Manangement's Dream Scenario

[Hogger60]

Widebody freighters could be
piloted remotely within 15 years

By: David Learmount (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/david%20learmount.html) Amsterdam
12 hours ago
Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/images/articlesources/flightinternational.png (http://www.qssweb.co.uk/rbpsubs/default.aspx?title=fin&entry=new&subtype=a&prom=1469)

Civil freight aircraft will be flown by either a single pilot on board with a remote co-pilot on the ground, or no on-board crew at all within 10 to 15 years, delegates of the ATC Global conference in Amsterdam were told.

The extraordinary prediction came from Steve Pennington, executive director of the US policy board on federal aviation, who spoke at the event earlier this month.
As a senior military official, Pennington has considerable experience of managing the deployment and operation of unmanned air vehicles across various sizes and mission types.

Pennington says one of air traffic management's major challenges for the near future will be managing UAVs, because they will be used in a significant proportion of civil and military operations.

He predicts this will start in commercial civil aviation via the freight operations of companies such as FedEx and UPS, which will use a single-pilot crew or pilot devices entirely from the ground.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Single Pilot, monitoring the dog....This will increase the standard of Pilot Skill set...as required by the FAA.

Like the (almost) unmanned trains, only there to give the public a feeling of security.

I predict within 10 years for cargo, and 15 for pax.

The UAV progress is the guide, but I dont see MOL attempting this, but I am sure he will get his publicity machine powered up.

glf

[thrustpig]

At the current development rate of artificial inteligence, it will probably be sooner.

[KarlADrage]

I might be being thick but why's it desirable for companies to take pilots out of the cockpit? (from a military perspective it obviously makes total sense, given the nature of operations) If as, is being suggested here, there'll still be a need for monitoring, you're still going to have to be paying wages, and, presumably, they'll still need to be trained to the same/similar standards as now in the event that they're required to 'step in'? And surely the less interaction a remote pilot has with the machine, the more difficult it will be to retain necessary skills and even attentiveness while at the (remote) controls? (safer when all is well, less safe than now when the **** is hitting the fan?)

Should this just be viewed as a step towards removing the man from the process entirely (which, I completely understand, would be desirable for commercial operators)? Are cargo operators really going to be that bothered by such a halfway house?

[parabellum]

All this has been thrashed to death before, the security risks and considerations far outweigh any advantage to going pilot less. A dedicated suicide bomber and his mates could take over a ground control station, causing chaos, or they could simply transmit rogue signals that block the genuine ground to air signals, also causing chaos. The concept is a non starter due to security, regardless of technical advances.

The USA should know better than anyone, if they check their inventory of UAVs they will be well aware that they have lost a lot of UAVs and most are not through enemy action, they are light years away from an acceptable level of reliability.

[Emoclew]

Parabellum,
I fully agree with you. The number of independent variables affecting any commercial flight is staggering and increasing yearly. I have heard this for many years and IMHO it's getting further away than ever.
(Please dont mention solving this with yet more layers of software!)
However a nice Federal research budget for big US contractors might be more realistic....

[Basil]

Manangement, always wanting ;)
Not going to happen for a looooooong time.

[MrBernoulli]

I don't see this happening in my lifetime, and I expect to live another 30 years, al least! :rolleyes:

[flaphandlemover]

Why don't we ask Mr Military, how many of thy UAV they have lost...

I am sure the number is sky rocketing compared to the accident record in civil aviation...

Any numbers out there? I guess u woun't get any...

[root]

In all fairness, I think the lawyers are going to be on the pilot's side so to speak for once.

I can't imagine a manufacturer daft enough to take the huge liability of unmanned aircraft on them. It's simply too risky.

[renard]

How trains are driverless?

I can think of the DLR in London and not many more.

They must be a whole lot more to automate and yet they haven't managed to do it yet.

[Huck]

I'd say the trend is the opposite. We're putting more pilots on board, not less.

I fly for Fedex. We are buying new 777 and 767 freighters, paying hundreds of millions of dollars for them. The 777's typically fly with four pilots onboard. The 767's will have provisions for three.

I've said this a thousand times on this board - I'll start worrying about my job when I start seeing unmanned freight trains.

The military guy has never had to worry about a bottom line, either. Who is going to pay for all the certification? For the infrastructure?

I just flew CDG-Dubai-Delhi, passing through the airspaces of the european countries, Turkey, Iraq, UAE, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. ALL these countries would have to be on board and provide the infrastructure and support required. All to save the cost of a copilot?

[3MTA3]

What about the flight attendants? will they be inflatable ones also controlled from the ground?

[Tank2Engine]

Why bother with remote control (technical issues, costs, liability when there's an incident (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16024605), accident or terrorist take over) when the airline managers can hire cheap pilots who will fly for food, throw any sensible FTL's out of the window and blame those arrogant and overpaid pilots if something goes wrong?

The money saved by lowering pilot salaries and by not acquiring expensive remote control technology can then subsequently be distributed among managers and shareholders!

Now that's a win win situation for management and it's been going on for years! :}

[poorjohn]

How trains are driverless?
I can think of the DLR in London and not many more.
They must be a whole lot more to automate and yet they haven't managed to do it yet.
Quite a lot of 'little' people-movers the size of DLR are centrally controlled - usually to be expected for new construction, and some retrofit going on.

But the comparison isn't valid because trains effectively operate in just one dimension (being constrained to the track), and entail a zillion fewer things that should they go wrong unexpectedly might lead to disaster.

The realization that sophisticated "unmanned" aircraft e.g. GlobalHawk operate very successfully makes one forget that they're remotely piloted, not pilot-less.

[racedo]

Programmable flight into aircraft so in the event of loss of ground communications it flights itself to destination or alternate with options in case of weather etc.

Unpalatable as it seems, I see it as a reality with time frame described.

I can almost envisage a scenario in the future when aircraft have no cockpit, no windows and Airline crew on board amount to one or two people who check that everybody is buckled in.

Fact is that they can end a cargo vehicle to Space Station without a pilot.

[Huck]

Fact is that they can end a cargo vehicle to Space Station without a pilot.

Yes, but at what cost? Keep in mind that you've got to get the cost per mile down below the cost of a flight crew.

And forget about "cockpitless" cargo airframes. No way a clean sheet aircraft can compare in cost to a used airliner. I would submit that the cost of development would rival that of the 787. All to save the cost of a flight crew?

We can do many things. But in practice we do the cost-effective things.

[Algol]

Why are the posts in this thread so riddled with spelling errors and missing words? Just READ through it!
A living example of pilot error.

Before you dismiss the idea of autonomous aircraft out of hand, read this:

Technological singularity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technological singularity refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human intelligence through technological means, very probably resulting in explosive superintelligence.

Since the capabilities of such intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of a technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which events can not be predicted or understood.

Proponents of the singularity typically state that an "intelligence explosion" is a key factor of the Singularity where superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds.

This hypothesized process of intelligent self-modification might occur very quickly, and might not stop until the agent's cognitive abilities greatly surpass that of any human. The term "intelligence explosion" is therefore sometimes used to refer to this scenario.

The term was coined by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. The concept is popularized by futurists like Ray Kurzweil and it is expected by proponents to occur sometime in the 21st century, although estimates do vary.

Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity)

With the level of automation already available on current aircraft (reliable Autopilots, Auto Thrust, AutoLand etc) we're already more than half way there.

Self healing electronics are now in development.

Sometimes I wonder - why an ECAM action message at all? Why not an automatic system action and follow-up ECAM completed advisory?

Personally, given the inevitable progress of computing power, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the future. The only question is WHEN, not IF.

[wiggy]

With the level of automation already available on current aircraft (reliable Autopilots, Auto Thrust, AutoLand etc) we're already more than half way there.

Self healing electronics are now in development.

Sometimes I wonder - why an ECAM action message at all? Why not an automatic system action and follow-up ECAM completed advisory?


I'd agree it's not "if" but "when", but I'd ask how far off are we having all runways and all airports supporting autoland on a 24/7/365 basis to allow fully automated operation?

It would also be interesting to see a fully automated system action for the likes of a "Fuel Imbalance Message".........

[boofta]

Hello Hal, do you read
Your destination has an unforecast crosswind, you will have to program
yourself to do a circling approach onto the shorter runway without
an approach aid or guidance.
Whats that,you hav'nt been programmed for this, never mind, just
throw yourself into the ground near the airport.
That way its easier for us to collect your pieces and re-cycle you.
PEOPLE are landing UAV's remotely.It's one thing to do autolands
in ideal conditions by onboard computers, there are too many
variables for much else.

Hopefully mankind will have burnt all the kerosene up before
this develops to onboard human free piloting.

[eppy]

Hello Hal, do you read
Your destination has an unforecast crosswind, you will have to program
yourself to do a circling approach onto the shorter runway without
an approach aid or guidance.

Firstly, the flight plan will have the same alternative destinations as current, with the same fuel considerations for missed approaches, etc. Secondly, the decision whether to make a crosswind landing on alternate runway will be made by remote pilots with the same situational awareness as per current pilots aboard the aircraft.

Remote pilots will also be available to make critical decisions such as whether to return or land on the Hudson river if a double engine failure occurs post V1 on a JFK takeoff.

From an economic perspective, pilotless UAV aircraft are inevitable, especially with freight aircraft that wouldn't require the resiliency and crash protection of manned aircraft. If we have the technology to to unmanned freight trips to a space station orbiting at 24,000 km/h then we can certainly do it on here on planet Earth to fixed runways at known locations.

[parabellum]

Unpalatable as it seems, I see it as a reality with time frame described.

and


Personally, given the inevitable progress of computing power, I have no doubt whatsoever that this is the future. The only question is WHEN, not IF.


and finally


From an economic perspective, pilotless UAV aircraft are inevitable


First, please go back and read my post #5 re security, until there is no more terrorism unmanned, ground controlled, isn't going to happen.

There are plenty of countries who have a rather relaxed approach to security as well as some who may sympathise with a terrorist cause and it is in these that an attack would occur, not Europe or the USA and as East and West bound aircraft continued uncontrolled, it would create carnage of biblical proportions.

It would only take one successful attack to cause the system to be abandoned, just think of the cost of setting the system up, abandoning it and resurrecting a viable system, i.e. pilots and ATC, so much safer and so much cheaper to stick to a system that is proven and works.

One more point, there is not one single aviation insurance underwriter that would countenance such a vulnerable system as unmanned civil aircraft, no insurance cover equals No Fly.

[Tarzanboy]

It is not going to happen soon because:

*We are still screaming on HF
*We are still using old fashioned FMS systems with an Atari processor
*CPDLC is being used for only 5%
*There is NO automated taxi system invented yet
*Political issues between certain ATC sectors and/or countries are numerous
*Overfly permits are still needed almost everywhere
*Mixing remote controlled flights with conventional flights is not favourable
*The risk of unlawful seizure of aircraft becomes higher
*How are all the poor countries going to pay for this

This is my list of arguments, but OK we will see how quick things develop and how quick the worldpeace will become a fact. My guess...never!

[grounded27]

CPDLC is being used for only 5%


This is the first step and US governance just passed a law to fund ADS-B progression big time, a part of it was to allow UAV's into domestic controlled class B airspace. Never, really? Follow the money trail, capitalism is a monster that wants this! It is not a question of if, is is one of when! All the rest of your points are subject to a solution, modernization will find the answers.

[grounded27]

What about the flight attendants? will they be inflatable ones also controlled from the ground?

Hopefully, may be more pleasant!

[grounded27]

I'd say the trend is the opposite. We're putting more pilots on board, not less.


I would say this is the reason why, human error and fatigue. BZ for the post anyways.

[parabellum]

modernization will find the answers.

and


It is not a question of if, is is one of when!


Dream on, in the meantime please tell us all your solution to global terrorism!:)

[grounded27]

Dream on, in the meantime please tell us all your solution to global terrorism!

Pull out and legalize drugs. The natural reduction in fear will reduce the need for the fearful to seek God/Allah, they will be less motivated and have a more simple desire to live peacefully. This speaks of all mankind.

A simple reply to an ignorant post, remember....... You asked.

[parabellum]

A simple reply to an ignorant post,


Nothing 'ignorant' about it, your posts indicate that you have trouble understanding reality, (as well as understanding the meaning of ignorance, could it be something you are smoking?), drugs are only a very small part of the terrorist problem and had nothing to do with the World Trade Centre, for example.

At the risk of repeating myself, unmanned commercial civil aircraft are light years away, if ever.

[grounded27]

drugs are only a very small part of the terrorist problem



Ok, sorry to all for making this drift but WTF! Governments have shut down financial aid to terrorists (to an extent) speaking of most groups it comes from drug production, the frickin Poppy plant funds a great portion of Al Quieda's resources for a simple example. Google it my friend. No money no infrastructure, no hatred no volunteers of mass destruction.


Now on point, "light years" really, get back to watching star trek while the world continues to advance in aviation related automation as you sleep.