Sikorsky: pilotless helicopter

[Senior Pilot]

Sikorsky are proposing a pilotless version of the Blackhawk, Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7140444/Helicopter-maker-Sikorsky-to-build-pilotless-Black-Hawk.html):


Helicopter-maker Sikorsky to build pilotless Black Hawk
The helicopter-maker Sikorsky is to build a pilotless Black Hawk aircraft that can see and fly on its own.


By Alex Spillius in Washington
Published: 11:39PM GMT 02 Feb 2010

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01570/Black-Hawk-helicop_1570814c.jpg
Helicopter-maker Sikorsky to build pilotless Black Hawk
Sikorsky intends to introduce the unmanned Black Hawk Helicopters by 2015 Photo: GETTY IMAGES

After the unmanned drone, the craft could be the next great aerial innovation for the US armed forces.

Sikorsky has announced a $1 billion venture it hopes will respond to military demand, which includes the Black Hawk helicopters.

The military workhorse, made famous by the book and film after two were shot down in Somalia in 1993, is heavily relied on over the long stretches of mountain and desert in Afghanistan.

The new version of the helicopter would allow it to fly with two, one or even no pilots, increasing the number of journeys it could undertake and reducing the risk to US personnel.

It could be used both "when the mission is really dull or really dangerous", said Chris Van Buiten, director of Sikorsky Innovations.

The greatest challenge - apart perhaps from calming the nerves of passengers flying without a human at the controls - is transferring technologies currently used in Predator drones to Black Hawks that are 20 times heavier.

Sikorsky intends to have a model of an unmanned Black Hawk ready this year and introduce it by 2015, at an estimated cost of £10.6 million each.

Change would not only be technical, but also cultural, Mr van Buiten said. "Pilots are not going to give up that seat easily," he said.

Change would not only be technical, but also cultural, Mr van Buiten said. "Pilots are not going to give up that seat easily," he said

Too right :rolleyes:

[What Limits]

As a grunt who grew up and became a helicopter pilot, stories like this always make I larf!!

Sarge: OK Boys, choppers are here
Grunt: But Sarge they got no pilots
Sarge: Just Get On! They don't put pilots on 'em when the mission is too dangerous!

Chief: Admiral, your helicopter is here
Admiral: Chief, its got no pilots!
Chief: Don't worry Sir, they don't put them on when the mission is too dull!

Having just seen a very good animated re-enactment of the Sullenberger - Airbus - Hudson - Boat, I can just imagine how that would have turned out with no pilots on board!

[Arm out the window]

Those Blackhawk plonkers don't use the pedals anyway - this is just a small step further down the road!:)

[chopjock]

Unmanned helicopters, if autonomous, are less likely to have a crash through pilot error. Since pilot error is the single most causes of accidents, then this could be a good development.:)

[Brilliant Stuff]

And how are they going to deal with situational awareness coupled with decision making based on that situation?

I would have thought they are more of a sitting duck?

Well these are the two thought which sprang to mind after reading the above.

[212man]

I've seen plenty of 'pilotless' helicopters........that's not to say there was nobody in the righthand seat though!:ok:

[Ian Corrigible]

This joins the list of Boeing's unmanned Little Bird (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/234548-md530f-loses-pilot-flies-20-minutes.html), Eurocopter's unmanned EC155 (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3910155), and Robinson's unmanned R22 (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/397408-r22-takes-off-pilot-pursuit-crashes.html). :E

I/C

[chopjock]

And how are they going to deal with situational awareness coupled with decision making based on that situation?
I would have thought they are more of a sitting duck?


A good camera gimbal can see in the dark and further than the human can. A live data link to the C & C can make decisions.

Plus fly in cloud, High speed NOE in fog at night etc and not so worried about H/V curve. Maybe not such a sitting duck after all?

[grumpytroll]

I have been flying for a long time and this topic has come up many times during my career, although in the airline realm more so than military helicopters. I am a realist. I am an amateur aviation history buff as well. The conversation would generally turn to the airlines taking the pilots out of the cockpit of the aircraft. My long term prediction: The captain will be removed and replaced by the computer. Why? Well, the captain is the most expensive piece of equipment on the aircraft. Flying a DC-9 for many years has lead to the discussion about the glass cockpit. ( I have a couple thousand hours in glass cockpit AC as well) Why do we need it? In the airline realm, the steam gages work perfectly for what we do. In my opinion, the airlines bought into the glass cockpit for the express purpose of some day replacing the captain. Now, alot of egoists won't accept this premise. I give you two examples of proof. First, if you asked a person in the early 1900's to get on a train with no crew they would call you crazy. A train crew then consisted of a full complement of crewmembers. Today in 2010, many trains operate at high speeds with none or one crewmembers at the controls. I argue that the trains of the past are in many way representative of the airlines of now and in the future. My second argument is the planes that operated during WWII as compared to now. A B17 bomber is close to the size of a modern day small commuter aircraft with glass. In WWII the crew consisted of PIC, copilot, Navigator, Engineer and Radio Operator. Where are we now? PIC, copilot and computer. Remember in the 60's and early 70's a major argument was made when taking the flight engineer out of the cockpits of airliners. Now, why take the captain out of the cockpit. There will be a very difficult fight in the public arena when the airlines remove a pilot from the cockpit. The airlines will not be able to remove both pilots ( the ultimate goal) but will argue that the aircraft will be safe or safer with just one pilot up front and since the entire goal of this effort is to cut costs, the captain will be the victim of the cuts. The redesignation of the title "co-pilot" will be done and that will be that. I don't make the same argument dircetly for military operations as far as the cost cutting element. The fact is that the technology has been created to make this science fiction of yesteryear a reality today. Troops will board the aircraft and go where they are ordered to go. Eventually the folks on the oil rig will do the same. I know that many arguments will be made about the ability of the human to be available to make decisions in the event of unpredictable events. I want to hold onto my ego and agree with that argument because I am a current professional pilot myself. The problem is the folks who make these decisions don't listen to me or any other pilot for that matter. (they will find a few that will totally agree with their position and be the representative pilot for the new plan) I started flying in the early 80's and i am blown away by what I am seeing in the world of avaition. It will continue....

cheers

[Adam Nams]

At last! The answer to 'do we do standard decks on the boat or aircraft axis?'
No pilot - so who cares! :)

PS - Rearcrew have been exercising their right not to go on any sorties that are considered too dangerous (GH) or too dull (IF) for many years.

[Carps]

"The airline crew of the future will consist of a man and a dog.

The man is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the man in case he touches anything."

Not mine, heard it a while back.

[Ian Corrigible]

Optionally Piloted Black Hawk demonstrator helicopter takes successful first flight
Sikorsky (http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=c93330edb8185410VgnVCM1000004f62529 fRCRD) April 21, 2014
The Optionally Piloted Black Hawk (OPBH) Demonstrator, known as Sikorsky’s Manned/Unmanned Resupply Aerial Lifter (MURAL) Program, conducted the successful first flight demonstration on March 11 at Sikorsky’s Development Flight Center. The demonstration was conducted through the use of Sikorsky’s Matrix Technologies and advanced Ground Control Station (GCS) Technologies.

The OPBH demonstrated autonomous hover and flight operations while under the control of a man-portable GCS, demonstrating the capability for expeditionary operations and critical cargo resupply.

The MURAL Program is a cooperative effort between the U.S. Army Aviation Development Directorate (ADD), the U.S. Army Utility Helicopters Project Office (UH PO) and Sikorsky. The UH PO is providing access to two UH-60MU Black Hawk helicopters and Sikorsky is applying the technology it has developed with Internal Research and Development funding.
The three-year delay to the OPBH first flight has previously been attributed to difficulties in getting access to the Army's two FBW-equipped UH-60MU test aircraft.

I/C

[Thomas coupling]

Ian: The delay is , as you say, due indirectly to....human issues.

The future of aviation from design, manufacture, flying and spares....won't have any human involvement.

Granted 'some' sorties will require a human interface but on the whole the writing is most definitely on the wall.

"What did you do Dad?" "Pilot, son."
"What is a pilot, dad?"

[cattletruck]

Unlike boats, trains and automobiles you can't just coast to a stop when something goes wrong. It looks feasible and worthwhile on paper, but in practice there are far too many challenges to keep the computer in it's comfort zone.

I'm sure version 2.0 will be better, but still not quite there. Isn't that how it always goes?

[IFMU]

I think this is Sikorsky's 2.0. They had the Cypher back in the 90's. This looks like a more capable airframe though!
Bryan

[fltlt]

Ask and ye shall receive:


DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office (TTO) is organizing an industry day (file:///C:/Users/Olivier.Olivier-desktop/Downloads/DARPA-SN-14-32.pdf) [PDF] about the Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System (ALIAS) on May 14 in Arlington, VA. The goal is to develop automation that can be retrofitted into existing aircraft to reduce onboard crew.

[Aussiecop]

This is surely a topic to get people fired up! Here's my thing. I agree completely with the guys talking about situational awareness. That is something you can't teach an automoton. There are things that don't show up on a TCAS system that we would see, things that a camera may also miss. Take for example, I was flying a Bell 429 into Anaheim stadium at Heli Expo this year and the Agusta 189 demonstrator came at us from a veiwpoint that we couldn't see from behind, but thankfully we had pilots in the backseat that warned us that he was coming in for a landing underneath us without making any radio call (that is another story) but point is, the way he came in and the way the TCAS is designed, it didn't squawk at all. If we had of stayed on the same heading and not performed a quick stop, it would have been curtains for us both. An autonomous vehicle would have been toast.

The other thing is, if they are run on a GPS track entirely with or without oversight or if they have "drone pilots" like the military. If they have drone pilots, anyone who has flown an AATD (fixed base) sim, knows that there are lots of issues with spacial orientation and depth perception, especially on landing, which in a real helicopter is a recipe for disaster. They definitely have a place flying in mission supply or maybe even ground cover in military and select civilian applications, but I can't in our lifetimes see them 1. being accepted by the public to fly them, both from a perception and insurance perspective and 2. Be widely accepted by the industry as a better option than a human for the reasons like the ones above.

Just my 2c, be gentle.

[Boudreaux Bob]

What if we out it runs on Windows 8 software?

[Dagw00d]

Bell, meanwhile, is still working on hands-off maintenance.... The first few systems are still breaking and the out of work pilots don't want to get their hands dirty.

[R22 HEAVY]

Double engine failure, GO, 100ft flare, level, pull! Interesting.

[JohnDixson]

IFMU,

Your note re the Cypher reminded me that in the early 70's two SA engineers ( Sean O'Connor and Don Fowler ) put together a remote controlled Precision Hover system that we flew on an Army CH-54. Hover position sensor was an optical recognition device. Ground controller had a hand held radio link that enabled outside control of the Skycrane once the pilots flew it into a hover. Pretty basic, but it worked just fine. Army did not see a need for this sort of capability.

[IFMU]

John,
That jogs my memory. I remember Don telling me about it. I think it worked to preserve the visual aspect ratio of a circle painted on the ground. Than generation had masters of the analog circuit. I also remember Ron Barnum talking about the remote piloting, saying that Cypher was nothing new!
Bryan

[Nail The Dream]

I just saw a film where a US Drone Predator was being flown remotely in Afghanistan (Why DO they wear Flight Suits at a Computer Desk ?), and had the supposedly secure data connection "intercepted" - which resulted in an incident where a Hellfire missile was launched at their own troops :eek:

... Oh, hang on, it was actually one of the new Episodes of "24" - I'm sure Jack Bower will sort it all out so this sort of thing could never happen in the "real" World :rolleyes:

Nail

[Lonewolf_50]

Those Blackhawk plonkers don't use the pedals anyway - this is just a small step further down the road!:)
Hmm, having flown a Blackhawk, I don't find your statement to be true. Where did this noise come from? :confused:

(I have, however, flown a Seahawk on EW patrol at sea by trimming the bird up with altitude hole on in a gentle turn and watching it cut holes in the sky as the ship's ESM suite worked on all the signals we received ... DRONEX! :mad: )

[Fat Magpie]

The progress made in automation quite recently has been stunning, if you consider the development work being done on driverless cars. The original research vehicles looked like something out of Whacky Races but recently Mercedes Benz showed a 500 series that looked like a normal car. And it could drive itself, it is a stunning achievement considering the speeds and distances involved in driving around a busy city centre. I would suggest driving in a busy city with clearances of centimeters is pretty demanding.

I cant see it being too long before this technology is flying.

[Lonewolf_50]

(Why DO they wear Flight Suits at a Computer Desk ?)
Because it is the uniform of the day.