Pilotless airliner.

[David_Lid Air]

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/12/19/211168/european-commissions-ifats-team-unveils-unmanned-vision-of-air-transport.html

This doesnt ring too good in my ears :eek: .

What do you think guys, will this happen in the near future? I hope not.

Happy landings :)

/David

[Mr Pax]

If they install vending machines they can get rid of the CC as well:E

MP

[Rainboe]

They can't even get unmanned trains (I mean 'trains', not little transit cars) working properly and reliably. There is not even a machine that can vacuum my floor satisfactorily, or even collect up the washing up and clean it. I shouldn't worry. Give it another generation, not this one. Humans may be subject to 'human error' occasionally, but they can also rescue a situation that no robot brain could solve. this generation is not yet ready to trust its precious existence to computers. It's a comin' (but not for quite a long while yet!)!

[chornedsnorkack]

Hopefully not! However, as technology races ahead, I'm sure it will happen eventually..... UAVs are doing highly complex taskings/missions with remote operators, so the basic parameters are already in existence.

NASA (I think) did a trial quite some while ago, using remote cameras/enhanced vision systems so that the pilots could sit in the cabin of the aircraft. The theory was that the nose/windows of a passenger aircraft create a lot of drag; put the pilots within the main body of the aircraft & a needle nose could be used, much more range for the same fuel load.

The trial was successful (they kept safety pilots in the flight deck just in case!), but the pyschologists decided that pax would not accept seeing pilots in a little booth next to seat 44A!!!

Does needle nose actually help?

Concorde and Tu-144 have needle noses. In cruise (and even then there are cockpit windows); they lower noses for landings and takeoffs. Boeing 2707 planned needle nose as well - moving nose. Boeing wanted to install cameras and screens in 2707 cockpit to replace views hindered by needle nose, but this was not allowed.

For a high subsonic airliner, what would an optimized nose be like?

[Wrightbrothers]

I persoanly can't see it happen in most cases, and I persoanly wouldn't want to fly on a plane with no flight crew.

However, I COULD see a non-pilot (or certainly a 1 pilot) plane doing domestic flights (lets take the UK as an example)
I could see something like an A319 or A320 doing say LHR-MAN or LHR-NCL, since they don't go over any oceans or seas (so are over land at most times), they don't cruise at above 30,000ft, probably don't go at maximum crusing speed (although I could be wrong), don't go into a different countries airspace, the flights are relativly short and don't carry a huge number of passengers or cargo.
And so the airlines could perhaps push something like that, however, once you get into long-haul routes and flying over vast oceans and seas, it's a completely different story.

wrightbrothers

[The SSK]

(a) You still need pilots (earning pilot salaries) on the ground, although you could save on hotel bills

(b) The testing and certifiaction would cost unimaginable amounts of money.

(c) The first airline to try it would have to give away tickets to get anyone on the aircraft.

(d) The first pilotless airliner to crash would also be the last.

[chornedsnorkack]

I persoanly can't see it happen in most cases, and I persoanly wouldn't want to fly on a plane with no flight crew.

However, I COULD see a non-pilot (or certainly a 1 pilot) plane doing domestic flights (lets take the UK as an example)
I could see something like an A319 or A320 doing say LHR-MAN or LHR-NCL, since they don't go over any oceans or seas (so are over land at most times), they don't cruise at above 30,000ft, probably don't go at maximum crusing speed (although I could be wrong), don't go into a different countries airspace, the flights are relativly short and don't carry a huge number of passengers or cargo.
1 pilot planes indeed do domestic flights now. Always have done. The trouble is, they have limited passenger loads and weights.

There was a time when shorthaul mainline narrowbodies had to have flight engineers. DC-9 was designed to be just small enough to be able to fly with pilots only.

But then the limits were pushed: at first 737 was designed to be flyable by two pilots, then after some time Airbus 300 and 310 and Boeing 767, finally MD-11 and Boeing 747-400...

Shouldn´t someone build increasingly bigger solo pilot commuter planes until there is no such thing as first officer?

And so the airlines could perhaps push something like that, however, once you get into long-haul routes and flying over vast oceans and seas, it's a completely different story.


Flying over vast oceans and seas, there is little conflicting traffic and it is on well-known and predictable routes. Therefore, couldn´t a pilot take off, fly out of the traffic on land and, once safely on a clear track, leave the cockpit for toilet break, meal, crew rest etc, so that cockpit would be unattended until the pilot returns for arrival and landing?

[capt ronweb]

Bit of a shoparound for insurance I suspect!!
Capt Ronweb.

[blue up]

I know!

We get on board, taxy out, line up, take off, open the door, wave goodbye to the pax, hit the silk!:ok:

Float back down (steerable ram-air 'chutes) and land in the carpark of the Holiday Inn.

Autoland at the other end. Computer can do the rest. They are so reliable these days. :ooh: Have you tried to get on BA.com yet today?

[alexban]

I see none is concerned with the weather..well,a fully automated airplane entering a cb would change your feeling about flying for ever,I bet on it.
Design one to circumnavigate a cb?..well,sometimes even modifying wx antena tilt with 1 deg will change the picture a lot,not talking about wind,embeded cb,squall lines..etc..
:} ...not so soon,I guess...even on Star wars they had pilots,sometimes helped by R2,though

[P.Pilcher]

In days of yore, when real discs were still the means of puchasing recorded music, the following was in vogue:

"Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to filght xxxx to yyyy. We are now at 27000 feet in the cruise and you may be interested to learn that you have all participated in the making of history. This is because you are the first passengers on the first ever commercial flight where the aircraft is being controlled totally automatically. In fact there is no pilot whatsoever on board. There is however no need to worry as all systems have been extremely carefully tested and there is no possibility whatsoever that anything can possibly go wrong.....tsk......go wrong ....tsk....go wrong....tsk.....go wrong.....tsk....go wrong (e.t.c)"

P.P.

[Kit d'Rection KG]

There is a project being run by a certain chap at a very well known and aerospace-friendly UK university looking at passenger acceptance of pilotless aircraft. The figures indicate that (a) passengers are less concerned about this than one might think, and, (b) the acceptance rate increases year on year. It's a proper academic study with good criteria.

Boeing's 737 testbed flew for many years with a flight deck in the cabin, from which takeoffs, flights, and landings were conducted. The forward flight deck was always manned, and had override switches. History doesn't tell us (or me, at any rate) how often they were used!

[corsair]

Pilotless airliners have long been the Engineers and airline management's favourite wet dream. It simply won't happen anytime soon at least as carrying pax is concerned. Cargo maybe. In fact pilotless cargo airliners do make sense as such and maybe after many years of faultless service. Pilotless passenger airliners, may, just maybe acceptable to farepaying passengers.

But I doubt it very much. As any pilot knows, in any given day there are dozens of decisions to be made as regards fuel, weather, payload, diversions, passenger issues like, illness, drunkeness etc.

In fact if you consider it, there would have to be someone on board to make decisions and alter the course of the flight if neccessary and deal with emergencies. One of the cabin crew perhaps, would have a little station and in between dishing out over priced coffee and scratch cards. (Mr O'Leary of course would be first in the queue for pilotless aircraft), where they could communicate with the ground or alter the course or destination of the aircraft. For this they would need a certain amount of extra training and even an appreciation of what flying an aircraft is all about. Naturally they would receive extra pay for this and their station could be at the front of the aircraft where the flight deck used to be. There might even be more than one trained person on each aircraft in case something happened. Perhaps the little station at the front of the aircraft might have a couple of small windows for the operators to see out just in case. Although operator is a pretty poor title for this job. I know, we could call them pilots. Yes, indeed pilots because that is what they are.

You can't get rid of the pilot from airliners. It won't happen. There always has to be someone on board to make decisions. That person will be a pilot. The aircraft may well be heavily automated and even semi autonomous but you will always need someone to monitor the systems and to make decisions when problems arise. The job may well be heavily diluted from what we know it now but it will always exist.

[Blues&twos]

Well, as a controls engineer you wouldn't get me on one even with free tickets, a bucket of diamonds and as much gold as I could eat.

And let's hope Airbus aren't awarded the contract....:uhoh:

[bia botal]

ah shouldn't worry to much the oil will have run out and the ice caps melted long before they ever convince pax onboard anything without a flight crew...sure who would they complain to eh..:}

[topjetboy]

It could ever only work ILS to ILS anyway, there's more to it than just the a/c technology.
And if they're controlled from the ground they'd have to secure the carrier frequencies or one wouldn't even need to get onboard.
There seem to be so many problems, some of them almost certainly irresolvable. I'm in my early 20's and wonder if in 40 years I'll be more worried. Were young engineers worried in the 60's?

[Earthmover]

Ok, so lets just look away from the big airport/vast ocean/quite nice weather scenario for a moment and take a glance at the little airport in the mountains with a non-precision approach.

You're taking a 757 size aircraft in there. It's snowing and the wind at 3000ft is 45knots across the procedure axis with a bit of a tail component and with some shear at about a thousand feet, but on the ground it's within limits for the equivalent of medium braking action on the runway. The Airport is a bit third-world and the PAPIs are just a tad out of alignment but the regular guys/gals know this and make the necessary adjustment. There's a hill 1 mile left of the C/L at about 3 miles out and if the wind's about 30-50 deg off the C/L at more than about 15kts there's usually a hellova downdraft with some real cobblestone turbulence for about 200ft then you tend to balloon up again, but you know this and are ready for the increase and then decrease in thrust.

Once you've landed, if you use autobrake 4, you'll make the turnoff if the weight is around 80 tonnes but not higher, so you need to know that the turning circle at the end isn't snow-cleared at the edges so you have to go round it with extreme care using not too fast and not too slow a speed, but with a quite low steering angle if you want the nosewheel to actually point you in the right direction and not take you off into the local suburb.

Parking is a b*gger, because the terminal area isn't cleared at all but the 'follow me' guy is usually pretty good, but there is a new guy there (the one with the beard) that you've got to watch because he's a hint enthusiastic with his bats sometimes and he'll have your wing in that fuel tanker if you don't watch out. Oh, and they need to know just when to start de-icing.

OK, OK - you get the picture ... a day in the life eh? So.. tell me, if the system is planned to only have general aviation/military aircraft with actual pilots, just how do you write a computer programme to encompass all the implications of the above? Now, I'm not saying it can't be done ... as Arthur C Clarke fans will attest "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" ....but I'll bet you it'll cost more than, what was it? 525 million? Yeah, right.;)

[FakePilot]

Tell me where 1/3 is on the number line and I'll trust a computer.

[Basil]

Here are a few situations for the passengers and inexperienced pilots reading this:
1. Fuel decision. Will be made by someone who will not be flying the aircraft.
2. Overflown countries would presumeably have the right to land the aircraft ?? Well, yes they have already but -
pilot talks way out of it and continues.
3. Cb avoidance already mentioned - let's look at turbulence, volcanic ash, icing etc. If avoidance requires entry to another country over which the flight does not have clearance what happens?
Pilot talks way out of it and continues.
4. Country refuses entry clearance.
Pilot talks way out of it and continues.
5. Have you any idea what it's like to fly across, e.g., Burma or The Congo?
6. In an international operation there are many, many situations where ONLY the man on the spot can resolve the problem because judgement and the manipulation of human nature are part of the operation. Little lies & crates of beer are used even by big airlines.
7. Who's going to be the Pilot in Command? The biggest passenger?

It ain't going to happen.


Edited to say: Well explained, Earthmover. Most of us don't realise how many variables are involved in our profession because we just do it and prefer bull****ting in the bar to analysing :)

[n5296s]

Something I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned... the EU that is going to put in place this all-powerful unified control system is the same one that hasn't managed to get all national systems across Europe to be merged or brought under any kind of uniform control...?

This sounds like a kind of what Americans call "pork"... a jolly good way to get lots of Euros out of the Commission for interesting research.

n5296s

[Earthmover]

This sounds like a kind of what Americans call "pork"... a jolly good way to get lots of Euros out of the Commission for interesting research.

n5296s

Now that's more like it!! :D

And Basil, thank you Sir.

[jondc9]

Sorry Management, there will always be a copilot...why? who else will do the walkaround?


Did you see the 757 going around after a tough cross wind approach? Can autopilots land in 30 knot crosswinds? (some pilots can't either I suppose).

and on the other side:

if it lands automatically, a tug can pull it to the gate...isn't that what Sr. Richard's plan is?

j

hey, what's up with heathrow, I thought they were Cat 3c?

[JOSHUA]

Just a matter of time, but I doubt if I'll see it in the remaining 30 years of my career.
Not more than 50 years ago we were still carrying navigators as well as flight engineers, but now we're operating safely with just two pilots, who would have believed that possible 50 years ago? I honestly believe single pilot ops will be the next step if a proven technology is developed, to say take control of an aircraft from the ground, should the only pilot on board become incapacitated. There's obviously plenty of if, buts and maybe's but if a technology is developed at an attractive cost to the airline accountants then you can bet they'll embrace it if it reduces employee costs....

Prehaps a bit sci-fi but then once upon a time so was flying....

[Lemper]

There is an evil tendency underlying all our technology - the tendency to do what is reasonable even when it isn't any good.
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

All your comments are very self comforting, folks! Denial maybe? Or Using the Coué method for comforting yourself?
At the end of WW II, pilots were convinced airlines would never be allowed to fly across the desert or ocean without a navigator, at least not in their life time.
In 1960, the world aviation community scoffed at JFK who was day dreaming of sending people on the moon before the end of the decade.
"Not before next century" they all said.
In the mid sixties, pilots said, yelled, lobbyed that there would never be an airliner over 20 tons AUW flying without a Flight Engineer; at least not in their life time.
In the eighties, I heard pilots' credo that FANS and R/Tless ATC would never be implemented before a century at least.
For policy makers, pilotless aircraft is the "reasonable" thing to do, for the better of the world society, just like bombing Hiroshima, invading Viet Nam, Irak, and, who knows, one day, Canada. See quote above.
I do not say there shall be pilotless airliners in the near or distant future; but if I had to see one in the little of what's left of my life time, I wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
Today, kids are playing on computers 1000 times more powerfull than the ones that sent Armstrong on the moon. The 737 is doing well, and they even managed to fly the Caravelle and the A300 without FE. Pilots sleep so deep over the pacific, thanks to CPDLC and ADS, that they arrive in Seoul or Taipei fresher than when they left. Avoiding CB's: try this one: Morning Calm Airline doesn't need to turn their Wx Radar on for Cb's avoidance between Anchorage and Dallas, as their flight following ops control ACARS them directions and re-routings from Gimpo, before the clouds could even show on their screens.
The point? Putt's Law as here after.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand.
Choose your side comrades.

[jondc9]

one of the problems with a pilotless airliner is this>

it will do fine with all the information entered in to it, even while enroute.

but

the one thing is the unknown. for example the Brazil mid air. with or without pilots on the 737, the last backup for radar/tcas and the like was the MK I eyeball.

sadly, it failed too.

I hope there is a pilotless airliner soon. it will probably be used by FEDEX or UPS first...their pilots get paid way too much anyway!

but please, keep the thing away from my neighborhood.

j

ps. there will be more flights grounded by the minor stuff some pilots choose to carry .

[Earthmover]

Lemper, I agree ... History is littered with the 'failure of imagination' - that is, to believe that futuristic developments are merely sci-fi dreams that reside in la-la land. But it is a common fallacy to think that just because some things that were thought impossible are now commonplace, that therefore anything that was thought impossible will eventually be achievable. It just ain't so. Ever tried unscrambling an egg?

My point was that the technology needed to render the whole air transport system completely pilotless may just be prohibitively expensive. I have no doubt that absolutely unimaginable advances in our industry are possible - given a blank cheque and say, the gross national product of a small country.

Call me old-fashioned, but being a paid up member of the old f#rt's club, I would prefer that when something is going badly wrong up front, that the person responsible for arranging my return to earth has his @rse up there with me ... rather than at that precise moment sitting drinking a caffe latte in some bar in silicon valley.

Merry Christmas!

[E cam]

Some of the "reasons" why we can't have pilotless aircraft are pathetic! Can't avoid a CB, can't cope with a limiting cross-wind, can't taxi, can't cope without ILS, can't "see". These are all easy to achieve.

However, the fact that the 787/A350 are not single pilot tells me that pilotless airliners are a long way off.

[FakePilot]

Can't avoid a CB, can't cope with a limiting cross-wind, can't taxi, can't cope without ILS, can't "see". These are all easy to achieve.


I thought automation was easy too. Until I tried to do it. :eek:

[arcniz]

C'mon fellas. Take a deep breath.

The flying crew of 2106 will still have pilots. In fact, the number of flight crew will be larger, per aircraft operation, than now.

Pilots will be very highly compensated and will be widely known by name and various nicknames, similar to actors and futbol stars. Like their navigation counterparts, the Air Traffic Controllers, Pilots will mostly work from secure windowless bunkers, distributed strategically about the planet. Each pilot will have several Assistant-Pilots at the same location or in equivalent distant facilities. The many inflight duties and responsibilities are delegated as necessary by the managing Pilot to Assistant Pilots with calm precision, throughout each flight. Each pod of Pilot + AP's will fly several aircraft at a time from highly automated consoles. Some direct flight controls for the actual aircraft will be available to the ground Pilots for special circumstances, but normally those are not used because all automatic-class air carrier aircraft in flight and on the ground will be controlled by internal robotics, much as are elevators, bread ovens, and automated factory production lines.

In each aircraft will be two or more Aircraft Unit Managers (AUMs) who are directly responsible for the conduct and successful outcome of the flight. They will supervise all ground arrangements, the fuel cost-management program, passenger-related matters, and flight documentation and reporting. If, during the flight, the Pilots request supplemental information regarding weather or aircraft systems, in addition to the river of data continuously transferred through telemetry, then the AUMs will skillfully do the job, using cameras and information retrieval tools optimised for the purpose. The AUMs will also have sole onboard responsibility for operation of the small switch panels that can change certain configuration details for the control systems, should the need arise.

In line with long-standing airline tradition, AUM's will be the 'first to arrive' at each destination. Because taxiing, towing and parking remain the aviation functions most difficult to automate, the AUMs will work from a porthole-equipped compartment in the lower portion of the aircraft nose, located directly under the premium first-class club-deck area which is universally known as " the Captains Lounge."

[Two's in]

You are all looking far too deep into this - it won't happen for 2 reasons only;

1. No more "Pilot Error causes Orphange Death near Nuclear Power station" headlines for the media.

2. Nobody for the Ambulance chasers to drop a lawsuit on.

Can't have victims without a villain.

[ICT_SLB]

Can't help thinking that all this "won't ever happen" ignores the facts of airline ops today. Most crews are encouraged to engage the Autopilot at 600 feet on takeoff, couple it to the FMS and down the ILS via a NAV to NAV transfer to DH (which could be right to touchdown). Add Synthetic Vision and/or Enhanced Vision with pattern recognition like the DARPA trials vehicles (a much tougher test than landing straight ahead or taxiing in) and you're there. Probably doable for much less than the half a billion euros quoted.

[Another Number]

Some evidence (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=257120).;)
I wonder what Capt. Almlie would think the chances of a computer successfully doing his job are?

[Ignition Override]

This is not a question from a pilot.

It looks like media bait (they now call it sushi).

[npasque]

hmm i dont know about this. a few things

1.) i am not ready to travel on a pilotless aircraft, and i can assure you 98% of the population is the same.
2.) there are too many variables. can they possibly cover each emergency situation? electronics failure? that wouldn't be good :ugh:

other things also come to mind... severe turbulence? if the computer has no way of measuring this then the pax are in for one hell of a ride. i could go on and on......
they are surely thinking into the future but as someone else mentioned here, this generation is not yet ready for it. and I agree, a PROPER fully automated vacuum system hasn't even been designed yet. they are still riddled with flaws. If we can't design that, how will we perfect an aircraft?

Needless to say when it does happen (which i am almost certain it WILL), there will be an accident and it will be very tragic.. not to mention the end of that concept. I must admit i am looking to enter the airline "phase" of my life as soon as possible and i would dread to see this concept take off in my lifetime. Imagine all the pilots out of work. Not to worry, i am sure planes will still have pilots for many many years to come :)

[Max Angle]

It may be a long way off but it's a question of when not if. Trouble is there may be no fuel left by then anyway.

[npasque]

Some evidence (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=257120).;)
I wonder what Capt. Almlie would think the chances of a computer successfully doing his job are?

i just read this thread and it opened my eyes to tell the truth. if one of the flaps ripped off during an approach, or there was a severe fire in the aircraft during cruise, i would like to see the pilot sitting 1000nm away in his "bunker" handle that, let alone the on board computer.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

There is a very simple reason why it will never happen. Two pilots are cheaper than the development and certification costs involved with replacing them.

What does an average airline crew cost you? Maybe £200k pa times 5 crews per aircraft. So that is a £1m a year per aircraft. If you replaced them you'd still need someone to control the aircraft from the bunker. You'd need more staff to handle the aircraft during the turnaround. So you'd never save £1m - maybe half a million.

But the aircraft would be twice as expensive to buy due to the new technology and certification costs. The interest on the capital would easily wipe out the half a million pound saving on the wage bill.

So it won't happen. Cutting the pilot wage bills is a small saving paid for by a massively costly investment programme.

The Engineers could make it happen. The Accountants would never let them.

WWW

[David_Lid Air]

That bunker idea doesnt sound too appealing if I shall be honest.. What is the fun with that:eek:?

And as the previous poster said, the costs seems pretty high for a pilotless airliner.

I always thought that trains, boats and cars would be automated before airliners.

Anyway I hope that this wont happen in our lifetime.

[chornedsnorkack]

Some of the "reasons" why we can't have pilotless aircraft are pathetic! Can't avoid a CB, can't cope with a limiting cross-wind, can't taxi, can't cope without ILS, can't "see". These are all easy to achieve.
However, the fact that the 787/A350 are not single pilot tells me that pilotless airliners are a long way off.

But Eclipse 500 is single pilot, and there are manufacturers crawling out of woodwork everywhere with "very light" jets. Adam, Cessna, Embraer, Grob... Who would have thought that a solo pilot can fly a fast, pressurized twinjet?

What happened the last time that a solo pilot propeller crashed thanks to pilot incapacitation, or collided with and destroyed an airliner? What happens next time?

How long before Boeing and Airbus feel compelled to build solo pilot cockpits for BBJ and ACJ, and then dump copilots from the rest of the commercial fleet, as they did with A300, B737, B767 or DC-10 flight engineers?

[npasque]

Pilotless airplane?
It isn't going to happen.
The maximum I could forecast is a remotely piloted aircraft, the pilot still exists, it is just seated somewhere else.
The same happened to the navigators, radio operators, flight engineers.
They didn't disappear, in my cockpit they are all present, in the form of a PNF (or Pilot Monitoring as they like to call it now).

i think the worst we can expect in the near future (this being <50-100yrs) is a single pilot airliner. i would also expect trains and cars to be automated first. has anyone seen that documentary about the "automatic" car? they were having so many problems with it.... it just isnt funny. they are way off introducing that into the public. if they cant master that how are they going to make a 200 seat jet taxi from the gate to the holding (unless it is pulled)?

so i agree with what I-FORD is saying, as things become even more automated, the workload will reduce to the extent where there will be only 1 pilot on board the aircraft to monitor the systems. With CATIII approaches and autolands becoming more common these days the pilot can literally do very little! I would also expect en-route airways clearances to become automated in the near future, maybe through the FMS but i understand this is already occurring to some extent? By saying this i am basically implying that things will become automated to such an extent that a co-pilot will no longer be required, however it would be boring as all hell for the guy in the nose and i would sincerely hope that there is someone else onboard the aircraft who could resume his postion if something were to happen.

[Lemper]

It just ain't so. Ever tried unscrambling an egg? My point was that the technology needed to render the whole air transport system completely pilotless may just be prohibitively expensive. I have no doubt that absolutely unimaginable advances in our industry are possible - given a blank cheque and say, the gross national product of a small country.
Call me old-fashioned, but being a paid up member of the old f#rt's club, I would prefer that when something is going badly wrong up front, that the person responsible for arranging my return to earth has his @rse up there with me ... rather than at that precise moment sitting drinking a caffe latte in some bar in silicon valley.


Hi Earthmover,
It looks like we're of the same generation hey! Indeed, as soon as I am prevented to fly an airliners myself, there is no way you'll find me travelling in the back of them. I love on an island, and I'd rather row my way to the continent than let myself flown to it, even with nowadays pilotfull aircraft.
However, different ideas on a subject being always stimulating for old brains, I do not share your view on "egg-unscrambling". First, it is chemichally possible, even if expensive. It is possible to turn lead into gold, just "pointlessly" expensive. But I do not thing that the humongous price of making the industry pilotless is pointless. I mean, not in the mind of some people who insist calling people "a market". WE, aviators will never put our butts in a pilotless aircraft. It does not necessarily mean that Mr&Mrs Beachmeat won't, if the ticket price is right. Remember, The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois. (Gustave Flaubert). Remember the fuss about ETOPS, EROPS? Remember the United 777 from AUK to LAX who went 190 (yep, one hundred and NINETY, not eighty) minutes on one engine over CEPAC before landing? 777s are still full swing over CAPAC, SOPAC, NOPAC with 380 SLF on board who just sleep as their arrival place&time is as much a sure thing as their departure's.
Again, I do not want to predict pilotless liners will happen. My point is that as we cannot perceive the present, how could we possibly predict the future and take it for granted that because of what we know today, we can project it on tomorrow.
A merry, serene and peacful Christmas to you all.

[Earthmover]

Lemper, I think I'd enjoy flying with you.... we could talk for hours about all this while the aeroplane sorts itself out - would make a 5 hour sector whistle along. I'll bring the eggs, you bring the Wittgenstein!

A Merry Christmas!

[Whitehatter]

won't happen any time soon, but it will happen someday.

For all the reasons given so far of course, but also because computers are not compact enough or advanced enough (or both, which is what's needed). To do the job properly you would need something approaching Turing-compliant systems which can make intelligent decisions rather than just today's mindless automation.

Then you would need years of experience and testing before they were able to be put into practical use on heavy jets.

Finally, would you trust your life to anything with a Microsoft label on is....? :}:eek:

[StudentInDebt]

hey, what's up with heathrow, I thought they were Cat 3c?
Aren't you the CNN aviation talking-head? If so please tell me this is a tongue-in-cheek comment.

[happybiker]

http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aircraft/hyper/sandys.html

Been here before on the unmanned flight issue. Anyone remeber Duncan Sandys, did a great hatchet job on GB PLC?

[ExSimGuy]

This SLF says

NO! :eek: :eek: :eek:


Just take a look at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3036041#post3036041 on this very board!

I think there's an expression something about "tea" and "China" :=

P.S. - Merry Christmas Prooners!

[wknecht]

Gentleman,

As a private designer of collision avoidance systems, your commentary on this thread is extremely valuable and infinitely respected, professionally. I can't agree more that the deployment of pilotless commercial passenger aircraft faces an uphill battle all the way. Publically, 5 years working for the FAA has taught me the glacial pace of technological change in civil aviation--and that is when a basic idea is sound and supported by both the public AND professional communities. In the case of the particular idea we're discussing, both those assumptions are seriously in doubt.

IMHO, neither the pilot nor the air traffic controller are going anywhere in this lifetime. Limited use may be made of UAS for the military, law enforcement, and freight ops. IF the record of these ops goes 10-15 years without a hitch, THEN we may begin to see more extensive freight-handling, with a possibility of limited single-pilot passenger flights (the co-pilot being stationed on terra firma). BUT--I believe that's about as far as passenger flights will get in the next 50-100 yr. Why? Because Murphy's Law, politics, and human nature & wisdom will join hands to keep humans in the loop.

I once wrote an auto-CAS system based on Martin Eby's "force-field" algorithm. You could aim 10 aircraft all at a single point, and they'd miraculously jockey around each other. Cool. But, it never occurred to me that time could be a negative number inside a computer. So, once 2 a/c passed each other, repulsion became attraction (because time to contact went negative). And, in some instances, we ended up with a/c orbiting around one another in a neat, little circle. Lesson: Just because the guy who thought of the idea came from M.I.T. doesn't mean that the schmuck (i.e. me!) programming the computer code has thought of all the ways this thing could go wrong. Nor has his manager (what about the mixed-equipage situation??).

This is why (a) engineers should listen to pilots & controllers, (b) we can't let common sense leave the building, (c) we should give pilots & controllers good decision SUPPORT tools--not ones that make all the decisions for them.

Y'all are terrific. Take care.:D

WR "Billy Bob" Knecht

[Lemper]

Dear Billie Bob,
Thank you very warmly for this very informative and (finaly!) authorised unbiased opinion! I'd love to have you in my flight deck on a long haul flight.
I wish and hope the moderator would (will?) re-open this thread for all to read it.
I do not want to contradict anything of what you laid down so clearly in your post, as I haven't got the the intelectual nor educational backgorund to do so, however, on a strictly philosophical level, one little sentence tickled my aviator's cynically rebellious mind:
Why? Because Murphy's Law, politics, and human nature & wisdom will join hands to keep humans in the loop.
Either I am still blind form a 1968 revolutionary mentality, or is it that in the past......so many years ( I won't tell how many, as I am still hoping to get Cindy Crawford in my flight deck too...we've got bunks!) I have been flying all around the planet, I have the impression that exactly the opposite of what you state has happened, is happening, and shows all the signs of continuity.
Come on Earthmover, jump in!
And a very happy New Year to all!

[Earthmover]

Ah, Lemper. Give me a day or two. I've been working (working for goodness sake!) and have just completed the washing of the pile of dishes/glasses from the New Year celebrations with a large bunch of friends in Earthmover House.

But I have to agree with your last point ..... up to a point!

Happy New Year

[ZeeDoktor]

You're all missing the point. Has anyone checked the score board lately?

This is not about economizing pilot salary cost, this is about safety. 60% of all accidents are still pilot induced.

If those can be eliminated, all the better. And the only examples you can dish out for not computer controllable situations are so incredibly rare, that a meritorious service award is handed out, for every one of them!

I love flying (piloting) just as much as those of you defending your jobs so ferociously, but you really have to look at that from a different angle. It will happen that you won't get paid for doing what you like best, sadly I should say.

[David_Lid Air]

Humans make errors, but does that mean that we shall be replaced by computers and robots?

I think that we at some point will dig our own grave with our love for automation.

60% human errors yes, but in how many cases are there only one cause for an accident? there is a chain of errors that leads to disaster and not only the 2/3 persons sitting up front. One wonder who they are going to blame if they cannot blame the pilots :}

I will not place my butt on an airliner without a pilot, that is for sure.

I can leave a seat for those who are so eager to sit in a tube controlled entirely by a computers.

It is pretty funny that people think that airliners without a human pilot is no big deal, especially these days when trains and boats still are controlled by people and not computers:rolleyes: .

[ZeeDoktor]

Flying is relatively simple... why? Because you don't have to plan for the eventuality that an obstacle is on the tracks, or a 3rd world country fishing boat is crossing your shipping lane.

Virtually all obstacles that are in the air give an automated system enough time to plan for evasive action.

There is never just one cause for an accident, but unfortunately, we humans have a habit of facilitating multiple errors leading to disaster through a number of behavioural and psychological properties that, as you point out, also happen to be strengths on an interpersonal level. Of course I'd rather not go to bed with a computer, but when it comes to flying an aircraft, routine jobs and the likes, I'll take machine over man any day.

[David_Lid Air]

Ok. So aircrafts are easier to automate than trains and boats? if that is the case, then there is even more reasons to not take humans out of the flightdeck.

I would say that airliners operate in a way more dynamic environment than trains and boats. If they cannot get things that follows a rail to operate perfectly without a driver, how on earth can they then make aircrafts pilotless?

Are you a pilot? I am just wondering.

I do not belive that computers can cope with that environment without humans yet!

Maybe in a 100 yrs+ but to do that now would be truly foolish.

As some people already has ponted out. How often are situations when pilots have prevented accidents brought up?

[Lemper]

Ah, Lemper. Give me a day or two. I've been working (working for goodness sake!) and have just completed the washing of the pile of dishes/glasses from the New Year celebrations with a large bunch of friends in Earthmover House.

But I have to agree with your last point ..... up to a point!

Happy New Year


OK, earthmover, just drop it....not worth it.
There is ONE guy in this whole forum who sends a post worth to read at least twice, on a subject which, though very academic, is worth reflecting upon, and all you get is politician style ranting, where all they talk at the same time and nobody listens except to himself.
I've had it. I go back to the thread about "what we do on long haul flights", and try a real excentric one.
See you there!

L
PS: Thanks for the up a point, but I am not really into competition. Just happy to learn something.....makes me feel younger.

[ZeeDoktor]

David_Lid,

You're wrong.

It's the number of unknowns that make a system of equations difficult or impossible to solve, not the amount of dimensions. Something that moves in 2D, but you don't know what's going to be in its way, can be impossible to automate.

Aviation is extremely structured compared to anything that moves at ground level in an unprotected environment.

There are only a few cases where pilots saved the day because of malfunctioning computers. 60% of all crashes are still caused by pilots. You have to get your statistics straight, chap!

And yes, I am a pilot...

[Old Smokey]

Humans make errors, but does that mean that we shall be replaced by computers and robots?
I think that we at some point will dig our own grave with our love for automation.
60% human errors yes, but in how many cases are there only one cause for an accident? there is a chain of errors that leads to disaster and not only the 2/3 persons sitting up front. One wonder who they are going to blame if they cannot blame the pilots :}
I will not place my butt on an airliner without a pilot, that is for sure.
I can leave a seat for those who are so eager to sit in a tube controlled entirely by a computers.
It is pretty funny that people think that airliners without a human pilot is no big deal, especially these days when trains and boats still are controlled by people and not computers:rolleyes: .

A very good point David, pilots fly aircraft, thus the 60% of accidents attributed to them are attributed to Pilot Error.

Humans programme computers, will the accident reports some decades into the future be attributed to Programmer Error.

Note that this post is being submitted by someone who is both a pilot and a serious aviation computer programmer. I make more mistakes at the key-board than I do in the cockpit:eek:

Regards,

Old Smokey

[LJones]

Who wants to join my Rage Against Pilotless AC.... we ride for battle!!!

:}

[Basil]

Flying is relatively simple... why? Because you don't have to plan for the eventuality that an obstacle is on the tracks, or a 3rd world country fishing boat is crossing your shipping lane.
You sure do (if you'll excuse my Mandarin)
For 'obstacle' substitute 'uncontrolled intruder'.
For '3rd world country fishing boat' substitute '3rd world country intercepter'.

There are only a few cases where pilots saved the day because of malfunctioning computers. 60% of all crashes are still caused by pilots. You have to get your statistics straight, chap!
Lots of cases where pilots saved the day because of malfunctioning computers.
Primary nav goes down - switch to backup/ground aids/DR.
Engine control packs in - shut down or control manually.
Pressurisation, electrics etc etc all computer controlled and all can fail.
744 used to occasionally require a complete power off and reboot (on the ground :} )

As an engineer and pilot I don't consider myself a Luddite (had a few disagreements with the 'Standing up in a hammock' brigade) but . .
remember Apollo 13