the public.
If you are just trying to get into a pissing match about Global Hawk- then I can't. The info (in the public domain) you quote quite clearly says the UAV can autonomously taxi Note the word can . I'll leave you to join the dots. I'm fairly certain I've had more to do with Global Hawk than you. But thanks for proving my point, anyway.
Kaptin M. Do you really think in the fly-by-wire/digital age, in case of a problem an onboard pilot will be able to do more than a ground-based trouble-shooter? If required, the onboard tech might be accompanied by a pilot. Maybe there will be a pilot onboard if the public insist on it (via market research etc.). As for weather radar etc. I don't deny that a lot of things would have to get better before automation, but are you saying there won't be constant improvements? The crew of an airliner has shrunk from 5 to 2 due to technology, yet some of you seem to think that it will stop in the present.

[404 Titan]

ferris

I have no intention of getting into a pissing argument with you. I was responding to your point that the Global Hawk needs a pilot. I have quite clearly shown it doesn’t. Yes I did not the term “can”. This would indicate that it may be remotely piloted from the ground if need be. It also indicates that it doesn’t need to be as well. If commanders in the field need to rush a lot of them into action, they don’t need to have trained pilots.

In regards to the current technology being used it is fair to say that it is very much in its infancy. To make the system viable a great deal needs to be done in the advancement of artificial intelligence. The machine needs to be able to think for itself, as the environment it operates in is too dynamic for current technology to work completely autonomously. I am aware of one Global Hawk that has been lost. Whether it could have been fixed or overcome if there was a pilot on board, who knows? All I do know is if this had happened on a commercial airliner with pax on board, it would probably spell the end of its development. At the end of the day the airlines need to operate their aircraft profitably. I would has it a guess that the cost to insure one of these things would far outweigh the cost benefits of having no pilots or saving on overnight accommodation and allowances if the thing is remotely piloted from the ground. Remember that all innovations in this industry and in many others come to fruition because there is a direct cost benefit. If there isn’t, the idea won’t get off the ground. My best guess is that the roll of the pilot will become more managerial but he or she will still have the ability to intervene where necessary. It may be that there is only one pilot but there will always be a pilot on board, at least in my lifetime.

[U2]

Boeing and airbus should look at designing flight attendantless aircraft before they make pilotless aircraft.

They ould have a metal robot on wheels with a revolving sushi train and mini bar build into it's waist.

Oohh..ohh and also a buitd in capsican spray for bad passengers and a stun gun for terrorists.

ohh..ohh and they an also have multiple personalities build in to them, so one minute you could have a happy cheery robot and the next a crumpy old crow serving you cold sushi.


U2

[HotDog]

Cold sushi; is there any other kind?

[DickyBaby]

Hmmm,

All this automation makes my bank accounts itch. VR on its way?

I saw, in Paris in '95, a demo system that integrated Mode S datalink and an ATC system to a level significantly above the level in this trial.

The controller was able, by use of a drag and drop interface, to amend the route of the aircraft. Basically they pulled a rubber band set-up across the screen. Once they were happy the validated the instruction which was then automatically uplinked the amended route to the aircraft FMC via Mode S datalink. The pilot simply had to execute the instruction and the aircraft flew the new route.

I see this as a significant improvement. If we follow the Virgin cabin service model, the cabin services manager will be able to press the button (cheaper than automating it) in their copious spare time. Pretty soon we'll be able to despatch all those pesky pilots and still vector the aircraft all over the sky. Mind you, it won't be so much fun with no-one to complain.