Armed Navy UCAS Demo Planned 2018
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: new york
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed Navy UCAS Demo Planned 2018
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A step back in capability if you ask me...
Knockout the ground controlling stations that controls the drones and you have an air force you cannot use.
Hack into or jam the signal controlling the UAV and you have an air force you cannot use.
I do believe Al Qaeda did this recently and were able to watch the same video feeds being supplied to ground troops?
And then we go on to the simple fact that UAVs cannot perform the most basic task... to see and avoid another aircraft.
I can't help but feel that there is a drive by nerds, gamers and frustrated pilots to eliminate manned aircraft.
Slightly off topic, but people 'in the know' talk of all aircraft being unmanned in the near future.
Could a drone have performed a ditching along the lines of what happened in the Hudson River or the B777 at Heathrow with the double engine failure??? No...
The human body has many senses... Until we can equal the computing and sensing power of the human body / brain, elimination of the pilot is not a viable option. And by that stage you have created a computer that can think for itself... Which sounds like the realms of the Terminator movies and science fiction to me.
And not forgetting the first major crash of an unmanned aircraft. Would any operator consider the commercial applications of this? Look what happened to Concorde. The first major accident and the detractors of that aircraft had its card marked.
Most of the UAV advocates I know are failed pilots, gamers / nerds who lack the drive or strength of character to embark upon a career on the flight deck or in the military.
I do however believe that there is a place for UAVs / drones and that we are at the limit of their capability in Afghanistan.
Unmanned fighters and airliners, not viable in my opinion.
For all of the armchair 'experts' who will see fit to attack my opinions, my background: I'm currently working as an Aeronautical Engineer. I also spent seven years in the British Army and I have my pilot's licence.
Knockout the ground controlling stations that controls the drones and you have an air force you cannot use.
Hack into or jam the signal controlling the UAV and you have an air force you cannot use.
I do believe Al Qaeda did this recently and were able to watch the same video feeds being supplied to ground troops?
And then we go on to the simple fact that UAVs cannot perform the most basic task... to see and avoid another aircraft.
I can't help but feel that there is a drive by nerds, gamers and frustrated pilots to eliminate manned aircraft.
Slightly off topic, but people 'in the know' talk of all aircraft being unmanned in the near future.
Could a drone have performed a ditching along the lines of what happened in the Hudson River or the B777 at Heathrow with the double engine failure??? No...
The human body has many senses... Until we can equal the computing and sensing power of the human body / brain, elimination of the pilot is not a viable option. And by that stage you have created a computer that can think for itself... Which sounds like the realms of the Terminator movies and science fiction to me.
And not forgetting the first major crash of an unmanned aircraft. Would any operator consider the commercial applications of this? Look what happened to Concorde. The first major accident and the detractors of that aircraft had its card marked.
Most of the UAV advocates I know are failed pilots, gamers / nerds who lack the drive or strength of character to embark upon a career on the flight deck or in the military.
I do however believe that there is a place for UAVs / drones and that we are at the limit of their capability in Afghanistan.
Unmanned fighters and airliners, not viable in my opinion.
For all of the armchair 'experts' who will see fit to attack my opinions, my background: I'm currently working as an Aeronautical Engineer. I also spent seven years in the British Army and I have my pilot's licence.
Could a drone have performed a ditching along the lines of what happened in the Hudson River or the B777 at Heathrow with the double engine failure??? No...
Most of the UAV advocates I know are failed pilots, gamers / nerds who lack the drive or strength of character to embark upon a career on the flight deck or in the military.
My flying background and experience? 13yrs on fast jets, 3yrs on an airborne ISTAR asset and 20yrs in total at the ops end of the RAF (Iraq, Afghanistan and Balkans)...and, oh yes, I also have a pilot's license. Hardly, your "armchair" type!
Finally, define "see and avoid", which has so far been avoided by the civil avaition regulators. A Reaper can use its IR turret to detect the heat from aircraft jet engines in excess of 20 nautical miles and then, at the same range, use its EO turret to see what you and I can see from about 300 metres - it can then avoid it! I would offer that this is better than your "Mk1 eyeball" for "see and avoid" on a number of counts?
So, I'm afraid, you are quite wrong!
I can't help but feel that there is a drive by nerds, gamers and frustrated pilots to eliminate manned aircraft.
My two-penneth:
1. The original post says "see and avoid" quite clearly and not "sense and avoid".
2. The average human reaction time to expected stimulous is roughly 1/2 a second. For unexpected it is closer to 2 seconds. Isn't that the latency time in worst case?
3. The US Border Protection Agency are flying Predator B, right now, in US Civil Airspace. Also NASA operate Predator B "IKHANA". They are both civil registered and operated.
4. The Boeing 747-400 has a Cat 3 autoland (allowing approaches in less than 600 metres and a crosswind of 25kts), auto braking and auto spoilers/thrust reversers. Surely the next step is to remove the man wiating to disengage it from the cockpit and put them in a control cabin? Especially for cargo/freight aircraft?
5. Finally, there are more unmanned aircraft programs in the world than manned - surely we can't all be getting it wrong???
PS. 6. Here is the crash I think he is referring to: 1 of Two RAF Reaper UAVs Crashes in Afghanistan - Defense News . It says "the MoD said the vehicle 'made a forced landing whilst on an operation over a remote unpopulated area of southern Afghanistan'."
1. The original post says "see and avoid" quite clearly and not "sense and avoid".
2. The average human reaction time to expected stimulous is roughly 1/2 a second. For unexpected it is closer to 2 seconds. Isn't that the latency time in worst case?
3. The US Border Protection Agency are flying Predator B, right now, in US Civil Airspace. Also NASA operate Predator B "IKHANA". They are both civil registered and operated.
4. The Boeing 747-400 has a Cat 3 autoland (allowing approaches in less than 600 metres and a crosswind of 25kts), auto braking and auto spoilers/thrust reversers. Surely the next step is to remove the man wiating to disengage it from the cockpit and put them in a control cabin? Especially for cargo/freight aircraft?
5. Finally, there are more unmanned aircraft programs in the world than manned - surely we can't all be getting it wrong???
PS. 6. Here is the crash I think he is referring to: 1 of Two RAF Reaper UAVs Crashes in Afghanistan - Defense News . It says "the MoD said the vehicle 'made a forced landing whilst on an operation over a remote unpopulated area of southern Afghanistan'."
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 18th Feb 2010 at 20:40.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozymandias,
Many thanks for adding accuracy to my response.
Hmm... surprised we still have manned fighter aircraft now... Weren't they all meant to be replaced by Surface to Air Missiles in the 1960's?
Hence the decimation of the UK fighter force in that decade...
And that plan wasn't flawed???
My firsthand experience of the UAV advocates is from alongside the guys who make them. So I'm a tad more up to date than your average 'customer' pilot. No offence implied, The B Word.
I frequently hear their exaggerated visions of future capability and how manned flight will be dead this time next year...
So... In the near future we will have computing power that has the sensing, processing and communication skill equal to the human body/brain... all so that UAVs can perform the most basic thing like avoid each other in crowded airspace etc.??? That is what is required gentlemen before these things could be integrated into airspace as we see now and
I am not talking about someone using a drone over a sparsely populated area of desert. I'm talking of aeroplanes flying around as we see now over the towns and cities of the UK, only without pilots.
I wonder how many bodily senses and past knowledge experience etc. was used by Chelsey Sullenberger's brain and body when he put that bus into the Hudson River?? How does a computer know when to reject the rules in favour of a hunch or past experience? It doesn't.
Or the B777 at Heathrow: 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.
A computer obeys it's programming. It has no sense of self preservation.
You cannot automate judgement and cater for that once in a million scenario.
As regards to Autopilot and Autoland they are great 'labour saving' tools. They ARE NOT to be seen as a replacement for a pilot, they are there to assist and be monitored like any other system, as any Human Factors aficionado will tell you. Henceforth, a lot of recent air disasters are believed to have been caused by pilots forgetting / disregarding the very basic principals of flight and letting automated systems takeover... Only for them to fail and the crew not to notice. Turkish B737 at Schiphol comes to mind... But that's another topic!
One last point... If the RAF wants to cease to exist in the forseeable future it should throw it's lot in with UAVs. When the RAF is nothing but a radio controlled 'toy' air force it could be easily absorbed into the Army and Navy to be operated by green and dark blue operators.
It kills me as a former pongo rupert to say it, but the RAF needs to take a good look at what it's doing. In my opinion the RAF is making a grave mistake not looking at a manned offensive air asset to replace the Tornado GR4. Which, I might add is a dog tired airframe now (meant to continue until 2025).
So... an unmanned strike aircraft is viable with the next decade? Is it b****.
I'll tell you what will happen... 2025 will come and the RAF will be forced to buy off the shelf at a loss to British Industry, assuming that any of the fatigued GR4s are still flyable by that date. Bad idea to cancel the manned option of the Future Offensive Air System... Both for the RAF and industry.
So... Anyone want to answer the 'Al Qaeda hacking into the video feed', jamming control signal or knocking out the control station questions??
Many thanks for adding accuracy to my response.
Hmm... surprised we still have manned fighter aircraft now... Weren't they all meant to be replaced by Surface to Air Missiles in the 1960's?
Hence the decimation of the UK fighter force in that decade...
And that plan wasn't flawed???
My firsthand experience of the UAV advocates is from alongside the guys who make them. So I'm a tad more up to date than your average 'customer' pilot. No offence implied, The B Word.
I frequently hear their exaggerated visions of future capability and how manned flight will be dead this time next year...
So... In the near future we will have computing power that has the sensing, processing and communication skill equal to the human body/brain... all so that UAVs can perform the most basic thing like avoid each other in crowded airspace etc.??? That is what is required gentlemen before these things could be integrated into airspace as we see now and
I am not talking about someone using a drone over a sparsely populated area of desert. I'm talking of aeroplanes flying around as we see now over the towns and cities of the UK, only without pilots.
I wonder how many bodily senses and past knowledge experience etc. was used by Chelsey Sullenberger's brain and body when he put that bus into the Hudson River?? How does a computer know when to reject the rules in favour of a hunch or past experience? It doesn't.
Or the B777 at Heathrow: 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.
A computer obeys it's programming. It has no sense of self preservation.
You cannot automate judgement and cater for that once in a million scenario.
As regards to Autopilot and Autoland they are great 'labour saving' tools. They ARE NOT to be seen as a replacement for a pilot, they are there to assist and be monitored like any other system, as any Human Factors aficionado will tell you. Henceforth, a lot of recent air disasters are believed to have been caused by pilots forgetting / disregarding the very basic principals of flight and letting automated systems takeover... Only for them to fail and the crew not to notice. Turkish B737 at Schiphol comes to mind... But that's another topic!
One last point... If the RAF wants to cease to exist in the forseeable future it should throw it's lot in with UAVs. When the RAF is nothing but a radio controlled 'toy' air force it could be easily absorbed into the Army and Navy to be operated by green and dark blue operators.
It kills me as a former pongo rupert to say it, but the RAF needs to take a good look at what it's doing. In my opinion the RAF is making a grave mistake not looking at a manned offensive air asset to replace the Tornado GR4. Which, I might add is a dog tired airframe now (meant to continue until 2025).
So... an unmanned strike aircraft is viable with the next decade? Is it b****.
I'll tell you what will happen... 2025 will come and the RAF will be forced to buy off the shelf at a loss to British Industry, assuming that any of the fatigued GR4s are still flyable by that date. Bad idea to cancel the manned option of the Future Offensive Air System... Both for the RAF and industry.
So... Anyone want to answer the 'Al Qaeda hacking into the video feed', jamming control signal or knocking out the control station questions??
Last edited by Poose; 20th Feb 2010 at 23:28. Reason: To stand up for the crabs.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poose.
I speak as a pilot who loves his job and would dearly love to see UAVs disappear so his kids can have the career I have.
However, most of your points are absolute twaddle, unfortunately.
In no particular order.
"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 stretched the glide."
A perfect glide speed is just that. The speed at which maximum range will be reached. Stretching a glide is impossible beyond perfect glide speed. Due to the innacuracies inherrant in human control, however, only a computer could ever sit perfectly on it. It may be possible to stretch the later stages once in ground effect, but a computer is just as if not more capable of achieving that feat. Very delicate control is the computers forte. Just try flying a U2 or even an airliner by hand at altitude.
"I wonder how many bodily senses and past knowledge experience etc. was used by Chelsey Sullenberger's brain and body when he put that bus into the Hudson River?? How does a computer know when to reject the rules in favour of a hunch or past experience? It doesn't."
How many times had he crashed into the Hudson river before whilst gaining this relevant experience?!
You can give a computer rules to follow, even profiles of simulations of the correct ditching proceedure, plus, unlike mister Sullenberger, it would not have forgotten to close the ditching switch. (not having a go at him, I think he did well, just think that even he, as do all humans, made errors.
"A computer obeys it's programming. It has no sense of self preservation.
You cannot automate judgement and cater for that once in a million scenario."
Most air accidents where the choice of pilot type has any effect are due to pilot error, not one in a million scenarios. Driverless trains have a far better safety record due to lack of human error.
Diverging slightly, there have been to my knowledge three instances of total Hyd failure in airliners. The one in the US where the pilots did very well to fly on differential thrust alone, where they nearly got it on the ground ( about half the passengers survived), the one in the Far east where they didnt, and the DHL one in Iraq where they did. I remember reading an article in Flight where I believe DARPA or NASA or some such had developed learning control software which could deal with the situation effortlessly, so computers have already got some advantages, and improve immeasurably each decade.
"In the near future we will have computing power that has the sensing, processing and communication skill equal to the human body/brain"
In terms of speed of processing the external stimuli required to warn of collision risk, computers are already vastly superior. TCAS only uses one source of info for its resolutions, but there is nothing to stop one using visual, thermal, radar combined. If you took the JSF sensor suite and combined it through a processor rather than displayed it to a pilot while waiting for his decision making to continue at the glacial pace of conscious though, you would have a superior system to the current eyeball Mk 1.
And don't get me started on the differences in communication speed of computers versus the spoken word!
"So... Anyone want to answer the 'Al Qaeda hacking into the video feed', jamming control signal or knocking out the control station questions?? "
Ok, I will.
1. It is very easy to stop the video feed being hacked into. With those systems nobody had bothered previously. There are others that always were secure, and if they aren't already, they should all be soon.
2. Quite difficult to do, and less of a problem all the time as more autonomy is inbuilt.
3. So you are suggesting that it is easier to fly to the US with an assault team and fight your way into the control station or bomb it half way round the world than attack the airfield in your own country? I would contend that the control stations invulnerability is one of UAVs advantages.
They may not be ready to take over all role yet, but to state that they won't is just silly. The real issues are more likely to be legal/moral rather than technical, though the bandwidth issue is likely to be a more realistic problem than any of your arguments.
I speak as a pilot who loves his job and would dearly love to see UAVs disappear so his kids can have the career I have.
However, most of your points are absolute twaddle, unfortunately.
In no particular order.
"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 stretched the glide."
A perfect glide speed is just that. The speed at which maximum range will be reached. Stretching a glide is impossible beyond perfect glide speed. Due to the innacuracies inherrant in human control, however, only a computer could ever sit perfectly on it. It may be possible to stretch the later stages once in ground effect, but a computer is just as if not more capable of achieving that feat. Very delicate control is the computers forte. Just try flying a U2 or even an airliner by hand at altitude.
"I wonder how many bodily senses and past knowledge experience etc. was used by Chelsey Sullenberger's brain and body when he put that bus into the Hudson River?? How does a computer know when to reject the rules in favour of a hunch or past experience? It doesn't."
How many times had he crashed into the Hudson river before whilst gaining this relevant experience?!
You can give a computer rules to follow, even profiles of simulations of the correct ditching proceedure, plus, unlike mister Sullenberger, it would not have forgotten to close the ditching switch. (not having a go at him, I think he did well, just think that even he, as do all humans, made errors.
"A computer obeys it's programming. It has no sense of self preservation.
You cannot automate judgement and cater for that once in a million scenario."
Most air accidents where the choice of pilot type has any effect are due to pilot error, not one in a million scenarios. Driverless trains have a far better safety record due to lack of human error.
Diverging slightly, there have been to my knowledge three instances of total Hyd failure in airliners. The one in the US where the pilots did very well to fly on differential thrust alone, where they nearly got it on the ground ( about half the passengers survived), the one in the Far east where they didnt, and the DHL one in Iraq where they did. I remember reading an article in Flight where I believe DARPA or NASA or some such had developed learning control software which could deal with the situation effortlessly, so computers have already got some advantages, and improve immeasurably each decade.
"In the near future we will have computing power that has the sensing, processing and communication skill equal to the human body/brain"
In terms of speed of processing the external stimuli required to warn of collision risk, computers are already vastly superior. TCAS only uses one source of info for its resolutions, but there is nothing to stop one using visual, thermal, radar combined. If you took the JSF sensor suite and combined it through a processor rather than displayed it to a pilot while waiting for his decision making to continue at the glacial pace of conscious though, you would have a superior system to the current eyeball Mk 1.
And don't get me started on the differences in communication speed of computers versus the spoken word!
"So... Anyone want to answer the 'Al Qaeda hacking into the video feed', jamming control signal or knocking out the control station questions?? "
Ok, I will.
1. It is very easy to stop the video feed being hacked into. With those systems nobody had bothered previously. There are others that always were secure, and if they aren't already, they should all be soon.
2. Quite difficult to do, and less of a problem all the time as more autonomy is inbuilt.
3. So you are suggesting that it is easier to fly to the US with an assault team and fight your way into the control station or bomb it half way round the world than attack the airfield in your own country?
I would contend that the control stations invulnerability is one of UAVs advantages.They may not be ready to take over all role yet, but to state that they won't is just silly. The real issues are more likely to be legal/moral rather than technical, though the bandwidth issue is likely to be a more realistic problem than any of your arguments.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
My firsthand experience of the UAV advocates is from alongside the guys who make them. So I'm a tad more up to date than your average 'customer' pilot. No offence implied,
Sitting here in a chair (office type, not arm type), can I just say I thought that statement seemed very silly, and not a little arrogant!
As an ex green person (I have to confess to never having heard an officer call himself a rupert), I think you may have come across the SA80 family of weapons. If you used them as a customer, did you often feel you knew less about their capabilities, flaws, and current use than the folks who made them?
It seems an odd attitude, especially as the design was not even perfected on it's initial roll out (something the makers knew), and more odd perhaps, as the manufacturers often ask the customer for feedback. Why would this be?
Sorry for being a bit ranty, but I feel you may be missing a massive point here
My firsthand experience of the UAV advocates is from alongside the guys who make them. So I'm a tad more up to date than your average 'customer' pilot. No offence implied,
Sitting here in a chair (office type, not arm type), can I just say I thought that statement seemed very silly, and not a little arrogant!
As an ex green person (I have to confess to never having heard an officer call himself a rupert), I think you may have come across the SA80 family of weapons. If you used them as a customer, did you often feel you knew less about their capabilities, flaws, and current use than the folks who made them?
It seems an odd attitude, especially as the design was not even perfected on it's initial roll out (something the makers knew), and more odd perhaps, as the manufacturers often ask the customer for feedback. Why would this be?
Sorry for being a bit ranty, but I feel you may be missing a massive point here
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I give up...
I do wonder if the new unmanned version of PPrune will catch on.
I detect UAS apologists / nerds by their misunderstanding of basic aviation concepts like avoiding another aircraft. I'm off...
I do wonder if the new unmanned version of PPrune will catch on.
I detect UAS apologists / nerds by their misunderstanding of basic aviation concepts like avoiding another aircraft. I'm off...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barnstormer,
In answer to your questions, I make 'arrogant' comments as I am tired of hearing comments from UAV engineers and Aeronautical Engineers in general who do not understand the realities of operating an aircraft from anywhere other than Flight Sim or playing with radio controlled aeroplanes. Persistently, these breed make unrealistic boasts of their potential capability. When you query these chaps, they just say; "Oh! We shall use a mythical sensor to detect this and a mythical sensor to detect that..." They fail to understand that to replace the pilot you would need the sensory and processing power of the human body and brain. Anyway, I prefer to think of it as confidence not 'arrogance'. It's not a crime to believe in yourself.
I referred to myself as a 'rupert', as in the world I am working in at the minute I am surrounded by ex-RAF types who consistently remind me of my former status and service... All in good humour of course. It's called being self-effacing...
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.
As for rolling out designs that are incomplete or not fully developed this is often attributed to the UK Procurement Process where it is more politically prudent for a weapon, aircraft, ship etc. to be seen to enter service albeit not fully developed, than wait to iron out any faults. Feedback from the frontline is naturally vital, but industry generally knows more about their own product.
I'm sure the manufacturer's of our cars knows more about them than you or I do.
Overall, the point I am making is that to replace the pilot you would have to possess the computing and sensory power of the human brain. In which case, you've created a computer that can think for itself. A concept so incredible it is light years away, before we've even considered the ethics of creating a computer that could think for itself.
Quite a scary concept if you think about it.
Nice to hear some feedback from the green machine on here!
In answer to your questions, I make 'arrogant' comments as I am tired of hearing comments from UAV engineers and Aeronautical Engineers in general who do not understand the realities of operating an aircraft from anywhere other than Flight Sim or playing with radio controlled aeroplanes. Persistently, these breed make unrealistic boasts of their potential capability. When you query these chaps, they just say; "Oh! We shall use a mythical sensor to detect this and a mythical sensor to detect that..." They fail to understand that to replace the pilot you would need the sensory and processing power of the human body and brain. Anyway, I prefer to think of it as confidence not 'arrogance'. It's not a crime to believe in yourself.
I referred to myself as a 'rupert', as in the world I am working in at the minute I am surrounded by ex-RAF types who consistently remind me of my former status and service... All in good humour of course. It's called being self-effacing...
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.
As for rolling out designs that are incomplete or not fully developed this is often attributed to the UK Procurement Process where it is more politically prudent for a weapon, aircraft, ship etc. to be seen to enter service albeit not fully developed, than wait to iron out any faults. Feedback from the frontline is naturally vital, but industry generally knows more about their own product.
I'm sure the manufacturer's of our cars knows more about them than you or I do.
Overall, the point I am making is that to replace the pilot you would have to possess the computing and sensory power of the human brain. In which case, you've created a computer that can think for itself. A concept so incredible it is light years away, before we've even considered the ethics of creating a computer that could think for itself.
Quite a scary concept if you think about it.
Nice to hear some feedback from the green machine on here!
Last edited by Poose; 20th Feb 2010 at 23:33.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
With respect to your first comment no one is arguing against the validity of automation. Autopilot is vital in many aspects of flight and for certain types of flying, but the essence of an Autopilot is as a 'labour saving' device and as another system to be monitored... not as a replacement for the pilot. Neither, am I debating the ability of a computer to hold airspeed. You overestimate the capabilites of Autopilots, I currently work in design for a large aircraft and know only too well what is achievable in the real world. I'm talking about judgement, whereby a situation requires the conventional rules to be thrown out of the window and a reversion back to knowledge based behaviour. These are basic Human Factors concepts, from the JAA ATPL exams... But then again, as a pilot Tourist you would know that...
Chelsey Sullenberger was an experienced glider pilot, who made a judgement call on the day. As for your statement regarding the number of times he had crashed or ditched previously, that's just absurd...
Incidentally, his knowledge of how to ditch correctly came from his time in the USAF... Knowledge based behaviour.
I knew that the Human Error Statistic was going to rear it's ugly head...
Benjamin Disraeli springs to mind... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and there are statistics."
I'm not debating the value of automation in aircraft, I did not refer to Hydraulic Failures. Though, your statements are valid regarding the hydraulic failures. I was referring to incidents where automation had failed or the human element saved the day. My example was the Turkish Boeing 737 which crashed on approach to Schiphol, Holland. During this accident the Autothrottle persistently reverted back to idle during final approach. Resulting in two stalls, the second being the fatal one. If the crew had acted correctly the aircraft could have been landed uneventfully. Instead, they failed to spot the failure by not noticing the decline in airspeed.
The Boeing 777 at Heathrow upon inspection had a final recorded airspeed of a value so below the stall speed of that aircraft and configuration that it should have fell out of the sky way before the perimeter of the airport. Judgement, knowledge and skill based behaviour by the crew saved the day.
So... not only are you a pilot Tourist but you are an Avionics Expert on the JSF, too? Once, again nobody is debating the computing power of avionic systems but they are not equivalent to the overall computing and sensory ability of the human brain as a whole. In certain aspects, computers are better. I agree, the amount of information and speed of things that computers can surpass the human ability. In its entirity, an avionic system cannot equate to the human brain and computers fail no matter how highly rated the software is. That's a fact of life. Personally, I'd rather have the pilot there as the last line of defence as another form of redundancy, if nothing else.
Hmm... How many times has my PC or mobile phone crashed inexplicably this week?
You refer to TCAS... Well in that case you should know if you are in fact a pilot that TCAS 2 is only effective if the other aircraft you are on a collision course with is Transponder Equipped. How exactly would a UAV avoid a microlight drifting into it's path without a Transponder?
The UK CAA happens to agree with me on this one...
You seem to think that you have answered the successful Al Qaeda hacking of the Afghanistan UAV. I beg to differ. You miss the point that I am making. If such an obvious thing such as the security of the signals from video feeds can be hacked into has been overlooked by eminent people in industry and the military is it not viable that other more pertinent factors are being overlooked? Admittedly, little military value was gleaned from the video feed hack, but next time it could be something else...
Let's not forget the armed drone that decided to develop a mind of it's own and was en route to Pakistan fully laden. Shot down by a manned aircraft I believe?
By your own admission you have conceded that jamming of the control signal remains a possible form of defence against UAVs and remains so. But I guess that will be miraculously resolved by next year?
As for an attack on a controlling station. Waging war is all about flexibility, to limit your air force to a handful of fixed controlling stations seems insane. I was thinking more of a Battle of Britain type general war scenario, where aircraft were dispersed from their aerodromes. Not an insurgency, which is what Afghanistan is. Dispersal of your assets, be it the spacings of infantryman on patrol or ships in a task group is inherent to preservation of those assets. To put "all your eggs in one basket" is a step backward. A 'single point of failure' System Safety Engineers would call it. Knock out the controlling stations and I've grounded my enemies air force.
Hmm... Was that a manned fighter aircraft that just flew by? Was that not derided as a flawed concept in the 1960's in the UK?? All fighter aircraft were to be replaced by SAMs, by the late 1960's in the UK... Look how that plan turned out... It was b******.
There was a famous quote by Samuel Johnson; "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not being a soldier or not having been at sea."
I wonder how this quote relates to pilots... As someone who works in aeronautical engineering I have noticed that there is a great degree of animosity, petty jealousy call it what you will towards those who fly in my industry by those 'who can't'. The greatest detractors are usually in UAVs...
As for being a 'real pilot' I'm halfway through my commercial training. Just passed the first eight ATPL exams... they go nice with my engineering degree.
I doubt a 'real pilot' would be an advocate of UAVs as an alternate to manned flight... Judging by the content of your post I think it more likely that you are a UAV engineer who I've upset, by deriding his toy or a fourteen year old boy who has played too much Flight Sim.
And now you are going to tell me that you are a captain with 10000 hours...
I believe you, of course you are...
With respect to your first comment no one is arguing against the validity of automation. Autopilot is vital in many aspects of flight and for certain types of flying, but the essence of an Autopilot is as a 'labour saving' device and as another system to be monitored... not as a replacement for the pilot. Neither, am I debating the ability of a computer to hold airspeed. You overestimate the capabilites of Autopilots, I currently work in design for a large aircraft and know only too well what is achievable in the real world. I'm talking about judgement, whereby a situation requires the conventional rules to be thrown out of the window and a reversion back to knowledge based behaviour. These are basic Human Factors concepts, from the JAA ATPL exams... But then again, as a pilot Tourist you would know that...
Chelsey Sullenberger was an experienced glider pilot, who made a judgement call on the day. As for your statement regarding the number of times he had crashed or ditched previously, that's just absurd...
Incidentally, his knowledge of how to ditch correctly came from his time in the USAF... Knowledge based behaviour.
I knew that the Human Error Statistic was going to rear it's ugly head...
Benjamin Disraeli springs to mind... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and there are statistics."
I'm not debating the value of automation in aircraft, I did not refer to Hydraulic Failures. Though, your statements are valid regarding the hydraulic failures. I was referring to incidents where automation had failed or the human element saved the day. My example was the Turkish Boeing 737 which crashed on approach to Schiphol, Holland. During this accident the Autothrottle persistently reverted back to idle during final approach. Resulting in two stalls, the second being the fatal one. If the crew had acted correctly the aircraft could have been landed uneventfully. Instead, they failed to spot the failure by not noticing the decline in airspeed.
The Boeing 777 at Heathrow upon inspection had a final recorded airspeed of a value so below the stall speed of that aircraft and configuration that it should have fell out of the sky way before the perimeter of the airport. Judgement, knowledge and skill based behaviour by the crew saved the day.
So... not only are you a pilot Tourist but you are an Avionics Expert on the JSF, too? Once, again nobody is debating the computing power of avionic systems but they are not equivalent to the overall computing and sensory ability of the human brain as a whole. In certain aspects, computers are better. I agree, the amount of information and speed of things that computers can surpass the human ability. In its entirity, an avionic system cannot equate to the human brain and computers fail no matter how highly rated the software is. That's a fact of life. Personally, I'd rather have the pilot there as the last line of defence as another form of redundancy, if nothing else.
Hmm... How many times has my PC or mobile phone crashed inexplicably this week?
You refer to TCAS... Well in that case you should know if you are in fact a pilot that TCAS 2 is only effective if the other aircraft you are on a collision course with is Transponder Equipped. How exactly would a UAV avoid a microlight drifting into it's path without a Transponder?
The UK CAA happens to agree with me on this one...
You seem to think that you have answered the successful Al Qaeda hacking of the Afghanistan UAV. I beg to differ. You miss the point that I am making. If such an obvious thing such as the security of the signals from video feeds can be hacked into has been overlooked by eminent people in industry and the military is it not viable that other more pertinent factors are being overlooked? Admittedly, little military value was gleaned from the video feed hack, but next time it could be something else...
Let's not forget the armed drone that decided to develop a mind of it's own and was en route to Pakistan fully laden. Shot down by a manned aircraft I believe?
By your own admission you have conceded that jamming of the control signal remains a possible form of defence against UAVs and remains so. But I guess that will be miraculously resolved by next year?
As for an attack on a controlling station. Waging war is all about flexibility, to limit your air force to a handful of fixed controlling stations seems insane. I was thinking more of a Battle of Britain type general war scenario, where aircraft were dispersed from their aerodromes. Not an insurgency, which is what Afghanistan is. Dispersal of your assets, be it the spacings of infantryman on patrol or ships in a task group is inherent to preservation of those assets. To put "all your eggs in one basket" is a step backward. A 'single point of failure' System Safety Engineers would call it. Knock out the controlling stations and I've grounded my enemies air force.
Hmm... Was that a manned fighter aircraft that just flew by? Was that not derided as a flawed concept in the 1960's in the UK?? All fighter aircraft were to be replaced by SAMs, by the late 1960's in the UK... Look how that plan turned out... It was b******.
There was a famous quote by Samuel Johnson; "Every man thinks meanly of himself for not being a soldier or not having been at sea."
I wonder how this quote relates to pilots... As someone who works in aeronautical engineering I have noticed that there is a great degree of animosity, petty jealousy call it what you will towards those who fly in my industry by those 'who can't'. The greatest detractors are usually in UAVs...
As for being a 'real pilot' I'm halfway through my commercial training. Just passed the first eight ATPL exams... they go nice with my engineering degree.
I doubt a 'real pilot' would be an advocate of UAVs as an alternate to manned flight... Judging by the content of your post I think it more likely that you are a UAV engineer who I've upset, by deriding his toy or a fourteen year old boy who has played too much Flight Sim.
And now you are going to tell me that you are a captain with 10000 hours...
I believe you, of course you are...
Last edited by Poose; 20th Feb 2010 at 23:38.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This 'Real Pilot' is an advocate of some capability in UAVs.....
...I would rather be supersonic low level upside-down at night..
....there is some real (typical) misunderstanding here in this thread. As a pilot, I enjoy 'being up there', but for some unsavoury things about today's warfare...., I don't mind doing it remotely - its a job.
...I would rather be supersonic low level upside-down at night..
....there is some real (typical) misunderstanding here in this thread. As a pilot, I enjoy 'being up there', but for some unsavoury things about today's warfare...., I don't mind doing it remotely - its a job.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for being a 'real pilot' I'm halfway through my commercial training."
As I said, a ppl then.
Tourist (halfway through my astronaut / spy / Hugh Heffner's plunge pool assistant / Cat Deeleys thong technician / F1 driver / rock band training)
As I said, a ppl then.
Tourist (halfway through my astronaut / spy / Hugh Heffner's plunge pool assistant / Cat Deeleys thong technician / F1 driver / rock band training)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Greece
Age: 84
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a good idea to tell engineers that they will "never be able to do" something.
Human intelligence is founded on a massively parallel computer which is slow and inaccurate but makes up for that with being able to handle an incredible amount of information at once. There are plenty of designs in development that copy this and really one probably doesn't need to reach human level. One would guess that a bumble bee is good enough for most scenarios and perhaps a bird or a bat for the really tough situations - given that higher level decisions about what is to be done are made remotely and the computer only has to carry them out and deal with instantaneous, short-duration problems (in the same way that humans have reflexes but a little more planned than that).
example: Spinnaker at the University of Manchester.
The Advanced Processor Technologies Group
Human intelligence is founded on a massively parallel computer which is slow and inaccurate but makes up for that with being able to handle an incredible amount of information at once. There are plenty of designs in development that copy this and really one probably doesn't need to reach human level. One would guess that a bumble bee is good enough for most scenarios and perhaps a bird or a bat for the really tough situations - given that higher level decisions about what is to be done are made remotely and the computer only has to carry them out and deal with instantaneous, short-duration problems (in the same way that humans have reflexes but a little more planned than that).
example: Spinnaker at the University of Manchester.
The Advanced Processor Technologies Group
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4. The Boeing 747-400 has a Cat 3 autoland (allowing approaches in less than 600 metres and a crosswind of 25kts), auto braking and auto spoilers/thrust reversers. Surely the next step is to remove the man waiting to disengage it from the cockpit and put them in a control cabin? Especially for cargo/freight aircraft?
1. For starters, what about when its more that 25 kts cross wind. Or places where topography causes serious chop even below 25 kts.
2. Next, what about the required traffic separation to protect the signals for autolanding? Pretty serious implications for traffic capacity.
3. As usual (for the proponents of "an aircraft can autoland so it doesn't need crew") you completely ignore the fact that the crew are part of the autolanding system, by providing the extra monitoring loops , power supplies (we eat food but don't need electricity) and sensors that are required to assure the level of safety. Aeroplanes are only certified for autolands because of the crew, not inspite of them.
4. The idea that we can accept a lower level of safety for cargo or frieght is also bonkers. You realise that most airborne DG are moved by cargo only aircraft?
As someone with many years operating cat3 aircraft let me tell you categorically that you need to watch them like a hawk, and they do sometimes need intervention. One little wobble and they'll plant you in the grass. Not to mention the more general need in modern aircraft to be able to revert to more basic operation when they decide to go glitchy on you. And those of us with actual experience using modern avionics know exactly how glitchy it can be.
imho drones for some military roles makes perfect sense - the risk of getting shot down anyway means that even a relatively high system loss rate is justifiable. Likewise, if its a war zone anyway, then the risk of a drone spearing in on an innocent bystanders house is relatively small compared to the other war zone risks.
For civil, non public transport use? Well, i can see the arguemnt... but I hope the police force that has it drop on some old biddy is prepared to take the heat.
For public transport use? Utterly crazy.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Pit Bull
The 747 400 was designed a long time ago, and things have come a long way since then.
I used to fly the Seaking with a clockwork AFCS that also required a lot of supervision during night/IMC transitions, but things improve very rapidly in the world of computers
QinetiQ achieves world's first automatic landing of a STOVL aircraft onto a ship
If you can land a harrier automatically on a deck in 2005, imagine what can be done in 2015
The 747 400 was designed a long time ago, and things have come a long way since then.
I used to fly the Seaking with a clockwork AFCS that also required a lot of supervision during night/IMC transitions, but things improve very rapidly in the world of computers
QinetiQ achieves world's first automatic landing of a STOVL aircraft onto a ship
If you can land a harrier automatically on a deck in 2005, imagine what can be done in 2015
"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 stretched the glide."
A perfect glide speed is just that. The speed at which maximum range will be reached. Stretching a glide is impossible beyond perfect glide speed. Due to the innacuracies inherrant in human control, however, only a computer could ever sit perfectly on it. It may be possible to stretch the later stages once in ground effect, but a computer is just as if not more capable of achieving that feat. Very delicate control is the computers forte. Just try flying a U2 or even an airliner by hand at altitude.
A perfect glide speed is just that. The speed at which maximum range will be reached. Stretching a glide is impossible beyond perfect glide speed. Due to the innacuracies inherrant in human control, however, only a computer could ever sit perfectly on it. It may be possible to stretch the later stages once in ground effect, but a computer is just as if not more capable of achieving that feat. Very delicate control is the computers forte. Just try flying a U2 or even an airliner by hand at altitude.
The crew knew that so reduced the flap setting to flatten the glidepath and reached the airfield.
Would a computer have done that? Probably not becasue it would have been in landing mode, and that means flaps down.
BBC News - Hero BA pilot speaks of Heathrow Boeing 777 crash
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mighty Gem
"Would a computer have done that? Probably not becasue it would have been in landing mode, and that means flaps down."
What a bizarre statement.
If the computer was in charge, rather than merely acting as an aid to the whims of a pilot, then yes, of course it would.
You talk as if the computer pilot of the future would be just a dumb autopilot.
Very simple sub-routine.
Measure distance to runway.
Will current configuration give required glide-slope.
If max-glide needed, then assume max-glide profile
simples.
I cannot believe I am defending the bloody things, cos I hate them!
I do believe that one should know the enemy, and the arguments being used on here against them are peurile.
"Would a computer have done that? Probably not becasue it would have been in landing mode, and that means flaps down."
What a bizarre statement.
If the computer was in charge, rather than merely acting as an aid to the whims of a pilot, then yes, of course it would.
You talk as if the computer pilot of the future would be just a dumb autopilot.
Very simple sub-routine.
Measure distance to runway.
Will current configuration give required glide-slope.
If max-glide needed, then assume max-glide profile
simples.
I cannot believe I am defending the bloody things, cos I hate them!
I do believe that one should know the enemy, and the arguments being used on here against them are peurile.