Unmanned aircraft

[Craigeedee]

I just read this weeks flight international magazine and its filled with thesed UAV's unmanned aircraft for the US army and airforce etc.

do you think this will eventually come to pilot-less commercial jets and if so how long do you reckon it will take?

[jammydonut]

Ask Mr O'Leary

[Craigeedee]

whos mr O'Leary

[FLR-PSA]

Not sure why this has moved to spotters corner, nevertheless, unmanned civilian UAV's are just around the corner however, we won't see any passenger carrying civilian UAV's in any of our life times.

What we will see are UAV's flying search and rescue missions, monitoring traffic jam's, fighting/surveying large fires, and maybe flying small, expensive time sensitive cargo (Newspapers to the outer islands, aircraft parts, etc).

But for all this to happen a UAV must be able to fly like any other aircraft and observe the same air-law as the aircraft currently using the airspace. The largest single factor preventing this at the moment is complexity. A UAV must be able to demonstrate "see & avoid" and communicate with ATC and currently, although the technology is already out there it won't be certified for use in airspace used by other manned craft for some years to come.

But when it does, O'Leary [CEO: Ryanair] will be the first to place an order.

[JediDude]

I can't see unmanned civilian airliners ever being a reality. Would you as a pax feel safe knowing that there was nobody at the wheel?

[John Farley]

Craigeedee

From your earlier posts you are still quite young (lucky you) so don’t take stuff on PPRuNe personally.

O’Leary runs Ryanair and is considered by some to be anti pilots (sorry FLR I was away when you posted)

Your question it is one that a lot of serious research organisations are giving considerable thought to as a way of improving safety through more automation.

First and foremost DO NOT let the chances of pilot-less passenger aircraft happening affect the way you pursue your ambitions. A couple of months before I was due to get my RAF wings in 1957 the Minister of Defence of the day announced that the RAF would use no more manned fighters so those on my course who were expected to go to fighters were sent home on indefinite leave. After a while common sense sorted things out and off to fighters we went.

Back to your question. Leter I went test flying and in 1964 happened to be involved in some early attempts at getting a jet airliner of the day (a Comet) to do automatic landings. The tests were to see if the automatics had the ‘skill’ to do strong crosswind landings. One afternoon after doing several with over 30 kts gusting across the runway I said to the crew that if the automatics dumped (I was the safety pilot) I would not be attempting a manual landing where we were but would need to find a runway closer to the wind. That was the day (remember this was 42 years ago) that I became convinced that automatics could fly better than me.

But that did not mean that overnight automatics were going to ‘take control’ from crews.
The next issue was whether they could be made reliable enough and the CAA required them to cause a landing crash no more than once in 10 million landings before they would clear them for passenger use. Since then countless autolands with passengers have been carried out around the world without causing a single crash. Indeed one airline I know insists the crew use an autoland following an engine failure even if the weather is lovely because it is safer than hoping the crew will get it right manually.

But, and it is a big but, none of us would be happy in seats down the back if we knew there were not a couple of guys locked away up the front who would give it a go if the all the automatics quit. And I doubt human nature will change that much in your lifetime.
The job the guys will do behind the locked door will be different as the years progress but have no doubt they will be in charge of the flight not the computers.

Cargo will be the first (and perhaps also the last) place where automatics will do it all – because you and your generation may well price themselves out of the cockpit unless there are people in seats behind you.

[musicalaviator]

It's one thing to have automated aircraft (with 'pilots' aka system managers keeping watch over systems with the possibility to change automated modes, and act as a contingency for unforseen events)

but to have nobody in the front seat would be a bit of a leap. Trusting the computers not to crash - or never to come across something unusual.

It's comforting to know there's some guy up front who has the ability to controll the plane and who has the added incentive that if he stuffs up, his fate is the same as his passengers. As it is nowadays, pilots are pretty much "Radio Transmission to Avionics actuators" for most of the time.

As it stands with current technology, Humans are good at making decisions and computers are not. Computers are great at monitoring parameters and operating controlls smoothly - but deciding to make a go around, keeping an eye on other traffic and thinking twice about possible erronious ATC instructions or instrumentation... Humans do this well, computers not so well.

There's also the "Hacker Terrorist" angle.

[rats404]

Just wanted to say how heartening it is to see someone like JF taking the time to engage with the younger visitors to pprune. It's always interesting and informative to see your views John.

Craigeedee, Mr Farley knows a thing or two about aeroplanes - you might want to read

http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/history_farley.htm

[chornedsnorkack]

First and foremost DO NOT let the chances of pilot-less passenger aircraft happening affect the way you pursue your ambitions. A couple of months before I was due to get my RAF wings in 1957 the Minister of Defence of the day announced that the RAF would use no more manned fighters so those on my course who were expected to go to fighters were sent home on indefinite leave. After a while common sense sorted things out and off to fighters we went.

But the strategic manned bombers did shrink a lot. Valkyrie was cancelled - replaced by (unmanned) ballistic missiles.

What exactly should be the capabilities of an UAV be in respect to See And Avoid other traffic?

Passenger aircraft avoiding other passenger aircraft rely on their TCAS Resolution Advisories. They are told to obey a RA even if ATC tells them otherwise - in a German crash, the Russian pilots were faulted for obeying ATC.

Why then have a pilot there? Why shouldn´t the autopilot be capable of obeying any RA-s that the planes reach?

Also, there is a plenty of stuff in air which TCAS does not know of, but which nevertheless should be avoided. Wasn´t just a collision between military plane and sailplane - it was said that the sailplane didn´t even show up on the radar of military (probably much less on TCAS).

What would you be more afraid of - a sailplane which has a pilot trying to see and avoid you, but which you cannot see either on radar or TCAS, or an UAV which is not intelligent enough to take See and Avoid action on its part, but which broadvasts TCAS warnings?

[FLR-PSA]

I wouldn't say aircraft rely on TCAS advisories to avoid other traffic. TCAS is there as a support. Avoiding other traffic involves a lot of different systems including ATC and of course the pilots eyes. For a UAV to employ the same techniques it would require a forward facing camera, a radar (very heavy equipment for a UAV to carry) and an air-ground radio relay to carry local ATC broadcasts to the UAV operator. All these additions carry a weight and cost penalty and ultimately some one will have to be on the ground listening to ATC and watching radar. Of course, the UAV will be programmed to disseminate radar information and respond to TCAS, but it will still need someone on the ground to control the UAV in response to an ATC transmission. And therefore, the question is this: If the UAV requires even more complex technology than is currently in use AND a pilot of some description on the ground where is the cost benefit of a UAV?

Flying in war zones is great, if it's shot down nobody dies, but in civy space will a UAV cost more to operate than its equivalent manned aircraft? I think it would, in which case, in the cost/benefit world we live in who would buy and operate one?

FLR

[chornedsnorkack]

I wouldn't say aircraft rely on TCAS advisories to avoid other traffic. TCAS is there as a support. Avoiding other traffic involves a lot of different systems including ATC and of course the pilots eyes. For a UAV to employ the same techniques it would require a forward facing camera,
But passenger planes are flying IFR anyway most of the time. Even in clear air above all clouds, they are supposed to fly as if they could not see.

As for ATC, remember that TCAS is supposed to overrule ATC when they give conflicting orders.

a radar (very heavy equipment for a UAV to carry)
And isn´t it the case that passenger planes use their radars to detect weather and clouds, not traffic?

All these additions carry a weight and cost penalty and ultimately some one will have to be on the ground listening to ATC and watching radar. Of course, the UAV will be programmed to disseminate radar information and respond to TCAS, but it will still need someone on the ground to control the UAV in response to an ATC transmission. And therefore, the question is this: If the UAV requires even more complex technology than is currently in use AND a pilot of some description on the ground where is the cost benefit of a UAV?
Flying in war zones is great, if it's shot down nobody dies, but in civy space will a UAV cost more to operate than its equivalent manned aircraft? I think it would, in which case, in the cost/benefit world we live in who would buy and operate one?
FLR
Well, is it easier to fly a plane from cockpit or remote-controlled?

A RC plane has a pilot on the ground. A manned plane has a pilot who has to be in cockpit at all times. If there are several manned planes in air at the same time, each of them needs a pilot aboard at all times - and there is still need for ATC tower and ATC controllers on ground. So, what about a team of pilots on ground? Relying on the assumption that the RC planes in air are not in critical phases of flight (landing, close approach, technical trouble) all at the same time, you could keep track on the planes that are in cruise on autopilots and have your pilots manually fly the planes that need attention at the moment... the team being fewer than ATC and in-cockpit pilots would be.

[FLR-PSA]

And isn´t it the case that passenger planes use their radars to detect weather and clouds, not traffic?

TCAS requires a radar and radar equipment is very heavy. A UAV will also need to see weather and avoid it.

[Groundgripper]

TCAS requires a radar and radar equipment is very heavy.
Actually TCAS doesn't require radar to operate does it? As I understand, it uses radio to transmit an aircraft's location, altitude, heading and airspeed and to receive similar information from other TCAS-equipped aircraft. Using this data, an unmanned vehicle could work out the course to take to avoid a collision and one could be more certain that the correct, or consistent, avoiding action would be taken every time without without human intervention. The need for a radar is purely to display to the cockpit crew the location of the conflicting aircraft. It will still need a weather radar, I presume.
That having been said, I agree that the other factors mentioned in previous posts would weigh heavily against an unmanned commercial aircraft.

[FLR-PSA]

Groundgripper,

Thats assuming 100% of air traffic is TCAS equipt, and its not. Therefore radar would be required to identify other traffic and resolve conflict. Remember a UAV needs to avoid everything in the air including ballons, gliders, GA etc. only radar + TCAS could give you full traffic avoidance in my opinion.

[chornedsnorkack]

Groundgripper,
Thats assuming 100% of air traffic is TCAS equipt, and its not. Therefore radar would be required to identify other traffic and resolve conflict. Remember a UAV needs to avoid everything in the air including ballons, gliders, GA etc. only radar + TCAS could give you full traffic avoidance in my opinion.
A manned aircraft also needs to avoid everything including balloons, gliders, GA etc.

How much of the radars to detect weather and traffic have to be carried and operated aboard every craft, and how far can aircraft rely on having (heavier, better-powered) radars on ground watching for weather and traffic and transmitting information when required?

[FLR-PSA]

A manned aircraft also needs to avoid everything including balloons, gliders, GA etc.
How much of the radars to detect weather and traffic have to be carried and operated aboard every craft, and how far can aircraft rely on having (heavier, better-powered) radars on ground watching for weather and traffic and transmitting information when required?

A manned aircraft has the benefit of 2 pairs of eyes to see ballons etc, although I understand your earlier point of commercial aircraft normally being operated IFR anyway. I think using ground radar isn't an option because of the infrastructure investment that would be required in providing full coverage AND providing relevant info to flight control systems onboard. For me, on board radar is the only option.

[Rainboe]

They haven't even been able to make unmanned trains reliable enough to handle a congested busy network yet, so unmanned planes.....not for a generation yet!

[Craigeedee]

Thanks guys

[Barnaby the Bear]

:eek: One word........'TERMINATOR'......:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: