How soon the pilotless airliner?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pay to Fly / P2F
Thanks to Pay to Fly we already more or less have 'pilotless' aircraft, at least for accounting purposes.
Additional benefit is that there are still two very convenient and cheap scapegoats sitting up front for when the proverbial sh!t hits the fan...
Just call it "pilot error," blame the crew and the everyone (read: responsible authorities, postholder managers, pilot schools selling P2F and P4T scams) can continue business as usual...
Why would any, any aircraft builder consider squandering the skyhigh development costs and assume the enormous liability for a truly pilotless aircraft, when you can put two button pushing MPL slaves up front who even pay for the privilege of following a magenta line?
Yeah, go ahead and call me a cynic, just project the developments from the last 10 years forward another 10 years...
Additional benefit is that there are still two very convenient and cheap scapegoats sitting up front for when the proverbial sh!t hits the fan...
Just call it "pilot error," blame the crew and the everyone (read: responsible authorities, postholder managers, pilot schools selling P2F and P4T scams) can continue business as usual...
Why would any, any aircraft builder consider squandering the skyhigh development costs and assume the enormous liability for a truly pilotless aircraft, when you can put two button pushing MPL slaves up front who even pay for the privilege of following a magenta line?
Yeah, go ahead and call me a cynic, just project the developments from the last 10 years forward another 10 years...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MG23,
What your previous answer says is that ATC will still be relevant in a pilotless plane. It will also solve the 'using standard aviation English in RT' problem. No more problems with accents, bad english etc etc. There will be other problems for sure.
Pilots that use as argument the 'navigating in congested environment' in order to keep humans in the cockpit, just make a case for the opposite.
And by the way, autonomous spaceflight and rendezvous (Bouran, ATVs et.al.) are a lot more complicated that you make it sound (i.e. great engineering achievements) but probably autonomous airflight is now more advanced than autonomous spaceflight.
What your previous answer says is that ATC will still be relevant in a pilotless plane. It will also solve the 'using standard aviation English in RT' problem. No more problems with accents, bad english etc etc. There will be other problems for sure.
Pilots that use as argument the 'navigating in congested environment' in order to keep humans in the cockpit, just make a case for the opposite.
And by the way, autonomous spaceflight and rendezvous (Bouran, ATVs et.al.) are a lot more complicated that you make it sound (i.e. great engineering achievements) but probably autonomous airflight is now more advanced than autonomous spaceflight.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I was pointing out was that the last 10% of a complex software project takes 90% of the time, or more when that 10% will kill people when it screws up. Yet people regularly see a project that works well in perfect conditions in its early stages, and claim they can have it operational very soon.
Writing software that works in perfect conditions is easy. Writing software that doesn't crash and burn when something unexpected happens is hard. Writing software which has to make decisions like 'I can continue this landing approach and maybe get down with everyone alive before the remaining engine fails, but if it fails early I might crash into that housing estate and kill everyone on board and hundreds of people on the ground, so do I risk it?' is pretty much impossible.
To solve that, any 'pilotless' airliner is going to end up requiring some kind of remote piloting capability, which just creates another way for bad guys to make it crash and burn.
Last edited by MG23; 23rd Aug 2013 at 18:36.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re atc required.
Watch this video all the way through.
Some of it is not particularly relevant though still quite interesting, and some of it is quite simply the future of atc.
Autonomous with no central control.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another issue to consider: software upgrades.
Suppose there's an AF447-style crash, this time with a pilotless airliner. Multiple simultaneous sensor failures trigger a software bug ('we only tested dual failures, because a triple failure should never happen'), and the plane flies into the sea.
Bug has to be found, patched and tested. Now hundreds of airliners have to be upgraded. Each upgrade probably requires taking it out of service for a couple of days to install and test before you can risk putting passengers on board.
Or the airline can keep it flying. It's a rare condition, not likely to happen again before the next scheduled maintenance. But it might, and then everyone dies.
Who's going to take the risk of not upgrading? Who's going to fly as a passenger if they don't, knowing there's a fatal bug in the software flying the plane and there's nothing anyone can do to save them if it's triggered?
These are the kind of real-world issues that kill the grand utopian plans.
Suppose there's an AF447-style crash, this time with a pilotless airliner. Multiple simultaneous sensor failures trigger a software bug ('we only tested dual failures, because a triple failure should never happen'), and the plane flies into the sea.
Bug has to be found, patched and tested. Now hundreds of airliners have to be upgraded. Each upgrade probably requires taking it out of service for a couple of days to install and test before you can risk putting passengers on board.
Or the airline can keep it flying. It's a rare condition, not likely to happen again before the next scheduled maintenance. But it might, and then everyone dies.
Who's going to take the risk of not upgrading? Who's going to fly as a passenger if they don't, knowing there's a fatal bug in the software flying the plane and there's nothing anyone can do to save them if it's triggered?
These are the kind of real-world issues that kill the grand utopian plans.
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.
human-engendered
One assumption that non- pilots make a lot in this thread is that pilots cause more problems than they create. The opposite is true. From planning stage to disembarkation we are recognising and mitigating errors made by software designers ( incorrect coding of waypoints etc) engineers, ATC, aircraft designers, meteorologists, baggage handlers, load control staff etc. Notice any similarities between these parties? They all have human input to the system, sometimes years in advance.How do we remove that human input? We can't, we would just be moving it away from the aircraft.
Pilots, like every other human make mistakes, but don't forget that we also recognise and fix them.
Even if it did fly I would hate to see the insurance premiums.
It would be much easier to hijack not to mention the risk of 'black swan' events where a human would save the day. QF 32, UA 232, BA 38, DHL Bagdad, etc aren't going to be saved by a UAV.
It would be much easier to hijack not to mention the risk of 'black swan' events where a human would save the day. QF 32, UA 232, BA 38, DHL Bagdad, etc aren't going to be saved by a UAV.
Answer to the OP:
Never.
U
Never.
U
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,096
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said in an earlier post and now repeat/expand;
First you have to find a manufacturer who is prepared to spend billions on R & D and currently that doesn't happen until the likely market has been thoroughly canvassed and letters of intent signed sufficient for the plane maker to think it is, in their opinion, viable.
Second you have to convince the insurance industry that it is a worthwhile risk and that a bunch of computers won't cause a major crash in the centre of a big city and leave them staring at a bill for, literally, billions. We human pilots have managed to convince them we are worth the risk but until the computer industry can do the same, with the aid of an airframe maker, the insurance industry won't touch it.
I don't see these two obstacles being cleared any time soon, there simply isn't enough money available.
It will prove cheaper to continue with human pilots, albeit backed up by ever improving automation. (Which may produce even cheaper pilots!).
Finally, the entire system worldwide will have to be terrorist proof.
Tourist - I appreciate BAe Systems have done a lot of work in the automation field but that doesn't come close to the cost of building a full size passenger transport aircraft and completing a full flight test programme right through to certification.
And to the poster who said he would buy a ticket and so would the public, methinks you must be related to Methuselah.
First you have to find a manufacturer who is prepared to spend billions on R & D and currently that doesn't happen until the likely market has been thoroughly canvassed and letters of intent signed sufficient for the plane maker to think it is, in their opinion, viable.
Second you have to convince the insurance industry that it is a worthwhile risk and that a bunch of computers won't cause a major crash in the centre of a big city and leave them staring at a bill for, literally, billions. We human pilots have managed to convince them we are worth the risk but until the computer industry can do the same, with the aid of an airframe maker, the insurance industry won't touch it.
I don't see these two obstacles being cleared any time soon, there simply isn't enough money available.
It will prove cheaper to continue with human pilots, albeit backed up by ever improving automation. (Which may produce even cheaper pilots!).
Finally, the entire system worldwide will have to be terrorist proof.
Tourist - I appreciate BAe Systems have done a lot of work in the automation field but that doesn't come close to the cost of building a full size passenger transport aircraft and completing a full flight test programme right through to certification.
And to the poster who said he would buy a ticket and so would the public, methinks you must be related to Methuselah.
Last edited by parabellum; 24th Aug 2013 at 03:29.
Curious if you guys are familiar with the FAA "Next Gen" air traffic control system in development? You know, the one that will basically take the human element out of the air traffic system and let computers run it, because the humans are too fallible? 
Just asking...
Listen, I deal with flight critical software on a daily basis. And I've heard all the complaints before - except they were directed at FADEC engine controls, glass flight deck displays, and fly by wire flight controls - systems that are now commonplace. I remember, back when FADEC engines were being introduced, there were long-timers that were insisting we had to do a full functional test engine run every time we replaced a component because "the software might be loaded wrong".
I also remember so-called experts that insisted that before we could certify FADEC or FBW, we'd need different software in each control channel so a single s/w error couldn't take down the airplane (no, we don't currently do that, although some of the early systems did).
In theory, a single software error in a FADEC could cause all engines to loose 90% thrust as soon as the aircraft leaves the ground. I doubt the best stick and rudder pilot in the world is going to be able to turn that into a happy ending (at least not without a huge helping of good luck). Similarly a single error in the FBW code could command full nose down at 200 ft. during final - regardless of the control input. Pretty much a guaranteed really bad day. Any one out there refusing to fly on FADEC or FBW airplanes because the s/w can overrule what the pilot commands?
Computer power is growing exponentially - assuming Moore's law holds for another 10 years, computers in 2023 will have ~100 times the processing power that today's computers have. The automatics in the 777 - which most consider to be pretty sophisticated - are for the most part 20 years old. That's pretty much antique in the electronics world (in fact a major problem is component obsolescence - we simply cannot get the electronic bits that we certified with 20 years ago, and certifying even drop-in replacement parts can be slow and hugely expensive).
By necessity, electronics advances in commercial aviation are slow and tedious. It used to be we copied military - only a few years later - but military developments have slowed (how long has the F-35 been in development?), and make up an insignificant portion of the electronic market. Used to be we used Mil Spec electronics for flight critical avionics, but to a large extent they are not even available anymore - we're using Commercial Off The Shelf stuff, just screened to higher standards that what's in your laptop.
Watch what's happening in the automotive world, where product cycles are 4 or 5 years (many consider the 777 to be 'new' - cert and EIS was in 1995 - compared a 1995 car to a new car lately?). Experts are saying that fully autonomous cars will become common in 10 to 15 years. At first, it'll be an option on the high end luxury cars - you know, something to take you to the office while you do paperwork, or get you home from the pub after you've had a few too many. But soon they'll spread down-market (see anti-lock brakes, stability control, etc.). Then you'll be able to use an app on your phone (or whatever it's morphed to then) to summon a driverless taxi that'll take you to your destination and automatically charge your credit card or bank account (why did I just visualize Johnny Cab in Total Recall)
Before long, it'll become apparent that the accident rate for autonomous cars is a small fraction of those with drivers, and the accidents that do occur are nearly always the fault of a human driver. People who insist on driving themselves will be banished to back roads and such and hit with huge insurance premiums.
Will this happen soon? No, probably not in my lifetime, at least I hope not - I like driving (fast)
(and I hope I'm good for at least another 30 or 40 years
). But I have little doubt it will happen. Imagine a future where autonomous cars have made traffic accidents a rare occurrence (and fatalities almost non-existent). A future where the drive to the airport is no longer the most dangerous part of air travel because the human pilots still cause CFIT accidents on a regular basis.
Do you really think, in that future, people will continue to insist that humans pilot the airplanes they fly on?
Just asking...Listen, I deal with flight critical software on a daily basis. And I've heard all the complaints before - except they were directed at FADEC engine controls, glass flight deck displays, and fly by wire flight controls - systems that are now commonplace. I remember, back when FADEC engines were being introduced, there were long-timers that were insisting we had to do a full functional test engine run every time we replaced a component because "the software might be loaded wrong".
I also remember so-called experts that insisted that before we could certify FADEC or FBW, we'd need different software in each control channel so a single s/w error couldn't take down the airplane (no, we don't currently do that, although some of the early systems did).In theory, a single software error in a FADEC could cause all engines to loose 90% thrust as soon as the aircraft leaves the ground. I doubt the best stick and rudder pilot in the world is going to be able to turn that into a happy ending (at least not without a huge helping of good luck). Similarly a single error in the FBW code could command full nose down at 200 ft. during final - regardless of the control input. Pretty much a guaranteed really bad day. Any one out there refusing to fly on FADEC or FBW airplanes because the s/w can overrule what the pilot commands?
Computer power is growing exponentially - assuming Moore's law holds for another 10 years, computers in 2023 will have ~100 times the processing power that today's computers have. The automatics in the 777 - which most consider to be pretty sophisticated - are for the most part 20 years old. That's pretty much antique in the electronics world (in fact a major problem is component obsolescence - we simply cannot get the electronic bits that we certified with 20 years ago, and certifying even drop-in replacement parts can be slow and hugely expensive).
By necessity, electronics advances in commercial aviation are slow and tedious. It used to be we copied military - only a few years later - but military developments have slowed (how long has the F-35 been in development?), and make up an insignificant portion of the electronic market. Used to be we used Mil Spec electronics for flight critical avionics, but to a large extent they are not even available anymore - we're using Commercial Off The Shelf stuff, just screened to higher standards that what's in your laptop.
Watch what's happening in the automotive world, where product cycles are 4 or 5 years (many consider the 777 to be 'new' - cert and EIS was in 1995 - compared a 1995 car to a new car lately?). Experts are saying that fully autonomous cars will become common in 10 to 15 years. At first, it'll be an option on the high end luxury cars - you know, something to take you to the office while you do paperwork, or get you home from the pub after you've had a few too many. But soon they'll spread down-market (see anti-lock brakes, stability control, etc.). Then you'll be able to use an app on your phone (or whatever it's morphed to then) to summon a driverless taxi that'll take you to your destination and automatically charge your credit card or bank account (why did I just visualize Johnny Cab in Total Recall
)Before long, it'll become apparent that the accident rate for autonomous cars is a small fraction of those with drivers, and the accidents that do occur are nearly always the fault of a human driver. People who insist on driving themselves will be banished to back roads and such and hit with huge insurance premiums.
Will this happen soon? No, probably not in my lifetime, at least I hope not - I like driving (fast)
(and I hope I'm good for at least another 30 or 40 years). But I have little doubt it will happen. Imagine a future where autonomous cars have made traffic accidents a rare occurrence (and fatalities almost non-existent). A future where the drive to the airport is no longer the most dangerous part of air travel because the human pilots still cause CFIT accidents on a regular basis.Do you really think, in that future, people will continue to insist that humans pilot the airplanes they fly on?
Last edited by tdracer; 24th Aug 2013 at 05:11.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Moscow
Age: 54
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes.
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.
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.
But my point was that computing power as of today allows it. The sofware may still need some testing ( years maybe) BUT ! Remember the Bodenzee crash, TCAS did know exactly were both aircraft were at 50 miles before impact, it was dumb Russians with poor English command and same sllepy Swiss who did it.
Now TCAS with some added soft can navigate you in Heathrow air space just as well and faster, because it will start maneuvering the plane BEFORE a human ATC can pronounce GOLF CHARLIE bla bla bla and pilot will acknowledge it.
I am not saying that Im fond of automated planes. But having graduated from Aviation Institute with engineering degree in automated systems I vote for automated cars every day. This will bring down road deaths from more that 1000 per day globally to maybe 10 just because the Intel chip cannot drink
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very impressed with what modern technology can do, but it is not just a question of how reliable the system is, it is a question of how humans perceive it. Governments will have to deal with uproar from the press and public and possibly insurers when pilot-less plane flights are announced. People have long memories of unsinkable ships sinking and "perfect" systems failing.
Once this is dealt with satisfactorily the airlines and authorities will then have to decide if there will be no pilot at all, or perhaps one "just in case".
How many times have drunk/rowdy/aggressive/disturbed passengers refused to be controlled by flight attendants, yet when the Captain comes out and has a few firm words they HAVE finally calmed down?
In the Quantas A380 incident mentioned earlier the entire crew had to keep the passengers as calm as possible for an hour before letting them disembark safely. I have little doubt that the presence and explanations of the HUMAN pilots would have been critical in avoiding a riot and break out.
Would the passengers have responded favourably to a synthesised voice telling them to remain in their seats when they can see fire outside? After that serious tech failure, would they trust the e-voice?
So perhaps we will have to keep a single pilot in our "pilot-less" airliner, able to take control in an extreme situation.
So this pilot enters, performs all necessary checks and tests, then sits back while the plane gets on with the journey. Four hours later there is a major problem and suddenly there is a real need for a fully alert, fast-thinking pilot, but our solitary bored hero has fallen into a state of total torpor. Perhaps our pilot will have to be fitted with an "Active Mode/Passive Mode" switch which is triggered by the computer as necessary.
Still, whatever scenarios can be imagined to question or confirm the technology, the human element is more important. I am fascinated by the technology and marvel at it, but I think the big questions here will soon not be "does it work" but "will the insurers, governments and most of all the public - in the plane and on the ground- accept it and how will they interface with it?"
Once this is dealt with satisfactorily the airlines and authorities will then have to decide if there will be no pilot at all, or perhaps one "just in case".
How many times have drunk/rowdy/aggressive/disturbed passengers refused to be controlled by flight attendants, yet when the Captain comes out and has a few firm words they HAVE finally calmed down?
In the Quantas A380 incident mentioned earlier the entire crew had to keep the passengers as calm as possible for an hour before letting them disembark safely. I have little doubt that the presence and explanations of the HUMAN pilots would have been critical in avoiding a riot and break out.
Would the passengers have responded favourably to a synthesised voice telling them to remain in their seats when they can see fire outside? After that serious tech failure, would they trust the e-voice?
So perhaps we will have to keep a single pilot in our "pilot-less" airliner, able to take control in an extreme situation.
So this pilot enters, performs all necessary checks and tests, then sits back while the plane gets on with the journey. Four hours later there is a major problem and suddenly there is a real need for a fully alert, fast-thinking pilot, but our solitary bored hero has fallen into a state of total torpor. Perhaps our pilot will have to be fitted with an "Active Mode/Passive Mode" switch which is triggered by the computer as necessary.
Still, whatever scenarios can be imagined to question or confirm the technology, the human element is more important. I am fascinated by the technology and marvel at it, but I think the big questions here will soon not be "does it work" but "will the insurers, governments and most of all the public - in the plane and on the ground- accept it and how will they interface with it?"
TD Racer - Spot on. Do you remember the arguments that broke out when the first cars came out equipped with ABS? "How can a stupid computer know how to brake better than my (insert years) or experience?" Now people have accepted that under 99% of conditions an average driver will be better off stamping on the brake pedal and letting the ABS computer do its thing.
One of the latest Ferrari's is faster around a race circuit when the computer systems can intervene to assist the driver than with the driver doing it without aids. To prove the point that some exceptional humans can beat the microchips, apparently Michael Schumacher was the only driver to better his times with all the driver aids turned off.
There was a debate that perhaps Sully could have made it to whatever the alternate airport was, but in his judgement he could not have. That doesn't in any way damn his airmanship - he did the best with what he had (Mk 1 grey matter and years of experience)he saved a plane load of people, but a computer could have probably made a definitive calculation within seconds of the impacts rather than 15-20 or 30 seconds that Sully took. Maybe that airport was within range given the known parameters - a computer if programmed correctly would certainly have known.
Autonomous driverless cars are now a reality and being tested. Many would argue that despite being a simpler 2D (no altitude) environment that the roads are a far more chaotic environment.
I don't agree that it cannot be done, nor do I agree that people will never trust a computer. When the general public is satisfied that computers stuff up less often than pilots, then the sheeple will embrace the tech.
I personally would still like to see a pilot in an emergency centre somewhere that can evaluate the computers decisions when things do not go according to plan, and make corrections where necessary.
One of the latest Ferrari's is faster around a race circuit when the computer systems can intervene to assist the driver than with the driver doing it without aids. To prove the point that some exceptional humans can beat the microchips, apparently Michael Schumacher was the only driver to better his times with all the driver aids turned off.
There was a debate that perhaps Sully could have made it to whatever the alternate airport was, but in his judgement he could not have. That doesn't in any way damn his airmanship - he did the best with what he had (Mk 1 grey matter and years of experience)he saved a plane load of people, but a computer could have probably made a definitive calculation within seconds of the impacts rather than 15-20 or 30 seconds that Sully took. Maybe that airport was within range given the known parameters - a computer if programmed correctly would certainly have known.
Autonomous driverless cars are now a reality and being tested. Many would argue that despite being a simpler 2D (no altitude) environment that the roads are a far more chaotic environment.
I don't agree that it cannot be done, nor do I agree that people will never trust a computer. When the general public is satisfied that computers stuff up less often than pilots, then the sheeple will embrace the tech.
I personally would still like to see a pilot in an emergency centre somewhere that can evaluate the computers decisions when things do not go according to plan, and make corrections where necessary.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A PPrune thread on planes with no pilots aboard.
Ah yes, the semi-yearly mating call of the engineers.
Tell you what, mates. You get that 787 going for a couple of years without an inflight emergency and we'll move on to the next challenge.....
Meanwhile, I'll go fly 777 Freighters. We carry four (4) pilots. The horror!
Ah yes, the semi-yearly mating call of the engineers.
Tell you what, mates. You get that 787 going for a couple of years without an inflight emergency and we'll move on to the next challenge.....
Meanwhile, I'll go fly 777 Freighters. We carry four (4) pilots. The horror!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bean-counters fly aeroplanes, in the sense that they buy them, buy the crew for them, buy maintenance for them, buy advertising for their brand of service and then put them into the skies to earn a return on the capital used. In the bean-counter's mind margin is everything, hammer down costs in the flight factory whilst finding ways to promote a premium service on board to push up fares for as many seats as possible. Concorde was profitable once the right fare was established in the consumer's mind. Concorde wasn't killed off by flight 4590's PR hit as the piece of metal on the runway wasn't Concorde's fault. Concorde died because of the underlying fundamentals of rising costs in its flight factory; flight 4590 just made it convenient to call time. Super-sonic is a margin dreamland for the premium fare and the SSJ executive jet will soon be here with sonic boom. Ramp up margins again once sonic and boom are no longer closely associated words for fast travel (Aircraft Systems Research Group : Institute of Aeronautical Technology - silent supersonic).
Similarly automation and the right story for its PR will get it introduced as soon as the margin benefits appear. Will automation get fatigued, need rest/layover hotel rooms, demand changes in working practices, want pay-rises, have to belong to a Union, need multiple shifts on long legs? No. Will there be "teething problems"? Yes, in the same way the new tech of the 787 is having teething problems or the all-aluminium pressurised airframe had teething problems (De Havilland Comet). 60 years ago to the year, Comets were falling out of the sky in bits because an aspect of aluminium technology was not understood. Should aviation had stuck to the airframe technology of the Dehavilland Mosquito or worked through the problems of the Comet? By analogy there will be a point in the future when customers will only want to fly 787 type technology because the 380 type will look fuddy-duddy/quaint/bizarre/dangerous. Extrapolating there will be a time when having a human do the flying will be viewed in an equally suspicious fashion. In between there will be losses and discoveries of what collectively is not known. You can also see a bean-counter insisting that all human pilot-monitoring (of automation) roles are dual-functioned - when not needed to do "pilot-stuff" they should be on-board with another capability adding to the bottom-line, perhaps as a flight marshal or part of the hosting staff?
Similarly automation and the right story for its PR will get it introduced as soon as the margin benefits appear. Will automation get fatigued, need rest/layover hotel rooms, demand changes in working practices, want pay-rises, have to belong to a Union, need multiple shifts on long legs? No. Will there be "teething problems"? Yes, in the same way the new tech of the 787 is having teething problems or the all-aluminium pressurised airframe had teething problems (De Havilland Comet). 60 years ago to the year, Comets were falling out of the sky in bits because an aspect of aluminium technology was not understood. Should aviation had stuck to the airframe technology of the Dehavilland Mosquito or worked through the problems of the Comet? By analogy there will be a point in the future when customers will only want to fly 787 type technology because the 380 type will look fuddy-duddy/quaint/bizarre/dangerous. Extrapolating there will be a time when having a human do the flying will be viewed in an equally suspicious fashion. In between there will be losses and discoveries of what collectively is not known. You can also see a bean-counter insisting that all human pilot-monitoring (of automation) roles are dual-functioned - when not needed to do "pilot-stuff" they should be on-board with another capability adding to the bottom-line, perhaps as a flight marshal or part of the hosting staff?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huck
I'm a pilot, not an engineer.
I don't argue that it will happen because I want it to, I argue that it will happen because those bloody engineer keep making planes that need less and less pilot involvement.
Many argue on here about who is responsible for the relentless fall in pilot terms and conditions, and the simple answer is that engineers are.
Every time they make the job just that little bit easier and safer, a few more people fall into the demographic of people who can do the pilot job within the legally required safety margins.
People on here who argue that pilotless aircraft will not happen because nobody will insure them/certify them have missed the point. As these systems improve, it may be that insurers will only insure pilotless planes.
parabellum
Full size or tiny toy, the technology is the same, but easier to fit to a large airframe.
MG23
I don't think you understand how software patches work.
You upload to all the aircraft in the fleet.
Job done.
You do not then have to test in each aircraft.
To have the same effect in a human pilot requires individual training and vast expense.
I'm a pilot, not an engineer.
I don't argue that it will happen because I want it to, I argue that it will happen because those bloody engineer keep making planes that need less and less pilot involvement.
Many argue on here about who is responsible for the relentless fall in pilot terms and conditions, and the simple answer is that engineers are.
Every time they make the job just that little bit easier and safer, a few more people fall into the demographic of people who can do the pilot job within the legally required safety margins.
People on here who argue that pilotless aircraft will not happen because nobody will insure them/certify them have missed the point. As these systems improve, it may be that insurers will only insure pilotless planes.
parabellum
Full size or tiny toy, the technology is the same, but easier to fit to a large airframe.
MG23
I don't think you understand how software patches work.
You upload to all the aircraft in the fleet.
Job done.
You do not then have to test in each aircraft.
To have the same effect in a human pilot requires individual training and vast expense.