Pilotless Commercial Aircraft
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSA1
Economics drives everything in Aviation these days, the bean counter is King!
is there a NEED for pilotless airliners? Pilot error? why would a ground based "pilot" be any less likely to make an error than one or two in a cockpit on board?Could a ground based pilot have made the right decision to the A320 that ditched in the Hudson River, or would they have got the Sioux City United Airlines DC-10 to a survivable crash landing?
Grounded...
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible for a computer to fly a plane from point A to B but this would require radical changes in current Aviation regarding all the regs and ATC etc.
The cost would be enormous but IF enough savings can be made then it is possibly economically advantageous. The question is can a computer think creatively to solve problems like the human can? Can they see the outside world like a human can?
There are lots of cases where an automated plane may have prevented poor Pilot error mistakes. But how many times has a computer done something bizarre (e.g QF72) and the Pilots saved the plane? I suspect most of these occurences would be small problems that don't get reported, but if it was an automated plane these could be serious.
What about when a Pilot has creatively saved a plane? For example the overused Hudson incident and what about the Gimli glider? A pilot landed a 767 on a drag racing strip (the plane went back in to service).
Pilot's are not perfect nor are machines and that is why there is a combination of both being used. The real future outcomes are more likely to be a one Pilot plane or fully automated. The ground station idea is just silly in my opinion, you still have to pay a Pilot (I would rather get a different job than be a ground station Pilot) and then there is the risk of communication jamming or something similar to that, why not have the single Pilot in the plane?
I personally would get on a driverless train and elevator, however I would not enjoy being in a driverless car, boat or plane (or any of these controlled by a remote ground station).
As a 17 year old, I and my "tech-loving" friends that I have asked about this all said they would not go on a Pilotless plane.
The cost would be enormous but IF enough savings can be made then it is possibly economically advantageous. The question is can a computer think creatively to solve problems like the human can? Can they see the outside world like a human can?
There are lots of cases where an automated plane may have prevented poor Pilot error mistakes. But how many times has a computer done something bizarre (e.g QF72) and the Pilots saved the plane? I suspect most of these occurences would be small problems that don't get reported, but if it was an automated plane these could be serious.
What about when a Pilot has creatively saved a plane? For example the overused Hudson incident and what about the Gimli glider? A pilot landed a 767 on a drag racing strip (the plane went back in to service).
Pilot's are not perfect nor are machines and that is why there is a combination of both being used. The real future outcomes are more likely to be a one Pilot plane or fully automated. The ground station idea is just silly in my opinion, you still have to pay a Pilot (I would rather get a different job than be a ground station Pilot) and then there is the risk of communication jamming or something similar to that, why not have the single Pilot in the plane?
I personally would get on a driverless train and elevator, however I would not enjoy being in a driverless car, boat or plane (or any of these controlled by a remote ground station).
As a 17 year old, I and my "tech-loving" friends that I have asked about this all said they would not go on a Pilotless plane.
Last edited by JSeward; 28th Apr 2013 at 23:50.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSeward
There are lots of cases where an automated plane may have prevented poor Pilot error mistakes. But how many times has a computer done something bizarre (e.g QF72) and the Pilots saved the plane? I suspect most of these occurences would be small problems that don't get reported, but if it was an automated plane these could be serious.
You bring up a good point here, I would feel like aircraft condition monitoring would need much advancement. All those small problems that don't get reported because they are today just in a day's work would need to be compiled to automate.
Once again, we all agree things will happen slowly. The single pilot plane would probably be the first step, the problem would be just the same as is today. Keeping that one pilot proficient (hard enough to keep two with some company procedures i hear of that require autoland quite often). Otherwise he would be sitting there trying to stay awake pushing a button every 15 minutes as PM.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single pilot ops is even less likely.
How would a pilot accumulate enough experience to command an aircraft safely, if the "master and apprentice" system of two pilots is abolished? 200 hour wonders in sole charge of an airliner?
And if he just sits there monitoring, not doing anything until it goes wrong, how will he keep up his perishable handling skills?
And as for remote pilots on the ground - the main conclusions from the Sioux City crash was the need to keep pilots on board. The three pilots on board got the virtually uncontrollable aircraft to a survivable position. Every other pilot in the company was put through the same scenario in the sim, and couldn't replicate it. The conclusion drawn was a pilot will do better if his ass is on board.
How would a pilot accumulate enough experience to command an aircraft safely, if the "master and apprentice" system of two pilots is abolished? 200 hour wonders in sole charge of an airliner?
And if he just sits there monitoring, not doing anything until it goes wrong, how will he keep up his perishable handling skills?
And as for remote pilots on the ground - the main conclusions from the Sioux City crash was the need to keep pilots on board. The three pilots on board got the virtually uncontrollable aircraft to a survivable position. Every other pilot in the company was put through the same scenario in the sim, and couldn't replicate it. The conclusion drawn was a pilot will do better if his ass is on board.
so are we saying that pilots are not only a liability, but a computer could do it better?
if this is so, then the likely time period before any pilotless airliners are in revenue service is probably 50+ years...Nothing is on the drawing board yet, and not likely to be for a long time...
with the current usage of Oil, what will they be flying on? or should I go and watch some more episodes of the Jetsons?
if this is so, then the likely time period before any pilotless airliners are in revenue service is probably 50+ years...Nothing is on the drawing board yet, and not likely to be for a long time...
with the current usage of Oil, what will they be flying on? or should I go and watch some more episodes of the Jetsons?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSA1
Please think of this from a business standpoint.. Don't think much else is diferent. Pilot error is a airline liability, aircraft error is on the manufacturer. Black and white. No one cares who can do better it is a matter of statistics and more so liability...... Remove pilot error, what is the finite resolution?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remove pilot error and the leading cause of crashes become computer failure!
10 years later
Hmmmmm how can we lower computer failure rates, it's the leading cause of accidents? Lets put a human up there!
10 years later
Hmmmmm how can we lower computer failure rates, it's the leading cause of accidents? Lets put a human up there!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop looking to the past to create your arguments and extrapolate the present to imagine the future
I am just happy to have known PFE's & some great old captains who just did not want to give up the lifestyle, so they flew sideways, they say the winglets are their toombstones.
I am quite aware of the various UAV projects going on around the world, but NONE are even hinting at carrying humans or any other organic lifeforms!
the OP said in his opener that in the not too distant future, hinting at 5-10 years away, we would have pilotless airliners..now the estimate is 2040! also , the only vaild reason we have to fly a pilotless airliner is to make it safer...can we really trust the complex operation of a large aircraft entirely to a computer? Have you never heard of hacking? How else do you think other countries can "capture" a UAV over its airspace without hacking into the nav system? even the White House and the Pentagon get cyber attacks....So lets get this "computers are safer" idea buried once and for ever..
So we are back to my original question....if computers are not any more reliable than a man in the cockpit, why bother?
In case you are wondering, I am actually in favour of unmanned space probes, its a far better way to explore the universe...but an airliner/ship/car without a pilot, no thanks!
and think on this.....computers are designed by humans...and some of the computer programmers i have met, i wouldnt let them anywhere near a car, let alone an airliner!
the OP said in his opener that in the not too distant future, hinting at 5-10 years away, we would have pilotless airliners..now the estimate is 2040! also , the only vaild reason we have to fly a pilotless airliner is to make it safer...can we really trust the complex operation of a large aircraft entirely to a computer? Have you never heard of hacking? How else do you think other countries can "capture" a UAV over its airspace without hacking into the nav system? even the White House and the Pentagon get cyber attacks....So lets get this "computers are safer" idea buried once and for ever..
So we are back to my original question....if computers are not any more reliable than a man in the cockpit, why bother?
In case you are wondering, I am actually in favour of unmanned space probes, its a far better way to explore the universe...but an airliner/ship/car without a pilot, no thanks!
and think on this.....computers are designed by humans...and some of the computer programmers i have met, i wouldnt let them anywhere near a car, let alone an airliner!
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh thank you for bringing that point up! If people around the world can hack into the US military's and NASA's computers then I would hate to see what could happen to an automated airliner.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we are back to my original question....if computers are not any more reliable than a man in the cockpit, why bother?
As for computer reliability I suspect the design will be super redundant, encryption would have to be top notch. The most troublesome argument is a hack true, but it is like every other fear of man building something another man can destroy. Twin towers are a great example, we had no clue how vulnerable we were. Does it mean we quit progressing out of fear, hell no...
Last edited by grounded27; 30th Apr 2013 at 17:30.
so why aren't the Airlines doing it right now? The technology has existed for at least 40 years, if not more!
Pilots aren't the liability, its daft engineers getting too many ideas!
Why not switch off the laptop, take your medication, and go and watch some episodes of the Jetsons?
Pilots aren't the liability, its daft engineers getting too many ideas!
Why not switch off the laptop, take your medication, and go and watch some episodes of the Jetsons?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so why aren't the Airlines doing it right now? The technology has existed for at least 40 years, if not more!
Pilots aren't the liability, its daft engineers getting too many ideas!
Why not switch off the laptop, take your medication, and go and watch some episodes of the Jetsons?
Pilots aren't the liability, its daft engineers getting too many ideas!
Why not switch off the laptop, take your medication, and go and watch some episodes of the Jetsons?
Really? After my first few years in aviation I started to understand the business. Cutting edge commercial aircraft are at least 20 years behind common technology, the FAA or your CAA will not grant tech w/o serious red tape to cut on new aircraft. You will see it in the military then corperate first.
Pilots and maintenance are the largest liabilty to an airline. You say daft, you have no business sense. let's talk about insurance.
Do not belittle me sir, I have a few beers in me but have not watched the jetsons since I was a child.
The sooner you realise you are not just a pilot, mechanic etc but work for a corperation in a large industry you will see what a little tool you are. I know this and am greatfull for the deposit in my bank every week for the task's I perform.
I know that was harsh but much less disrespectful than your post, hopefully enlightening.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure computers mainly "fly" the big airliners these day but the most important fact here is that the Pilots are the ones in command of the situation.
If your car has drive by wire and electric steering that pretty much means the car drives itself?
If your car has drive by wire and electric steering that pretty much means the car drives itself?
I wonder what they call a troll down under?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Waving_tug_boy
Chock chucker is brilliant. This is the funniest thread I've read in a while.
Originally Posted by Alber Ratman
And how many people bit??
One of the more effective troll threads I've seen.