Robots Win
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Suppose you designed an airliner to fly LHR - JFK with no human pilot (I believe it's technically feasible today). How many seats would you sell ?
The next generation will be comfortable with having no human pilot up the front particularly given the German Wings flight
Danny, if tragedies like these keep happening, you'd probably get a full aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No crew or 4(+) crew. Anything in-between is dangerous.
Well, maybe not dangerous lest some pedantic tw@t nit-picks in the usual unimaginative fashion, but riskier.
Well, maybe not dangerous lest some pedantic tw@t nit-picks in the usual unimaginative fashion, but riskier.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Danny, I agree
but neither would it make a conscious decision to commit suicide and, knowing the consequences, take all it's innocent passengers with it. If computer systems keep on evolving as they are and sufficient redundancy is in place, I think I'd rather take my chances with a computer than a homicidal maniac. Willard makes a good point about flight crew numbers, although flying by committee might be a tad too expensive for most airlines, some are baulking about having a third flight deck crew member. It wouldn't need to be another pilot, a sky marshal or an air engineer perhaps? 
A Black Box has no fear of Death
Guest
Posts: n/a
Surplus,
You're right, though AFAIK, there have been few (if any) suicides of this nature recorded which involved an aircrew member. The terrorist bomber or frustrated highjacker would seem to me a much greater threat.
"The next generation will be comfortable having no human pilot up front, particulary given the German Wings flight".
Bully for the next generation, then ! (but not in my time, I think). Even now I don't see any great demand for driverless trains, buses or cabs. And, if there were any possibilities of the idea catching on, the operators (particuarly the airline companies) would be on to it like a flash. They would dearly love to cut down to one-pilot operation on the shorter hauls as it is (and save a lot of money), but the possibility (indeed the reality, for there have been cases) of a heart attack rules that out.
When I think how my laptop drives me up the wall, all I can say is: "Not this child !"
Danny.
You're right, though AFAIK, there have been few (if any) suicides of this nature recorded which involved an aircrew member. The terrorist bomber or frustrated highjacker would seem to me a much greater threat.
"The next generation will be comfortable having no human pilot up front, particulary given the German Wings flight".
Bully for the next generation, then ! (but not in my time, I think). Even now I don't see any great demand for driverless trains, buses or cabs. And, if there were any possibilities of the idea catching on, the operators (particuarly the airline companies) would be on to it like a flash. They would dearly love to cut down to one-pilot operation on the shorter hauls as it is (and save a lot of money), but the possibility (indeed the reality, for there have been cases) of a heart attack rules that out.
When I think how my laptop drives me up the wall, all I can say is: "Not this child !"
Danny.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wouldn't need to be another pilot, a sky marshal or an air engineer perhaps?
Perhaps the old joke about having a pilot there to feed the dog, and the dog being there to bite the pilot if (s)he touches any of the controls, isn't too far from becoming reality...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a misconception about the software that might be employed on these automated aircraft.
We are talking about software built for one purpose and one purpose only.
To think that an aircraft would be controlled by an app that sits on top of Windows is absurd.
Comparisons with your laptops are just simply wrong.
You all use Flight Management Systems for large parts of the flight if not all.
You are already using autonomous self testing systems.
And lets not forget, as if we ever could, that German pilot used the FMS to cash. He dialled in the numbers and let the aircraft hit a mountain.
Imagine a system that given access to emergency sub systems, knew exactly where it was and had been programmed to 'think' abut the hundreds of other flights that had flown the route before it.
Not much stretch of imagination for it to imagine it saying to itself "Hmm, we are over Mountains, 300 miles from destination, no Runway near us, no emergency reported, all systems working, cabin and cockpit pressure is normal and I have just been commanded to descend to 100 feet"
It then takes control of the aircraft, sets squawk to 7700, levels off and sets airspeed for maximum fuel conserve. Alerts its company and ATC and fires off an emergency signal to every aircraft in the vicinity that something is wrong.
Imagine a system like that in place on 9/11.
I know it all seems a bit Sci-Fi but take a Pilot of 30 years ago, stick him in a modern glass cockpit and how do you think he/she would react.
Edit: Whoops, forgot I was in Mil Aircrew. I'd imagine most of you want to take me outside for a an interview with your boots for suggesting you all use Flight Management Systems to get the job done. But you get the point. :-)
We are talking about software built for one purpose and one purpose only.
To think that an aircraft would be controlled by an app that sits on top of Windows is absurd.
Comparisons with your laptops are just simply wrong.
You all use Flight Management Systems for large parts of the flight if not all.
You are already using autonomous self testing systems.
And lets not forget, as if we ever could, that German pilot used the FMS to cash. He dialled in the numbers and let the aircraft hit a mountain.
Imagine a system that given access to emergency sub systems, knew exactly where it was and had been programmed to 'think' abut the hundreds of other flights that had flown the route before it.
Not much stretch of imagination for it to imagine it saying to itself "Hmm, we are over Mountains, 300 miles from destination, no Runway near us, no emergency reported, all systems working, cabin and cockpit pressure is normal and I have just been commanded to descend to 100 feet"
It then takes control of the aircraft, sets squawk to 7700, levels off and sets airspeed for maximum fuel conserve. Alerts its company and ATC and fires off an emergency signal to every aircraft in the vicinity that something is wrong.
Imagine a system like that in place on 9/11.
I know it all seems a bit Sci-Fi but take a Pilot of 30 years ago, stick him in a modern glass cockpit and how do you think he/she would react.
Edit: Whoops, forgot I was in Mil Aircrew. I'd imagine most of you want to take me outside for a an interview with your boots for suggesting you all use Flight Management Systems to get the job done. But you get the point. :-)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny42C
Do you watch the news at all?
Lots of big names putting autonomous cars on the road at the moment. Huge investments. They think it is happening and are putting their money where their mouth is.
Re unmanned trains. A very short Google search will show you the enormous amount of driverless trains in the world. They have been around for decades.
Do you watch the news at all?
Lots of big names putting autonomous cars on the road at the moment. Huge investments. They think it is happening and are putting their money where their mouth is.
Re unmanned trains. A very short Google search will show you the enormous amount of driverless trains in the world. They have been around for decades.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Driverless cars trialled on UK roads for first time in four towns and cities - Home News - UK - The Independent
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rs-summary.pdf
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercede...driverless-car
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/bmw-hits...riverless-car/
It's happening.....
Those who go on about "what happens when the computer crashes like they all do" are missing the point. Pretty much all modern aircraft both civil and military are already flying via a computer. An Airbus cannot be flown without a servicable computer. There is no reversionary mode that does not involve the pilots inputs going through a computer. If the computer dies we die with it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...rs-summary.pdf
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/mercede...driverless-car
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/bmw-hits...riverless-car/
It's happening.....
Those who go on about "what happens when the computer crashes like they all do" are missing the point. Pretty much all modern aircraft both civil and military are already flying via a computer. An Airbus cannot be flown without a servicable computer. There is no reversionary mode that does not involve the pilots inputs going through a computer. If the computer dies we die with it.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The driverless trains at Gatwick have a big advantage compared with traditional manned trains and open platforms.
The latter is akin to a lift with no doors on the lift shaft. The former has totally enclosed platforms whose doors only open when the train is stopped in the station.
The latter is akin to a lift with no doors on the lift shaft. The former has totally enclosed platforms whose doors only open when the train is stopped in the station.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 19th Apr 2015 at 13:08. Reason: drattex prefix t2t I've text :)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will say again.
There is no reversionary mode that does not go through a computer.
There is no reversionary mode that does not go through a computer.
STP
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, think about it this way.
You are at FL390 in your A320.
The Ruskies set off an EMP near you and all the computers on the aircraft are killed. (no idea if they are in fact hardened, but for the sake of the example lets say they are not.)
How are you landing this aircraft?
Have a think about all the things that a computer runs that you need to put it on the ground.
You are at FL390 in your A320.
The Ruskies set off an EMP near you and all the computers on the aircraft are killed. (no idea if they are in fact hardened, but for the sake of the example lets say they are not.)
How are you landing this aircraft?
Have a think about all the things that a computer runs that you need to put it on the ground.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ruskies set off an EMP near you and all the computers on the aircraft are killed.
STP
P.S. Apologies for the thread drift.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, don't think so, and that is my point.
Those who argue that we can't rely on computers yet are missing the point.
We are already totally reliant on computers continuing to work as advertised.
In the areas that are of particular concern we double/triple/quadruple them up until we lower the risk to acceptable standards.
Those who argue that we can't rely on computers yet are missing the point.
We are already totally reliant on computers continuing to work as advertised.
In the areas that are of particular concern we double/triple/quadruple them up until we lower the risk to acceptable standards.
Tourist has it spot on. There seem to be two main objections to unmanned aircraft :
1. Technical - are there things that a human can do better than a computer as captain of an aircraft (besides chasing hosties)? At the moment, in my opinion, the answer is yes - give it a decade or so and the answer may well be no.
2. Cultural - would Joe Public be happy getting on an unmanned airliner or allowing an autonomous killing machine to fly? At the moment, only a small minority of people probably would. But 10 years ago, I didn't think I'd be able to ask my phone a verbal question and get a sensible, fast and accurate response. As people become more used to what technology is already doing in their daily life, so they will become more accepting of what they will allow it to do.
If you think otherwise, you're in good company - with all those who felt the car would never replace the horse, that aircraft would ever be more than just toys, or that all that nonsense about the practical uses of fire was just Ugg having a daydream!
1. Technical - are there things that a human can do better than a computer as captain of an aircraft (besides chasing hosties)? At the moment, in my opinion, the answer is yes - give it a decade or so and the answer may well be no.
2. Cultural - would Joe Public be happy getting on an unmanned airliner or allowing an autonomous killing machine to fly? At the moment, only a small minority of people probably would. But 10 years ago, I didn't think I'd be able to ask my phone a verbal question and get a sensible, fast and accurate response. As people become more used to what technology is already doing in their daily life, so they will become more accepting of what they will allow it to do.
If you think otherwise, you're in good company - with all those who felt the car would never replace the horse, that aircraft would ever be more than just toys, or that all that nonsense about the practical uses of fire was just Ugg having a daydream!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozy, yes that is exactly where I was heading.
Doesn't matter what clever things you do with the flight controls, the FADEC computers failing will kill you and there is no back-up for that on any aircraft I know about.
For some reason we all seem happy with FADEC though.
I'm guessing its because despite all the "I don't trust a computer" types on here, we have all actually come to trust FADEC because actually they are astonishingly better than humans at their job.
This was in no way a dig at Airbus by the way.
Doesn't matter what clever things you do with the flight controls, the FADEC computers failing will kill you and there is no back-up for that on any aircraft I know about.
For some reason we all seem happy with FADEC though.
I'm guessing its because despite all the "I don't trust a computer" types on here, we have all actually come to trust FADEC because actually they are astonishingly better than humans at their job.
This was in no way a dig at Airbus by the way.