"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article [Archive] - Page 2

BBK

5th Dec 2014, 16:09

Does anyone remember seeing programmes like Tomorrow's World and the like? Back in the seventies we imagined we'd go to work in a suspended monorail module, there would be regular flights to a base on the moon, supersonic flight would be routine and we would all be served at home by a humanoid robot like C3PO!

As I said before "never say never" but predictions about the future were often horrendously inaccurate. Of course technology has advanced but often where we didn't envisage it. I used to work on a mainframe computer that had a storage unit that was the size of a large bookcase. It had a ferrite core and 512k of memory. The processing power, storage capabilities and the Internet have revolutionised our way of living. However, in terms of autonomous systems I imagine that we will see UAVs being allowed into mainstream airports in a "mixed mode" and I suspect that is where a lot of the research is going. However, the sheer complexity of decision making on a typical flight to say a busy airport where the presence of storms means traffic is being vectored all over the place and then diverting etc makes for an incredibly complex situation to model.

I imagine the autonomous systems would rely on a rule set, devised by a possibly fallible human, but we (humans) use judgement, experience, knowledge and we can learn. As someone said before any aircraft will HAVE to be remotely accessible eg in the case of a reroute so fully autonomous (probably) isn't feasible. I understand why the military value UAVs but there are far more questions than answers as to the desirability of such aircraft. I hope the aircraft designers will do all they can to put humans back into loop not take them out of it.

Tourist

5th Dec 2014, 16:11

RCav8or

And I wonder whether anybody bothers to read previous posts before jumping in.

Post 113 covers it at length. That sort of thing is what computers are good at and systems to deal with it are not flying operationally. Essentially almost invisible to the pilots.

RetiredF4
I will say it more clearly.
The military is flying autonomous UAVs
The ones that make up that list as far as I can see are not the autonomous ones.
Do you see X-47B on that list?

None of this is relevant because nobody has designed any of them with the kind of safety and redundancy you would put in a passenger UAV.

Tourist

5th Dec 2014, 16:15

BBK, all fair points

I do however remember they had automatic windscreen wipers on tomorrow's world that never worked in the studio.

They did eventually hit the mainstream though....

MG23

5th Dec 2014, 16:54

Computers are consistent. You can produce 1000 and they will perform the same day and night, and if they don't, you swap them out!

You say that as though it's a good thing. If they fly the same way, they also crash the same way, if there's a rarely-triggered bug that got through the testing.

Tourist

5th Dec 2014, 17:03

Fortunately, rarely triggered bugs are rarely triggered, so you have time to patch the software before the second smoking hole.
Doesn't stop the first hole of course, but then you can't have everything.

When humans make a smoking hole, history proves that another one and another one will follow until they invent something to stop it.

EGPWS for example!

An entirely automated system that checks if the pilot is being a prat and tells him what to do to not die.

Sometimes, because it cannot actually take control off the pilot, they still manage to hit the ground, but mostly when they act as controlling monkey for the fully automated system they don't crash.
It's very effective and one of the reasons CFIT has dropped spectacularly.

TCAS

Another example.
It tells the pilot what to do. It requires no thought, in fact it specifically says not to think, just do what you are told and you will not hit anything.

Again, it would be easy to integrate with the autopilot and then it would be even more successful but pilots might complain.

Do you notice a trend?
We make an automated system that requires no human thought and things get safer?

slast

5th Dec 2014, 17:07

Basic reason this is not actually going to happen in the lifetime of any current PPruner is: No Business Case for the foreseeable future.

It will happen when customer demand can be met at a sufficiently low price for manufacturers to make money supplying and operators to make money using them. That will depend on price and demand.

However fancy the tin brain, the price will depend heavily on certification cost which will probably be very very high.

As for demand,

(1) Are airline customers (pax) demanding it? No. I don't see demonstrators outside even Ryanair's office with placards saying "£5.99's too much, get rid of those pilots".

(2) Are airline customers (freight) demanding it? No but they can see more possibilities because (1) doesn't concern them.

(3) Are airlines demanding it? No but they will monitor any developments so as not be caught out if there is a change in (1) or (2)

(4) with no immediate customer demand, manufacturers are hedging their bets by putting small amounts into watching developments by non-airline players.

Why should we care about ill-informed journalists pontificating in the press?
Because it is distracts attention from fixing things that really need fixing, like getting instrument vertical guidance on every approach used for commercial aviation.

A lot of the discussion has focussed on landings. What about takeoff?

Autopilot takeoff is trivial compared to autoland. I first took part in autolands with pax on board 50 years ago, but 3 aircraft generations later no-one has built a commercial aircraft with an auto takeoff system - there's no business benefit to doing it.

Lifting max t/o weight is the most important parameter in the business case for buying a specific aircraft. Certification is based on engine failure only and does not take full account of many other factors (variable surface conditions etc). Basic performance standards were written in the 1960s (ICAO SCAP /Airworthiness Committee etc) and no commercial enterprise (manufacturer or operator) wants to reopen that issue. That's why grandfather rights and "new models" of old types are so important. However any auto system implementation will have to recognise and find a way to deal with these. That will inevitably result in lower max weights off the same runways - probably for ALL commercial aircraft not just pilotless. (if Hence no business incentive to develop auto takeoff.

Question for the YES side.

A pilotless airliner with 400 pax. is taking off in the correct configuration. At VR a system detects a changed status of a physical system. A/C protection software automatically reconfigures aircraft to settings appropriate to changed status. The new configuration puts a/c immediately outside the flight envelope and makes it almost incapable of flight. This condition had not been considered in any certification fault tree analysis.

(a) what do you envisage would happen to this pilotless a/c?
(b) which organisations will volunteer to be liable for the consequences?

MG23

5th Dec 2014, 17:33

Fortunately, rarely triggered bugs are rarely triggered, so you have time to patch the software before the second smoking hole.

Unless it's something like a leap second bug, which happens all across the world at the same time, and affects every aircraft in the air at that time. There are many things that don't happen very often, but could affect multiple aircraft when they do.

Besides which, just debugging it may be extremely difficult if triggering it requires some complex set of circumstances that weren't properly logged on the aircraft that crashed.

And if it's hardware... oh dear. There's a few billion dollars gone to replace it all.

RetiredF4

5th Dec 2014, 17:36

None of this is relevant because nobody has designed any of them with the kind of safety and redundancy you would put in a passenger UAV.

A point i agree completely, and it is my argument, thank you that you start to follow. There is no proof what so ever that such system exists or that such system will be available in the timeframe you are talking about. Safety and redundancy in adequate way is necessary and all your mentioned systems do not have those yet. And because no such system exists your statement that those systems are safer than piloted systems is nothing more than an assumption. And assumption is the mother of all f*ck*p.

We might now start to define, what a safer than human piloted aircraft should be able to do, and it should not be less than it does today. And it should not cost more than today, and it should be as cost effective to maintain as today. And that all these necessary investments pay out, it should be safer than those today with pilots.

Would it not be wise to take the money such a new design would cost and improve the quality of those pilots who should fly those aircraft? You yourself stated, that you observed the knowledge and skill of pilots decreased over the years, which is not due to human inability but due to neglect. There had been a higher standard out there, why not regain it?

Start with a proper preselection of pilot candidates, train and evaluate them to high standards, pay and treat them as important persons in the company and give them chances to keep up with their knowledge and skills. And put the fate of the pilot corps in the hands of people who have been there, done that and known it.

I' ve said more than i intended to say, therefore it should be enough. Lets move on.

Tourist

5th Dec 2014, 17:42

Slash

All good points.

The reason I have mentioned military repeatedly is that in most of aviation the heavy lifting in terms or research, development and cost is done by the military.
The civil side follows the military once the money is spent.

This is not always the case, but generally, particularly when it comes to big changes.

The manufacturers on the military side are not just putting small amounts of money into it. As far as I can see, all the big players consider the next fighter programs to be unmanned.
This is I think where the big money will be/is being spent. The civil side will piggyback on it.

I think the public will demand it when years of USAF unmanned freighters have a much better safety record. Airlines will demand it when they see the profit.

You may be correct about takeoff distances, however there is a case to reduce the Takeoff distances required for unmanned due to the lack of thinking time required.
On a takeoff run, the distances are calculated assuming thinking time.
A human needs to try to gather the information and make a decision extremely quickly hence V1 was invented to simplify the decisions. Making decisions based upon multiple factors whilst working hard to takeoff is not a humans strong point.
A computer will have all the information it needs, or at least a lot more and can immediately take that decision. Computers are very good at concurrent calculations.

How fast are we at current position? How does that compare with expected?
Are we accelerating like I would expect? Better or worse than planned for?
What is the state of all my engines? Better or worse than min certified?
What is the wind speed? Better or worse than planned for?
Exactly how much runway do I have left? Better or worse than planned for?
What is the breaking action?

It can do these calculations 100 times per second.

It can also, without jeapardising safety, change its mind. It is not under pressure, it is just continually monitoring factors that affect its ability to fly. It can know if the best idea is to get airborne or take the overshoot.
We have had to invent things like V1 to try to mitigate the human habit of making poor decisions under pressure.
I see no reason to saddle a computer with V1
If the computer sees that more than one engine has taken damage in a twin above V1 or even nearly at rotate it might decide that aborting is the best option. It takes too long for a human to do that so sometimes aircraft get airborne that won't make it.

Your question is just a trap
You are asking me to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet you have just thought of the scenario.

joe two

5th Dec 2014, 17:48

forget about the coke , let's get some water for the tourist please.

Tourist

5th Dec 2014, 17:51

RF4

The safety and redundancy I was talking about was not related to the control system.

I was talking about more than one engine.
Fire suppressants
Backup actuators
Backup hydraulic systems.

These things will work just as well unmanned but are not worth the effort in a predator.
They would obviously be fitted to any unmanned airliner.

Lots of "shoulds" in your statement.

Let's take it back a few years.
The jet replaced the old prop airliner.
Do you think the first ones were cheaper?
Safer?
More reliable?

They happened despite not meeting any of these challenges.

Finally, yes we would all like a return to the golden age of well trained pilots selected for ability then kept in practise, but that really is your head in fairy land!

KBPsen

5th Dec 2014, 18:16

Finally, yes we would all like a return to the golden age of well trained pilots selected for ability then kept in practise, but that really is your head in fairy land! No, that is remembering a past that never existed. Nostalgia is remembering the past how you thought it should have been and is something you seem to be suffering from.

Mr Optimistic

5th Dec 2014, 18:21

Well you can see why the military might be interested as the crew plus seats and support are proportionately heavy and g limits could be stretched. The military business case would still be for human ground control fairly obviously. Key issue probably link capacity and integrity. For civilian freight or heaven protect us pax, never - it is not a technology thing primarily, just plain obvious commercial pay back.

Imagine an autonomous system having to deal with unusual attitude recovery. A successful and reliably performing system may well be a technical impossibility when you stretch to ten to the power of whatever. No doubt a big button which called up an automatic recovery sequence would be quite welcome but imagine the permutations of starting conditions, data reliability, aerocharacteristics out of envelope etc.

Anyway, as pax, I derive a certain comfort knowing that those in control are mortal and have skin in the game!

Tourist

5th Dec 2014, 18:36

Mr Optimistic

Is this a wind-up?

It is taking up enough time defending my point against superior numbers without having to prove the same point again and again!

Go to post 225
They have such a system currently operational
It runs off an android mobile phone.
This is not the future, this is now and mundane
It is designed to take control off incapacitated pilots and has been tested in vertical dives towards the ground.

And no, the military intention is autonomous not ground controlled as is demonstrated in the X47B and Blackhawks links I've posted.

Tourist

5th Dec 2014, 18:38

KBPsen

Not really sure where you are coming from with that.
This is not about me bemoaning anything, it is others who think the past should be the future.

AirRabbit

5th Dec 2014, 20:15

:hmm:
Notwithstanding all of the previously posted opinions, facts, feelings, predictions, and arguments (including my own) … I think it just may be equally likely to see an alternative form of “transportation” to the kind of “automatic piloted,” 500+ passenger airplane equipped with one or more sophisticated computer systems, similar to or more advanced than those described in the 1966-era “Star Trek” television series, that so many here seem to believe is inevitable. This “alternative” system would mirror a transportation mode also first envisioned in that same iconic television/movie series, that would be more convenient and at least equally safe … and would be based on the “transporter” system that allowed transfer of animate and inanimate objects between orbiting space ships and virtually any location on the planet below … or to other space ships. Transportation time would be impervious to any climatic or physical barriers and transfer time would be almost immediate!;)

neville_nobody

6th Dec 2014, 00:01

12 Pages and noone has even touched on how you could ever certify a pilotless pax aircraft. The efforts required to prove the redundancy plus the test flying would almost be not worth it. Then once you've done that someone has to insure it. All that's assuming you had the technology available to do it in the first instance. The cost of the redundancy would also be an issue to consider.

Some of these tech guys on here have a website mentality to these things in that you build a half arsed product get it out to market ASAP then iron out the bugs later on. Can't do that in aviation i'm afraid.......Mind you Boeing had a good crack it with the 787!

-438

6th Dec 2014, 00:15

In reality, aircraft will become more reliable and more capable.
The first step would be to go from 2 pilots to 1.
This will take at least 20 years. As far as I know, neither A or B have any plans for certifying a single pilot airliner.
Pilotless would be at least another 20 years behind that.
I will be retired by then.

Faire d'income

6th Dec 2014, 00:19

Quote:
Tourist - how would your totally computerised aircraft have handled the AF447 scenario?
Ah, perhaps a bad example!!

If the autonomous programming was not allowed to hand back control to a flight crew, then it would have been programmed to do another level of fallback. Which would almost certainly be something like "power and pitch".

It would have had to decide which 2 of the following to ignore: Overspeed, Stall, and Unreliable Airspeed.

You appear to have suggested that it should ignore the Overspeed & Stall warnings by going to pitch and power (assuming it is programmed). If the aircraft was actually stalled, as in AF447, applying power immediately would probably exacerbate the problem and indeed airbus recommend lowering the nose first, if you are stalled. The aircraft has no way of knowing which was which was correct, even if it referenced the GPS it would still have to decide based on majority (e.g. 3 GPS say we are slow, 3 ADIRUs say we are overspeeding and slow at the same time). What does the logic do now?

harrryw

6th Dec 2014, 00:37

X-47B Fails Landing Attempt — Again | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130716/DEFREG02/307160015/X-47B-Fails-Landing-Attempt-Again)
I guess two out of three not too bad.
Of course if the diversion airport programmed was out i guess it would only be one out of three......and they would have had to say the test got aborted while they build another. Too bad if these were passengers.

goldfish85

6th Dec 2014, 00:56

[Autopilot takeoff is trivial compared to autoland. I first took part in autolands with pax on board 50 years ago, but 3 aircraft generations later no-one has built a commercial aircraft with an auto takeoff system - there's no business benefit to doing it.]
Isn't the real reason, takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory

Serously, just look at the accident record to date. Military drones are operating with about ten times the mishap rates as fighters. Neither are quite as good as general aviation.

goldfish85

6th Dec 2014, 01:17

Basil: "In order to maintain order on board there has to be an appointed Pilot in Command. At the very least a change in law would be required to appoint, say, the chief steward as aircraft commander."

In my first week at my airline (sadly no longer in business) the instructor wnet through the order of succession: If the Captain is disabled, then the First Officer is in charge. If the First Officer is disabled (dot) (dot) (dot). At one point, If the Flight Engineer is disabled, the the senior flight attended is in charge. At that point he stopped. looked at the class and said "and you're in real trouble."

tdracer

6th Dec 2014, 04:00

A couple of observations...

The current capability of UAVs is close to meaningless - no one is arguing that current technology would make pilotless aircraft safer. We're talking a future state (just how future being also open to debate). But computing power is growing exponentially. That means triply redundant systems will be cheaper in 5 years than single thread stuff is today. Project that forward 20 or 40 years?

The first 'pilotless' passenger aircraft isn't going to be a 400 passenger commercial airliner - it'll be a private 'bizz jet' general aviation aircraft (or even a prop), certified under far more relaxed regulations than the Part 25 FAA and EASA regs. The safety record for general aviation currently isn't all that great - orders of magnitude worse than the Part 25 counterparts. So you've got some businessman who can justify and afford his own aircraft, but doesn't want to either pay for a pilot or become one. You honestly think the idea of a pilotless aircraft - as safe or safer than the admittedly mediocre level of piloted general aviation - wouldn't be attractive? Sure, some will crash, people will die - just like what happens with all to much regularity in general aviation today. But the bugs will be worked out, and before long unpiloted GA aircraft will be way safer than their piloted counterparts.

HIRF/Lightning - REALLY? Fly By Wire and FADEC have been commonplace for 25 years - HIRF/Lighting are just as much a threat to FBW/FADEC as they'd be for pilotless aircraft. Further, I can't recall a single accident attributed to HIRF/Lightning affecting a FBW or FADEC. Yes, it needs to be accounted for, but we've already figured out how to do that.

As I said before - it's not around the corner, at least not by human standards. however, I've been working engines since 1977. I recall all too well the skepticism regarding FADEC - including people swearing they'd NEVER fly on a FADEC powered airplane. 20 years later they had conveniently forgotten they'd ever said that :ugh: FBW was met with similar skepticism. Yet today, if you want to fly commercially on an aircraft that isn't ultimately controlled by computers, your options are going to very sharply limited. Look at the current Boeing and Airbus products - yes pilots are in the loop, but they are NOT ultimately in control - the aircraft is being controlled by electrons.

Tourist

6th Dec 2014, 06:21

Faire dincome

Leaving aside the fact that the computer would also have had the AoA info to hand, plus why on earth would the computer have only those inputs. There are vastly more parameters available nowadays.
Even a mobile phone has accelerometers. pitot tubes are not the only way of measuring airspeed etc etc.

It is beside the point I believe anyway.
Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did. Let's assume that we limited the proposed new airliner to old school sensors.
I believe I am correct in saying that after the initial pitot problem, for the rest of the flight the instruments actually worked correctly?
So all the info was available to the pilots, they just failed to interpret it and act accordingly. All a computer had to do was lower the nose.

Your misunderstanding of pitch and power worries me if you are in fact a pilot.
Pitch and power is not a stall recovery technique.
It is a flying with unreliable instrument technique.
It does not mean pitch the aircraft and add power as you seem to suggest.
It means that there are pitch and power settings that will give known level flight speeds.
Yes, Airbus and the rest of the sane world recommends lowering the nose to recover from a stall in an airliner. This is not beyond the wit of man to program into a computer.

Goldfish85
Please read back a few pages. Drone survival rates are covered and irrelevant for obvious reasons. More relevant would be if you found the loss rate due to computer failure.

Harryw
If you are linking to the X47B hoping that it helps the "no" case then you don't quite understand the difficulty leap between airliner ops and naval combat aircraft operation. 2 out of three certainly isn't bad. Diversions being out affect manned aircraft just as much as unmanned, and plenty of human pilots end up going home.
Fortunately, nobody is planning or proposing landing airliners on carrier decks in UAVs.

Mr Optimistic

6th Dec 2014, 08:10

'Wind up' ? No, just giving my views on the matter, hope that's OK with you. Sorry my opinions aren't unique and are shared by others.

Tourist

6th Dec 2014, 08:20

The original point was answered with a link to emphatic proof that the opinion was fallacious which you would have known if you bothered to read the link I posted.

I was asking if the repeated asking of questions that had been put to bed was a windup.

I see nobody disputing the facts that the system exists to do just what you said was a distant pipe dream.

And it exists on an android phone.
No exactly cray territory.

It is not that hard to google claims that you are about to post to see if they are factually incorrect.
I am trying when able to post a link to provide evidence to support my case.
Do me the courtesy of reading them before assuming they are irelevant.

PigeonVoyageur

6th Dec 2014, 09:21

I've followed this thread with interest. But the simple question is whether as a passenger one would accept to board an aircraft without pilots. I'm sure that if a poll is made, we'll get an overwhelming 99% of response that says that they won't risk doing it. Humans will trust a lot of things to automation, but in an instinct of self-preservation, they won't trust their lives to it.

Andrewgr2

6th Dec 2014, 09:32

Humans trust their lives to automation every time they travel in a lift (elevator). They don't even think about it. Aircraft are many orders of magnitude more complex. But people have got used to travelling in unmanned trains. I look forward to travelling in a driverless car. I don't see why, in time, aircraft could not be similarly acceptable.

dr dre

6th Dec 2014, 09:42

The first 'pilotless' passenger aircraft isn't going to be a 400 passenger commercial airliner - it'll be a private 'bizz jet' general aviation aircraft (or even a prop), certified under far more relaxed regulations than the Part 25 FAA and EASA regs. The safety record for general aviation currently isn't all that great - orders of magnitude worse than the Part 25 counterparts. So you've got some businessman who can justify and afford his own aircraft, but doesn't want to either pay for a pilot or become one. You honestly think the idea of a pilotless aircraft - as safe or safer than the admittedly mediocre level of piloted general aviation - wouldn't be attractive? Sure, some will crash, people will die - just like what happens with all to much regularity in general aviation today. But the bugs will be worked out, and before long unpiloted GA aircraft will be way safer than their piloted counterparts.

Wrong. If there's ever going to be pilotless passenger aircraft (and I'd argue it's at least a century away) the support network and infrastructure behind it will be so large it would have to be first developed by major airlines. A businessman isn't going to just buy an unmanned flying machine, jump in it and safely operate it himself.

Tourist

6th Dec 2014, 11:21

Dr dre

I think one of the bonuses of automation is that due to the step change in systems required, we may actually require a lot less infrastructure. Good time to bin ILS/VOR/NDB entirely. They are just not required anymore. There is plenty of tech around that made them obsolete long ago, it just requires certification which is expensive.

I read with interest your "at least a century"

I'm sure that you came to that figure from careful analysis of Moore's law, the pace of change of technology in aviation etc, but some on here might think you just pulled it out of your @rse.

Faire d'income

6th Dec 2014, 12:28

Faire dincome

Leaving aside the fact that the computer would also have had the AoA info to hand, plus why on earth would the computer have only those inputs. There are vastly more parameters available nowadays.
Even a mobile phone has accelerometers. pitot tubes are not the only way of measuring airspeed etc etc.

It is beside the point I believe anyway.
Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did. Let's assume that we limited the proposed new airliner to old school sensors.
I believe I am correct in saying that after the initial pitot problem, for the rest of the flight the instruments actually worked correctly?
So all the info was available to the pilots, they just failed to interpret it and act accordingly. All a computer had to do was lower the nose.

Your misunderstanding of pitch and power worries me if you are in fact a pilot.
Pitch and power is not a stall recovery technique.
It is a flying with unreliable instrument technique.
It does not mean pitch the aircraft and add power as you seem to suggest.
It means that there are pitch and power settings that will give known level flight speeds.
Yes, Airbus and the rest of the sane world recommends lowering the nose to recover from a stall in an airliner. This is not beyond the wit of man to program into a computer.

I never said pitch and power was a stall recovery technique. Merely that a computer would have to choose between three simultaneous warnings (Stall, Overspeed & Unreliable Airspeed - AF447) thus ignoring 2 warnings and choose one procedure.

That fact you didn't understand this blows your argument to pieces.

As for lowering the nose, that it not the issue. The issue is delaying the increase of thrust, which causes a pitch up moment thus compounding the stall. But then you didn't seem to understand that either.

Time to stop spoofing.

And I love this 'Let's assume for a moment that the computer had got into the position the humans did.' What do you think happened before the autopilot disconnected?

willfly380

6th Dec 2014, 14:56

The main question is WHY. Why have a pilot-less airplane in the first place?
What do we gain from it.Safety ?Economy? what exactly do we gain?
Safety will not improve with pilot less airplane, nor will it be economical as they will cost a lot to maintain and run , eventually costing more .

16024

6th Dec 2014, 15:32

Why?
Well the clue is in the title of the thread.
Tourist and others have spent 15 pages explaining why.
It's simply that the timescale involved, versus the lifespan of the industry as we know it means it won't be worth it.
And with the industry for the time being getting safer as well as cheaper, the safety benefit versus cost also means it won't be worth it. As somebody put it nicely a few pages back, "We aren't killing enough people".
Why am I bothered? Well it's not the dent in professional pride. I'm making a reasonable fist so far of keeping last century technology out of the mountains. And it's not fear of my job. See timescale, above.
Really, it's that all the departments of hard sums, and the clever people, and all that money could be better invested where there's a pressing need.
For example, alternative power for when the oil runs out...

slast

6th Dec 2014, 18:34

Hi tourist.

I appreciate it that you say I am making some good points!

About the question at the end (to save readers having to trace back I asked this "Question for the YES side."

"A pilotless airliner with 400 pax. is taking off in the correct configuration. At VR a system detects a changed status of a physical system. A/C protection software automatically reconfigures aircraft to settings appropriate to changed status. The new configuration puts a/c immediately outside the flight envelope and makes it almost incapable of flight. This condition had not been considered in any certification fault tree analysis.

(a) what do you envisage would happen to this pilotless a/c?
(b) which organisations will volunteer to be liable for the consequences?"

You replied "Your question is just a trap.
You are asking me to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet you have just thought of the scenario."

I take it you believe I am posing a false paradox - since I have thought of it, it can't be something that couldn't be foreseen. That would be true if I had "just thought of it", i.e. imagined it as a potential scenario.

The point is that I have not just imagined this scenario. The way I have phrased it is simply a generalised description of what happened to an acquaintance of mine 5 years ago.

During a B744 night takeoff, close to performance limits, the thrust reverser cowls on 2 engines independently moved rearwards as the aircraft accelerated. #3 at V1-25 kt, #2 9 seconds later at V1+ 9. They moved fractionally further than they should, triggering microswitches that sensed it as reverser activation.

System logic then was
"weight is on wheels, therefore a/c on ground.
>reversers are about to be deployed therefore a/c is landing
>possible exhaust gas damage to leading edge flaps when reversers deployed therefore retract LE flaps."

So at 0.7 seconds / 4kts before VR the LE flaps were retracted, with no warning to the crew.

At V2 the aircraft wheels left the ground. The a/c was just airborne in the dark with an intermittent stick shaker and very heavy buffeting making the instruments hard to read. Fortunately the First Officer who was PF recognised the buffet as being stall related, and maintained a very shallow climb to build up speed. After 7 seconds the air-ground logic caused the LE flaps to re-extend.

My point here is not to discuss the specifics, and I will grant that an automatic system would not have had the human pilots' handicap of difficulty in reading instruments and absence of external visual cues in the dark (although heavy buffet has been known to cause poor contact for avionics boxes).

It is that the humans on the spot were able to make some attempt to deal with this unforeseen situation. If they had not succeeded it would have been a major catastrophe with incalculable consequences especially for Boeing, as the possibility of such an occurrence had not been identified during amendment of the retraction logic.

This was nothing to do with reaction times and computer redundancy etc, it was physical objects in unpredicted circumstances. In the event, human pilot "instinct" saved the day, with NO analysis whatever of data. In this case, by pure good fortune the PF was an experienced aerobatic pilot and familiar with buffet, and one might question whether other pilots would have done so well. But that's really irrelevant to the questions.

So to come back to my question to you, which I've expanded slightly to cover the specific example:
(a) what do you envisage would happen to this pilotless a/c?
Would it follow the logic of "All engines are operating at VR, therefore raise nose and follow normal climb profile", which would be followed by a sustained stall warning leading to "follow stall recovery procedure and lower the nose (and hit the ground)".
or "An engine is about to go in reverse below V1, stop (and run off at high speed)"
or "Two engines are about to go in reverse above V1, stop (and run off at even higher speed)"
or "Two engines are about to go in reverse above V1, carry on (and do what?)"
or some other logic path, obtained from what analysis?

(b) which organisations will volunteer to be liable for the consequences?"

However, I reject the idea that "this is a "trap", because I am asking you to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet I have just thought of the scenario." I am using it as an example of something that neither I nor anyone else thought of, before it actually happened. I maintain that totally unpredicted and unpredictable events will continue to happen to both piloted and any pilotLESS aircraft, and want to know how the pilotless ones will deal with them.

MG23

6th Dec 2014, 19:12

However, I reject the idea that "this is a "trap", because I am asking you to say what will happen after the computer has failed because nobody could think of the scenario, yet I have just thought of the scenario." I am using it as an example of something that neither I nor anyone else thought of, before it actually happened. I maintain that totally unpredicted and unpredictable events will continue to happen to both piloted and any pilotLESS aircraft, and want to know how the pilotless ones will deal with them.

I doubt any programmer is going to be saying 'in this scenario, do this. In this other scenario, do that. In this scenario do something else,' it's likely to be a set of heuristics which they'd then check against different scenarios to verify they'd be handled acceptably. Maybe there'd be special case code for each specific scenario the aircraft manufacturer documented, where they'd determined the best response, but you can't build in code for every possible combination of failures.

But I agree with your final comment. The systems we produce are vastly more automated than the ones they replaced, with self-monitoring and maintenance capabilities. When I get a phone call at 4am, it's usually because of some scenario we never considered, which leads to pathological behaviour until the system shuts down (e.g. some piece of hardware fails, so the servers reset it, but it won't reset, and that triggers some watchdog timer, from which it can't recover without the failed hardware, and then it all goes to hell). It's much more robust, and needs much less human intervention, than the previous generation, but it still breaks. Fortunately, hundreds of people don't die when that happens.

slast

6th Dec 2014, 19:30

evansb

6th Dec 2014, 20:23

Progress. Progressing towards what, exactly?..

capt.cynical

6th Dec 2014, 20:23

WHAT.

No mention of the "pilot and the dog."

Tourist

6th Dec 2014, 20:25

Slast

Ok, let's deal with your example.
The simple fact is that I don't know the systems in enough detail to know.
It's possible that it would have gone swimmingly, just like it is possible that another pilot on another day might have porked it.

As I have said before.
There will still be smoking holes.
They will almost certainly be for different reasons. Different problems will be tricky for manned vs unmanned.
This might come under the previously mentioned black swan events.
What is important is whether overall it is as safe but cheaper, or safer.
ie total death rate
I believe it to be likely that removing all the human error accidents will offset the rare/weird ones.

As I've said, I don't disagree with most of your points. They are all valid. The difference is that I think they are surmountable challenges rather thn stoppers.

....and yes, that is a very interesting article.

Tourist

6th Dec 2014, 20:55

Faire

I think you are embarrassing yourself.

Go read up on the accident.

One of us is making a :mad: of themselves here, and the fact that the people on here that disagree with everything I'm saying don't think that the AF447 is a good example to press their case should point you in the direction of who that might be....

ExSp33db1rd

6th Dec 2014, 21:56

but if the dog-feeding-pilot is there as an "In an emergency break the glass " context, which might make a bit of sense, how is he to be able to take over if he never physically flies the aircraft for practice ? Even now we have some pilots rarely making manual landings - until they have to try to land at San Francisco with a glide slope out of service and an auto throttle system that holds the throttles stationary ( even had they engaged it ). OK, I won't start that again !

World's Gone Mad.

Never mind pilotless aircraft, I usually ask the cabin crew if I'm on a Boeing or a Scarebus ? (sometimes gets me a free drink when I'm on a Boeing ! )

AirRabbit

6th Dec 2014, 22:55

neville_nobody commented "12 Pages and noone has even touched on how you could ever certify a pilotless pax aircraft."

interesting link here

'Certifiable Trust' Required To Take Autonomous Systems Past 'Unmanned' | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

I was wondering if/when someone would post something like this … thanks. If one were to take the time to read through the article (the link you provided) it should become clear that the development of computers is a long way from finished … AND it is a long way from developing the necessary kinds of understandings and the required kinds of electronic/mechanical hardware and the management software it would require to achieve the kinds of things being discussed here. Will it ever happen? I don’t know. Maybe it will. But if it does it won’t be for quite a while – and just because such a set of electronic, mechanical, and computer interfacing may be available in 50 or 100 years, it would still, undoubtedly, carry little guarantee that “Mom and Pop Average” would be willing to entrust their lives to something that may say, as “HAL” did in 2001: A Space Odyssey, “I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.”

neville_nobody

7th Dec 2014, 07:45

Great article. I had seen articles on similar lines but that had alot more technical detail.

Shows that Tourist's theory is really a non-starter for now.

They need to figure out the intelligent computer bit THEN figure out how to certify it and what is and isn't acceptable for the computer.

Interesting quote:

For humans, interpersonal trust is based on “information, integrity, intelligence, interaction, intent and intuition,” says Allen, arguing this will be difficult to establish with a machine. “We will need new methods of verification and validation.”

When all is said and done though I money will be the biggest driver in all this:
The qualified people in government that can design an effective test-and-evaluation program do not exist. There are not enough people to staff the FAA’s six UAS test sites; not in the military, not in the government,” she says.

“These people are not inside the government or industry. They are out there, but working for Google, Oracle and others—companies with a 40% R&D spend,” Cummings notes, comparing their rate of research and development investment with the aerospace and defense industry’s average of around 5% of revenues. “The government does not understand the difference between autonomous systems and unmanned. They know nothing about test and evaluation for autonomous systems. A deterministic approach will not work,” she says. “Meanwhile China is pouring billions into the development of probabilistic and stochastic software systems.

I actually thought we would be alot closer to Single Pilot RPT and/or cruise than we actually are too. Interesting that two guys still beat the Single Pilot + computer.

Uplinker

7th Dec 2014, 09:59

Tourist;

Humans are almost exactly what you don't want in a modern cockpit.

= Humans are what YOU don't want in a cockpit you mean.

Airline flying is dull and repetitive.

= Says who? No it isn't

All the good SOP stuff can't avoid the fact that we have rarely even met the other guy.

= What has that got to do with anything? Do you understand what SOP's are for?

A modern airliner is spectacularly complex.

= Yes, but not to operate

Machines don't get tired.
They don't need practise
The love dull
They care not about unsociable.
They don't need to rehearse.
They excel at complex concurrent tasks

= Machines can go wrong. Power supplies overheat, bad connections occur, fuses or breakers pop. Processors can become overloaded, causing lock ups or resets. Valves can jam. Programmers cannot consider every eventuallity.

I say again.....
The first point I will make yet again.......

= You don't have to keep saying again. The reason your points are being ignored is that you're making stupid assertions.

In an Airbus, nearly everything is solved by "leave it alone, it's just having a bad morning" or off then on.

= Rubbish

The third of course is why are you judging the future on a really old piece of archaic junk like an Airbus?

= Archaic junk? Ridiculous assertion. You really don't like Airbus do you? What happened, did you fail your SIM?

Glueball

Read back a few pages.
There is a strong suggestion that the river was not the best option. If that is the case, that is the sort of thing a computer is good at judging. It is just a matter of geometry and speed distance time glide angle calculations. That is where a computer has us totally beaten.

= What about garbage in garbage out?

Uplinker.
I don't think you have thought this through.
What do you do in an engine/generator/gear failure/flap jam failure that involves thought? You follow the ECAM. You are not supposed to think. All you currently are is an error waiting to happen as you don't follow the instruction properly or most likely you make a tiny error in the landing distance chart and totally mess up.

The ECAM tells you what to do.
You do it. well done, you must be a pilot.

= Thank you. Yes I am, and what rubbish you speak. "Not supposed to think" Where on earth did you get that from?
Here are a few of the considerations that I and the other pilot will be making as we are following the ECAM:-
Where is the high ground?
How much fuel have we got?
What is our endurance?
Is a fuel imbalance building up? If so, why?
Where are the CB's ?
Do we have any icing?
What stopping systems have we lost?
What landing distance do we require?
What landing distance is available?
Have we lost any landing capability, e.g autoland?
What is the weather situation at our destination and alternates?
Do all our slats and flaps work?
Will the landing gear deploy - What if it doesn't?
Will our noeswheel steering work? If not, how are we going to control the roll out?
When we land, will we need to evacuate the aircraft on the runway? If so, we need to brief the Cabin crew and the passengers.

By the way. Don't be scared of the ECAM. Folk seem to think it has a mythical intelligence. It is an electronic checklist. It is programmed to present the appropriate checklist(s) in an appropriate order. End of. It doesn't think. It is not intelligent.

Rather than computerise the decision making process, why don't we make sure that the human element has as much information and assistance as possible? The best working conditions, the best training, sufficient rest etc. etc. Why is anyone trying to remove pilots from the cockpit?

Pininstauld

7th Dec 2014, 10:14

Just don't come crying to me after an automatic pilotless plane has dumped all the fuel in one wing out through the broken pipe on the opposite engine.

Flight TS236 August 24 2001. I think you'll find that's pretty much what the pilots of this A330 did because they blindly followed an ECAM drill without doing a full fuel calculation first...

Pininstauld

7th Dec 2014, 10:31

Just don't come crying to me after an automatic pilotless plane has tried to balance the fuel and dumped all the fuel in one wing out through the broken pipe on the opposite engine, like two humans once did too. (But they also managed to fly deadstick to a safe landing.)

You should have left it as it was (as quoted by me) and just admitted that the point wasn't really valid.

CargoOne

7th Dec 2014, 10:47

Fairly easy:
First it was radio operators who gone.
Then navigators.
Then flight engineers.
If memory serves me right the last new non-russian aircraft type with FE entered service back in 1983 and this was 747-300. And the last all-new aircraft with FE was A300 back in 1974 - 40 (forty!) years ago.
So few decades past that milestone it is the right time to start changing regulations in order we can see pilotless commercial aircraft in 10 years from now.
Hopefully you don't feel that 50 years span between eliminating flight engineer and flight crew is too quick and things done in a rush?

Tourist

7th Dec 2014, 10:53

Neville

It is interesting that we both read the same article but take different things away.

I read the article to be saying that certifying the systems is going to be the challenge, rather than building the systems. Nobody knows how to certify learning systems. A challenge, possibly an insurmountable one, but a totally different challenge.

This, of course, is due to autonomous/automatic systems being held to a higher standard than manned because it is impossible to code check a human.

The article does also say that it thinks the driver for all this may well come from the automotive industry which is interesting because they will have to solve the problem for exactly the same reasons, though with possibly less of a required safety level.

The 1 pilot plus old style automation not as good as 2 plus old style automation bit seems a bit of a "well obviously!" to me.

Uplinker

"Here are a few of the considerations that I and the other pilot will be making as we are following the ECAM:-
Where is the high ground?
Computers better at SA than humans
How much fuel have we got?
Computers better at calculations than humans
What is our endurance?
Computers better at calculations than humans
Is a fuel imbalance building up? If so, why?
Computers better at calculations and systems knowledge than humans
Where are the CB's ?
Computer knows.
Do we have any icing?
Even current airliners have auto deice
What stopping systems have we lost?
Computer knows

What landing distance do we require?
Computers better at calculations than humans
What landing distance is available?
Computer knows
Have we lost any landing capability, e.g auto land?

Computer knows
What is the weather situation at our destination and alternates?
Computer can read a TAF
Do all our slats and flaps work?
Computer knows better than you.
Will the landing gear deploy - What if it doesn't?
Computer can follow checklist
Will our noeswheel steering work? If not, how are we going to control the roll out?
Computer can control better than humans
When we land, will we need to evacuate the aircraft on the runway? If so, we need to brief the Cabin crew and the passengers.
Auto briefs already in use.

All this stuff will take a computer a millisecond, and it can keep updating constantly.
The calculations will be correct and instantaneous, unlike the 10 minute sweaty events we have all seen in a sim that rarely give the correct or accurate LDA
There are examples where a human is better. This is not one of those areas.

Re dumping the fuel.

The fact that an ECAM led human pilots to dump their fuel in to the ocean is hardly an advert for humans.
Your suggestion is that the Humans are there to catch the ECAM errors.
That only works if they catch them.
Saying that a computer would do the same as a human doesn't really help your case.
At least a continually monitoring computer might have caught the problem before they were empty as it noticed what was happening.

Oh, and if you don't think airline flying is dull and repetitive then you really need to get out more. I can think of no duller form of flying, and I've tried most. The tipping point for me to get out was when I read about the BA A320 cowling doors flying off and my first thought was "lucky b@stards! They got to do some of that piloting stuff!"

p.s. There, I've gifted you naysayers a good example of where a computer would have had snags!

Sop_Monkey

7th Dec 2014, 11:16

Since man has been the weak link, pilot less a/c with us. Have been for years. A computer actually "landed" on a comet not too long ago. So whats the problem with pilot less a/c?

Pininstauld

7th Dec 2014, 11:26

I see the fuel balancing reference has now been edited out completely and that's probably the right thing to do...

Surely fuel balancing IS on of the things that could be left to the computers. I remember over 20 years ago a British-registered 737 over Italy had been left in the fuel transfer configuration because the crew got distracted and, there being no warning system, the aircraft flew merrily on its way with the A/P gradually applying more and more aileron trim until it was at maximum deflection. And then it came to a waypoint and tried to turn in the opposite direction to the imbalance which caused the A/P to exceed its authority just as it reached the bank angle demanded for the turn. The crew, snapped awake by the disconnect warning, instantly saw the roll and the position of the yoke in the same direction (heavy wing now up) and did what 99% of us would have done and tried to roll the other way. Gravity did the rest and 60 degrees of bank was achieved before order was restored. A bit like the Azores glider this one in that a human c**k-up was followed by a brilliant recovery.

On another day in '06 my own A321 was following a VS 744 round the pattern at about 6am on a clear, still, morning correctly spaced by radar at 5nm. On a 40 degree intercept for finals we caught the LOC and the plane rolled snappily to 30 degrees of bank (max authority for LOC*) just as we hit the full force of the wake vortex left behind the jumbo, rolling us further in the same direction. Without thinking I applied full stick, disconnecting the auto-pilot and with no immediate response in roll, applied some rudder to get the wing up. We hit about 50 degrees of bank and I don't know to this day if the A/P would have recovered this on its own - but at 2,700' AGL I certainly wasn't going to wait to find out.

In these instances, as with the Azores glider, it eventually needed a human to resolve a dangerous situation. But it would be a syllogism to assert that the two fuel-related incidents justify removing pilots because they caused the problems in the first place. A sudden uncommanded roll close to the ground still has to be factored in to the equation. Are the automatics ready?

wiggy

7th Dec 2014, 11:34

A computer actually "landed" on a comet not too long ago.

And FWIW "computers" were landing (and crashing) on the Moon in the 60s (Luna, Surveyor et. al)....so it goes back a long time and yet the "computers" still botch things or can't handle the unknowns/unexpected..

On Rosetta the decision where to try and land was made by human beings before the "computer" was set in motion.... Of course as it turned out the machine ended up in a less than ideal place because the automation/equipment didn't quite work as planned, the probe bounced and there was no means of human's intervening in the process to finesse the final stopping point.......

I suppose if this thread carries on long enough I'm sure Tourist and others will be shown to be correct, but I'm guessing it will be their offspring, or their offspring's offspring posting: "told you so".

Sop_Monkey

7th Dec 2014, 11:48

Why do we have pilots aboard now? For their flying skills? Give me a break, the flying skills if they were there in the first instance, are being eroded at an alarming rate. No the flying skills aren't needed now.

As for problem resolution, it should be able to solved from the ground, should it not?

Passenger appeal? As a passenger and knowing the caliber of a few pilots I know, who in my view should never have been allowed near an a/c I would sleep easier at night knowing they were not at the controls.

Tourist

7th Dec 2014, 12:13

wiggy

That's a bit of a stretch to try to suggest that a human was all that was needed to solve the landing issues.

We may never know what exactly happened, but it is hardly relevant.

Pininstauld

While generally I agree with your post, obviously, your statement about needing humans to recover the situation is problematic.

No human could beat a computer at flying a perfect glide approach to a landing if you fitted one designed to do it.
That is the sort of thing they are particularly good at. No different from flying a perfect cruise. It has all the performance info/glideslopes/AoA data to finesse it better than a human who is trying it for the very first time.

320goat

7th Dec 2014, 12:49

The fact of the matter is Tourist is right. The question is the timeframe. I think we are a long way off and it is not something I nor my children will have to worry about. In the mean time I will continue to ensure I maintain my skills at the appropriate times and be as professional as I can be on the flight deck.

The biggest tragedy of all when we get to the point of having pilotless aircraft is that PPruNe will fade away.

wiggy

7th Dec 2014, 13:12

That's a bit of a stretch to try to suggest that a human was all that was needed to solve the landing issues.

Maybe but there certainly wasn't a cat in Hades chance of the "computer" solving it.. so it's back to the likes of Armstrong using Mark 1 eyeball and experience to decide to redesignate the LM touchdown spot on Apollo 11 when it was discovered all the computing power and Ph.D's at NASA couldn't really predict the effect of Mascon's and the effect of the undocking manoeuvre on the LM State vector. Yes, we're well over 40 years on from that event but we still haven't got technology that think out of the box, "recognise" a good secondary landing spot and re-designate to it.

As I see it we are back to that problem about computers, problem solving and decisions yet again....

Pininstauld

7th Dec 2014, 13:35

obviously, your statement about needing humans to recover the situation is problematic.

The examples I cite are the tip of the iceberg. Regardless of whether an adverse situation develops because of human error, or some uncontrollable external event, the fact is that "today", the only way out is to have a skilled professional on hand to deal with things. But this is only half the debate. There is also a problem with "pilot-error" accidents and it is this that has so obviously confused Mr. Ridley.

There is a folder full of incidents that I could quote from where a fully serviceable aircraft, in benign weather, has been destroyed or come close to a serious accident simply because the pilots demonstrated that they couldn't fly even close to the level of proficiency demanded by their licence.

Neural networks have not arrived, nor do we yet have a truly AI-capable robot that improvises better than its human counterpart (not saying that it won't happen, btw). So, instead of asking “how can we get rid of the fallible pilot?”, the question should be "what can WE change to make the existing generation of pilots better at piloting?"

There is an elephant in the room and it won't go away just by removing pilots from aeroplanes.

Aluminium shuffler

7th Dec 2014, 13:38

SOP,

I hope your Rosetta example was deliberately ironic - I'll credit you with having your tongue in cheek. But for those who would argue this as a good example of automation over human pilots, then consider that it was a failure - Rosetta died within 24hours of landing because the automation screwed up and allowed the craft to bounce off, twice, and land in the wrong zone where it gets no light. That decision to have automation was made of necessity - had it been possible to have human operation by some fantastic faster-than-light remote control or an astronaut, then no doubt the mission would have been saved, just like Armstrong saving the Apollo 11 mission by manual intervention, and Lovell saving Apollo 13... Even then, the automation had to be commanded and updated by a whole room of warm blooded humans to even get Rosetta to make contact with the asteroid, an amazing feat in itself that is testomony to the abilities of humans, not computers.

Basil

7th Dec 2014, 15:26

I recollect, in 1989, when operating a new type, we would occasionally have to tell the passengers that it was about to go dark as we carried out a complete power off and reboot on the ground.
Fortunately, never an airborne requirement :rolleyes:

spirit30

7th Dec 2014, 15:51

My take on it, technically it wouldn't be any problems to remove pilots.
BUT, there is no way the A/C manufacturers would like the human factor to totally disappear from the F/D.
Who would it be to blame after an accident?
Always the producer?
It could become very expensive for Boeing, Airbus etc, when A/C starts falling from the skies due to technical/software malfunctions.

911slf

7th Dec 2014, 16:06

I am SLF and my only piloting experience is on hang gliders so I will not be too upset if modded.

All the what if? scenarios discussed above need to have been thought out by humans in advance, if the computer is to do anything useful. I worked for a small IT firm that was quite sure its systems were year 2000 compliant but reluctantly spent £250,000 proving it, only to find four bugs. Each was small and easily fixed but had they passed unnoticed, some of our clients (quite large building societies) would not have been able to do their year-end accounts. We did not even find all four ourselves during the testing, our customers found some of them.

If you look at advances in communications technology there is ever less need to travel for business reasons. My son defends cases in patent courts in Europe via video link. From 2014 on many of his business trips are no longer to Munich or the Hague but down the corridor to the video conference room.

That leaves travel for pleasure. With the diminution of cultural differences there is arguably less fun. McDonald's in Moscow is pretty much the same as in London.

If losing pilots saved 50% of costs there might be some point in it, but for 5% saving? I also heard, and there are doubtless experts here who can confirm this or otherwise, the additional insurance costs for single pilot business aircraft wipes out the salary saving of a first officer. Only perhaps OK if the same person owns the business and both owns and flies the aircraft.

Faire d'income

7th Dec 2014, 16:07

Faire

I think you are embarrassing yourself.

Go read up on the accident.

One of us is making a of themselves here, and the fact that the people on here that disagree with everything I'm saying don't think that the AF447 is a good example to press their case should point you in the direction of who that might be....

I am well read on AF447 thank you.

Your solution is to provide additional data sources for the automatics, and give 100% authority to the automation and proclaim that this will be safer.

However, you are not comparing like with like.

The automation of the A330 in AF447 was incapable of dealing with the scenario it found itself in. That is a fact, even if seems some posters here don't understand that. The A330 automatics were completely incapable of dealing with the circumstances.

To support you argument for pilotless aircraft you must deal with the likes of AF447. Your solution is to provide more data (you mention accelerometers in mobile phones, as an example, apparently unaware of similar technology in the ADIRUs) and on this basis you proclaim your pilotless aircraft will be safer that an aircraft with a pilot.

But data from additional technology would also aid any human pilot as well and so improve their safety records. Thus you can't fairly compare the performance of pilots - without your additional data - and future automation - with your additional data -.

Hence the safety argument is spurious.

Aaronski

7th Dec 2014, 20:09

Everyone,

Over the many pages are we thinking about pilots vs computer, when we could be thinking about pilots vs pilots who are programmers, working with manufactures to put their experiences into control (event triggered) with feedback systems all in order to follow the designed way to fly (operate).

now if the book is wrong, it needs fixing, yes I get that but putting to one side when to ignore the book and when not is a different subject,

I suggest the approach is - write the use case - ie to challenge the automation guys & lay the gauntlet down.

The endless what if but in a systematic way.

Cost effectiveness is a factor for development, but only one of many factors (space, defence, acadeaminea, would (and are) developing, and will continue to,

Compute power is increasing the last 40 years to the next will be shocking just 1970 computers to Internet connected iPhone.

Uplinker

7th Dec 2014, 21:53

Hi Pininstauld, (I see what you've done there), yes I had a human moment and decided that I was making a possibly weak and confusing point, so I edited it out. No shame in that. I have been out all day and didn't see your reply until just now, so I wasn't reacting to you. No harm done.

Tourist:
Most of your replies to mine are baffling. So which commercial aircraft currently do all the things you say they can do, or are you just saying that it is theoretically possible for computers to do them?

"Computers better at SA than humans" Do you really, seriously believe that??? What do you actually know about computers? Do you understand how they are made, how they are programmed and how they work? Honda made a robot called ASIMO. He was impressive. He could walk up and down stairs (which had strategically placed reflective dot markers on them to help him work out the complex positional calculations). Sadly, as he left the room after his demonstration, ASIMO walked into a door.

Your last point is a really weird one. I don't know what flying you did, but you sound very bitter and twisted. I enjoy my work. Flying to the Maldives or Florida for example, or even good old Malaga, is brilliant. Beats working in a factory. If you found that sort of thing dull, what were you before? an Apollo astronaut?

That ECAM fuel balance checklist was written by humans, and has since been revised after the error was discovered. And humans will write the software in the computer that you think will be able to do everything we do so much better. Computers are good at being a tool for humans, for example, as you say to calculate a landing distance or meter the fuel to the engines. But to actually fly the whole aircraft and conduct the whole flight?? A computer is just a machine that has to be programmed for every possible variable and each different set of circumstances. It is very difficult to do that for something as complicated as a commercial airliner at the design stage and not miss anything out or make mistakes. That is why you need the humans - to sort out the unforseen, think around the problem and to plan ahead.

I am not saying humans are infallible, far from it, But humans designing a computer to take their place in the cockpit? Why add a whole raft of extra potential programming errors and problems and remove the very pilots who could take control and land safely in the event of a problem? When a software or hardware fault is uncovered, or realised in the computer in your airliner, where will the humans be to sort it out, or in the case of AirTransat, perform a deadstick landing?

A final thought. Surgeons make mistakes too. Would you remove humans from the operating theater?

dbuckley

7th Dec 2014, 23:40

SLF appears after a long time lurking...

There will come a time when the general opinion will be that flying is too dangerous to be entrusted to the control of pilots. Its a good few years off, beyond my lifetime I'd have thought, but it will come, of that there is zero doubt.

Computers are already better at operating planes than humans, have been for years, and having read this entire thread, I don't think anyone has stated an opinion to the contrary. Every example of "humans being better" is an example of when it's all gone wrong, and the pilot has bailed the automation and/or the aircraft out.

Could a fully autonomous aircraft have "done a Sully"? Unlikely.

Despite this undoubted fact, it is also a fact that losses are caused by pilots. At some point in the future, the losses due to automated aircraft being unable to get themselves out of a mess will be less than the losses caused by pilots. And that'll be the time when the air gets segregated into "pilots allowed" and "pilots not allowed" airspace. The change, when it happens, will happen with breathtaking speed.

It's already been stated above: the autonomous planes don't need to be perfect, they just need to be, averaged over the years, just better than pilots.

Tourist

8th Dec 2014, 03:17

And with that, I will bow out.

The arguments appear to be getting circular with nothing new being input, plus more importantly my dull seminar is over and I can get back to flying!
Thank you for giving me something to think/argue about.

Revisit in 20yrs?

parabellum

8th Dec 2014, 04:29

of that there is zero doubt.Sorry but I don't buy that. It isn't just a matter of the technology. You are ignoring the security issue, just because we and the computer industry are moving forward doesn't mean that the Mad Mullahs and their suicidal terrorist followers are, all the signs are that they are happily stuck in the seventh century.

it is also a fact that losses are caused by pilots.

Another important fact being ignored, pilots, on a daily basis, save situations and the number far outweighs the losses.

Finally, you have not considered the insurance industry, not just the aircraft and their manufacturers, (Product Liability), the airlines, (Hull insurance, as well as pax and third party legal liability), and the airports themselves who have to carry billions of dollars of indemnity. Speaking to a leading underwriter of one of the major aviation syndicates at Lloyds, who enjoys PPRuNe very much, the attitude of the market is that cover will be so expensive as to preclude the possibility of pilotless aircraft. (In 1983 the annual Product Liability premium for General Dynamics was $250million).

RetiredF4

8th Dec 2014, 07:09

Could a fully autonomous aircraft have "done a Sully"? Unlikely.

Despite this undoubted fact, it is also a fact that losses are caused by pilots.

It is a fact, that not all losses could be prevented by pilots, we all know that. And in the course of events, some losses are caused by pilots by making the wrong decisions due to several reasons, from limited information due to failed sensors, by overload while working with downgraded systems, or just by wrong judgement to name a few.

Not all sensors necessary for an autonomous operating aircraft will fail and cause the loss of the aircraft, but at the moment they do fail now and then and will continue to do so. When we are able to produce those sensors failsafe, then lets do so, there is no need to wait for an computerized aircraft.

Not all computer programs will have false codes and cause loss of aircraft, but some will. If we can make them safer, lets start with them now.

Car drivers are not only causing accidents, they also prevent them by acting with situational awareness. If there are systems in the pipeline which increase their situational awareness in a reliable way like it will be necessary for autonomous vehicles in daily traffic, lets implement them. But there are none tested and certified for daily use by the daily driver now.

All those systems first have to be tested and introduced in piloted aircraft, and they will improve the accident rates if they work ok like other computerized systems did. At that point we may look again what effect the removal of humans from the flight deck may have, a further improvement or a greater risk.

To remove one ccontroling entity (the pilot) and replace it with another one (computer) removes one statistical failure source, but creates other possible failure sources. At the present concept the human is the last redundancy when everything else fails, is unreliable or is unable to make decisions. As the accident numbers turn out this concept works fairly well. It does not prevent all accidents, and sometimes it even leads to accidents, but to oversee the functioning of computers by another computer dependent on the same or a different set of sensors didn't work until now that good. How many ADIRU's will we add and how will the decision making take place which ones to reject and which ones to use? Will we add another sixpack of FCPc's to compensate for the failure possibility of the present ones? Will we add how much more rate and load factor sensors and how will be the decision made which ones are good and which ones are failed? How much cameras IR and Radar sensors do we have to add to the airframe to get the necessary redundant informations? It is not a question of computer power, it is a question of information reliability and redundancy.

If we like to talk science fiction ( what will be in 50 or 100 years), than go ahead. We all do not know. All the necessary input devices, sensors, software and hardware might get that failproof, that complicated systems can and will work autonomously. But all the present developements for the military or for some specialised niche systems are no indicators, that such systems are operational and implemented within the next time (20years) for civil air traffic.

Mac the Knife

8th Dec 2014, 07:54

"Hi guys, my sensors are giving inconsistent airspeed indications.
Everything else seems OK, so I'm going to fly pitch and power until I get things sorted out"

;)

Prober

8th Dec 2014, 09:13

"And my sensors are telling me that the selected airport does not exist so I am just going to carry on until the fuel runs out." (Bit like my interest in this ludicrous thread!)

Superpilot

8th Dec 2014, 09:35

Revisit in 20yrs?

I'll put it in my diary :ok:

Lancelot de boyles

8th Dec 2014, 09:37

I'm curious about how taking the human being out of the equation would actually be accomplished.

Boiled down to some simplistic ideas-
Take the pilots away.
Theres a computer. With a program. Will the program be written by a computer, or human?
The aircraft will be refuelled. Will the refuelling be done by computer, or human?
The aircraft will be built and maintained...

I could go on, but the general idea is there.
The computer should only augment the situation, not replace. As has already been mentioned, Humans have notably been the saving factor (yes, also the weak link at times) in a number of very prominent events.

Is it the reality that somewhere along the line, it will be tried? Yes. But insidiously, rather like our gradual decline in standards. UAVs doing the reconnaissance, crop spraying, banner towing, combat, to name a few.
There would be a level of success sufficient to make it commercially viable, with acceptable levels of risk and loss built in. What level of redundancy will be needed to ensure that multiple system failures won't automatically result in losses?
To go along with wholly automated flight, there would have to be a dramatic change in systems capable of last ditch efforts at saving the SLF from a grim end.

I don't trust computers 100% (I'm an ex engineer), but neither do I trust humans 100% (ex engineer and current pilot), nor do I trust myself 100% (you should see me on day 1 after a break! I won't even mention days 2 thru 6)

I wonder how the Apollo landing, Sioux City and the Sully Ditching would have turned out with total automation.

CargoOne

8th Dec 2014, 10:27

Lancelot de boyles

Sioux city probably would end up badly because no one really considered assymetric engine thrust before as a way to control aircraft. Said that DHL Baghdad will be ok based on lessons learn from Sioux city.

Sully's ditching however will result in landing at TEB with no drama apart from pax wet pants be it a fully automated aircraft and after heavy landing inspection and engines change aircraft will be flying in 2-3 days.

Faire d'income

8th Dec 2014, 12:01

"Hi guys, my sensors are giving inconsistent airspeed indications.
Everything else seems OK, so I'm going to fly pitch and power until I get things sorted out"

This wise in almost every case.

But what if (unknown to yourself as you are receiving conflicting information) you are in a deep stall with idle thrust and you now increase the thrust to, say, 83%?

(NB: I realise you would have had to have been asleep to jump from normal flight to a deep stall without noticing something was awry).

Piltdown Man

8th Dec 2014, 14:50

Sully's ditching however will result in landing at TEB with no drama apart from pax wet pants be it a fully automated aircraft and after heavy landing inspection and engines change aircraft will be flying in 2-3 days.

That is assuming that the stricken aircraft had an abort routine with a non-standard heavy landing in an emergency mode coupled with an appropriately pre-recorded "Mayday! Get out of my way" message, all local METARs, an automatic 7700 squawk with an optimal quick'n'dirty "glide to the nearest threshold, disregard the weather and performance if it's just slightly out and weave around the traffic" 2.1 upgrade pack then it's entirely feasible.

But how many versions of software will it take to get there? More than one is un-acceptable. So only when software arrives as a final version, bug free, with every possible eventuality coded will this "game-changer" be acceptable for use on public transport aircraft.

wiggy

8th Dec 2014, 15:11

So only when software arrives as a final version, bug free, with every possible eventuality coded .....

Snooze-button glitch delayed Rosetta's wake-up - space - 21 January 2014 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24910-snoozebutton-glitch-delayed-rosettas-wakeup.html#.VIXMjzHF9Ao)

From the piece:

"Yes, we will have to fix it but this doesn't affect anything we are doing now. It is past history," he says.

The ESA team already has a number of hypotheses for why the unplanned reboots took place. They say they are now working to determine the true reason and the solution.

"They" being Human Beings....:oh:

Basil

8th Dec 2014, 16:20

Not that I'm supporting the ethos but, one occasion when we should have left the computers to it:

Dramatis personae: Ol' Skip, Bas, Heavy Crew FO.

Scene: A calm B744 flight deck - night.

Bas: (Bored and looking at fuel config) "Bally heck, the stabiliser fuel hasn't started to transfer."
OS: "You're right, I wonder why?"
Bas: (Following fag packet calc) "We'd have to land by Delhi before we're out of trim, so we've got five hours."
OS: "Lets get the heavy crew up to see if they have any ideas."
All: "Hmm." "That's odd." "Is it nice in Delhi?"
HCFO: (Eventually) "It's not meant to transfer yet; the centre tank contents to trigger the transfer have been reduced. Didn't you read the tech advisory?"
All: (except HCFO) "Umm."

Calm returns.

Herod

8th Dec 2014, 16:26

Piltdown. You forgot the database has to have all the latest buildings on approach for every runway worldwide, and every possible eventuality, and the notams about the tall ship's race taking place down the Hudson.

MG23

8th Dec 2014, 17:10

I wonder how the Apollo landing, Sioux City and the Sully Ditching would have turned out with total automation.

If I remember correctly, at least one Apollo landing was flown all the way down by the computer. Others would have landed in craters or on rocks, and bad things would have happened as a result. Another required a last-minute software patch because there was a chunk of metal rattling around inside the controls that intermittently shorted the abort switch.

Of course they weren't designed to handle those situations, so no-one was surprised. But, to handle it properly, you'd need either much fancier radar, or some kind of computer vision system that would spot hazards and avoid them. I presume any pilotless airliner would need something similar for avoiding birds, drones, people who drive on the runway at the last second, etc.

ShyTorque

8th Dec 2014, 19:26

Operation of any aircraft inevitably requires communication and integration into the existing air traffic infrastructure. Without a communication and control being provided for, it is impossible to integrate them. This cannot occur overnight. As I've said a number of times (and mainly ignored by Tourist, probably put in the too difficult to answer file) - physically making an autonomous aircraft is only the first part of the equation.

Lonewolf_50

8th Dec 2014, 19:54

What computers are exceptionally good at is following instructions without error.
ie, if A happens then do B
I suspect that you have forgotten about everyone's favorite military officer, General Protection Fault.

GIGO is another thought you may wish to ponder, Tourist, when you start to deal with complex software, rather than "light is on, light is off" levels of simplicity.

Herod

8th Dec 2014, 20:38

OK, how would the computer handle this one, which actually happened. FO flying, A/P 2 engaged. Cleared to FL230, which the aircraft merrily sailed through. FO levels and returns to FL230. re-engages A/P 2 and aircraft starts to climb. Capt takes control, returns to FL230, engages A/P 1. All normal. Diving into the pages of the FMS it transpires that, although the FO's instruments show STD (1013) selected, and the altimeter agrees, the FMS 2 is stuck on QNH. Computer says "everything normal", and gaily climbs to 23,000ft.

Bally Heck

8th Dec 2014, 23:50

How would the computer flown aircraft deal with the what is it doing now scenario? I have to interfere with my FMC almost every day at work. It's as thick as :mad:. Great at straight and level and autoland. Turbulence, crosswinds, medical emergencies, too high on approach, annoying passengers. Not a hope. It might drink less tea.

Lancelot de boyles

9th Dec 2014, 02:32

But how many versions of software will it take to get there? More than one is un-acceptable. So only when software arrives as a final version, bug free, with every possible eventuality coded will this "game-changer" be acceptable for use on public transport aircraft.

(playing devils advocate, somewhat) Sadly, only by todays reasoning and rationale. As time and tech move on (i hesitate to use the word 'progress'), so will the expectations.
However, without people, whats the point?

ga_trojan

9th Dec 2014, 02:55

Computers are already better at operating planes than humans, have been for years, and having read this entire thread, I don't think anyone has stated an opinion to the contrary. Every example of "humans being better" is an example of when it's all gone wrong, and the pilot has bailed the automation and/or the aircraft out.Not strictly true in that I can operate my jet to the full limit of it's design capability and the autopilot can't. It also doesn't handle tailwinds on approach very well and/or anticipate big wind changes quickly which are all normal operational stuff day to day.

To beat the human you would need the next generation of autopilots and systems AND get them certified. So maybe some engineers can comment where we are with that but in the Airbus/Boeing world today we are still in the 80's really.

tdracer

9th Dec 2014, 03:06

OK, how would the computer handle this one, which actually happened. FO flying, A/P 2 engaged. Cleared to FL230, which the aircraft merrily sailed through. FO levels and returns to FL230. re-engages A/P 2 and aircraft starts to climb.Trivial. Triple (or more) redundant systems with voting. Herod, you seem to be latched into pilotless airplanes using the same systems that are in use today - systems that were intentionally designed for human input/interaction. Autonomous systems simply wouldn't work that way.
And you seem to be hung up with the ability of a computer to 'see'. Except that humans can only really see well when it's clear and daylight or lit - the rest of the time we depend on, wait for it, computer generated radar and night vision :ugh: TCAS 'sees' other aircraft well beyond human visual range, figures out what to do about it, and tells the pilots. Since the widespread adoption of TCAS, there has been one major mid-air, and that occurred when the pilots ignored what TCAS told them and did what a human controller told them instead :mad: Most of the automated systems on todays airplanes are archaic and horribly outdated because it's so expensive to certify updates.

BTW, since Sioux City was brought up, another minor detail. Yes, human pilots did a remarkable job of flying that airplane - I understand that when they put the scenario in a simulator most pilots crashed within minutes. When the idea of training pilots to be able to fly an airplane without hydraulics by using differential thrust, it was rejected as impractical - that scenario was so rare that it would be waste of simulator time. Yet, in the aftermath, there was a team at Boeing working on a computer program that would do exactly that for the 777 (they focused on the 777 as it was the only Boeing product at the time where the throttles could be independently controlled automatically - today 787 has that same capability). Now, I don't know what ever became of that study (I moved off the 777 program shortly afterward and lost visibility), but if they could get it right, it would always be right - unlike humans you can transfer complete and total knowledge between computers.
Total loss of hydraulics is just one example - there are many other examples of failures that are considered so remote that training is not justified, yet we've had to redesign system hardware and software to accommodate or preclude the extremely rare failure - in some cases simply in order to certify - since we couldn't take credit for crew action as they never train for it :ugh:
Oh, and someone brought up the first moon landing. You do realize that the LEM had less computing power than my $20 digital watch? Oh, and 7 years later we autonomously landed two Viking landers on Mars?:ok:

CargoOne

9th Dec 2014, 08:28

That is assuming that the stricken aircraft had an abort routine with a non-standard heavy landing in an emergency mode coupled with an appropriately pre-recorded "Mayday! Get out of my way" message, all local METARs, an automatic 7700 squawk with an optimal quick'n'dirty "glide to the nearest threshold, disregard the weather and performance if it's just slightly out

With modern computing power it would take less than 0.1 second to perform all of above. Obviously it will take some time to program all this logic and get it tested and certified, that's why new regulations and guide lines need to be published soonest possible.

ps. Some of the major automotive manufacturers expect to release fully autonomous cars to the market in 2020. You can say it is not the same speed. True. But then road environment is also much less structured and less predictable. Current prototypes driving cities and highways without major issues, it took around decade to get there.

RetiredF4

9th Dec 2014, 10:50

CargoOne
ps. Some of the major automotive manufacturers expect to release fully autonomous cars to the market in 2020. You can say it is not the same speed. True. But then road environment is also much less structured and less predictable. Current prototypes driving cities and highways without major issues, it took around decade to get there.

It is easy to migitate problems on the road by just stopping the car at the next possible point, which is no more than a few meters away from present position. That makes reliability and redundancy issues easier to fullfill.

The military has solved that problems with their drones by carrying some decent amount of explosives and an automatic or radio operated fusing system.

Both methods (stopping or blowing up) are less suitable for commercial air traffic. But you and some others still think that expierience in autonomous cars and military drones are of significant relevance?

Canute

9th Dec 2014, 11:51

I guess you are not real ex F4 since you are taking stuff from the movies.
Reaper and pred and the like do not self destruct as a safety method.

Cars can stop but have far smaller safety tolerances than aircraft. They routinely pass within feet of each other for hours on end with no height separation. It is an equally or more difficult problem to solve. They have no deconfiction system beyond staying on the right hand side of the road. They have no warnings. The turning radius and slowing distances are variable with weather.

MG23

9th Dec 2014, 13:09

Some of the major automotive manufacturers expect to release fully autonomous cars to the market in 2020.

And GM in the 50s was expecting to release self-driving cars in the 70s.

Hands-free cruise control that requires the driver to watch the road and shut it down when something unusual happens, and leaves all liability on the driver for using it, almost certainly. Driving on urban streets in a snow storm during rush hour, while I nap in the back seat? No way.

Current prototypes driving cities and highways without major issues, it took around decade to get there.Only if you believe the hype, and don't look at what these cars are actually doing.

rivalino

9th Dec 2014, 13:12

I suggest we Just sit Ridley on the jump seat going into funchal on a bad day
Like the Saturday 2 weeks ago and that will be enough to make him go quiet.

MG23

9th Dec 2014, 13:14

It is easy to migitate problems on the road by just stopping the car at the next possible point, which is no more than a few meters away from present position.

Sure, if you don't mind other cars going into the back of you when you stop in the middle of the highway, or when you're trying to swerve across to the shoulder through a lane of cars doing 70mph.

'Just stop' is not a solution to programming problems in heavy traffic, it's an accident waiting to happen.

RetiredF4

9th Dec 2014, 13:16

Canute
I guess you are not real ex F4 since you are taking stuff from the movies.
Reaper and pred and the like do not self destruct as a safety method.

Well, I have no influence what you guess about me or other people, and if you guess that all details about those drones is available in the public domain you may continue to do so.

@MG23
Cars stop on a daily basis in heavy traffic, even with drivers. And I didn't say they would be programmed to stop within the second on the driving lane. Get real, highways have emergency parking lanes and exits and streets have parking spaces close by. Nothing compareable to an autonomous aircraft flying anywhere except on a ten mile final.

But if you think that soft- and hardware are not able to park an future autonomous car in short time to prevent it from causing accidents, what do you then expect from an autonomous airliner?

Uplinker

9th Dec 2014, 13:37

The elephant in the room here is surely that:

a) Any computer taking the place of a human pilot will have to be able to think, predict and plan as well as a human. This means that humans will need to be able to model the human brain in a computer.

b) Any such computer will be built and programmed by humans.

c) The 'computerphiles' are assuming that such a computer will be 100% reliable and never have a bad internal connection or a memory fault or a CPU conflict.

So they are talking about a system on aircraft which will also be made by humans and that will introduce another whole set of potential glitches and software errors. Not only that, but there will be no pilots on the aircraft to sort the problems out when they arise. Would you put your family on such an aircraft?

Computers are excellent at assisting humans. They can hold a course and a level while the pilots oversee the navigation. They can provide numerical data such as landing distance required. They can augment pilots' control inputs to avoid overstressing the aircraft or cause accelerations of more than 1g etc. etc. But they cannot conduct a flight.

Those arguing for computers to replace pilots are obviously not current commercial airline pilots themselves, and therefore do not appreciate the full potential complexity of conducting a flight.

They also, I suspect, have never actually programmed computers themselves, (as I have). If they had, they would realise how difficult it really is to make a computer register and react to any and all circumstances as a human can.

Yes, human pilots over the years have cocked up and crashed, and that is a terrible thing that nobody wants to see happen again. BUT Instead of arguing for computers to replace us, let's argue for better training and conditions for pilots. This is an area that has been declining in recent years owing to the competition of low cost airlines etc., and is the real area where changes need to be made.

etudiant

9th Dec 2014, 14:08

Amazingly visceral responses to an innocuous newspaper comment. Luddite tendencies much?
Uncrewed aircraft are certainly possible, but getting there will be slow, if only because they still need to share the air and terminal space with conventional designs. Passenger reactions will be nil imho, even now they only interact with the cabin staff, apart from some pro forma welcome allegedly from the pilot.
The driver for the shift to unscrewed would be economic, because crew is a sizeable chunk of operating costs. If McDonalds can justify replacing its budget burger flippers with robots, then the benefit of ditching highly paid crew that can operate only 80 hours/month has to be really compelling. The evolution would plausibly begin with drone rules for ATC, followed by an extension to unscrewed cargo carriers. Corporate and passenger flights would presumably be the last to switch, a process maybe accelerated by some ultra low cost 'Automatic Airlines' that offers a true self loading cargo experience.

Aluminium shuffler

9th Dec 2014, 14:14

No, Etudiant, reasoned responses to an insulting and utterly inaccurate paper article based more on a bad banker's wishes than on science or reality.

Huck

9th Dec 2014, 14:25

because crew is a sizeable chunk of operating costs.

Oh Buddha....

1) Add up the highest hourly rates you can find, PIC + SIC

2) Divide by the number of seats in their plane

3) If that total number for crew services exceeds $2 an hour per seat, let us know....

etudiant

9th Dec 2014, 14:50

Airline operating costs are capital to buy the gear, fuel to run it, crew to operate it and maintenance to preserve it. Note this excludes indirect costs such as management, marketing, insurance, taxes and fees.
Capital is currently dirt cheap, fuel is less than it was, maintenance is getting reduced by a younger fleet with increasing equipment MTBO, so crew is the stand out variable. It may be small on a $ per seat mile basis, but in the aggregate afaik, it is 15-30% of direct operating costs. That makes crew costs a priority target.

MG23

9th Dec 2014, 15:02

Cars stop on a daily basis in heavy traffic, even with drivers.

No, they don't. I don't remember the last time a car just stopped in the middle of the road in front of me, unless there was a queue of traffic ahead, or some other obstacle that we all had to stop for.

And I didn't say they would be programmed to stop within the second on the driving lane.
If the car doesn't know what to do, it has to stop before the 'I don't know what to do' becomes 'oops, I crashed'. It can't just keep driving because you just said it doesn't know how!

Get real, highways have emergency parking lanes and exits and streets have parking spaces close by. Nothing compareable to an autonomous aircraft flying anywhere except on a ten mile final.And highways have lanes of traffic the car has to get through to the side of the road before it runs into the thing it doesn't know how to handle. It has to slow down, because otherwise it will crash, and then it has to get between those other cars that aren't slowing down.

A real autonomous car has to be able to handle all situations by itself, or it's an accident waiting to happen. It can't 'just stop' when it runs into something it's not programmed to handle.

But if you think that soft- and hardware are not able to park an future autonomous car in short time to prevent it from causing accidents, what do you then expect from an autonomous airliner?When was the last time you saw an airliner swerve to a stop at the side of the sky?

Besides, the airliner would apparently be pilotless, so it has to handle every possible situation, since it has no pilot left to take over.

Faire d'income

9th Dec 2014, 16:10

so crew is the stand out variable. It may be small on a $ per seat mile basis, but in the aggregate afaik, it is 15-30% of direct operating costs. That makes crew costs a priority target.

Please identify an airline where Flight Crew costs are close to 30% of direct operating costs?

If one exists they will be lucky to see the A350 in service never mind pilotless aircraft.

RetiredF4

9th Dec 2014, 17:29

@MG23

I do not know what you are getting at, I hope you read my other posts too.

I'm not advocating driverless cars or pilotless airplanes in any way. But I think the issue to stop an autonomous car in traffic is a lot more easier to handle than stopping an autonomous airliner inflight.

And while the timeline for a driverless car might be closer than we wish, the timeline for an autonomous aircraft is thankfully still decades away.

charliemouse

9th Dec 2014, 18:03

The point has been made on this thread before, but I think it bears underlining:

You *can* make hypothetical technical arguments until the cows come home (Let's face it, few on here have many relevant FACTS).
The point is most fare paying customers (me included) will simply not buy a ticket on a pilotless airliner.
Now - they may try and sneak it up on us by having a single "pilot" and a box of processors in the R/H seat. This might then be advanced... but I still think most consumers will have the same ultimate objection.
Many many many years away guys.

You can tell it's a slow "smoking hole" year as we are still kicking around this puff-piece...

eppy

9th Dec 2014, 19:17

Autonomous commercial flight services have already commenced. DHL has launched a autonomous cargo delivery service to an Island in the North Sea.

It's a small drone, and has ground controllers liaising with ATC, but it's a start.

It's easy to see the incremental road map from here to bigger, faster and higher until autonomous flight becomes mainstream.

RAT 5

9th Dec 2014, 19:36

You *can* make hypothetical technical arguments until the cows come home (Let's face it, few on here have many relevant FACTS).
The point is most fare paying customers (me included) will simply not buy a ticket on a pilotless airliner.

Yes, but, you will not give a toss about the rewards the pilots receive. You will only be interested in the cost of the ticket. The cost of operating the a/c has reduced due to oil prices; further costs e.g. ATC, landing fees etc. will not reduce, but the pax expect reduced ticket prices. So where is that reduction in cost going to come from? There aren't too many choices. Why is the travelling public so naive?
You go to a 'Fast food outlet" you can eat; you go to a 3* restaurant & you can eat. One is more enjoyable and better than the other. They are both licensed. You get on a 3* airline and you can travel in safety; you get on an airline who pays peanuts and you take your chance. One is more enjoyable than the other. Both are licensed.
QED.

Smokie

10th Dec 2014, 00:33

More details please eppy.

Dan Winterland

10th Dec 2014, 03:10

The cost of certifying pilotless airliners will outweigh the cost savings of taking out the pilots. Especially bearing in mind you will have to have higher qualified operators on the ground and one person trained to take over in flight if required, so the numbers will not reduce significantly. And bear in mind low cost airlines won't make money out of training new pilots.

It's not going to happen in my lifetime.

parabellum

10th Dec 2014, 04:57

because crew is a sizeable chunk of operating costs

but no where near as high as the insurance costs will become if the pilots are taken out of the aircraft and now add that to the cost of the ground controllers who will need the dual qualification of ATC and airline pilot to properly understand both aspects of a pilotless flight. The perceived financial gain simply isn't there. And I'll say it one more time, the security issues will prevent such flights unless all terrorist risk is removed.

wiggy

10th Dec 2014, 09:54

Smokie

I suspect eppy is referring to this:

Delivery Drones Become a Reality in Germany (http://www.livescience.com/48032-dhl-drone-delivery-service.html)

Pininstauld

10th Dec 2014, 11:40

It may be small on a $ per seat mile basis, but in the aggregate afaik, it is 15-30% of direct operating costs. That makes crew costs a priority target

Figures for one well-known EU LC operator in 2013.

Staff costs for 2000 pilots and 4500 crew - £454,000,000 - annual report
Estimate of "fully-loaded" costs for pilots ~ £300,000,000 - any comments?
Total annual costs including fuel - £3,780,000,000 - annual report
Total profit before tax - £478,000,000 - annual report

So, 300/3780 is only 8%, so not so big, eh? After all fuel was over 1.1 billion in the same perid.

But if you could, say, just halve £300m that would take pre-tax profits to £628m which is a whopping 31% increase.

As I say, it depends how you look at it.

Canute

10th Dec 2014, 12:16

I would assume those pilot costs don't take into account anything beyond wage, training, recruitment, pension etc.

They don't take into account the loss of the 4-6 first class seats that could be fitted where they sit on every flight if you removed the cockpit. How much does that add up to over a year?

How much does all that cockpit hardware such as screens, switches and so on weigh? that all cost money to fly around.

wiggy

10th Dec 2014, 13:41

They don't take into account the loss of the 4-6 first class seats that could be fitted where they sit on every flight if you removed the cockpit.

Fair point, but you're assuming you could always sell those extra seats, plus in any event you'd still have to find room for all the hardware that might eventually replace the Human Life forms, so I doubt you'd free up all that non-revenue earning volume currently known as the flight deck......

I guess if you got rid of the cabin crew as well you could save a considerable sum......

Canute

10th Dec 2014, 14:21

How big do you think the computers are likely to be? Something the size of a mobile phone shouldn't take up much space.

My quick and dirty application of Moore's law suggests that all the computers currently on board plus the automation ones should take up approximately..... no space at all in 10 years time

Uplinker

10th Dec 2014, 14:39

Riiiiiight.

So you think the human brain can be modelled by a 'computer' the size of a mobile phone ?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Good luck with that. Cheers, You've just made my day.

FougaMagister

10th Dec 2014, 14:45

Guys and girls - please don't feed the trolls...

Cheers :cool:

Uplinker

10th Dec 2014, 14:51

Sorry.

Still laughing......

Pininstauld

10th Dec 2014, 16:22

About time someone actually said it.

The day that unmanned systems are complex enough to replace human pilots is the day that all humans become redundant. After all, what is a finance director other than a glorified spreadsheet? And who is to say that such unmanned systems will not exhibit all the failings of humans, and possibly even some new ones?

Commercial enterprise supported by enabling technology is rushing us all (all humans, I mean) headlong towards this goal. The reason that this thread is so interesting in this regard is that the sentiments expressed here are a) technically informed, b) aposite and c) so emotively expressed.

As pilots, we should be the first to see the bigger picture, no?

Pali

11th Dec 2014, 07:24

By all respect, to change minds of SLF to be willing to board pilotless airliner may be much tougher task than to tackle all technical hurdles of making such an a/c.

I would bet - the single pilot airliner will be the next logical step.

Pali

11th Dec 2014, 17:23

And, considering the pilot is a safety critical part of the system, the same applies to number of flight crew.

Well, if you ask me I wouldn't enter an airliner without 2 old school pilots in the seats 0a and 0b but I am afraid that in the viewpoint of beancounters a future single pilot would be considered just as a back up per se.

But my main point is that even if it would be technologically feasible the hardest aspect would be making such a solution desirable by general public.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done...

Greenlights

11th Dec 2014, 19:11

But my main point is that even if it would be technologically feasible the hardest aspect would be making such a solution desirable by general public.

You're kidding ?^^
the general public ?
many times people ask me if there are 2 pilots (yep they are not even sure of that) and when I say yes, they ask me what does the copilot do... and when I reply, the same, he flies the plane...they reply "oh ok, I did not know".

Don't worry, the general public is less worried than a pilot himself.

BBK

11th Dec 2014, 23:57

I saw a lovely quote from Warren Buffet in relation to stock market predictions and there being two types of experts. Those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know! I think that may apply here.

Ozymandias

Well said (both posts). It's not, imho, just redundancy but also cross checking eg reroutes and new clearances and also task sharing especially in an emergency (PF/PNF) that determines two as being the minimum number of pilots. I'll vote for unmanned large airliners as somewhere between a long way off to never.

Herod

12th Dec 2014, 11:55

Greenlight. they ask me what does the copilot do

Years ago, on boarding as pax, my wife happened to mention to the cabin crew (probably in reference to sitting in the emergency-exit row) that I was an airline pilot. The reply was "Are you a pilot or a First Officer?" And that was from a crew member.

keith williams

12th Dec 2014, 13:11

I wonder which of the following proposals would cause most concern for passengers.

1. Use automation (much more capable autopilots) to replace the pilots.
2. Use automation (vending machines) to replace the cabin crew.

Yes I know that the bottom-line function of the cabin crew it to get the passengers out in an emergency, but I doubt if many passengers give much thought to that until the emergency occurs.

Herod

12th Dec 2014, 14:51

All London airspace closed
It seems one of the most sophisticated ATC computers in the world has just thrown its toys out of the pram. Pilotless airliners? QED

joy ride

12th Dec 2014, 15:28

^ I noticed two LHR-bound planes close together at lunchtime and this was my very next thought on hearing about the problems.

BBK

12th Dec 2014, 16:05

Herod

Game set and match I would have thought. :E

anotheruser

12th Dec 2014, 16:18

Sorry, if this has been mentioned before, I haven't gone through alle the replies.

One thing automation won't resolve is human error. How many of those "human errors" that lead to plane crashes have actually been errors in using automated systems?

I'm thinking of that case where pilots accidently entered a wrong waypoint into the FMS and the plane flew into a mountain. Or the case where pilots accidently entered a 3500 FPM descent instead of a 3.5 degree descent and the plane flew into the ground. Or the case where pilots accidently entered a heading of 020 instead 200 and ran out of fuel over the jungle.

In all these cases, the planes were flying on autopilot and the human error was not in handling the plane, but in entering wrong data into the automated systems. That will happen in fully automated planes as well.

There's one thing that humans can do but automation can't: Humans can recognise their own errors. A human being can make an error, and a second, or a minute later recognise their own mistake and correct it. An automated system can't.

In the three cases I mentioned above, the pilots didn't recognise their own mistakes in time to prevent the accident, but we don't know how many similar cases happened, in which pilots accidently entered something wrong into their FMS only to spot the error in time to prevent anything bad to happen. And I truly believe that a pilot who is actually there and will be the first to die in an accident is more likely to be vigiliant and spot their own erros than a ground operator who is far away and is possibly distracted by operating several planes at a time.

AreOut

12th Dec 2014, 16:44

"It seems one of the most sophisticated ATC computers in the world has just thrown its toys out of the pram. Pilotless airliners? QED"

notice we have "LONDON Times" somewhere in this thread title, oh the irony :cool:

Radix

12th Dec 2014, 17:21

..........

goldfish85

12th Dec 2014, 18:09

Quote: The cost of certifying pilotless airliners will outweigh the cost savings of taking out the pilots. Especially bearing in mind you will have to have higher qualified operators on the ground and one person trained to take over in flight if required, so the numbers will not reduce significantly. Unquote

I think you got that right. Most of the UAV missions I see could be better done at lower cost with powered airplanes. Consider a proposal I just saw for powerline patrol using drones. Wouldn't it be cheaper to use a Cessna 150 with a pilot than go to all the trouble of certifying a UAV (which won't be cheap) and having to still have an operator on the ground a likely additional people to verify traffic avoidance.

I've been looking into UAV operations and it seems to me that the real reason for UAV operations would be dealing with a hazardous environment for the crew. Most of these applications are military in nature. I could see a civilian use for high altitude communication relay where the mission would call for long loiter at high altitude.

Frankly, I don't think we have to worry based on cost.

Greenlights

13th Dec 2014, 11:40

Quote:
I would bet - the single pilot airliner will be the next logical step.

Nope, that won't happen either. Those who claim so do not understand some of the fundamental principles behind safety regulation.

it's already the case...putting pay to fly or young cadets in the RHS it's like being a single pilot. If really safety was the number one priority, I don't think paytofly would exist then.

Step by step the first officer will only be a paytofly before becoming a captain. Economically it's as if as the company operated a single pilot aircraft.

Uplinker

13th Dec 2014, 12:27

You are implying that pay-to-fly or young cadets are not able to fly, but are simply taken from the street and sat in the cockpit. No. They still have to have a licence to fly commercial passenger transport flights, which involves many months - sometimes years - of study and exams. As well as passing all these, they still have to have demonstrated sufficient skill, knowledge, and ability to control the aircraft and conduct a flight to a safe emergency landing in the event that the other pilot becomes incapacitated. And they must do this without flying into high ground, or swerving off the side or end of the runway, so they need to intelligently select a suitable airfield, with weather conditions within limits. Until a new First Officer proves this ability to the satisfaction of several very experienced training Captains, that First Officer will not be allowed to fly on line without a third safety pilot present in the cockpit.

So; the Swanwick ATC computer workstations autonomously went off-line, meaning that ATC had to go manual. The fault which caused the shut down had apparently never shown itself, despite the system having been in daily use assisting the safe control of thousands of flights per day.

So what say the 'computerphiles' now? How about passenger airliners - or any flying device without human pilot(s), suddenly shutting down, resetting, or going off-line while airborne over London, or any other habitation?

As a commercial pilot, I have been to a Swanwick ATC liaison day and seen what happens with a computer shutdown, (not for real - in their ATC simulator). Lots of very experienced human controllers get very busy all of a sudden, sorting the situation out manually, with pieces of paper.

This is a classic illustration of why computers never will be allowed to have executive control over anything directly involving human safety.

offa

13th Dec 2014, 12:45

If the travelling public new how many times you get a "re-syncing other FMC" or similar they might re-consider this silly discussion.

offa

13th Dec 2014, 12:47

You spend £700m and then use software "from the 60's" what do you expect?
Next time shell out for a few copies of Linux and re-write.

Greenlights

14th Dec 2014, 10:53

dr dre

14th Dec 2014, 12:27

Let's start with pilot-less freight planes. Plenty business to be found

Really? Aren't 99% of cargo aircraft old clapped out ex passenger aircraft? The cheapest hand me downs. Why would cargo airlines be willing to bankroll the R+D of automated airliner sized aircraft and the infrastructure required to operate it when right now they go for the cheapest option available?

strake

15th Dec 2014, 02:26

I don't think Pilotless aircraft for passengers will replace the infrastructure we have now. The current risk is acceptable and can only improve with technology. Eventually, they might be implemented for different requirements such as low-level short distance city 'taxi' travel - but I would suggest that's centuries away.
Where I think we will see them is in the local goods transport area - already being worked on by Google and Amazon.

tdracer

15th Dec 2014, 17:17

From today's Wall Street Journal:
All large commercial jets for passenger and cargo service world-wide now fly with at least two pilots in the cockpit. A new study by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Rockwell Collins Inc. will focus on the provocative idea that co-pilots could remain on the ground, remotely assisting solo aviators on the flight deck during the busiest parts of flights, said John Borghese, Rockwell’s vice president of its Advanced Technology Center.

Blantoon

15th Dec 2014, 18:31

I just want to stake my claim so that I can come back here on my deathbed and childishly yell "I told you so".

Pilotless airliners - not this century.

Mr Optimistic

15th Dec 2014, 18:42

Oh, I wonder what Rockwell's interest is.... No doubt it will be a very long report and will make no difference. Money well spent, not. Unacceptable to the crew, unacceptable to the passengers, unacceptable to the insurers. Why bother? Move to JB?

tdracer

16th Dec 2014, 03:15

Mr. Optimistic, the article is behind the WSJ pay wall, so I tried to respected that by keeping the excerpt brief. However the jest of the article is that NASA foresees a critical pilot shortage in the next 20 years. Single pilot airliners would obviously help alleviate any such pilot shortage (no comment on the reality basis of such an upcoming shortage).
R-C would be a logic choice for such a NASA funded study, given they are responsible for much of the current flight deck automation systems.

BTW, roughly 25 years ago while I was in the middle of a major flight test program (new engines on the 767), I was a bit surprised that during weekend flight testing the right seat pilot was often quite young and raw. When I asked about it I was informed that the right seat pilot was really only there to get the plane home if the left seat pilot became incapacitated. Oh, and the left seat pilots were always top notch (at the time it was usually John Cashman - later to become the Chief Boeing test pilot). Most of the Boeing test pilots are top notch stick and rudder guys - I've been on a number of cheek-clenching flight test maneuvers and they've always pulled them perfectly (think holding a 747 in a 20 degree yaw 5k above ground level for 30+ seconds, taking a 767 from 80 deg. left bank to 80 degree right bank at the max roll rate, or seemingly endless hours of stalls and 'wind up turns' (I'm not prone to motion sickness, but 3+ hours of wind-up turns did the trick)). Am I ready to ride along while a computer did all that unassisted, without human backup? Hell no :mad: But letting a computer put the aircraft on the ground if that great FT pilot becomes incapacitated? I'm not sure I'm ready to dismiss that.

Dont Hang Up

16th Dec 2014, 08:03

I think you got that right. Most of the UAV missions I see could be better done at lower cost with powered airplanes. Consider a proposal I just saw for powerline patrol using drones. Wouldn't it be cheaper to use a Cessna 150 with a pilot than go to all the trouble of certifying a UAV (which won't be cheap) and having to still have an operator on the ground a likely additional people to verify traffic avoidance.

This thread does seem to conjure up some very bad examples! Powerline inspection is probably one of the best examples of where a UAV DOES make sense. Use of piloted aircraft in this domain is expensive and potentially hazardous in bad weather and bad terrain.

One of the strongest arguments for pilotless aircraft is the removal of the pilot from a hazardous situation. An argument that kind of loses its strength for passenger aircraft.

Mr Optimistic

16th Dec 2014, 21:03

There is a certain irony to this thread (and thank you TD). If there is a perceived problem wrt crew ability, especially in the right seat, what is the most direct solution, wandering off on a high tech solution or, pay the money to train better or recruit better?

jumbobelle

29th Dec 2014, 09:22

automation is a good tool but doesn't necessarily mean less accidents. You get different accidents. And you can't get round the human factor- automation and its software is still designed by us humans.

egsc_h17

29th Dec 2014, 15:16

Some of the comments on this thread are so far off base I feel motivated to make my annual pprune post.

First, the mechanics of flight automation. Certainly there are many challenges, and if you lack a doctorate and / or several years of experience in the field you're probably not able to identify many of them. In my experience a higher degree gets you to the point of truly understanding how little you know about a topic. So here are a few opinions from someone who knows just a little about flight automation.

Perhaps 80% of the technical problems of commercial flight automation have already been solved, some of them for many years. The other 20% are harder or more esoteric, but are not necessarily what you would expect. For example taxiing to the gate is one of the more challenging activities (for humans too, sometimes). Problem solving and mitigation is a curious mix of the blindingly obvious and the complex, and has been an active field of research and development for decades.

Many doubts have been expressed about high reliability software. This a reasonably mature field and more a matter of development time and cost than research. Many modern aircraft are already fully reliant on sophisticated software for flight safety. As a pilot you'll be aware of some of these systems, but the majority are silent and embedded throughout the avionics and other aircraft systems. Increasingly there is no such thing as manual handling - software is always in the loop. In the last couple of decades we've become quite good at designing software in such a way that the inevitable bugs do not become critical problems. Bug identification in avionic systems is relatively rare (but the systems are large so the report rate certainly isn't zero). Bugs that are causal or even a factor in a serious incident are exceptionally rare - far more so than pilot finger trouble or mechanical failure.

Please stop talking about a model of the human brain being a gate to flight automation. This is a fallacy. While neural networks are utilised in many fields of pattern recognition (and are present in aircraft systems today, heavily so in military applications), the sophistication of human reasoning is far from a prerequisite of automation. Many disciplines are involved and the catch all term of "AI" could mean anything from a state machine to a knowledge engine. We do not need to wait for the realisation of science fiction for this field to progress.

Flight automation is generally considered a technically easier problem to solve than road vehicle automation. Self driving vehicle developers will claim that their field is a lot harder (but they would). This is self evident to anyone who considers that commercial drones (autonomous, remote piloted and hybrid) have been on the market for years, and flying as research projects for many decades. Self driving cars are still some way off, although dozens of research vehicles are on public roads right now with a human minder. Although cars lack the degrees of freedom of an aircraft, their basic operation is nonetheless more complex to automate due to the complexity of terrain, a less predictable environment and the immediacy of criticality with many failure modes.

It was mentioned that you can't just stop an aircraft when it has a problem - true, and that's a good thing. If you can maintain a sensible attitude you may have seconds, minutes or even hours to solve a problem. Given that the human strength for problem solving is in troubleshooting unplanned issues, there remains the possibility of human fall-back in such events, even if this is remote. Automation is already more appropriate than human handling for short decision-time events. That the immediate response of an AP to a problem is to disengage is a reflection of a design approach developed in the 1950s. In more recent times we've been flying research aircraft with unconventional control and sensor inputs for many years and it's safe to claim that automation would have a greater chance of recovering an aircraft with damaged control response than a human pilot.

Of course some accidents that might be mitigated by a human may have a less satisfactory outcome with automation. It seems likely, however, that a greater number of accidents may be avoided through the application of automation. As such I believe that many of the systems required for automation of the complete flight profile will be incorporated into human piloted aircraft anyway, as part of the natural development of avionic systems. Actually this has been happening for years, and would happen more quickly if there were greater cost benefit (aircraft don't crash often enough to offset the cost).

Which brings us on to the motivation to remove the pilot. If automation can be deployed with an improvement (or at least no reduction) in accident rates then it's my belief that safety will not be a factor. Neither will it be a motivator for the reason just mentioned, unless the cost starts to be offset by insurance savings. Crew reduction, however, is certainly a factor. It's been said repeatedly that the cost of the flight crew is insufficient to justify the cost and complexity of automation, but that was not the case with navigation and flight engineering. Those roles are redundant for commercial benefit and this was made possible by the development of automation. That automation is not as complex as an unmanned flight deck, but 40 years ago the challenges were nonetheless substantial.

For me, the most relevant predictor of flight automation is the rail industry. Let's be clear about the technology - all aspects of rail operation can be and have been fully automated. Even so, the majority of modern rail systems have an on-board human driver. In some cases the human is fully redundant and is not actually driving the train, but is present for passenger perception and/or commercial concerns. The most commonly cited justification is for emergency response, as if one man can effectively marshal several hundred passengers in the event of an accident. Even if this were the case, a train manager would be a cheaper and more appropriate role to execute this function.

Surely flight automation will face this same hurdle. Perhaps few outside of the industry believe it right now, but I'm confident that the technology could be feasible within the next couple of generations of avionics. It could happen more quickly if there was demand. However I find it hard to believe that passengers and trade unions will accept this development easily. I think it likely that we'll see assisted and then fully automated road cars before we see an unmanned flight deck. Although the road car problem is harder to solve, the benefit is visible and huge - a large proportion of road deaths can and will be prevented. Perhaps that will reassure passengers that public transportation can also benefit from automation.

Until that happens the role of the pilot is going to become increasingly dull, as the reach of flight automation continues to grow. Perhaps the role of co-pilot will become the first casualty once automation and captain can be considered each other's redundancy.

All IMHO.

flying lid

29th Dec 2014, 20:25

Until that happens the role of the pilot is going to become increasingly dull, as the reach of flight automation continues to grow. Perhaps the role of co-pilot will become the first casualty once automation and captain can be considered each other's redundancy

I bet it wasn't dull for the few hours before landing on this afternoons Virgin 747 to Las Vegas !!!!

I wonder how "the computers" would have handled this situation, not to mention pax "announcements" in such a situation if FULLY dependant on computers.

Albert Driver

29th Dec 2014, 20:53

Shame to have wasted your annual pprune post then, egsc.

Until that happens the role of the pilot is going to become increasingly dull, as the reach of flight automation continues to grow. Perhaps the role of co-pilot will become the first casualty once automation and captain can be considered each other's redundancy.

The role of the pilot is never dull. He is responsible for the "conduct of the flight".
The flight still needs to be conducted, whether it requires manual flying input or not. Automation merely releases some of his capacity for use in other essential areas of the safe and efficient conduct of the flight.
There always was much more to flying than waggling control surfaces.

Radix

29th Dec 2014, 22:05

..........

freshgasflow

30th Dec 2014, 06:48

Apparently in April 2014 , Google's driverless test car had clocked over one million kilometers safely. A typical road, one could argue, is more complicated than a typical airway ....

thcrozier

30th Dec 2014, 06:56

How many safe miles have "non-Google" cars logged in the same time period? To what extent has the safety of Google cars benefitted from enhanced vigilance of the human drivers surrounding them?

freshgasflow

30th Dec 2014, 07:10

The two incidents that I know of are due to human drivers ! One happened when the car was on manual control by a human driver and the other was when it was hit from behind by an human driver. I wonder what the accident rate for humans would be for one million kilometers ? One must also remember that the Google car is only a prototype.

With this kind of technology, one might envisage single flight crew aircraft where the bulk of the flying will be autonomous, perhaps supervised by ground controllers. The cockpit crew could be "summoned" by the ground controllers to take over if necessary.....

framer

30th Dec 2014, 08:19

I wonder what the accident rate for humans would be for one million kilometers ?
I'd bet there are plenty of posters on here who have done a million with no dings.

Greenlights

30th Dec 2014, 08:24

Developping always scares human being... the history showed it. And today human being did not change about that.
Personnally I am willing to be in a driveless car and would be happy to fly as a passenger in a pilotless aircraft.
Full automation is the futur, less jobs is the futur too, spending our time for more hobbies is also the futur (our politics won't have the choice to admit it soon or late).

petermcleland

30th Dec 2014, 08:32

Well it looks as if they have found it:-

BBC News - AirAsia QZ8501: 'Six bodies' found in missing plane search (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30630330)

How very sad, but now they can get down to finding the facts.

arcs'n'sparcs

30th Dec 2014, 09:48

As with all things, aircraft have and will become increasingly automated. In the future there may be a pilot in the flight deck but that pilot will increasingly be more and more redundant. Systems will evolve to exclude the pilot from nearly every decision. As such, the pilot of the future will be paid accordingly low wages due to the decreased level of control and authority. This is the way of all things of this nature; would an employee of the original Ford Motor Company have visualised his job (and 20 of his co-employees) being done by robots within 100 years? Automation will be the norm, with minimal and lowly paid humans in place to support it.

There will be other, as yet unknown, jobs available. Probably won't have the cachet of telling the pretty young thing at a party that you're a pilot, though.

The world moves on. When was the last time you had to get the stonemasons around to your modern house for some regular repairs?

flying lid

30th Dec 2014, 14:55

There will be other, as yet unknown, jobs available

Oh no there wont. You will be out of work and accepting a pittance on the dole - IF your lucky. Gen up on unemployment, especially in the developed west.

Full automation is the futur, less jobs is the futur too, spending our time for more hobbies is also the futur (our politics won't have the choice to admit it soon or late).

Heard all this before. Fine if your hobbies are scratching a living off a small allotment or similar. Gen up on the decimation of the middle class in the west.

The "futur" (for jobs) is indeed bleak, at all skill levels.

Unless you are one of the <1% of course.

mseyfang

30th Dec 2014, 15:05

"Developping always scares human being... the history showed it. And today human being did not change about that. Personnally I am willing to be in a driveless car and would be happy to fly as a passenger in a pilotless aircraft. Full automation is the futur, less jobs is the futur too, spending our time for more hobbies is also the futur (our politics won't have the choice to admit it soon or late)."

Perfect. We can have hobbies with no means to pursue them. This might work in a totally different economy, but most people need to work for more than $10 an hour in order to even have a hobby.

The only way an economy like this has a chance of working is active income redistribution. I doubt you are willing to go there.

Moreover, some of us have been lucky enough to make a living at our hobby. Your apparent acceptance of this tells us that we are all SOL.

ShyTorque

30th Dec 2014, 15:22

Perhaps we are heading rapidly towards "Luddites II".

But this time the power stations might be the target, which, if disabled, will almost instantly bring many things we take too much for granted to a crashing, grinding halt.

aguadalte

31st Dec 2014, 15:08

Well, here's a good reason for pilots to be in the flight deck: Incident: Lufthansa A321 near Bilbao on Nov 5th 2014, loss of 4000 feet of altitude (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=47d74074&opt=0)

fokker1000

31st Dec 2014, 15:16

Haven't read that report, but I can say from personal experience in the left seat I've done 2 autolands in 14 years where the plane threw a major surprise at us below 30' AGL with no FMA warnings or 'scarey red flashing lights' as the media might say..
Luckily we seat there keeping a rather close eye on things...

Hunter58

1st Jan 2015, 10:12

The reson for a human being on a train to 'supervise' is neither commercial nor psychological. The driver is there for the situations that are not forseen. Such include track works, obstacles, weather conditions and the occasional suicide.

And the unforseen events in aviation are far greater in number than on the ground, regardless of what the 'experts' say. I would go so far to say that each and every flight has unforseen events that are simply handled routinely by an aircrew.

And, yes, any crew needs proper training.

Nialler

1st Jan 2015, 11:45

I have thirty years experience in the IT industry and have worked in most of the large banks in Europe.

Each and every one of them has invested enormous amounts of money, time and energy in their IT infrastructures.

Some of these systems have been very intelligently put together - in some cases I would describe them as being ingenious. They are surrounded by layers of change management, change control and rigorous testing.

They really are very highly-engineered tightly-controlled environments.

They have all failed multiple times over their lifetimes.

Even the core of the mainframe operating system has fixes which are regularly supplied by IBM.

I'd prefer to be flown by a sentient being, despite the fact that it is sentient beings responsible for the above failures.

Tourist

27th Mar 2015, 11:26

Aguadalte

Well, I think we have just seen another reason not to have humans on the flight deck............:sad:

gatbusdriver

27th Mar 2015, 15:40

I'll take my chances with the humans......

ShotOne

29th Mar 2015, 18:59

I'm delighted to use advanced automatics every day. But even if an airliner could be made fully automatic they would still need an onboard decision maker. I'm struggling to remember a flight where everything performed so flawlessly that my presence wasn't necessary. Indeed if military experience is anything to go by, unmanned types have, by far, the worst accident rate of anything currently flying.

ChickenHouse

30th Mar 2015, 13:38

Pilotless airliners are safer ... -> ... for finding nobody accountable or responsible in case of an accident.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Apr 2015, 15:54

Aguadalte

Well, I think we have just seen another reason not to have humans on the flight deck............:sad: An erroneous conclusion drawn from an outlier.
Not a good use of the scientific method you chirped about a few pages back.
More recently, the AD covering the A320 AoA signal fault was to address a death dealer that has to be overcome by fleshy cockpit occupants.
The 30+ known Unreliable Airspeed anomalies that didn't lead to crashes (this ref is to AF 447) were overcome and mitigated by fleshy cockpit occupants.

The toxic cultural environment of today, toxic culture within an organization driven by the min max imperative (as the airline industry seems to be in a general sense), and the potentially toxic cockpit culture within a given crew on a given day are symptoms of a belief systems: the primacy of rules and of if / then statements.
If you want to look at root causes for a safety case, look at culture (writ large) and culture (organizational).
I'll put this to you, Tourist, that the overmathematicization of modern ivilization has led to a min/max attitude that ended up in events like Calgon, and is cousin to the belief that "if we just had another law" or "if we just had another rule" we'd make it better. In some ways, use of those tools has made something like automotive design, fuel efficiency, and road network management better. Min-Max, sadly, leaves out most people, since most people exist within the 3 sigmas of the bell curve. Most people aren't min, and aren't max.

The post provided a few pages back about the Y2K discovery process in a serious IT system should give you pause in your belief in computer programs as anything other than tools for meaty, fleshy, human beings.

As to military flying: I got to use a variety of kit, from CR2's to tube radios to NDB's to some pretty fancy digital cockpit devices by the time I left Naval Aviation.
The one common factor in them all (save the CR2) was that now and again, you had to turn the sumbitch off and turn it on again as a trouble shooting step when it acted up. That was the meat system, me, overcoming the machine system in order to get it to work.

For those systems that you couldn't, like the engine power sharing system for the 2 T-700 engines on a Seahawk, it was a bit frustrating to note that a comparatively simple control system like that took years to trouble shoot by the engineers and patent holders of the systems and sub systems involved to get spurious inputs out of the system that led to, among other things, un-commanded engine shut downs in flight.

At one point while this electronic mess was being untangled by the card carrying smart guys, the Pacific Fleet curtailed certain hover training evolutions. That's right, for a while some of our training that involved hovering over water, which is a fundamental helicopter thing, was taken off the books until some of the electronic problems were identified and overcome.

In the decades since then, I have been very impressed with the reliability improvements of both turbofan and turboshaft engines: impressive work by Rolls, GE, Pratt, etc.
Exceptional reliability doesn't equal fault proof. Whatever one-off event occurs becomes a sensation, it seems, just as a rare one-off with Germanwings has evoked a reaction that may or may not be in proportion to the root causes of that crash.

Compared to a control system top to bottom for a passenger aircraft, the logic / control system for these remarkable modern engines is primative.

No thanks, your brave new world doesn't sell. The root cause is more likely to be the dehumanization of the person in the cockpit than the presence of the person in the cockpit. The question isn't "what was a human doing in that cockpit" but "what was that particular human" doing in that cockpit that day? Each day, humans in the cockpit do a great job at getting folks from point A to point B. As Dr Deming might suggest to you, from a statistical analysis point of view, if you make systems modification decisions based on outlier rather than sound statistical basis, your systems change won't improve your product.
Your crazy FO example is an outlier.

When someone says "pilot error" and doesn't have the experience of ever investigating a crash where pilot error may be a factor, the typical failure to assess "did the system he was in set him/her up to fail" requires deep digging and attribution. The OP article, written by someone who doesn't understand that, wasn't worth the bandwidth it used.

Back to the rule and law obsession, and its attendant legalism and lawsuit crazy cultural cousin: the corporations who build, the agencies who govern and monitor, and the operators who run the business are heavily incentivized by money to NOT open the kimono due to liability concerns when something goes wrong.

Easier to do as was common in the sheep and goat herding society of the ancient Hebrews: find a scapegoat and sacrifice him or her. Even better is to convince some of the sheep that it's in their best interest to not even exist.

My, how far we humans have come, culturally.

NOT!