Pilot-less Airliners
doubleu-anker
Most cadet schemes are self funded by the cadets so no cost to the airline. The cadet scheme at my airline is paid for by my airline and they make it back in four years through lower terms and conditions for the new cadets pilot. That's why they are prepared to spend such large sums of money paying to train them. For my airline to employ an experienced pilot they would have to pay more than his/her previous airline. Hell will freeze over before they do that.
Most cadet schemes are self funded by the cadets so no cost to the airline. The cadet scheme at my airline is paid for by my airline and they make it back in four years through lower terms and conditions for the new cadets pilot. That's why they are prepared to spend such large sums of money paying to train them. For my airline to employ an experienced pilot they would have to pay more than his/her previous airline. Hell will freeze over before they do that.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404, have you worked in mainland China? If you have, then you would know they are very heavily regulated by the military/government. They probably have the simplest political and operational environment to introduce whatever they want.
I'm playing devils advocate in all this of course, but nevertheless there is a lot of naievity and ludditism still here. There is nothing conceptually impossible.
I'm playing devils advocate in all this of course, but nevertheless there is a lot of naievity and ludditism still here. There is nothing conceptually impossible.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the 'it will never happen' argument is just as illogical.
And just to bring this aspect back to the surface, (studiously ignored by many, it seems!), security, only when the terrorist threat is either eliminated completely or nullified 100% will a pilotless airliner take to the sky, always assuming you can get third party liability insurance for it!
Surely, when (not if - when) we have aircraft controlled remotely by geeks at consoles in fortified bunkers, airborne terrorism will be neutered. How are the bad guys going to assume control in flight, if there is nothing for them to control? Sure they could blow the odd aircraft out of the sky; maybe even eventually find a way to hack into the control system from the ground. Though are they really smarter than the people who will build the system in the first place? Evolution suggests not; that mob haven't invented anything useful in 2000 years. In any case, a driverless train or football stadium or shopping mall would give them better results and even further damage their cause.
If I am around to see it, knowing that the weakest link is sometimes the pilot (perhaps more in some parts of the world than others, but no country or race is exempt from breeding substandard pilots), I will certainly fly as a passenger on pilotless aircraft. Take my chances that the geeks are not having a bad hair day.
If I am around to see it, knowing that the weakest link is sometimes the pilot (perhaps more in some parts of the world than others, but no country or race is exempt from breeding substandard pilots), I will certainly fly as a passenger on pilotless aircraft. Take my chances that the geeks are not having a bad hair day.
Incompetent pilots! Replace 'em and no more crashes!! For all of you who want to replace pilots because of Asiana, AF 447, UPS, how many "saves" have been made because of those dumb humans up front?
They didn't do too-bad a job on the 11th of September 2001. They don't have to be smart per-se, just a bit smarter than the masses.
Oh yes, and how do these SPs get their self-learning and creativity traits? Programming by... humans. Except that when the wheels fall off, there won't be a human there...
Originally Posted by Mach
Though are they really smarter than the people who will build the system in the first place?
They don't have to when the 'synthetic pilot' is self learning and creative, plus has the ability to share and cross examine it's knowledge and understanding with every other 'synthetic pilot' on the planet instantly then react accordingly.
Bloggsy, in a perfect world there would be no incompetents conducting any activity that could cause hazards to others. No incompetent drivers would be a good start. But, short of re-introducing the dunce's corner at school and draconian controls with frequent and rigorous examinations, we cannot totally remove incompetent people from their various endeavours.
Imagine a world in which drivers were subject to retest every year -at night, in heavy rain, in an advanced vehicle simulator. There wouldn't be nearly as many cars on the road, and the road toll would be greatly reduced. It would take a dictatorship to introduce such measures.
Or imagine an instrument rating/proficiency check for pilots, always commencing at 0200 hours on the fifth day of a long duty cycle, lasting at least six hours and requiring degraded automatics, with each pilot at the controls for, say three hours continuous. No second chances;
'not yet competent' in any exercise requiring extensive further training and a different but equally arduous scenario next week. Repeated at three monthly intervals. It would certainly get rid of incompetent pilots, but the blow out in training budget would doom it to failure. Certain lax countries would have to shut down all aviation as they could never get anywhere near such a standard. The sooner pilotless aircraft come to those countries, the safer aviation will be.
Removing EVERY incompetent pilot would still not guarantee no crashes because we always will have humans designing, building and maintaining aircraft , and Mother Nature will continue to occasionally serve up conditions that no aircraft can survive.
That will remain the case when we go pilotless, but another potential weak link in the chain will have gone the way of the radio operator, navigator and flight engineer. Not only for the economic reasons that saw these removed from the cockpit as on-board systems improved, but because the safety case will become compelling as automation approaches perfection (not that absolute perfection is ever likely).
And high rise buildings will be safe from aircraft - unless the geeks get the sh!ts with the suits on the top floor and collaborate with the other geeks to modify the program so it sends one in through the window...
Generation Y may not see fully pilotless, but I believe the next will. Face it, Bloggsy - just like the masters of the last clipper ships, we may have enjoyed the most satisfying times in the history of our craft/profession. As steam did for the sailing masters, computers may have buggered it for us personally, but the industry is already safer than it has ever been.
Imagine a world in which drivers were subject to retest every year -at night, in heavy rain, in an advanced vehicle simulator. There wouldn't be nearly as many cars on the road, and the road toll would be greatly reduced. It would take a dictatorship to introduce such measures.
Or imagine an instrument rating/proficiency check for pilots, always commencing at 0200 hours on the fifth day of a long duty cycle, lasting at least six hours and requiring degraded automatics, with each pilot at the controls for, say three hours continuous. No second chances;
'not yet competent' in any exercise requiring extensive further training and a different but equally arduous scenario next week. Repeated at three monthly intervals. It would certainly get rid of incompetent pilots, but the blow out in training budget would doom it to failure. Certain lax countries would have to shut down all aviation as they could never get anywhere near such a standard. The sooner pilotless aircraft come to those countries, the safer aviation will be.
Removing EVERY incompetent pilot would still not guarantee no crashes because we always will have humans designing, building and maintaining aircraft , and Mother Nature will continue to occasionally serve up conditions that no aircraft can survive.
That will remain the case when we go pilotless, but another potential weak link in the chain will have gone the way of the radio operator, navigator and flight engineer. Not only for the economic reasons that saw these removed from the cockpit as on-board systems improved, but because the safety case will become compelling as automation approaches perfection (not that absolute perfection is ever likely).
And high rise buildings will be safe from aircraft - unless the geeks get the sh!ts with the suits on the top floor and collaborate with the other geeks to modify the program so it sends one in through the window...
Generation Y may not see fully pilotless, but I believe the next will. Face it, Bloggsy - just like the masters of the last clipper ships, we may have enjoyed the most satisfying times in the history of our craft/profession. As steam did for the sailing masters, computers may have buggered it for us personally, but the industry is already safer than it has ever been.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 11th Feb 2014 at 20:17.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The geek shall inherit the Earth, or something like that.
I'm sure the computer will beat any pilot in routine flying, afterall computers are very good at doing repetitive tasks over and over again, but I've never met a computer that can actually make a conscious decision and doubt I ever will.
The pursuit of such will just keep the geeks in well paid employment.
I'm sure the computer will beat any pilot in routine flying, afterall computers are very good at doing repetitive tasks over and over again, but I've never met a computer that can actually make a conscious decision and doubt I ever will.
The pursuit of such will just keep the geeks in well paid employment.
but nevertheless there is a lot of naievity and ludditism still here. There is nothing conceptually impossible.
We could all probably agree that a moon base (Moon Base Alpha?) was feasible probably a decade ago but is it practical?
When ALL trains around the world are driver less THEN you may be getting close. As it is, whoever said that the pilots are the biggest expense after fuel is an idiot. Work out what your salary means as a hourly rate then think about spare parts, landing fees, insurance and depreciation.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asia
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will come faster than pilots think...
Yesterday, saw on News the autonomous car by Renault. It's ready. The car will be in sell in less than 10 years.
I don't talk about pilotless a/c. But now, I am talking about single pilot a/c. It's coming...tictoctictoc.
Yesterday, saw on News the autonomous car by Renault. It's ready. The car will be in sell in less than 10 years.
I don't talk about pilotless a/c. But now, I am talking about single pilot a/c. It's coming...tictoctictoc.
Greenlights
I have to ask you this. How old are you? How long have you been in the aviation industry? I ask you this sincerely because some of the stuff you’re saying is truly, to put it bluntly, immature. Technology wise there is absolutely no reason why we couldn’t have had single pilot airliners going all the way back to when they were conceived in the 1920’s. There are though two pilots in high capacity airliners for the very same reason we have a minimum of two engines, multiple hydraulic systems, multiple sources of electrical supply etc etc. It’s because of redundancy. It’s an accountant’s wet dream, and yes I am an accountant by trade as well as a pilot, to reduce all costs associated with running an airline but until we can eliminate the possibility of mechanical and human failures, redundancy is here because of necessity.
I have to ask you this. How old are you? How long have you been in the aviation industry? I ask you this sincerely because some of the stuff you’re saying is truly, to put it bluntly, immature. Technology wise there is absolutely no reason why we couldn’t have had single pilot airliners going all the way back to when they were conceived in the 1920’s. There are though two pilots in high capacity airliners for the very same reason we have a minimum of two engines, multiple hydraulic systems, multiple sources of electrical supply etc etc. It’s because of redundancy. It’s an accountant’s wet dream, and yes I am an accountant by trade as well as a pilot, to reduce all costs associated with running an airline but until we can eliminate the possibility of mechanical and human failures, redundancy is here because of necessity.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, single pilot operations are coming, we are told by Greenlights. Couple of examples, SFO-HKG, winter time, block time 15.05hrs, how will this single pilot get six hours rest? If the WX is at all 'iffy' around HKG he will need his wits about him, same if it is, for example, a SIN-LHR sector in winter, not easy if you have been awake for 17-18 hours. OK, once in the cruise, does the pilots bed become a flat bed for sleeping? Does he blissfully drift off into slumber awaiting a routine wake up call, with the possibility that a developing abnormal situation may sound off an alarm at any time that keeps him monitoring for the rest of the flight? What provision is there should the pilot become incapacitated? Personally I don't think single pilot operation has any better chance of ever becoming reality than a no pilot situation does.
Mach - No matter how sophisticated the system or how deep the bunker, brute strength, ignorance, unlimited numbers and a suicidal mentality that is still in the fifth century AD will be able to overcome it, particularly in third world countries where there may be some sympathy for the terrorists and bribery and intimidation are the norm.
Mach - No matter how sophisticated the system or how deep the bunker, brute strength, ignorance, unlimited numbers and a suicidal mentality that is still in the fifth century AD will be able to overcome it, particularly in third world countries where there may be some sympathy for the terrorists and bribery and intimidation are the norm.
happy landings....!
"pull back the sick for the round out, Hal...!" HAL !!
While we might have autonomous Taranii (plural??) doing their own thing..most probably with the occasional "glitch"...oops, sorry wrong city.
With the electronic wizardry and nano bio photon computers of the future..I'd love to be around in the next century to be amazed at the progress.
Alas....
That's if "intelligent life on Earth" hasn't done itself an extinction event of its own.
Probably by then there will be totally autonomous spacecraft to take a few survivors to the next planet so they can stuff that one up as well.
Such is "progress"
While we might have autonomous Taranii (plural??) doing their own thing..most probably with the occasional "glitch"...oops, sorry wrong city.
With the electronic wizardry and nano bio photon computers of the future..I'd love to be around in the next century to be amazed at the progress.
Alas....That's if "intelligent life on Earth" hasn't done itself an extinction event of its own.
Probably by then there will be totally autonomous spacecraft to take a few survivors to the next planet so they can stuff that one up as well.
Such is "progress"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad you brought up system redundancy 404! Manufacturers have been simplifying and integrating redundant systems. We are flying with less hydraulic systems, less mechanical systems, less engines, less crew. There still is redundancy, just increasingly less of it.
Parabellum, your HKG bound pilot will have had 6 hours rest, because they actually had 12 hours. Your abnormal situation will be monitored remotely. If its more serious than that, then the Captain will be doing the same as what happens today - and not get much sleep. (I'm only half-serious) The reality though, is that your 4 crew operation will become a 2 crew operation well before it's single pilot...
The military are well on their way down the automation path, and that is where most technological developments are incubated - and proven. Auto-airliners are a long, long way off, and there are plenty of steps along the way: Semi- and fully-automatic surveillance, automatic go-arounds, automatic and dynamic normal configuration, increased automatic abnormal management, fully-automatic asymmetric flight. We're a long way down many of these paths already.
In the crossover though, I think the greatest risk is from complacency. System capability isn't inversely proportional to skill required.
Parabellum, your HKG bound pilot will have had 6 hours rest, because they actually had 12 hours. Your abnormal situation will be monitored remotely. If its more serious than that, then the Captain will be doing the same as what happens today - and not get much sleep. (I'm only half-serious) The reality though, is that your 4 crew operation will become a 2 crew operation well before it's single pilot...
The military are well on their way down the automation path, and that is where most technological developments are incubated - and proven. Auto-airliners are a long, long way off, and there are plenty of steps along the way: Semi- and fully-automatic surveillance, automatic go-arounds, automatic and dynamic normal configuration, increased automatic abnormal management, fully-automatic asymmetric flight. We're a long way down many of these paths already.
In the crossover though, I think the greatest risk is from complacency. System capability isn't inversely proportional to skill required.
*Lancer*
Yes there is less redundancy but the point is there is redundancy. There will always be at least two system critical systems such as hydraulics, engines, electrics etc. Infact the A350 for example has reduced the number of primary hydraulic systems to two running at 5000 psi but critical flight controls will have a third independent hydraulic pack and
servo at the flight control much in the same manner as the A380.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Yes there is less redundancy but the point is there is redundancy. There will always be at least two system critical systems such as hydraulics, engines, electrics etc. Infact the A350 for example has reduced the number of primary hydraulic systems to two running at 5000 psi but critical flight controls will have a third independent hydraulic pack and
servo at the flight control much in the same manner as the A380.
Posted from Pprune.org App for Android
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely. There will always be redundancy, but that doesn't necessarily mean pilot bums on seats.
I'll bet our distinguished flight engineers, navigators and radio operators never considered their own technical obsolescence a real possibility ~30, ~50, or ~70 years ago. Their activities still occur with full redundancy, but their roles have been integrated into aircraft systems and pilot duties.
The role of Cruise FO / SO is -very sadly- steadily drifting towards 'cruise relief' pilot only. Manufacturers, operators, and regulators are all going down this path. Surely the concept of 'remote relief' pilot isn't really that surprising as a next step?
I'll bet our distinguished flight engineers, navigators and radio operators never considered their own technical obsolescence a real possibility ~30, ~50, or ~70 years ago. Their activities still occur with full redundancy, but their roles have been integrated into aircraft systems and pilot duties.
The role of Cruise FO / SO is -very sadly- steadily drifting towards 'cruise relief' pilot only. Manufacturers, operators, and regulators are all going down this path. Surely the concept of 'remote relief' pilot isn't really that surprising as a next step?