Virtual pilot lands Qantas jet
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got in the vicinity of 20 years before 'nominal' retirement.
I predict when I retire:
1) there will still be pilots sitting in the drivers seats.
2) the airlines will have spent at least 5 fruitless years of market research trying to convince the public that pilotless aeroplanes really are safe.
3) the systems and technology will be pretty good, but manufacturers will be reluctant to invest huge amounts of money producing said aeroplanes lest noone wants to fly on them.
There is a huge difference between having an aeroplane which can fly from A to B without a pilot (including taxi, takeoff, landing, etc) and getting Mr & Mrs Joe Public to buy a ticket on one. They (pilotless aeroplanes) are great for sending into war zones, but not much good for passenger transport.
I predict when I retire:
1) there will still be pilots sitting in the drivers seats.
2) the airlines will have spent at least 5 fruitless years of market research trying to convince the public that pilotless aeroplanes really are safe.
3) the systems and technology will be pretty good, but manufacturers will be reluctant to invest huge amounts of money producing said aeroplanes lest noone wants to fly on them.
There is a huge difference between having an aeroplane which can fly from A to B without a pilot (including taxi, takeoff, landing, etc) and getting Mr & Mrs Joe Public to buy a ticket on one. They (pilotless aeroplanes) are great for sending into war zones, but not much good for passenger transport.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as we'd like to hope pilotless passenger aircraft never fly, if the ticket is appropriately cheaper, the public will buy them.
How many people would have said they would travel on a driver-less train 100 years ago??? Millions do it every day now...
How many people would have said they would travel on a driver-less train 100 years ago??? Millions do it every day now...
Bottums Up
*Lancer*
Whilst folk might ride on a two dimentional driverless train I can't forsee the day when they will, en-mass, board a pilotless three dimentional aircraft.
And for the sake of our future security, I hope I'm right and you're wrong.
And for the sake of our future security, I hope I'm right and you're wrong.
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had some very interesting discussions with people at Boeing back in the 1980s, and also similar discussions with people at McDonnell Douglas in the early 1990s, about this subject. 
At both places, they were confident back then, that they had the technology to build Commercial Airliners that could quite safely be flown without a Pilot, in fact they thought it would be much safer without a human Pilot.
There was only one thing stopping them all those years ago, they didn't think the Public would wear it.
At both places, they were confident back then, that they had the technology to build Commercial Airliners that could quite safely be flown without a Pilot, in fact they thought it would be much safer without a human Pilot.
There was only one thing stopping them all those years ago, they didn't think the Public would wear it.
lame
And they still won't. People who think they will have rocks in their heads.
There was only one thing stopping them all those years ago, they didn't think the Public would wear it.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404, whilst I agree with your comments, the problem as I see it lies with the children being born today and in the future. They will probably have a completely different view on computers etc than we do. They prob wont have to deal with temperamental electronic failures and computer crashes.
By the year 2030, such things as MS Windows 2030(or similar) will probably be ultra reliable(we hope) and will cause younger people to have alot more trust in technology making the idea of automated flight etc.. seem safer in their eyes than the eyes of old arm-chair ridden ex-pilots at the retirement village!!
Geez I hope Im full of
By the year 2030, such things as MS Windows 2030(or similar) will probably be ultra reliable(we hope) and will cause younger people to have alot more trust in technology making the idea of automated flight etc.. seem safer in their eyes than the eyes of old arm-chair ridden ex-pilots at the retirement village!!
Geez I hope Im full of
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan,
I did not say otherwise.
I was just saying that I know that all those years ago, both Boeing and the then McDonnell Douglas, wanted to build Airliners with NO Pilots.
However in those days they knew the Public would not wear it.
Mind you that was before all the FBW technology we have now, and all the computer controls on the Airbuses, there is probably much more of a case for no Pilots now than there was way back then.
BTW they were not planning on having NO Humans in the flightdeck, just NO Pilots.
They wanted to have (to soothe the passengers) one (or even two if necessary) computer technicians.
Much like as Pilots are mainly only there now just in case, these technicians would be there just in case of multiple computer failure, to change the computers during flight.
They also said that statistics prove that there are many more accidents caused by Pilots over riding the technology, than are ever caused by a fault in the technology.
All that said, I don't know if I would be too keen to travel like that myself, however as someone pointed out already, generations growing up now with computers may be quite okay with it in the future.
Best regards,
Lame.
I did not say otherwise.
I was just saying that I know that all those years ago, both Boeing and the then McDonnell Douglas, wanted to build Airliners with NO Pilots.
However in those days they knew the Public would not wear it.
Mind you that was before all the FBW technology we have now, and all the computer controls on the Airbuses, there is probably much more of a case for no Pilots now than there was way back then.
BTW they were not planning on having NO Humans in the flightdeck, just NO Pilots.
They wanted to have (to soothe the passengers) one (or even two if necessary) computer technicians.
Much like as Pilots are mainly only there now just in case, these technicians would be there just in case of multiple computer failure, to change the computers during flight.
They also said that statistics prove that there are many more accidents caused by Pilots over riding the technology, than are ever caused by a fault in the technology.
All that said, I don't know if I would be too keen to travel like that myself, however as someone pointed out already, generations growing up now with computers may be quite okay with it in the future.
Best regards,
Lame.
Grandpa Aerotart
Lame the problem with their (computer geek engineer) theory is that there are NO statistics for accidents avoided when the human overode the gadgets...nor for accidents avoided from various other human pilot interventions.
IMHO the result of total automation/replacement of the pilots with computer nerds would be lots of dead bodies and broken aeroplanes.
Fundamental difference between people and machines is machines have no fear.
Classic case of spending $10 to save 0.10 cents!!!
Chuck.
IMHO the result of total automation/replacement of the pilots with computer nerds would be lots of dead bodies and broken aeroplanes.
Fundamental difference between people and machines is machines have no fear.
Classic case of spending $10 to save 0.10 cents!!!
Chuck.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think I've ever seen so many heads in so much sand.
Frequently, military applications have crossed over to commercial applications once the technology has been suitably refined. The number of UAV used ATM is growing at a fantastic rate (you should see what I see...). Now, it may not be palatable, but it's only a matter of time, gents, before UAV technology is commercialised. If you can have a single pilot sitting at a console, safely operating an aircraft anywhere else in the world (ala Global Hawk etc), how long before someone works out it's cheaper than 2/3/4 pilot's travelling with the aircraft, hotels etc. etc. Along the way if the 'pilot' doesn't actually have to do anything except monitor the ADS-B commands, or the automated ATC computer driven CPDLC instructions, all the better (maybe he can monitor half a dozen flights simultaneously).
UAV technology is available, now. Every change I see in the ATC side of things is another step toward automation. Only a matter of time.
And as for 'the public won't wear it'. The same thing was said about horses and cars. Old people don't like ATM's. Do you?
Frequently, military applications have crossed over to commercial applications once the technology has been suitably refined. The number of UAV used ATM is growing at a fantastic rate (you should see what I see...). Now, it may not be palatable, but it's only a matter of time, gents, before UAV technology is commercialised. If you can have a single pilot sitting at a console, safely operating an aircraft anywhere else in the world (ala Global Hawk etc), how long before someone works out it's cheaper than 2/3/4 pilot's travelling with the aircraft, hotels etc. etc. Along the way if the 'pilot' doesn't actually have to do anything except monitor the ADS-B commands, or the automated ATC computer driven CPDLC instructions, all the better (maybe he can monitor half a dozen flights simultaneously).
UAV technology is available, now. Every change I see in the ATC side of things is another step toward automation. Only a matter of time.
And as for 'the public won't wear it'. The same thing was said about horses and cars. Old people don't like ATM's. Do you?
ferris
Remote controlled aircraft like the Predator have been around for years. What we are talking about here is a completely autonomous aircraft. No pilot on the ground or in the air to intervene. This is the technology used on the Global Hawk. They have already lost a few because of malfunctions in this technology as well. When most people think of pilot less aircraft they think there is a pilot on the ground flying it. If they realized there wasn’t and that they were on their own, I think their perception of pilot less aircraft would very quickly change.
Remote controlled aircraft like the Predator have been around for years. What we are talking about here is a completely autonomous aircraft. No pilot on the ground or in the air to intervene. This is the technology used on the Global Hawk. They have already lost a few because of malfunctions in this technology as well. When most people think of pilot less aircraft they think there is a pilot on the ground flying it. If they realized there wasn’t and that they were on their own, I think their perception of pilot less aircraft would very quickly change.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: World
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such an interesting topic - couldn't just watch from the fence on this one...
An airline pilot today works with very different "tools" to that of someone flying the same route/s 50 years ago...so where will we be in another 50 years? Given the undoubted improvement/enhancement/future invention of aircraft systems, the role of the pilot as we understand it today has to change - but to what?
Personally, I think there will always be someone on board who'll be referred to as the aircraft's "Captain", but like a ship, he/she does not necessarily need to personally drive it. As has been pointed out, even the current generation flight control systems can do a better job than most humans...even when an a/c suffers major structural damage, the FBW can do amazing things...and if it got really bad, how about a direct feed to the flight test pilots/engineers at the manufacturer who could quickly analyse the situation and provide input back to the a/c and/or "Captain"?
Of course when everything is ops normal, our a/c "Captain" would probably be more like the Cabin Manager we know of today, mingling with pax (or not) and ensuring they're kept happy/entertained (but probably still dealing with IFE problems), whilst a bunch of systems "engineers" (read computers) on the ground monitor the flight progress and flag/report back any abnormalities to the "crew".
Stuff of dreams? Certainly in the short term, but in 50 years?
BTW, I don't necessarily like the concept, but progress is inevitable...
An airline pilot today works with very different "tools" to that of someone flying the same route/s 50 years ago...so where will we be in another 50 years? Given the undoubted improvement/enhancement/future invention of aircraft systems, the role of the pilot as we understand it today has to change - but to what?
Personally, I think there will always be someone on board who'll be referred to as the aircraft's "Captain", but like a ship, he/she does not necessarily need to personally drive it. As has been pointed out, even the current generation flight control systems can do a better job than most humans...even when an a/c suffers major structural damage, the FBW can do amazing things...and if it got really bad, how about a direct feed to the flight test pilots/engineers at the manufacturer who could quickly analyse the situation and provide input back to the a/c and/or "Captain"?
Of course when everything is ops normal, our a/c "Captain" would probably be more like the Cabin Manager we know of today, mingling with pax (or not) and ensuring they're kept happy/entertained (but probably still dealing with IFE problems), whilst a bunch of systems "engineers" (read computers) on the ground monitor the flight progress and flag/report back any abnormalities to the "crew".
Stuff of dreams? Certainly in the short term, but in 50 years?
BTW, I don't necessarily like the concept, but progress is inevitable...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me mate flies a little airaplane, and I've ad a go a cuppla times when i've been up with him, it ain't no big deal I reckon, and if it had an auto matic lander then I reckon I could take 'er up and bring 'er down all by me pat malone.
Anyways, it ain't the every day joe's who are stoppin' 'em from sendin' them airliners up with no pilots. It's the insurance companies.
They ain't gunna risk havin' ta fork out sqillions for a crashed airaplane and dead passengers because some computer mucked up, are they!
Be seein' youse round.
Anyways, it ain't the every day joe's who are stoppin' 'em from sendin' them airliners up with no pilots. It's the insurance companies.
They ain't gunna risk havin' ta fork out sqillions for a crashed airaplane and dead passengers because some computer mucked up, are they!
Be seein' youse round.
Oz Ocker
Maaate, it is a pain reading your posts (your spelling and vocabulary is atrocious), but I have to agree, it will be the insurance companies that will dictate this, not the public, airlines or the manufacturers. If they think the risks are too high, it is dead in the water.
Maaate, it is a pain reading your posts (your spelling and vocabulary is atrocious),
but I have to agree, it will be the insurance companies that will dictate this, not the public, airlines or the manufacturers. If they think the risks are too high, it is dead in the water.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tactical ATC wouldn't be possible with computer-piloted aircraft, especially in response to bad weather scenarios and abnormal aircraft or ground facility operations.
I'm envisaging huge fuel penalties for diversions that can't quickly be negotiated in departure/approach phase.
The comment earlier about millions traveling on driverless trains - where?
The cost isn't the staff, it's the risk (already stated, insurance companies will make the decision).
I'm envisaging huge fuel penalties for diversions that can't quickly be negotiated in departure/approach phase.
The comment earlier about millions traveling on driverless trains - where?
The cost isn't the staff, it's the risk (already stated, insurance companies will make the decision).
Persona non grata
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brisbane, Australia.
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The cost isn't the staff, it's the risk".
This was exactly what people at Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were saying.
They were not suggesting removing Pilots from their Aircraft to save money, it was because in their opinion it would make their Aircraft safer, less risk.
This was exactly what people at Boeing and McDonnell Douglas were saying.
They were not suggesting removing Pilots from their Aircraft to save money, it was because in their opinion it would make their Aircraft safer, less risk.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been on driverless trains in Paris, and Singapore (the entire MRT is automated). The TGV, Bullet and ICE are both semi-auto, with the TGV designing the driver entirely out of the operation in an emergency...
You can sit right at the front of these trains looking forward past a non-existant driver, or back at the millions of other travellers that use similar systems worldwide. 100 years ago, people would scoff at the concept of a driverless train for exactly the same reasons you would write off the same happening in aviation. The comparision of 2D trackwork against 3D international aviation is irrelevant - technology will continue to advance making the apparently impossible possible. Technical faults will cause a few bingles, but so do we!
Dynamic ATC will be possible - after all it will probably be a computer driving that as well. They're apparently already looking at auto-rotate on the A380... That's just the next step.
The public will accept the things to come, because it will be cheaper, and it will be the future's public.
You can sit right at the front of these trains looking forward past a non-existant driver, or back at the millions of other travellers that use similar systems worldwide. 100 years ago, people would scoff at the concept of a driverless train for exactly the same reasons you would write off the same happening in aviation. The comparision of 2D trackwork against 3D international aviation is irrelevant - technology will continue to advance making the apparently impossible possible. Technical faults will cause a few bingles, but so do we!
Dynamic ATC will be possible - after all it will probably be a computer driving that as well. They're apparently already looking at auto-rotate on the A380... That's just the next step.
The public will accept the things to come, because it will be cheaper, and it will be the future's public.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
I beg to differ.
If your objection to the viability of commercial ops is
why couldn't there be a pilot on the ground, 'flying' it?
Duffman. Driverless trains; HK as well. When you talk about risk; why do you think some companies won't accept visual approaches? Less risk if the pilot doesn't hand-fly. You can't see Next- Gen TAAATS linked to Next-Gen CPDLC linked to NG ADS-B etc? Really busy places have very little tactical ATC- it's sausage machine stuff. Computers are very good at sausage machine stuff. You don't think ATC procedures could be 'dumbed-down' enough to be computer driven within, say, a decade?
They keep changing the rules in Formula 1 so that the drivers still can have some input. 3 dimensions they all cry! Just a bigger program.
What we are talking about here is a completely autonomous aircraft. No pilot on the ground or in the air to intervene. This is the technology used on the Global Hawk.
If your objection to the viability of commercial ops is
When most people think of pilot less aircraft they think there is a pilot on the ground flying it
Duffman. Driverless trains; HK as well. When you talk about risk; why do you think some companies won't accept visual approaches? Less risk if the pilot doesn't hand-fly. You can't see Next- Gen TAAATS linked to Next-Gen CPDLC linked to NG ADS-B etc? Really busy places have very little tactical ATC- it's sausage machine stuff. Computers are very good at sausage machine stuff. You don't think ATC procedures could be 'dumbed-down' enough to be computer driven within, say, a decade?
They keep changing the rules in Formula 1 so that the drivers still can have some input. 3 dimensions they all cry! Just a bigger program.