Once planes become fully automated then the leading cause of crashes will be computer failure instead of Pilot error.

It could be safer or more dangerous we won't know until we do it but then is it worth the risk to try?

Once we start going down this automate everything path where do we stop? Because I'm quite sure that not everyone wants to be an artist or chef.

OK, I will bite,I have read this thread with much interest!

Chock Chucker, I believe your assertion to be flawed on a number of counts, but he main one being NEED.

just because something is POSSIBLE, it doesnt make it PROBABLE.

Von Braun launched the first practical liquid fuelled rockets in 1942, but it was 1957 before the USSR put a satellite in orbit, and then only for political reasons, and it was still another 12 years before Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, and even then because the Cold War was at its height. If there was a NEED, there would have been bases on the Moon by about 1975, but here we are in 2013, and the only permanent presence we have in space is about 300 miles up on the ISS.

Chuck Yeager went supersonic in October 1947, and supersonic transports became possible in 1968 with the first flight of the Tu-144, and later with Concorde, which became operational in 1976 until 2003. Now we have no SSTs flying anywhere....why? no longer a viable NEED!

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?

Weight saving? lets say 2 pilots weighing 120 kilos each...avionic weight might save around 100 kilos on them, so not much of a payload saving weight!

Economics? now I accept that pilots are well paid! But what are you going to pay the ground based Pilot? minimum wage? those guys might sit on there backsides a lot of the time, but its too late to wish you had a crew onboard when something goes wrong!

the current price of JET A1 is what makes or breaks an airline these days, not the pilots salary!

If there were such savings to be made, then you can bet your retirement pension on either Boeing or Airbus to be at least discussing such a concept as pilotless airliners with the major players by now...but as far as i know, no such discussions are taking place....its unlikely that even if an airline said yes to such a proposal, that any such aircraft would be carrying passengers any time before 2030 at the earliest...

Remotely Piloted Vehicles (RPVs) have been flown operationally by the Military for over 40 years, the USAF were using them in Vietnam! Yet nobody has even suggested they were used to carry people until you mentioned it a few days ago...ask yourself why this is!

Military RPVs are used to save a humans life in difficult situations, and also can remain on station for much longer than an expensive manned fighter...

Civil air transport is a world away from these criteria, even before factoring in such mundane things as health and safety!

In short, if there was a valid case for it, some Accountant in an office somewhere would be making the right noises.....the silence is deafening!

Artie
 

First off, Sully was an extremely well diversely trained pilot with over 20k hrs. The common trend towards reliance on automation is breeding quite the opposite in modern pilots. Speaking towards the future I think a pilot on the ground would have the same chances ditching as one in the cockpit, further in the future a totally automated aircraft may be better equipped to ditch than the dying breed of hands on pilots that are still out there.

All adverse scenarios are studied and I am sure will be applied, automation will be updated as the unforeseen (like it always has) gives us something to learn from.

I am sorry, no intent to jab at pilots but I feel you are foolish not to look at history and realize the only thing certain about the future is change. Take the trend aviation has been on and apply it reasonably to the future. Like I had mentioned above, the USA has cleared UAV's for class B airspace and is dumping money into building ADS-B sites. The world does not want verbal communication between aircraft and ground FANS. THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL Artie, all you have to do is read it. Sure hope you have no plans to encourage your children or grandchildren to become pilots.

ATSA1
 

Liability, simply put pilots are a liability to an airline. Automation places the liability on the manufacturer. This is the selling point above reduction in salary. My response to your other questions is in the post above.

Grounded...

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.

JSeward
 

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.

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.

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?

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?

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!

Should be looking at the past to forsee the future, beyond the factual evidence you and I have presented. Yet to be contested.

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!

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.

I have provided this answer before. It takes the liability away from the airline and places it on the manufacturer. You may not grasp the weight of this but the airline industry does because it saves them a ton of money.

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...

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?

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.

I wonder what they call a troll down under?