Armed Navy UCAS Demo Planned 2018
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to your questions regarding the SA80: Yes, I would know and did know less than the manufacturer. As the end user all I needed to know was the effective range and the basics; but mainly that it worked when my soldiers and I had to pull the trigger.
As for knowing the muzzle velocity and trajectory of the rounds...
I didn't need to know it and neither does the average infantry soldier. The sort of bloke who knows all of the useless facts is usually trying to mask inadequacies in other areas in my experience.
An interesting and amusing reply. You seem to be at least narrowing down your possible former unit with your reply, if nothing else.
I'll stick with being inadequate, and knowing after how many rounds my weapon may fail, or at which temperatures or conditions. I will be doubly bad, in knowing the limitations of the weapon, including how the trajectory would be affected by other countries ammunition. It might be boring to you, but then it can be and is a life saver. That said, and in your defence, a complete ignorance of velocities and trajectories could make folks feel a lot happier. But I guess knowing the reality of where to hide, and where not to was probably far more useful if the rounds are coming at you
It is up to you if you want to call yourself a Rupert (rather than say ex army or green for example), Maybe your reasoning was similar to mentioning your degree
As for knowing the muzzle velocity and trajectory of the rounds...
I didn't need to know it and neither does the average infantry soldier. The sort of bloke who knows all of the useless facts is usually trying to mask inadequacies in other areas in my experience.
An interesting and amusing reply. You seem to be at least narrowing down your possible former unit with your reply, if nothing else.
I'll stick with being inadequate, and knowing after how many rounds my weapon may fail, or at which temperatures or conditions. I will be doubly bad, in knowing the limitations of the weapon, including how the trajectory would be affected by other countries ammunition. It might be boring to you, but then it can be and is a life saver. That said, and in your defence, a complete ignorance of velocities and trajectories could make folks feel a lot happier. But I guess knowing the reality of where to hide, and where not to was probably far more useful if the rounds are coming at you
It is up to you if you want to call yourself a Rupert (rather than say ex army or green for example), Maybe your reasoning was similar to mentioning your degree
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barnstormer,
You're absolutely right. Most of the other issues raised were what I would class as the 'basics', which I did in fact refer to in my reply. I just didn't want to list weapon parameters in an aviation forum...
My response was in no way referring to you as inadequate.
I do however, have past experience of those who can reel off technical specifications of weapons... but couldn't hit a cow in the arse with a spade!
You can guess my former regiment? I find that quite a disparaging comment... But that's okay. I can guess your rank...
As for revealing one's status... It generally adds credence to the discussion. There are a lot of people who masquerade as knowledgeable on this forum. It's good to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Tourist,
All the 'real pilots' I know, would never use such a term, as it goes against the grain. Pilot's don't talk in term's of 'real or fake'. Since, I'm not 'real' and therefore an 'impostor of the sky' I'm not doing too badly at flying an aircraft to date...
To speak in such a derisory manner of another pilot's licence, aircraft etc. reeks of the uninitiated or 'non-pilot'...
Such a comment is usually the preserve of the general public who don't fly and see airline pilot's as the only flying that there is...
Therefore... Test Pilot's, Cargo, Flying Instructors etc... You must all be 'fake pilot's'!!!
In response to my status; I'll let you in on what my day job is. I've spent the last few years working in the design and development of a large aircraft, which means routinely understanding and justifying the rationale of many flight limits of a large aircraft to Test Pilots and Observers for Flight Trials. My contacts are far and reaching across military and civil. So... I know a bit more than your average pilot about how, why and where an aircraft's limits and capability come from. Henceforth, what also can be achieved in the real world.
The truthful answer from my end is that what can be achieved in a real world flight test programme and what science fiction would have you believe are two very different things.
This thread has thrown up some really interesting points, so all has not been in vain.
I do have to question the motives of people who see removal of pilot's as progress and why they are so determined to do this. A pilot is the best redundancy an autopilot could have.
I'm not a total hater of UAVs, I can see the obvious advantages of certain military applications as we see over Afghanistan. Loitering and certain highly dangerous roles where it would be suicidal to put a manned aircraft in spring to mind.
I do however, question the true misunderstanding and perhaps petty jealousy that envisages the elimination of the piloting profession as progress. Why are certain elements so determined to remove pilots from aircraft? My hunch is that it's the same sort of people who think that because they've played 'Call of Duty' or 'Flight Sim' that they are experts on the Army or flying... Yet, strangely and conspicously never try to do it for real.
In answer to your glideslope question; have you not vindicated my argument? You've just described a situation where the computer would have to recognise a 'one in a million' scenario which was more or less inconceivable, then ask that computer to deal with that situation. Is that not artificial intelligence of the highest degree? Or in layman's terms 'thinking'?
I'm genuinely interested in this subject and spoke to a friend today who has a degree in computing. He pointed out that a computer is only as good as the programming and rules it is given to operate around. A pilot is far better equipped to deal with the 'unimaginable' or 'one in a million' disaster scenarios as we've discussed or even just basic mismatches in certain cases. If the computer does not recognise the input, it can't give a meaningful output. A computer does not have the ability to be ingenious or imagine a scenario out of the impossible. You can't programme ingenuity into something.
The simple facts are: A pilot is the best form of redundancy there is for automation. How is removal of him from the aircraft progress?
It's not broken, why fix it?
Next time you encounter an advocate of the 'pilotless sky', question his motivation.
Computer's fail... fact. 'Real' pilot's know that.
Overall... We could argue forever about this, but only time will tell.
You're absolutely right. Most of the other issues raised were what I would class as the 'basics', which I did in fact refer to in my reply. I just didn't want to list weapon parameters in an aviation forum...
My response was in no way referring to you as inadequate.
I do however, have past experience of those who can reel off technical specifications of weapons... but couldn't hit a cow in the arse with a spade!
You can guess my former regiment? I find that quite a disparaging comment... But that's okay. I can guess your rank...
As for revealing one's status... It generally adds credence to the discussion. There are a lot of people who masquerade as knowledgeable on this forum. It's good to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Tourist,
All the 'real pilots' I know, would never use such a term, as it goes against the grain. Pilot's don't talk in term's of 'real or fake'. Since, I'm not 'real' and therefore an 'impostor of the sky' I'm not doing too badly at flying an aircraft to date...
To speak in such a derisory manner of another pilot's licence, aircraft etc. reeks of the uninitiated or 'non-pilot'...
Such a comment is usually the preserve of the general public who don't fly and see airline pilot's as the only flying that there is...
Therefore... Test Pilot's, Cargo, Flying Instructors etc... You must all be 'fake pilot's'!!!
In response to my status; I'll let you in on what my day job is. I've spent the last few years working in the design and development of a large aircraft, which means routinely understanding and justifying the rationale of many flight limits of a large aircraft to Test Pilots and Observers for Flight Trials. My contacts are far and reaching across military and civil. So... I know a bit more than your average pilot about how, why and where an aircraft's limits and capability come from. Henceforth, what also can be achieved in the real world.
The truthful answer from my end is that what can be achieved in a real world flight test programme and what science fiction would have you believe are two very different things.
This thread has thrown up some really interesting points, so all has not been in vain.
I do have to question the motives of people who see removal of pilot's as progress and why they are so determined to do this. A pilot is the best redundancy an autopilot could have.
I'm not a total hater of UAVs, I can see the obvious advantages of certain military applications as we see over Afghanistan. Loitering and certain highly dangerous roles where it would be suicidal to put a manned aircraft in spring to mind.
I do however, question the true misunderstanding and perhaps petty jealousy that envisages the elimination of the piloting profession as progress. Why are certain elements so determined to remove pilots from aircraft? My hunch is that it's the same sort of people who think that because they've played 'Call of Duty' or 'Flight Sim' that they are experts on the Army or flying... Yet, strangely and conspicously never try to do it for real.
In answer to your glideslope question; have you not vindicated my argument? You've just described a situation where the computer would have to recognise a 'one in a million' scenario which was more or less inconceivable, then ask that computer to deal with that situation. Is that not artificial intelligence of the highest degree? Or in layman's terms 'thinking'?
I'm genuinely interested in this subject and spoke to a friend today who has a degree in computing. He pointed out that a computer is only as good as the programming and rules it is given to operate around. A pilot is far better equipped to deal with the 'unimaginable' or 'one in a million' disaster scenarios as we've discussed or even just basic mismatches in certain cases. If the computer does not recognise the input, it can't give a meaningful output. A computer does not have the ability to be ingenious or imagine a scenario out of the impossible. You can't programme ingenuity into something.
The simple facts are: A pilot is the best form of redundancy there is for automation. How is removal of him from the aircraft progress?
It's not broken, why fix it?
Next time you encounter an advocate of the 'pilotless sky', question his motivation.
Computer's fail... fact. 'Real' pilot's know that.
Overall... We could argue forever about this, but only time will tell.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poose
"I've spent the last few years working in the design and development of a large aircraft, which means routinely understanding and justifying the rationale of many flight limits of a large aircraft to Test Pilots and Observers for Flight Trials."
You say this, but earlier you also said this:
"Would a computer not have obeyed the 'aerodynamics of flight' and maintained a perfect glide speed... Only to land short in the built up area just outside Heathrow's perimeter. The crew in that instance, broke the rules and somhow 'stretched' the glide."
Statement 2 demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of basic aerodynamics. Very unlikely in anyone with any real involvement in design and development beyond making the coffee for the geeks. Also, for someone as excited by minutia "Just passed the first eight ATPL exams... they go nice with my engineering degree" you are strangely vague about your role in the design of this aircraft.........?
By large aircraft, do you mean 1:72?
" A pilot is far better equipped to deal with the 'unimaginable' or 'one in a million' disaster scenarios "
Hurray! A statement I can agree with.
However, these scenarios are both very exciting to the media and insignificant, because they are a vanishingly small (erm......about one in a million, in fact) proportion of disasters.
Pilots are, however far worse at dealing with mundane tasks like lowering undercarriage before landing.
Trying to justify having a pilot because he is better in that one instance, whilst ignoring the 50% of the time that he caused the accident is cretinous.
"Why are certain elements so determined to remove pilots from aircraft? My hunch is that it's the same sort of people who think that because they've played 'Call of Duty' or 'Flight Sim' that they are experts on the Army or flying... Yet, strangely and conspicously never try to do it for real."
Erm, slightly strange argument.
So let me get this straight.
You, who has flown ppl and, to be fair, probably some pretty gnarly Stormovik etc are accusing me, a military pilot who has "done it for real", whatever that means, of having an unjustified opinion?
Am I missing something?
"The simple facts are: A pilot is the best form of redundancy there is for automation."
Disagree entirely. Some modern Fast Jets ( I believe Typhoon?) now monitor the pilot, and if they decide he has blown it/is about to depart, take control away from him, and give it back later once they have sorted it out.
"Computer's fail... fact. 'Real' pilot's know that."
Of course they do, but as every "Real" pilot knows, we make mistakes every time we fly too, and as I keep saying, pilot error is the major factor in accidents where the type of pilot makes any difference.
Driverless trains have a far better record than manned ones. I know it is an order of magnitude more complex to fly in three dimensions than drive a train in effectively one, but it is just a matter of degree, rather than of concept, and the pace of technological change only accelerates.
"It's not broken, why fix it?"
Here is the crux of the matter.
The simple fact is that as airframes and avionics have improved, the pilot becomes ever more the weak link.
He isn't broken, but he is certainly limiting future improvement.
His life support/cockpit takes up a vast amount of the weight and volume of the airframe limiting range/payload etc.
His weak body is increasingly becoming the limiting factor in manoevering.(10g max-ish?)
His fatigue limits sortie length even with clever drugs.
The flood of available info to a pilot is fast outgrowing/has out grown any humans ability to assimilate it effectively. Even Air Traffic Control, with effectively unlimited manning is moving slowly towards computerised (Free Flight Is it time to give airliners the freedom of the skies? - 13 July 2002 - New Scientist etc) control, because of the vast advantages a processor can have when it comes to smooth integration of large numbers of aircraft. The average human mind simply cannot visualise more than 8 interacting objects (Brain can juggle eight balls at once - life - 01 November 2007 - New Scientist) Not really that impressive.
The speed of modern warfare is fast leaving the human behind. How many DAS fits now require anything from the pilot? He simply cannot react fast enough. How many missiles are now human controlled after launched? Again, he simply does not have the reactions.
There is only so much one pilot can be current on. A UAV can have a squad of people ready to step in as role/task changes.
The UAV pilot can be safe at home out of harms way (or non-existent), also reducing the logistics footprint in theatre, an important consideration twinned with not having to worry about those pesky IDFs whacking your expensive, and in my case dashing, asset.
In the current western climate, losing a pilot is just disasterous, UAVs whilst not by any means the cheap, throwaway items they are sometimes portrayed as are a vastly better option when trying to persuade some politician about the need for a high risk/high payoff strike.
"I do however, question the true misunderstanding and perhaps petty jealousy that envisages the elimination of the piloting profession as progress"
Again, a strange comment. Strange to accuse me of jealousy for something I possess.
The opposite of jealous perhaps?, as in "Mwaaahhaahaaa, I get to have fun but none shall have so in future"?
"I'm genuinely interested in this subject and spoke to a friend today who has a degree in computing. He pointed out that a computer is only as good as the programming and rules it is given to operate around."
"If the computer does not recognise the input, it can't give a meaningful output. A computer does not have the ability to be ingenious or imagine a scenario out of the impossible. You can't programme ingenuity into something."
First, and I apologise, a black cat.
I have two brothers with degrees in computing and one brother who studied artificial intelligence.
The first point they make is that the human brain is merely a computer. Very good at some things, but very limited in others. A good all rounder, but easily surpassable in most individual tasks.
They completely agree that they are only as good as the programming, but point out that this also goes for training in humans, and that computers dont have "bad days", plus you can parallell processors (whatever that means?) which humans can't in a single seat cockpit.
The "imagining a scenario out of the impossible" comment drew some laughter from them because they were not aware (though I have told them many times) that pilots were magical or possessed super-powers enabling us to ignore Newton.
I am sure the old Cavalry officers had lots to say about getting rid of the horses. They probably cited lots of circumstances where a horse would be ideal for the job on very rough terain, and these new fangled tanks and the like were just useless at jumping fences, chasing foxes etc. But do you suggest that we should have kept the horse and ignored the future just for those very narrow circumstances?
I am not saying we are there yet.
We patently are not, but we are certainly moving rapidly towards it, and Moore's law still holds for now.....Fact
...........does saying "fact" make things true?
I'm going to try it.
.......the RAF is abolished. Fact.
.................bugger.
"I've spent the last few years working in the design and development of a large aircraft, which means routinely understanding and justifying the rationale of many flight limits of a large aircraft to Test Pilots and Observers for Flight Trials."
You say this, but earlier you also said this:
"Would a computer not have obeyed the 'aerodynamics of flight' and maintained a perfect glide speed... Only to land short in the built up area just outside Heathrow's perimeter. The crew in that instance, broke the rules and somhow 'stretched' the glide."
Statement 2 demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of basic aerodynamics. Very unlikely in anyone with any real involvement in design and development beyond making the coffee for the geeks. Also, for someone as excited by minutia "Just passed the first eight ATPL exams... they go nice with my engineering degree" you are strangely vague about your role in the design of this aircraft.........?
By large aircraft, do you mean 1:72?
" A pilot is far better equipped to deal with the 'unimaginable' or 'one in a million' disaster scenarios "
Hurray! A statement I can agree with.
However, these scenarios are both very exciting to the media and insignificant, because they are a vanishingly small (erm......about one in a million, in fact) proportion of disasters.
Pilots are, however far worse at dealing with mundane tasks like lowering undercarriage before landing.
Trying to justify having a pilot because he is better in that one instance, whilst ignoring the 50% of the time that he caused the accident is cretinous.
"Why are certain elements so determined to remove pilots from aircraft? My hunch is that it's the same sort of people who think that because they've played 'Call of Duty' or 'Flight Sim' that they are experts on the Army or flying... Yet, strangely and conspicously never try to do it for real."
Erm, slightly strange argument.
So let me get this straight.
You, who has flown ppl and, to be fair, probably some pretty gnarly Stormovik etc are accusing me, a military pilot who has "done it for real", whatever that means, of having an unjustified opinion?
Am I missing something?
"The simple facts are: A pilot is the best form of redundancy there is for automation."
Disagree entirely. Some modern Fast Jets ( I believe Typhoon?) now monitor the pilot, and if they decide he has blown it/is about to depart, take control away from him, and give it back later once they have sorted it out.
"Computer's fail... fact. 'Real' pilot's know that."
Of course they do, but as every "Real" pilot knows, we make mistakes every time we fly too, and as I keep saying, pilot error is the major factor in accidents where the type of pilot makes any difference.
Driverless trains have a far better record than manned ones. I know it is an order of magnitude more complex to fly in three dimensions than drive a train in effectively one, but it is just a matter of degree, rather than of concept, and the pace of technological change only accelerates.
"It's not broken, why fix it?"
Here is the crux of the matter.
The simple fact is that as airframes and avionics have improved, the pilot becomes ever more the weak link.
He isn't broken, but he is certainly limiting future improvement.
His life support/cockpit takes up a vast amount of the weight and volume of the airframe limiting range/payload etc.
His weak body is increasingly becoming the limiting factor in manoevering.(10g max-ish?)
His fatigue limits sortie length even with clever drugs.
The flood of available info to a pilot is fast outgrowing/has out grown any humans ability to assimilate it effectively. Even Air Traffic Control, with effectively unlimited manning is moving slowly towards computerised (Free Flight Is it time to give airliners the freedom of the skies? - 13 July 2002 - New Scientist etc) control, because of the vast advantages a processor can have when it comes to smooth integration of large numbers of aircraft. The average human mind simply cannot visualise more than 8 interacting objects (Brain can juggle eight balls at once - life - 01 November 2007 - New Scientist) Not really that impressive.
The speed of modern warfare is fast leaving the human behind. How many DAS fits now require anything from the pilot? He simply cannot react fast enough. How many missiles are now human controlled after launched? Again, he simply does not have the reactions.
There is only so much one pilot can be current on. A UAV can have a squad of people ready to step in as role/task changes.
The UAV pilot can be safe at home out of harms way (or non-existent), also reducing the logistics footprint in theatre, an important consideration twinned with not having to worry about those pesky IDFs whacking your expensive, and in my case dashing, asset.
In the current western climate, losing a pilot is just disasterous, UAVs whilst not by any means the cheap, throwaway items they are sometimes portrayed as are a vastly better option when trying to persuade some politician about the need for a high risk/high payoff strike.
"I do however, question the true misunderstanding and perhaps petty jealousy that envisages the elimination of the piloting profession as progress"
Again, a strange comment. Strange to accuse me of jealousy for something I possess.
The opposite of jealous perhaps?, as in "Mwaaahhaahaaa, I get to have fun but none shall have so in future"?
"I'm genuinely interested in this subject and spoke to a friend today who has a degree in computing. He pointed out that a computer is only as good as the programming and rules it is given to operate around."
"If the computer does not recognise the input, it can't give a meaningful output. A computer does not have the ability to be ingenious or imagine a scenario out of the impossible. You can't programme ingenuity into something."
First, and I apologise, a black cat.
I have two brothers with degrees in computing and one brother who studied artificial intelligence.
The first point they make is that the human brain is merely a computer. Very good at some things, but very limited in others. A good all rounder, but easily surpassable in most individual tasks.
They completely agree that they are only as good as the programming, but point out that this also goes for training in humans, and that computers dont have "bad days", plus you can parallell processors (whatever that means?) which humans can't in a single seat cockpit.
The "imagining a scenario out of the impossible" comment drew some laughter from them because they were not aware (though I have told them many times) that pilots were magical or possessed super-powers enabling us to ignore Newton.
I am sure the old Cavalry officers had lots to say about getting rid of the horses. They probably cited lots of circumstances where a horse would be ideal for the job on very rough terain, and these new fangled tanks and the like were just useless at jumping fences, chasing foxes etc. But do you suggest that we should have kept the horse and ignored the future just for those very narrow circumstances?
I am not saying we are there yet.
We patently are not, but we are certainly moving rapidly towards it, and Moore's law still holds for now.....Fact
...........does saying "fact" make things true?
I'm going to try it.
.......the RAF is abolished. Fact.
.................bugger.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I am probably talking myself out of a job, I can't help but wonder how many aircraft accidents have been attributed to human error, versus computer or software error? I can only think of one in the latter category... But quite prepared to be put right...
I think that we pilots will have to accept that one day, we will be surplus to requirements. The economic and technical arguments are stacked against us, both in military and commercial flying and I am absolutely certain that if my boss could get rid of pilots, he'd do it in an instant. And I can't say I'd entirely blame him - we're expensive and easily upset. I'm not entirely sure how the travelling public will feel about this but I'm sure they'll get used to it.
I think that we pilots will have to accept that one day, we will be surplus to requirements. The economic and technical arguments are stacked against us, both in military and commercial flying and I am absolutely certain that if my boss could get rid of pilots, he'd do it in an instant. And I can't say I'd entirely blame him - we're expensive and easily upset. I'm not entirely sure how the travelling public will feel about this but I'm sure they'll get used to it.
Whilst drones clearly have their place in the Orbat, they are NOT the universal solution some in the drone community would have everyone believe.
As for the Heathrow 777 accident, whether a computer could have instantly assessed the optimum configuration and AoA for the IAS at the time and selected it - well, perhaps. But only if it had been correctly programmed. The pilots did so purely from experience.
Computers are very good assistants, but very poor masters.
When the Victoria Line first opened, it was said that the computer controlled trains didn't need drivers. But who would ever get into an underground train which didn't have a driver? So they had to provide them.
So if people won't generally trust unmanned underground trains, can you ever imagine them trusting unmanned civil aeroplanes?
The drone community needs to walk before it tries to run. It seems to me that, at the moment, they are getting far too ambitious.
As for the Heathrow 777 accident, whether a computer could have instantly assessed the optimum configuration and AoA for the IAS at the time and selected it - well, perhaps. But only if it had been correctly programmed. The pilots did so purely from experience.
Computers are very good assistants, but very poor masters.
When the Victoria Line first opened, it was said that the computer controlled trains didn't need drivers. But who would ever get into an underground train which didn't have a driver? So they had to provide them.
So if people won't generally trust unmanned underground trains, can you ever imagine them trusting unmanned civil aeroplanes?
The drone community needs to walk before it tries to run. It seems to me that, at the moment, they are getting far too ambitious.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to be the form to states ones experience and qualifications to comment.
I am civilian, I used to be an engineer in the defence industry. Now I manage projects and programmes in said industry. I am not an aeronautical specialist nor UAV specialist. So, a few points:
1) If we are talking military vehicles, the 777 accident is largely irrelevant. If a UAV crash-lands every now and again, quite frankly who cares. No one dies (if we talk about other types of accident then people could die, but thats another matter and has its own problems for both UAV and pilot)
2) We need to separate autonomous and remotely piloted aircraft
- Autonomous aircarft cannot be jammed
- Remotely piloted aircraft have a pilot in the loop who should be just as effective as an on-board pilot
In practice many UAVs will be a mix capabality - autonomous in most operations, pilot control when needed. This in itself resolves many of the concerns
To talk about problems (or solutions) without explicitly referencing which type is misleading at best
I won't go into more detail, but all of the problems mentioned in this thread can be addressed. Perfectly? No. But neither pilots or warfare are perfect, and if we lose the odd UAV but no pilot over hostile territory then once again, who cares.
At the same time the advantages of UAVs (no pilot to lose, wight saving, cost saving etc) are far too great to ignore
However there are many other problems(ethical and political as well as technical), and we are a long long way from eliminating manned aircraft altogether. So for a long time it will be a mix. Look on the bright side, you won't have to let the software engineer nerds into the pilots mess.
I am civilian, I used to be an engineer in the defence industry. Now I manage projects and programmes in said industry. I am not an aeronautical specialist nor UAV specialist. So, a few points:
1) If we are talking military vehicles, the 777 accident is largely irrelevant. If a UAV crash-lands every now and again, quite frankly who cares. No one dies (if we talk about other types of accident then people could die, but thats another matter and has its own problems for both UAV and pilot)
2) We need to separate autonomous and remotely piloted aircraft
- Autonomous aircarft cannot be jammed
- Remotely piloted aircraft have a pilot in the loop who should be just as effective as an on-board pilot
In practice many UAVs will be a mix capabality - autonomous in most operations, pilot control when needed. This in itself resolves many of the concerns
To talk about problems (or solutions) without explicitly referencing which type is misleading at best
I won't go into more detail, but all of the problems mentioned in this thread can be addressed. Perfectly? No. But neither pilots or warfare are perfect, and if we lose the odd UAV but no pilot over hostile territory then once again, who cares.
At the same time the advantages of UAVs (no pilot to lose, wight saving, cost saving etc) are far too great to ignore
However there are many other problems(ethical and political as well as technical), and we are a long long way from eliminating manned aircraft altogether. So for a long time it will be a mix. Look on the bright side, you won't have to let the software engineer nerds into the pilots mess.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
"When the Victoria Line first opened, it was said that the computer controlled trains didn't need drivers. But who would ever get into an underground train which didn't have a driver? So they had to provide them.
So if people won't generally trust unmanned underground trains, can you ever imagine them trusting unmanned civil aeroplanes?"
Automatic train operation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The earliest ATO system on a full Underground line was on the Barcelona Metro Line 2 (now integrated on L5), which ran from 1963 until 1970 on its seven trains. Another example of one of the earliest examples of ATO was on the Victoria line of the London Underground, opened in 1968. The ATO system performs all functions of the driver except for the opening and closing of the doors. The driver only needs to press two buttons to start the train and if the way is clear, then the train will automatically proceed to the next station. Many newer systems are now computer-controlled, including London's Docklands Light Railway, the Central Line, Line 14 of the Paris Métro, Line 2, Line 3, 5 and 11 of the Barcelona Metro,Copenhagen Metro,Kelana Jaya Line of Kuala Lumpur Rail Transit System, the Washington Metro, Hong Kong MTR, Manila Light Rail Transit System, North East Line and Circle Line of Singapore MRT, Tokyo Metro Namboku Line, Kobe Municipal Subway and a number of ART- and VAL-based systems."
Seems like a lot do.
"When the Victoria Line first opened, it was said that the computer controlled trains didn't need drivers. But who would ever get into an underground train which didn't have a driver? So they had to provide them.
So if people won't generally trust unmanned underground trains, can you ever imagine them trusting unmanned civil aeroplanes?"
Automatic train operation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The earliest ATO system on a full Underground line was on the Barcelona Metro Line 2 (now integrated on L5), which ran from 1963 until 1970 on its seven trains. Another example of one of the earliest examples of ATO was on the Victoria line of the London Underground, opened in 1968. The ATO system performs all functions of the driver except for the opening and closing of the doors. The driver only needs to press two buttons to start the train and if the way is clear, then the train will automatically proceed to the next station. Many newer systems are now computer-controlled, including London's Docklands Light Railway, the Central Line, Line 14 of the Paris Métro, Line 2, Line 3, 5 and 11 of the Barcelona Metro,Copenhagen Metro,Kelana Jaya Line of Kuala Lumpur Rail Transit System, the Washington Metro, Hong Kong MTR, Manila Light Rail Transit System, North East Line and Circle Line of Singapore MRT, Tokyo Metro Namboku Line, Kobe Municipal Subway and a number of ART- and VAL-based systems."
Seems like a lot do.
If you must quote that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, then at least do so accurately:
Automatic train operation (ATO) ensures partial or complete automatic train piloting and driverless functions.
Most systems elect to maintain a driver (train operator) to mitigate risks associated with failures or emergencies.
Many modern systems are linked with Automatic Train Control (ATC) where normal signaller operations such as route setting and train regulation are carried out by the system. The ATO and ATC systems will work together to maintain a train within a defined tolerance of its timetable. The combined system will marginally adjust operating parameters such as the ratio of power to coast when moving and station dwell time, in order to bring a train back to the timetable slot defined for it.
Most systems elect to maintain a driver (train operator) to mitigate risks associated with failures or emergencies.
Many modern systems are linked with Automatic Train Control (ATC) where normal signaller operations such as route setting and train regulation are carried out by the system. The ATO and ATC systems will work together to maintain a train within a defined tolerance of its timetable. The combined system will marginally adjust operating parameters such as the ratio of power to coast when moving and station dwell time, in order to bring a train back to the timetable slot defined for it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair, I did post a link to the article, and nobody is pretending that the person on board is a driver. The comparison is more with a hostie.
I must admit though, that I think you are right about passenger concerns on airliners being the biggest obstacle.
I must admit though, that I think you are right about passenger concerns on airliners being the biggest obstacle.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know an ex Kiwi fast jet bloke who came over and flew Harriers with the RN for a while who did some work consulting for the London Underground on CRM training. (a strange set of circumstances, I know. Who would have thought Harrier and CRM in the same sentence?)
He was told by the company that the only reasons they still had drivers was purely due to the Unions, and lines would be slowly moving driverless when they got the chance.
He was told by the company that the only reasons they still had drivers was purely due to the Unions, and lines would be slowly moving driverless when they got the chance.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lancs, UK
Age: 47
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I'm so going to get flamed for this....
Hello there - I'm a geeky UAV engineer. The UAV bit is recent, the other bits - less so. I honestly believe that in 2100 most of the aircraft that don't need people in them, won't have people in them. Everyone who says that CAA doesn't allow UAVs in unsegregated airspace because we don't know how to make Sense & Avoid work is ENTIRELY CORRECT. However, geeky engineers & scientists have a habit of making stuff work, in the end, that other people didn't. It's why we're geeks.
On the other hand, we're also good at making things like major disasters & global warming, but you like your PC & light bulbs don't you? And that aircraft you're so fond of flying? We did that.
I'll give a couple of definitions, so you know what I'm talking about:
1) Every UAV in service today is a Remotely Piloted Aircraft. If the comms link goes down, it might try something sensible, but fundamentally at best it'll have a 'run home to mummy' function & require that everybody else gets out of its way. I'm not talking about these as they are a near term solution & will be gone by 2020 or sooner. Example: The GA Sky Warrior can be flown from an Apache & has autoland where Predator didn't - so the automation level is going up all the time, even in the same airframe.
2) Autonomous UAVs will not be NOT pilotless*. They will do lots for themselves, but they will have an operator who will understand airspace operations - & that the UAV can go to for permissions & help when required.
* - OK, so the ones that will be smaller than a pigeon** or insect sized will be. But you're happy to have dogs help in IED sniffing, so we figure you'll cope with small vehicles with dog/horse levels of intelligence by 2030. Ish.
** - because any bigger & they're a birdstrike hazard & will need airspace understanding!
The traditional anti-UAV arguments at this point are something along the lines of : "Well, you can't programme in all circumstances & a good pilot will save the aircraft" and ye olde chestnut:
"How many times has your phone/PC crashed this week".
The chestnut first: Be honest, how many times has it? Probably less than a Windows 95 PC did. But more importantly: How many times has the safety critical software running on safety critical hardware in A320/330/340/380, B777 crashed this week? How many times has the Typhoon/Gripen/F-22/Tornado/F-16/F-18 fleet been grounded this week because of system crashes? Yes, there will be a few gripes in the initial phases - but the experiences of the 90s have made flight controls guys very sensitive on the matter. Please acknowledge that Microsoft do not, yet, write safety critical software. When they do, they'll be subject to the same rigour & legal ramifications as the rest of us that claim the term.
As an aside - this is why GA do not have and have not sought civil certification for Predator or Reaper - you have to design in sufficient resilience for civil certification from the beginning & have legally supported evidence that you have done so. Or re-design everything at great expense.
Now then: "what about the one in a million..." Honest answer... In a manned aircraft, I care about the one in a million, because I have to save the man. In an unmanned aircraft I've only got to worry about the guy in the other aircraft that is about to hit me or the people on the ground I'd squish.
Remember what I said at the top: no person if one isn't necessary. So an unmanned transport aircraft or JDAM dropper - go UAV. Unmanned recce platform with 5 day endurance (unrefuelled): go for it.
Unmanned passenger aircraft - why? You've spent the power & weight on life support & internal volume - why not add one or two more slots for aircrew.
Consequence: Even if I couldn't get to the 'one in a million', I'd cope because it's actually 'one in 10 million' when I don't have a life to save all the time. The aircraft probably costs 50% what the manned equivalent costs & it probably flies 3x as many hours as a manned aircraft, so the economies work. And without corporate manslaughter or lack of duty of care provision, I may even have adequate insurance cover & only have to pay the excess... Just sayin'...
And in terms of people-on-the-ground avoidance, that's a different problem from sense & avoid - plenty of useless dirt & empty sea in the world to start off with. The BA B777 & Hudson A320 are actually good examples of where an automatic system, that did NOT have to keep pilots in the loop would have coped quite happily. Both are control & trajectory management problems that computers are really good at.
If you a put a UAV in the Hudson example, it's likely that we wouldn't see the point of it gently landing in the water - since the aircraft would not be flyable again anyway & I have no occupant to keep comfy. So we'd try to make it spear into the water to contain the damage. I know people working on exactly this problem for UAVs.
Anyway, happy to be queried - within the bounds of "won't get me fired". Some 'love the geek' would be nice. But, I think, unlikely...
Hello there - I'm a geeky UAV engineer. The UAV bit is recent, the other bits - less so. I honestly believe that in 2100 most of the aircraft that don't need people in them, won't have people in them. Everyone who says that CAA doesn't allow UAVs in unsegregated airspace because we don't know how to make Sense & Avoid work is ENTIRELY CORRECT. However, geeky engineers & scientists have a habit of making stuff work, in the end, that other people didn't. It's why we're geeks.
On the other hand, we're also good at making things like major disasters & global warming, but you like your PC & light bulbs don't you? And that aircraft you're so fond of flying? We did that.
I'll give a couple of definitions, so you know what I'm talking about:
1) Every UAV in service today is a Remotely Piloted Aircraft. If the comms link goes down, it might try something sensible, but fundamentally at best it'll have a 'run home to mummy' function & require that everybody else gets out of its way. I'm not talking about these as they are a near term solution & will be gone by 2020 or sooner. Example: The GA Sky Warrior can be flown from an Apache & has autoland where Predator didn't - so the automation level is going up all the time, even in the same airframe.
2) Autonomous UAVs will not be NOT pilotless*. They will do lots for themselves, but they will have an operator who will understand airspace operations - & that the UAV can go to for permissions & help when required.
* - OK, so the ones that will be smaller than a pigeon** or insect sized will be. But you're happy to have dogs help in IED sniffing, so we figure you'll cope with small vehicles with dog/horse levels of intelligence by 2030. Ish.
** - because any bigger & they're a birdstrike hazard & will need airspace understanding!
The traditional anti-UAV arguments at this point are something along the lines of : "Well, you can't programme in all circumstances & a good pilot will save the aircraft" and ye olde chestnut:
"How many times has your phone/PC crashed this week".
The chestnut first: Be honest, how many times has it? Probably less than a Windows 95 PC did. But more importantly: How many times has the safety critical software running on safety critical hardware in A320/330/340/380, B777 crashed this week? How many times has the Typhoon/Gripen/F-22/Tornado/F-16/F-18 fleet been grounded this week because of system crashes? Yes, there will be a few gripes in the initial phases - but the experiences of the 90s have made flight controls guys very sensitive on the matter. Please acknowledge that Microsoft do not, yet, write safety critical software. When they do, they'll be subject to the same rigour & legal ramifications as the rest of us that claim the term.
As an aside - this is why GA do not have and have not sought civil certification for Predator or Reaper - you have to design in sufficient resilience for civil certification from the beginning & have legally supported evidence that you have done so. Or re-design everything at great expense.
Now then: "what about the one in a million..." Honest answer... In a manned aircraft, I care about the one in a million, because I have to save the man. In an unmanned aircraft I've only got to worry about the guy in the other aircraft that is about to hit me or the people on the ground I'd squish.
Remember what I said at the top: no person if one isn't necessary. So an unmanned transport aircraft or JDAM dropper - go UAV. Unmanned recce platform with 5 day endurance (unrefuelled): go for it.
Unmanned passenger aircraft - why? You've spent the power & weight on life support & internal volume - why not add one or two more slots for aircrew.
Consequence: Even if I couldn't get to the 'one in a million', I'd cope because it's actually 'one in 10 million' when I don't have a life to save all the time. The aircraft probably costs 50% what the manned equivalent costs & it probably flies 3x as many hours as a manned aircraft, so the economies work. And without corporate manslaughter or lack of duty of care provision, I may even have adequate insurance cover & only have to pay the excess... Just sayin'...
And in terms of people-on-the-ground avoidance, that's a different problem from sense & avoid - plenty of useless dirt & empty sea in the world to start off with. The BA B777 & Hudson A320 are actually good examples of where an automatic system, that did NOT have to keep pilots in the loop would have coped quite happily. Both are control & trajectory management problems that computers are really good at.
If you a put a UAV in the Hudson example, it's likely that we wouldn't see the point of it gently landing in the water - since the aircraft would not be flyable again anyway & I have no occupant to keep comfy. So we'd try to make it spear into the water to contain the damage. I know people working on exactly this problem for UAVs.
Anyway, happy to be queried - within the bounds of "won't get me fired". Some 'love the geek' would be nice. But, I think, unlikely...
Last edited by RugGun; 23rd Feb 2010 at 07:04.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a UCAV pilot myself, I agree that they have some good functionality....but I'd rather be in my Fast Jet....They are definately more fun!
Last edited by L J R; 27th Feb 2010 at 22:16.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
I repeatedly put the word 'stretch' when referring to the glide in inverted commas several times as I didn't really mean a stretch of the glide and I believe that I've even stated that this isn't possible many times over.
Anyone with a modicum of understanding or flying experience knows that, myself included!
If you had read my comments you would have noticed that.
The correct description eluded me, that's all. I'm not an aerodynamicist. I was hoping someone could help with a more accurate description, which Mighty Gem did when he referred to a 'change' of glide.
I'm deliberateley vague about my role as I work in a relatively specialist area and as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act, its more than my jobs worth to go to into specifics. Surely that's obvious?
The project I work on is large enough, thankyou. If you actually read my posts you would have a good idea who and what Project I worked for...
Just out of interest, when you built 1:72nd aircraft in your youth did you paint over the canopy and call yours 'UAVs'??
As for declaring yourself as a military pilot I do find that hard to believe. I think that is more than likely a smoke screen or an effort to throw PPruners off your scent...
I don't know of a single pilot who would so vehemently advocate the dismantling of the profession after working so hard to get to that position... I think it more likely that you work for the 'Dilbert Defence Corporation's UAV Arm'... at best.
With respect to your comments about the Typhoon being able to fly itself out of a pilot's screw up... I vaguely recall a colleague who works on Typhoon describing this. If I recall right it's a 'panic button' or 'reset button'... think of it as you wish. However, it still requires a pilot's assessment of the unusual attitude to press that button. I prepare to stand corrected, though.
With regard to the Human Error factor you are absolutely right and I never saw fit to challenge that one. My argument was more of the 'one in a million' arguments, which when put into perspective are more frequent than you might like to consider. When you consider that someone wins the lottery most weeks, it puts my argument into perspective. But that's one for the System Safety Engineers to ponder.
So... I'll stop with my "cretinous" comments?
Anyhow, is it true Mrs Tourist has been flown unmanned for years and prefers 'real pilots'...
I repeatedly put the word 'stretch' when referring to the glide in inverted commas several times as I didn't really mean a stretch of the glide and I believe that I've even stated that this isn't possible many times over.
Anyone with a modicum of understanding or flying experience knows that, myself included!
If you had read my comments you would have noticed that.
The correct description eluded me, that's all. I'm not an aerodynamicist. I was hoping someone could help with a more accurate description, which Mighty Gem did when he referred to a 'change' of glide.
I'm deliberateley vague about my role as I work in a relatively specialist area and as a signatory to the Official Secrets Act, its more than my jobs worth to go to into specifics. Surely that's obvious?
The project I work on is large enough, thankyou. If you actually read my posts you would have a good idea who and what Project I worked for...
Just out of interest, when you built 1:72nd aircraft in your youth did you paint over the canopy and call yours 'UAVs'??
As for declaring yourself as a military pilot I do find that hard to believe. I think that is more than likely a smoke screen or an effort to throw PPruners off your scent...
I don't know of a single pilot who would so vehemently advocate the dismantling of the profession after working so hard to get to that position... I think it more likely that you work for the 'Dilbert Defence Corporation's UAV Arm'... at best.
With respect to your comments about the Typhoon being able to fly itself out of a pilot's screw up... I vaguely recall a colleague who works on Typhoon describing this. If I recall right it's a 'panic button' or 'reset button'... think of it as you wish. However, it still requires a pilot's assessment of the unusual attitude to press that button. I prepare to stand corrected, though.
With regard to the Human Error factor you are absolutely right and I never saw fit to challenge that one. My argument was more of the 'one in a million' arguments, which when put into perspective are more frequent than you might like to consider. When you consider that someone wins the lottery most weeks, it puts my argument into perspective. But that's one for the System Safety Engineers to ponder.
So... I'll stop with my "cretinous" comments?
Anyhow, is it true Mrs Tourist has been flown unmanned for years and prefers 'real pilots'...
