How soon the pilotless airliner?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Moscow
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long ago ( 1988 ) the russians who make computers out of tank spare parts flew space shuttle Buran pilotless, up to space and back.
Now you guys say its not feasible ? I bet the autopilot of Buran was less powerful than iPhone 3.
It's not a matter of technology now, it's the matter of legislation. The tech is there already.
Now you guys say its not feasible ? I bet the autopilot of Buran was less powerful than iPhone 3.
It's not a matter of technology now, it's the matter of legislation. The tech is there already.
Last edited by mitrosft; 23rd Aug 2013 at 10:30.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sometimes flight crews have made th wrong decisions and caused an avoidable accident. All humans are fallible.
In my opinion human fallibility extends to those who design automatic systems and have total faith in the technology and total faith that they have taken all eventualities into account
In my opinion human fallibility extends to those who design automatic systems and have total faith in the technology and total faith that they have taken all eventualities into account
Last edited by fenland787; 23rd Aug 2013 at 11:02.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iceman
Did you bother to watch the videos?
That fully autonomous helicopter is able to scan the terrain in real time and make an assessment of rough unknown terrain and decide where to land.
Throwing an airliner at a disused runway is several orders of magnitude easier than that. It is extremely easy for a modern autopilot to outperform a human pilot in all stages of flight, and has been for decades.
ILS Cat3B is stoneage
The F35 is going to be able to land on a moving carrier automatically IMC in the dark in a storm.
The tech challenges have already been achieved.
fenland787
Have you considered that the pace of technology is very impressive and automation keeps getting better.
Could you honestly say that the quality of todays pilots is as good as those of yesteryear and that tomorrows pilots will be as good as todays?
As tech improves and pilots get ever closer to an automation observer, totally unable to add anything useful to the mix, this can only end in one place.
The one area that the human in the mix is better currently than a computer is in dealing with totally new situations, and this advantage is being eroded very fast by learning computers.
Computers have so many advantages.
Fireflybob
Have you wondered why they didn't bother testing auto takeoff and autoland?
Perhaps because those phases are already in use in operational aircraft including in the case of autoland just about every airliner on the planet?!
Did you bother to watch the videos?
That fully autonomous helicopter is able to scan the terrain in real time and make an assessment of rough unknown terrain and decide where to land.
Throwing an airliner at a disused runway is several orders of magnitude easier than that. It is extremely easy for a modern autopilot to outperform a human pilot in all stages of flight, and has been for decades.
ILS Cat3B is stoneage
The F35 is going to be able to land on a moving carrier automatically IMC in the dark in a storm.
The tech challenges have already been achieved.
fenland787
Have you considered that the pace of technology is very impressive and automation keeps getting better.
Could you honestly say that the quality of todays pilots is as good as those of yesteryear and that tomorrows pilots will be as good as todays?
As tech improves and pilots get ever closer to an automation observer, totally unable to add anything useful to the mix, this can only end in one place.
The one area that the human in the mix is better currently than a computer is in dealing with totally new situations, and this advantage is being eroded very fast by learning computers.
Computers have so many advantages.
Fireflybob
Have you wondered why they didn't bother testing auto takeoff and autoland?
Perhaps because those phases are already in use in operational aircraft including in the case of autoland just about every airliner on the planet?!
I'm not convinced that technology isn't a problem.
When the engine flew to bits on the Qantas A380 in Singapore there were literally hundreds of prioritised warning messages generated. Most systems had been degraded in some way or another. Each time the pilots cleared a warning message the next one appeared below it. The pilots ultimately ignored many of the alerts and started concentrating not on what they had lost but on what they had that worked and landed the aircraft. Once on the ground an engine was unable to be shut down as the physical damage to the controlling system was too great. Eventually all pax deplaned via stairs and no injuries occurred.
What would have been the outcome if this was a fully autonomous aircraft ? If the aircraft did make it back to ground would it have had success in keeping the pax onboard and away from the fuel, hot brakes and running engine? Would it have even considered doing so?
When the engine flew to bits on the Qantas A380 in Singapore there were literally hundreds of prioritised warning messages generated. Most systems had been degraded in some way or another. Each time the pilots cleared a warning message the next one appeared below it. The pilots ultimately ignored many of the alerts and started concentrating not on what they had lost but on what they had that worked and landed the aircraft. Once on the ground an engine was unable to be shut down as the physical damage to the controlling system was too great. Eventually all pax deplaned via stairs and no injuries occurred.
What would have been the outcome if this was a fully autonomous aircraft ? If the aircraft did make it back to ground would it have had success in keeping the pax onboard and away from the fuel, hot brakes and running engine? Would it have even considered doing so?
Throwing an airliner at a disused runway is several orders of magnitude easier than that. It is extremely easy for a modern autopilot to outperform a human pilot in all stages of flight, and has been for decades.
The radar in it paints green when the tops of some nasty CB's are full of ice and often paints magenta below 20,000ft in smooth stratus. If the air/ground switch gets dirt in it the aircraft does all sorts of strange things like opening outflow valves and disengaging automatics.
Human error that is removed from the flight deck will be replaced by human error from and Engineer or Software programmer or factory worker fabricating parts.
Would these aircraft weigh themselves? I got sent a zero fuel weight from our load control department that was intended for another aircraft a few weeks back. It was ten tonnes lighter than we were. Plenty of human error going on in the department responsible for sending weight and balance information to aircraft. We will surely have to automate the data entry for uplinks as well, but hang on, the chap weighing the freight and bags could put a decimal point in the wrong place..... we need to develop a robot for weighing bags.....surely we can remove this pesky human error.
Tourist, so according to you it's all done and dusted - I bow to your superior knowledge.
So you are saying automation can cope with all possible scenarios?
What's your answer to framer's post re the Qantas A380 failure? Would your magic systems cope with such a failure?
You discount Cat IIIb as outdated which I agree with but what happens when the GPS goes down?
So you are saying automation can cope with all possible scenarios?
What's your answer to framer's post re the Qantas A380 failure? Would your magic systems cope with such a failure?
You discount Cat IIIb as outdated which I agree with but what happens when the GPS goes down?
Tourist, please list aircraft types that have automatic take off - am assuming auto takeoff can cope with an engine failure after V1, dump fuel and return for an engine out approach followed by auto Go Around and Autoland with one engine inoperative?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give the UAS a terrain map and it will be able to navigate 'visually' using the shape of the terrain.
All these systems are tested and available now.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@DWS
Oooops, I put in a zero too many. It was $1000 per line. Sorry about that!
http://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/computer.html
Oooops, I put in a zero too many. It was $1000 per line. Sorry about that!
http://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/computer.html
The day I fly to another country in a pilot-less airliner, I will have been gently woken up in the morning by the house, which will have prepared my breakfast and laid out appropriate clothes. The journey to the airport (if such a thing still exists) by autonomous flying car will have been pleasant and allowed me to catch up on the latest events and my personal and business (if such a thing still exists) life.
Checking in, luggage and transport to the aircraft is all taken care of by my software personal assistant, which also looks after the arrangements at the far end, like further transport and immigration (if such a thing still exists).
None of the above are technically infeasible in the future, let alone now. I think we do have a habit of totally underestimating the time to mass adoption of things that are possible but not yet part of our cultures. Pretty much all business today could be done remotely through conferencing, telepresence, etc. but the demand for work-related travel and the need for face-to-face contact is still very much there. We are human, after all. Barring some kind of Singularity, pilot-free passenger A3XXs and the like are not going to be operating overhead for some considerable time, probably not during the careers of any commercial pilots who are qualified now...
Checking in, luggage and transport to the aircraft is all taken care of by my software personal assistant, which also looks after the arrangements at the far end, like further transport and immigration (if such a thing still exists).
None of the above are technically infeasible in the future, let alone now. I think we do have a habit of totally underestimating the time to mass adoption of things that are possible but not yet part of our cultures. Pretty much all business today could be done remotely through conferencing, telepresence, etc. but the demand for work-related travel and the need for face-to-face contact is still very much there. We are human, after all. Barring some kind of Singularity, pilot-free passenger A3XXs and the like are not going to be operating overhead for some considerable time, probably not during the careers of any commercial pilots who are qualified now...
Last edited by FullWings; 23rd Aug 2013 at 14:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, I am not saying that automation can cope with all possible scenarios.
Are you saying that manned cockpits can cope with all possible scenarios?
The inability of an Air France crew to fly an Airbus and an Asiana crew to land in CAVOK suggest otherwise.
What I am saying is that the crossover point between the safest operator of an aircraft being a person or a computer is either very nearly here or very actually here.
People seem to want to hold an automated aircraft to a higher standard of safety than a manned one. The public may agree, but only to a point I feel.
The public has quietly accepted many tech advances over the years that people said "they will never accept that!"
1. Cars that go faster than a man with a flag.
2. Trains without drivers.
to name just two.
Those on here that keep taking about 787 380 etc being unable to cope miss the point entirely.
They were never intended to cope, so they can't.
It is not technically difficult with todays level of technology.
GPS is just one of the many many ways an aircraft could fly an approach.
FLIR/ground mapping radar/INS/GPS can all be seamlessly combined without any new leaps of tech or risk.
...and yes, an aircraft can weigh itself.
Are you saying that manned cockpits can cope with all possible scenarios?
The inability of an Air France crew to fly an Airbus and an Asiana crew to land in CAVOK suggest otherwise.
What I am saying is that the crossover point between the safest operator of an aircraft being a person or a computer is either very nearly here or very actually here.
People seem to want to hold an automated aircraft to a higher standard of safety than a manned one. The public may agree, but only to a point I feel.
The public has quietly accepted many tech advances over the years that people said "they will never accept that!"
1. Cars that go faster than a man with a flag.
2. Trains without drivers.
to name just two.
Those on here that keep taking about 787 380 etc being unable to cope miss the point entirely.
They were never intended to cope, so they can't.
It is not technically difficult with todays level of technology.
GPS is just one of the many many ways an aircraft could fly an approach.
FLIR/ground mapping radar/INS/GPS can all be seamlessly combined without any new leaps of tech or risk.
...and yes, an aircraft can weigh itself.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Have you considered that the pace of technology is very impressive and automation keeps getting better.
Could you honestly say that the quality of todays pilots is as good as those of yesteryear and that tomorrows pilots will be as good as todays?
The one area that the human in the mix is better currently than a computer is in dealing with totally new situations,
and this advantage is being eroded very fast by learning computers
Computers have so many advantages.
All of which brings me right back to my post:
"The current arrangement - using a combination of the two - is a great solution to flying large tubes full of people around a crowded sky"
Last edited by fenland787; 23rd Aug 2013 at 14:28.
PPRuNe, thank you for this thread. At least now I see that it's not only aviation infested with folks spurting out long diatribes demonstrating they are pretty clueless about what they claim to be experts in, computer science is affected too.
Not to mention that mix of aeronautical and computers ignorance is quite amusing to read - especially when combined with unjustified assertiveness.
Not to mention that mix of aeronautical and computers ignorance is quite amusing to read - especially when combined with unjustified assertiveness.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't kid yourselves
There's a lot of people saying here 'can it cope with this, can it cope with that?' when the answer will probably be no - not in a carefully selected scenario where automation is obviously at a disadvantage.
What will make the difference is not all those outliers where occasionally a superhuman effort pulled a rabbit out of a hat in remarkable circumstances. It will be the routine elimination of fatigue, inattention and other human related CFIT and similar accidents.
When aircraft are automated there will be accidents and loss of life. When humans fly, there are accidents and loss of life. Those scenarios and events will be obviously different from each other and there will be a clear distinction between human-engendered incidents and those that are down to automation.
As automation improves, the balance of probabilities will shift. At some point, it will clearly be evident that machine-flying, overall, would lose fewer lives per year than hand-flying, even though the accident profiles are different. Some number of years after that, well after it becomes obvious to anyone who can read the statistics, the regulatory bodies and the industry will adapt.
If it's clearly proven that the odds of surviving a flight are better when it's automated than hand-flown, I'll be buying tickets and so will the public.
What will make the difference is not all those outliers where occasionally a superhuman effort pulled a rabbit out of a hat in remarkable circumstances. It will be the routine elimination of fatigue, inattention and other human related CFIT and similar accidents.
When aircraft are automated there will be accidents and loss of life. When humans fly, there are accidents and loss of life. Those scenarios and events will be obviously different from each other and there will be a clear distinction between human-engendered incidents and those that are down to automation.
As automation improves, the balance of probabilities will shift. At some point, it will clearly be evident that machine-flying, overall, would lose fewer lives per year than hand-flying, even though the accident profiles are different. Some number of years after that, well after it becomes obvious to anyone who can read the statistics, the regulatory bodies and the industry will adapt.
If it's clearly proven that the odds of surviving a flight are better when it's automated than hand-flown, I'll be buying tickets and so will the public.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buran took off through its own airspace in good weather, flying under power for about eight minutes. It flew back through its own airspace for about thirty minutes and landed in good weather.
That's trivial compared to taking off and landing through congested airspace in poor weather, like an airliner flying in and out of Heathrow.
The American space shuttle was capable of the same, with some wiring mods. But if Columbia had tried it, we'd have lost it on the first flight, because the guidance equations programmed into the computer were incorrect; the crew saw the computer wasn't flying properly and took over for part of the re-entry.
The world is full of software projects where they hack together something very simple and do it so fast that everyone expects the full system with all the bells and whistles to be available next week. But they're still trying to get it to work in the real world years later, because it's all the unexpected cases that kill you.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell me again how computers can't fly better than people?
These are mere cheap toys played with by students with tiny budgets.
They cost less than a display screen in an airbus yet autonomously operate amongst their fellows.
The improvements in air traffic safety and fuel economy are obvious when this sort of system is in place.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Madrid, Spain
Age: 39
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we have to take out of the plane the creative device (also called "Pilot"), when we have other devices that try to eliminate the human error but those are not so creative? Is it not better to maintain both, to try to eliminate dangerous "interferences" and to use the better of the two?
All of us know what a beancounter would say but... under a fully technical point of view... why do we have to rely in only one "system"?
All of us know what a beancounter would say but... under a fully technical point of view... why do we have to rely in only one "system"?