Pilotless Flight UK Airspace Milestone

[Always Up]

Another milestone passed. The commentator reckons 10 years before we see this in mainstream use. I wonder in what role we will see them first and how long before they carry passengers - I would hate to say never. But I think they still have one hell of a job to convince the first passengers to fly without a crew - pioneering in the true sense. Hey just thought perhaps Ryan Air would offer a pilot on a surcharge basis

BBC News - Pilotless flight trialled in UK shared airspace

[VX275]

No passengers? What was the pilot if he wasn't flying it? Answer. A passenger!

I'll only be impressed when the flight is repeated with no flesh and blood on board.

[VinRouge]

I can imagine single pilot ops with pilot crew resting whilst George does everything. Pilot will remain purely for emergencies. Too much potential for a whole new meaning to "unlawful Interference"

[Lonewolf_50]

Pilotless Flight

Sorry, I thought this thread was going to be about Airbus ...

*ducks and hides*

[Stuffy]

Boeing did it in 1981, with a modified B737-200. They had a cockpit in the cabin for back-up.

I believe it flew automatically across the Atlantic, the pilots taking over for the landing.

It was 30+ years ago. I think the aircraft was painted in NASA colours.

It stayed in the same time box. If it fell behind, the aircraft would speed up for a short time. If it became early the aircraft would slow a little. All so the B737, stayed in that time box.

It was successful, yet it was during 1981 !

[BEagle]

First Class, Cattle Class or Drone Class, Sir?

At least an unmanned airliner would protect passengers from the type of 'pilots' who destroy serviceable airliners and kill their passengers as happened with the Air France A330 over the Atlantic and the Turkish Airlines Boeing 737 at Schipol.

I cannot see many fare-paying passengers agreeing to travel 'drone class' though.

[OvertHawk]

I can see Fedex, DHL and the other big freight carriers being very interested in this... Freight will not complain if there is no flesh and blood up front.

OH

[Red Line Entry]

Joe Public clearly has a gut-reaction aversion to flying as a passenger on a pilotless aircraft.

However, surely the most sensible approach would be to compare the predicted accident rate in a pilotless aircraft vs the historic accident rate in a piloted one? In one you gain by avoidance of aircrew error, in the other you gain by the ability to react to unusual circumstances.

[Trim Stab]

But during the 500-mile journey, the specially adapted plane was controlled by a pilot on the ground, instructed by the National Air Traffic Services.

So remotely piloted, not "pilotless". So just as much chance (if not more) of human error. And how does the pilot on the ground make all the other judgment calls that an airline pilot makes during a flight (e.g. avoiding weather, turbulence, birds, other stray aircraft). Does he have to rely on technology to replace Mk1 eyeball?

kill their passengers as happened with the Air France A330 over the Atlantic

That accident was triggered by technical failure (pitot icing) which sent conflicting information to the PFD which was then mis-diagnosed by the crew. But would a computer have diagnosed the problem better? Conflicting information is just the sort of situation that humans are generally better at evaluating than computers. It would be very hard, if not impossible, to write software that could pre-empt every unusual situation which has and could occur on the flight-deck.

[BEagle]

That accident was triggered by technical failure (pitot icing) which sent conflicting information to the PFD which was then mis-diagnosed by the crew. But would a computer have diagnosed the problem better?

Not so much 'mis-diagnosed' as 'grossly mis-handled' by a clearly less than competent crew.

[VX275]

Joe Public clearly has a gut-reaction aversion to flying as a passenger on a pilotless aircraft.

How does Joe Public / SLF know there is a flight crew on their aircraft these days? With the cockpit door closed and bolted unless the cockipt has been spied through a gap in the airbridge the only contact the SLF have with the cockpit is the disembodied "Captain Speaking" voice. Even in the days when one could see a crew up front through an open door I always thought that some of those broadcasts were recordings, they might just as well be ground transmissions.

I think that Joe Public's opinion on crewless flight decks is similar to 'his' dislike of rear facing seats, everyone knows what Joe Public wants but no one has ever asked him.

[Whopity]

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to write software that could pre-empt every unusual situation which has and could occur on the flight-deck.

Just programming some basic aerodynamics would have solved this one Sinclair level computing!

[Fareastdriver]

If a pilotless aircraft flies into a skyscraper; who do you blame?

[Trim Stab]

Just programming some basic aerodynamics would have solved this one Sinclair level computing!

No, because there was conflicting and fluctuating ASI information from the pitots. Software which could reliably deconflict every possible combination of sensor failures (not just pitot - but all the others too) on a complex aircraft would be a massive job. Undoubtedly better trained pilots than the AF pilots could have saved that aircraft, but I doubt that a computer would have succeeded.

[dead_pan]

I doubt that a computer would have succeeded

Surely you could throw all manner of problems at a computer and see how it copes, then make changes and improvements as required. This could be done a lot faster than testing a human crew in a simulator, allowing a much larger range of faults and scenarios to be run.

Still, it would be nice to think that someone was on hand, if only to reassure to the PAX in the event of an emergency. I suppose some bloke in a nice comfy chair at the airline's maintenance center could do the job - a career for all those drone 'pilots' when they leave Waddington?

[HaveQuick2]

Would the Hudson River incident have been handled the same by computers?

[t43562]

ASTRAEA

I went to a lecture at Cranfield by the gentleman in the video last week. I'm interested because of the computing aspects.

They have looked at a lot of issues e.g.:

• Integrating with air traffic control seamlessly without the need to change ATC at all. i.e. at least initially the ground pilot's voice is sent to the plane and then transmitted from there by whatever normal radios the aircraft might use.
• When there are a lot of unmanned vehicles they are going to have problems with bandwidth. Satellite is too expensive and limited. Solution: ad hoc network (data can hop from one aircraft to the next).
• How well to the ground pilots cope with the latency that can be introduced in areas with more or less air traffic. Solution: make sure the best low-latency communications are available in such areas, allow the aircraft to "find the best channel."
• How the aircraft will notice weather conditions, other aircraft and inform the ground pilot and then take action if he eventually does nothing.

It's all here:

Presentations from ASTRAEA National Conference 2012

[AR1]

Flown without pilot intervention? - We could call it 'Autopilot'

[dead_pan]

Would the Hudson River incident have been handled the same by computers?

Depends how intelligent it was and/or how quickly a man could be put in the loop if it did throw in the towel.

Perhaps in such an extreme situation the PAX could be polled on the forced landing options available? That way if they did all perish at least we would know they did so democratically.

[t43562]

This sums it up fairly well. I don't think the intention is for it to be used with passengers. They also make the point that most of these things can be useful with manned aircraft too - in the same way that modern cars can read speed limit signs and warn you if you're too fast or auto-park or can brake when they perceive some very immediate danger.

The bit about UAVs refuelling in flight was interesting.

Probably worth skipping the first 3 minutes.