How soon the pilotless airliner?
It's thinking skills that count, more than flying skills
OK I am not a pilot. John Farley was chief test pilot on the Harrier and knows a thing or two about aviation and automation. I'll quote something he wrote in Flight Magazine about the Hudson ditching.
He said that the failure of both engines in a place from which a runway could not be reached is beyond any plausible capability of an automatic pilot to decide what to do next. But a human, keeping his cool, could decide to instruct the system to land on the river, and once instructed, the system could in principle carry out this difficult task better than most humans would do it.
He said that the failure of both engines in a place from which a runway could not be reached is beyond any plausible capability of an automatic pilot to decide what to do next. But a human, keeping his cool, could decide to instruct the system to land on the river, and once instructed, the system could in principle carry out this difficult task better than most humans would do it.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Jockey A4
The question is not about what you hope will happen, it's about what will happen.....
The sad thing about anonymous websites is that when autonomous aircraft do happen, and believe me they will, I will not only be unemployed, but I won't even have the chance to gloat about being right!
It has already happened in the military with autonomous UAVs and autonomous UCAVs under development and this is where the big spend comes from. Next I would guess the cargo sector goes single pilot leveraging the now commonplace technology from the military, then a low cost will successfully lobby for single pilot. Then the USAF will start flying their strat airlift pilotless worldwide. Then a cargo outfit will try autonomous between out of the way places and when the statistics show how much safer and cheaper it is, then the public will be persuaded without much difficulty.
Remember, Ryanair has passengers despite rightly or wrongly everyone suspecting they are more dangerous than other airlines. The wallet is a powerful.
The question is not about what you hope will happen, it's about what will happen.....
The sad thing about anonymous websites is that when autonomous aircraft do happen, and believe me they will, I will not only be unemployed, but I won't even have the chance to gloat about being right!
It has already happened in the military with autonomous UAVs and autonomous UCAVs under development and this is where the big spend comes from. Next I would guess the cargo sector goes single pilot leveraging the now commonplace technology from the military, then a low cost will successfully lobby for single pilot. Then the USAF will start flying their strat airlift pilotless worldwide. Then a cargo outfit will try autonomous between out of the way places and when the statistics show how much safer and cheaper it is, then the public will be persuaded without much difficulty.
Remember, Ryanair has passengers despite rightly or wrongly everyone suspecting they are more dangerous than other airlines. The wallet is a powerful.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
911slf
Yes, as agreed earlier, the one area that humans are superior to computers is in extrapolation. Using related or unrelated knowledge to work out how do deal with something completely new.
Sully was excellent and saved the day.
However, the technology in the autonomous helicopter in my previous post is capable of working out where to land a helicopter. This is no different than working out where to plant an airliner, and in terms of glide control no human can match an autopilot, and no computer would forget to press the ditching switch. (not a dig at Sully whom I have enormous respect for, just a dig at the very serious limitations of humans)
Remind me how many human pilots have screwed up and flown perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground? Not all pilots are Sully.
It would be interesting to discover just how many accidents have been caused by the pilots ignoring instruments/autopilots/TCAS/EGPWS versus saved by the pilots ignoring same over the last 50 years.
I honestly don't know which side of the line we would currently be on, but the graph is only going to be going one way as tech improves.
Yes, as agreed earlier, the one area that humans are superior to computers is in extrapolation. Using related or unrelated knowledge to work out how do deal with something completely new.
Sully was excellent and saved the day.
However, the technology in the autonomous helicopter in my previous post is capable of working out where to land a helicopter. This is no different than working out where to plant an airliner, and in terms of glide control no human can match an autopilot, and no computer would forget to press the ditching switch. (not a dig at Sully whom I have enormous respect for, just a dig at the very serious limitations of humans)
Remind me how many human pilots have screwed up and flown perfectly serviceable aircraft into the ground? Not all pilots are Sully.
It would be interesting to discover just how many accidents have been caused by the pilots ignoring instruments/autopilots/TCAS/EGPWS versus saved by the pilots ignoring same over the last 50 years.
I honestly don't know which side of the line we would currently be on, but the graph is only going to be going one way as tech improves.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: OZ
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HDRW wrote; This may work in the USA but over here we're crowded enough that you'd find it hard to prang a 172 without hitting someone on the ground (OK, an exaggeration!), and there's no space to build new airfields anywhere useful.
What would be the point of taking the cargo to somewhere remote, when it's wanted at its (presumably usually urban) destination? The extra surface transport costs may well scupper the economics.
...but I don't think *anyone* has AutoTaxy, even in testing?
What would be the point of taking the cargo to somewhere remote, when it's wanted at its (presumably usually urban) destination? The extra surface transport costs may well scupper the economics.
...but I don't think *anyone* has AutoTaxy, even in testing?
Now when i say remote airfield, relating it to mining, these autonomous trucks have there own pit, they are seperated from those with humans in them. However there are auxiliary pieces of machinery (graders, dozers etc) with humans in them interacting with these trucks, and there has never been a collision caused by an autonomous truck. In fact its been the other way around, humans are the ones colliding with autonomous trucks!
So maybe they could split the airfields, one side autonomous aircraft, the other with humans, dont know.
So i dont believe ground interaction, or autonomous taxying would be a problem. However when they get into the air, thats a different kettle of fish that i will leave to you more experienced gents and gals, for i am a mere private pilot.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I can say is that as a techie with a reasonable understanding of the technical hurdles involved - those alone make me believe it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime. And that's before we get on to the legal, regulatory and safety aspects!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Scotand
Age: 68
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No manufacturer will just suddenly launch a pilotless plane for the reasons many have stated. As with all technology the change will be gradual. First will be planes with one pilot, then a pilot who only monitors and then short haul with no pilot. This is the way.
WHAT? A horseless carriage? Never happen!
Some may think this thread analogous to the foregoing. It ain't
Not saying that it will NEVER happen but it is further in the future than you think.
Some may think this thread analogous to the foregoing. It ain't
Not saying that it will NEVER happen but it is further in the future than you think.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full size or tiny toy, the technology is the same, but easier to fit to a large airframe.
I see everyone is neatly skirting around the security/terrorist issue but until world terrorism that could interfere is totally secured fully automated flight won't happen.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think that a software engineering team can program a computer to do what Sullenberger did then you are deluded.
It is a matter of how many other potential "out of the box" scenarios are yet unknown and therefore cannot be programmed at the current stage of AI development. Just recently discussed this subject with the people who are involved in some prototyping
Watch this space...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this discussion a tad amazing.
How many of us have had a PC, laptop or mobile completely freeze: unresponsive to all inputs and only able to be brought back to life after a physical reboot? How many of us have experienced severe glitches after software upgrades?
Would YOU really fly in an aircraft where the possibility exists that the systems could freeze and you and your fellow passengers then have absolutely no control over your assured death — possibly with a few hours to prepare for the inevitable?
It's a bit like your local swimming pool dispensing with lifeguards as no-one has ever drowned. Yes, there would be great wage savings to be made, but would the public support such a measure? I think not.
Also, the analogy to automated trains is surely mistaken. Being land-based, they can only crash into other land-based objects — situations which can be managed by computers (though not 100%). What they don't have to face is gravity, which all aircraft routinely defy, but which nevertheless is constantly capable of the last laugh...
In my view, civilian pilots will ALWAYS be a necessity, even if it merely a matter of being present.
How many of us have had a PC, laptop or mobile completely freeze: unresponsive to all inputs and only able to be brought back to life after a physical reboot? How many of us have experienced severe glitches after software upgrades?
Would YOU really fly in an aircraft where the possibility exists that the systems could freeze and you and your fellow passengers then have absolutely no control over your assured death — possibly with a few hours to prepare for the inevitable?
It's a bit like your local swimming pool dispensing with lifeguards as no-one has ever drowned. Yes, there would be great wage savings to be made, but would the public support such a measure? I think not.
Also, the analogy to automated trains is surely mistaken. Being land-based, they can only crash into other land-based objects — situations which can be managed by computers (though not 100%). What they don't have to face is gravity, which all aircraft routinely defy, but which nevertheless is constantly capable of the last laugh...
In my view, civilian pilots will ALWAYS be a necessity, even if it merely a matter of being present.
Accurate 3D landscape stored in onboard memory, several pre-loaded scenarios to look for and application of aircraft performance (incl degraded etc) to that scenarios will give you much more safe and accurate plan to be executed
Can you expand on that a bit? In my mind it would be several million pre-loaded scenarios but I'm well aware that I am no expert in software programming so may have misunderstood.
This is a very interesting conversation. Personally I think it won't happen in the next 100 years but I'm enjoying the arguments put forward.
I would appreciate a response to my comments regarding human error:
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.
Pilots, like every other human make mistakes, but don't forget that we also recognise and fix them.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember an interesting case a few years ago: a pier on a big lake in Germany was going to be extended into a bridge right across the lake and it was programmed into the sat nav. The project was then delayed, but a driver was told by his sat nav to cross the "bridge".
Bystanders were amazed to see a new MB drive resolutely along the pier then right off the end and into the water. Luckily the driver survived and excused himself by saying that the sat nav had told him to go there.
Now almost everything these days turns out to be an Urban Myth, and perhaps this is one, but it was widely reported in the media.
However, it is an example of human fallibility:
1) the programmers had mapped something which did not exist...tech fail.
2) the driver - trusting the technology to the point of diminishing his own responsibility - drove into the water, possibly comparable to the recent Asiana incident...."pilot" fail.
Our solitary airliner pilot of the near future could just be a pre-flight checker, a voice for the passengers to hear, and an emergency back up. A whole career perhaps with little to do and little point in being there. Not a very good incentive to hone skills, and no way to stay alert or even awake for the one critical time that he or she might be needed.
Bystanders were amazed to see a new MB drive resolutely along the pier then right off the end and into the water. Luckily the driver survived and excused himself by saying that the sat nav had told him to go there.
Now almost everything these days turns out to be an Urban Myth, and perhaps this is one, but it was widely reported in the media.
However, it is an example of human fallibility:
1) the programmers had mapped something which did not exist...tech fail.
2) the driver - trusting the technology to the point of diminishing his own responsibility - drove into the water, possibly comparable to the recent Asiana incident...."pilot" fail.
Our solitary airliner pilot of the near future could just be a pre-flight checker, a voice for the passengers to hear, and an emergency back up. A whole career perhaps with little to do and little point in being there. Not a very good incentive to hone skills, and no way to stay alert or even awake for the one critical time that he or she might be needed.
Last edited by joy ride; 25th Aug 2013 at 08:19.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in the barrel
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots don't want pilotless aircraft for sure, but I would not put my bet on the passengers.
Time has not come yet, that is true, but technology will move on, and once it reaches a point where airliner operations without pilots will be feasible (e. g. with remote control from the ground as a backup, where one guy suffices to control multiple aircraft in case it would be required), the airlines will drool over the possible cost cuts, and a giant marketing machinery will be started, promising low fares at an unprecedented level.
And passengers will fall for it.
Time has not come yet, that is true, but technology will move on, and once it reaches a point where airliner operations without pilots will be feasible (e. g. with remote control from the ground as a backup, where one guy suffices to control multiple aircraft in case it would be required), the airlines will drool over the possible cost cuts, and a giant marketing machinery will be started, promising low fares at an unprecedented level.
And passengers will fall for it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LGW
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To quote Donald Rumsfeld, “there are some known knowns, some known unknowns, and some unknown unknowns.”
We live in a generation where bean counters and sales staff are in the driving seat and they leave the engineers to play catch-up. This gung ho style leads to much greater risks being taken with great pressure to deliver technology that is not yet mature.
The development of pilot-less airliners would most likely place in steps:
1) Current generation aircraft would need to be able to complete standard airline sectors with very little input from pilots. ACARS route uploads, CPDLC Comms, and advanced VNAV and LNAV would be required. Unfortunately thanks to a policy of just stretching and rehashing old aircraft designs that would still be a long way off especially for the 737 family with its antiquated master caution system and manual switching philosophy. Recent accidents show that automation is not yet up to scratch, once again pushing for pilots to be better trained rather than being able to relax and take it easy. If aircraft achieved this high level of automation, accidents and incidents should drop to almost nothing. This idiot proof concept would pave the way for single pilot airliners. As a great deal of investment is required I feel that this phase alone is still 20-30 years off as airliners that have yet to fly still have antiquated systems being built into them. Keep in mind however that it has been 25 years since the first delivery of the A320, with its philosophy of designing out the pilot, yet we still have crashes such as the GF320 and AF330.
2) The next stage would involve removal of one pilot with highly advanced artificial intelligence systems on board to reduce the pilots role more to that of monitoring and interfering. As this stage has the greatest amount of unknown unknowns we will probably hear about their introduction to the civil world at the earliest in 10 years time. However design issues and cost overruns will probably mean that we do not actually have a viable commercial airliner available to achieve this for another 40-50 years. It will probably take at least another 10-20 years of operation for flaws are ironed out and where intervention becomes minimal. Due to the huge costs, the most likely scenario would involve re-applied military technology, however because of the very different nature of military and civil flying almost a complete redesign will be required. The key hurdle during this stage would be technology and software, the closer they to achieving the goal the more difficult it becomes to move forward. Incidents such as the QF330 pitch flaw over Darwin would present themselves and cause major setbacks.
3) Combined with the data from the previous generation of aircraft along with redundancy and improved highly encrypted communication, at the next stage we would be likely to see ground based operators tracking 10-20 aircraft simultaneously with interference only on rare occasions. This could eventually be reduced to emergency crews based at the manufacturers headquarters. This step in my opinion would be one of the most difficult to achieve and could take another 50 years. By this point most technical issues will have been ironed out.
My view of how soon all this can happen is probably too optimistic as the biggest hurdle to achieving all this will be litigation. Therefore it could easily at least twice my estimations. In the relatively short twenty years I have been flying I find procedures and briefings are getting longer while technical data I get from the manufacturer seems to be getting more vague and irrelevant. Since I only really have a background on Boeing aircraft I can only speak about them. Everything is now more about lawyers then test pilots or engineers. But they still make a good business selling you AFM pages for weight changes or tailwind limitations etc.
Now take for example the case of actually really wanting to improve safety using technology. The technology to get accurate aircraft weights has been around for a least the last 70 years. Combine that with the computing power available for the last 30 years, then it should be feasible to mount weighing sensors on the oleo’s and have the aircraft weigh itself and calculate takeoff performance by itself with no input from the flight crew. This could have prevented the MK Airlines crash in Canada, EK incident in Australia, and SQ incident in New Zealand. So why hasn’t it been done yet? Well of course it would move liability from the airline to the manufacturer.
How many times have you heard a manufacturer admit they have a design flaw and need to recall or completely redesign a system. I am not talking about AD’s and SB’s for small changes, I am talking about Li-Ion type groundings. Hardly ever, because most of the time it is easier to blame things on a tool/rag left in the wrong place while the system quietly gets redesigned in the background.
As complexity grows it actually becomes even more necessary to have a fall guy to blame for things not working. Business can then continue as usual while ICAO introduces even more rules and hoops to jump through. Next will no doubt be a six monthly visual approach certification.
The other question has to be what incentive is there for the manufacturers. Boeing for example will probably want at least a 15 year production run on the B737max. If first delivery is in 2020 and last delivery in 2035 with a useful life of about 30 years then you will effectively be seeing a rehashed 1960’s design still flying in 2065. As for Airbus, I think with various tweaks and stretches we can probably see the A380 flying for another 70 years. After burning their fingers on delays with the A380 and B787 I think both Airbus and Boeing are unlikely to push for pilot-less airliners. They would rather have low risk of amending current designs with minimal changes. The only way I see them taking on such a project would be with a massive launch order financed upfront with clauses specifying there would be no penalties for delays. Or perhaps a new player would want to enter the market based on such a design, something that is likely to end in bankruptcy.
So I am curious why we are hearing so much about this now. It sounds like some accountants wet dream. Since we are all viewed as prima donnas who demand a lot and do very little it probably seems like a very good idea to someone sitting off in their ivory tower, disconnected from the reality of day to day operations. It actually reminds me of an airline I used to work for where the new CEO was trying to cut costs. The CFO told him the best way to do this would be to get rid of the top thirty percent of most expensive pilots, which he promptly did. This included firing the joint Flight Ops and Training post holder two weeks before the AOC was due for renewal. Needless to say the airline was grounded for six months while things were put back in order. The CEO was then fired only to have the CFO take his place.
But back to the topic of pilot-less airliners, what would be the one thing that really causes demand for aircraft like these? In my opinion only a massive worldwide pilot shortage, but even then occams razor would suggest the real solution would just be new, innovative, cheaper, ways of training pilots and it will be business as usual.
We live in a generation where bean counters and sales staff are in the driving seat and they leave the engineers to play catch-up. This gung ho style leads to much greater risks being taken with great pressure to deliver technology that is not yet mature.
The development of pilot-less airliners would most likely place in steps:
1) Current generation aircraft would need to be able to complete standard airline sectors with very little input from pilots. ACARS route uploads, CPDLC Comms, and advanced VNAV and LNAV would be required. Unfortunately thanks to a policy of just stretching and rehashing old aircraft designs that would still be a long way off especially for the 737 family with its antiquated master caution system and manual switching philosophy. Recent accidents show that automation is not yet up to scratch, once again pushing for pilots to be better trained rather than being able to relax and take it easy. If aircraft achieved this high level of automation, accidents and incidents should drop to almost nothing. This idiot proof concept would pave the way for single pilot airliners. As a great deal of investment is required I feel that this phase alone is still 20-30 years off as airliners that have yet to fly still have antiquated systems being built into them. Keep in mind however that it has been 25 years since the first delivery of the A320, with its philosophy of designing out the pilot, yet we still have crashes such as the GF320 and AF330.
2) The next stage would involve removal of one pilot with highly advanced artificial intelligence systems on board to reduce the pilots role more to that of monitoring and interfering. As this stage has the greatest amount of unknown unknowns we will probably hear about their introduction to the civil world at the earliest in 10 years time. However design issues and cost overruns will probably mean that we do not actually have a viable commercial airliner available to achieve this for another 40-50 years. It will probably take at least another 10-20 years of operation for flaws are ironed out and where intervention becomes minimal. Due to the huge costs, the most likely scenario would involve re-applied military technology, however because of the very different nature of military and civil flying almost a complete redesign will be required. The key hurdle during this stage would be technology and software, the closer they to achieving the goal the more difficult it becomes to move forward. Incidents such as the QF330 pitch flaw over Darwin would present themselves and cause major setbacks.
3) Combined with the data from the previous generation of aircraft along with redundancy and improved highly encrypted communication, at the next stage we would be likely to see ground based operators tracking 10-20 aircraft simultaneously with interference only on rare occasions. This could eventually be reduced to emergency crews based at the manufacturers headquarters. This step in my opinion would be one of the most difficult to achieve and could take another 50 years. By this point most technical issues will have been ironed out.
My view of how soon all this can happen is probably too optimistic as the biggest hurdle to achieving all this will be litigation. Therefore it could easily at least twice my estimations. In the relatively short twenty years I have been flying I find procedures and briefings are getting longer while technical data I get from the manufacturer seems to be getting more vague and irrelevant. Since I only really have a background on Boeing aircraft I can only speak about them. Everything is now more about lawyers then test pilots or engineers. But they still make a good business selling you AFM pages for weight changes or tailwind limitations etc.
Now take for example the case of actually really wanting to improve safety using technology. The technology to get accurate aircraft weights has been around for a least the last 70 years. Combine that with the computing power available for the last 30 years, then it should be feasible to mount weighing sensors on the oleo’s and have the aircraft weigh itself and calculate takeoff performance by itself with no input from the flight crew. This could have prevented the MK Airlines crash in Canada, EK incident in Australia, and SQ incident in New Zealand. So why hasn’t it been done yet? Well of course it would move liability from the airline to the manufacturer.
How many times have you heard a manufacturer admit they have a design flaw and need to recall or completely redesign a system. I am not talking about AD’s and SB’s for small changes, I am talking about Li-Ion type groundings. Hardly ever, because most of the time it is easier to blame things on a tool/rag left in the wrong place while the system quietly gets redesigned in the background.
As complexity grows it actually becomes even more necessary to have a fall guy to blame for things not working. Business can then continue as usual while ICAO introduces even more rules and hoops to jump through. Next will no doubt be a six monthly visual approach certification.
The other question has to be what incentive is there for the manufacturers. Boeing for example will probably want at least a 15 year production run on the B737max. If first delivery is in 2020 and last delivery in 2035 with a useful life of about 30 years then you will effectively be seeing a rehashed 1960’s design still flying in 2065. As for Airbus, I think with various tweaks and stretches we can probably see the A380 flying for another 70 years. After burning their fingers on delays with the A380 and B787 I think both Airbus and Boeing are unlikely to push for pilot-less airliners. They would rather have low risk of amending current designs with minimal changes. The only way I see them taking on such a project would be with a massive launch order financed upfront with clauses specifying there would be no penalties for delays. Or perhaps a new player would want to enter the market based on such a design, something that is likely to end in bankruptcy.
So I am curious why we are hearing so much about this now. It sounds like some accountants wet dream. Since we are all viewed as prima donnas who demand a lot and do very little it probably seems like a very good idea to someone sitting off in their ivory tower, disconnected from the reality of day to day operations. It actually reminds me of an airline I used to work for where the new CEO was trying to cut costs. The CFO told him the best way to do this would be to get rid of the top thirty percent of most expensive pilots, which he promptly did. This included firing the joint Flight Ops and Training post holder two weeks before the AOC was due for renewal. Needless to say the airline was grounded for six months while things were put back in order. The CEO was then fired only to have the CFO take his place.
But back to the topic of pilot-less airliners, what would be the one thing that really causes demand for aircraft like these? In my opinion only a massive worldwide pilot shortage, but even then occams razor would suggest the real solution would just be new, innovative, cheaper, ways of training pilots and it will be business as usual.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Would YOU really fly in an aircraft where the possibility exists that the systems could freeze and you and your fellow passengers then have absolutely no control over your assured death — possibly with a few hours to prepare for the inevitable?"
Millions do every year......
They are called airbus.
Any fly by wire system has theoretically got that possibility. If you don't understand that, then you are just waffling and have no business on this site.
In any such system, the pilot tells the computer what he would like the computer to do. If the computer crashes, no input will reach the aerodynamic surfaces.
There is no manual backup. If the computers are dead, there are no controls. Period.
Millions do every year......
They are called airbus.
Any fly by wire system has theoretically got that possibility. If you don't understand that, then you are just waffling and have no business on this site.
In any such system, the pilot tells the computer what he would like the computer to do. If the computer crashes, no input will reach the aerodynamic surfaces.
There is no manual backup. If the computers are dead, there are no controls. Period.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Util Bus
You are being silly.
You are picking timeframes out of your @rse with no justification whatsoever.
Look at a 50 yr old aircraft and see how much similarity it has to a 787.
Add to this the pace of technological advance and tell me that it will take another 50 to be capable of unmanned flight.
"Keep in mind however that it has been 25 years since the first delivery of the A320, with its philosophy of designing out the pilot, yet we still have crashes such as the GF320 and AF330.
Randomly irrelevant statement. Yes the 320 is 25 years old.
1. It has not been enhanced in 25 years, so you can hardly expect it to exhibit new capabilities.
2. An automated 330 would have believed the stall warning and lowered the nose thus saving the passengers. Using examples of pilot incompetence to naysay automated aircraft is a novel approach, but I admire your adventurous approach.
You are being silly.
You are picking timeframes out of your @rse with no justification whatsoever.
Look at a 50 yr old aircraft and see how much similarity it has to a 787.
Add to this the pace of technological advance and tell me that it will take another 50 to be capable of unmanned flight.
"Keep in mind however that it has been 25 years since the first delivery of the A320, with its philosophy of designing out the pilot, yet we still have crashes such as the GF320 and AF330.
Randomly irrelevant statement. Yes the 320 is 25 years old.
1. It has not been enhanced in 25 years, so you can hardly expect it to exhibit new capabilities.
2. An automated 330 would have believed the stall warning and lowered the nose thus saving the passengers. Using examples of pilot incompetence to naysay automated aircraft is a novel approach, but I admire your adventurous approach.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LGW
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
Firstly, if an A320 loses both computer systems then it ends up in direct law and is still completely flyable.
Second, I stand by my time estimates based on what I wrote. Aviation hasn't changed that much since the 1980's. There seems to be a lot of tweaking going on, but no major leaps and bounds. i.e. If it ain't broke then don't fix it. This leads to concepts such as the relaunch of the twin otter program and a market where Boeing can still sell the B737.
You seem to be taking this all very personally as if you had written the article yourself. Could pilot-less airliners be available in the near future? Yes.... If we had a government funded program similar to that of the space program in the 1960's. Is this likely to happen? No... Therefore things will continue as they are because no one wants to throw billions at a pipe dream until the technology is ready.
You say you are a pilot, but you must be operating on some different planet or maybe some other aircraft type which I have never heard of, because otherwise you would agree with me.
Firstly, if an A320 loses both computer systems then it ends up in direct law and is still completely flyable.
Second, I stand by my time estimates based on what I wrote. Aviation hasn't changed that much since the 1980's. There seems to be a lot of tweaking going on, but no major leaps and bounds. i.e. If it ain't broke then don't fix it. This leads to concepts such as the relaunch of the twin otter program and a market where Boeing can still sell the B737.
You seem to be taking this all very personally as if you had written the article yourself. Could pilot-less airliners be available in the near future? Yes.... If we had a government funded program similar to that of the space program in the 1960's. Is this likely to happen? No... Therefore things will continue as they are because no one wants to throw billions at a pipe dream until the technology is ready.
You say you are a pilot, but you must be operating on some different planet or maybe some other aircraft type which I have never heard of, because otherwise you would agree with me.
Last edited by Util BUS; 25th Aug 2013 at 19:13.
2. An automated 330 would have believed the stall warning and lowered the nose thus saving the passengers.
Can you answer my question at post 114 Tourist? Also my reference to the Qantas A380 ?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a lot of mention on the Hudson ditching.
Didn't the automation onboard made the ditching easier? I'm not talking about the 'ditch switch' but the alpha protection.
Wouldn't the touch-down be better if the alpha-protection had a sub-mode for ditching, to maintain energy and adjust for the optimal AoA on splash-down? Alpha protection was operating as designed, had it been designed to splash-down at specific AoA and RoD it would have done that pretty good, and assisted even more an excellent pilot.
The pilot is hero because he made a decision and saved the day, but how many would have called him a hero if something had gone wrong in the ditching? Half of this forum (at least) would have been arguing about turning to TEB, which the report now says that could be reachable. A computer would have made it to TEB, a good pilot in an automation augmented plane saved the day, another pilot might have not made it.
Like others said before, an average driver wont break better than the standard ABS in a car. If you are a race driver you don't need ABS. But I'm sure that even race drivers commute with ABS equipped cars.
Of course the you need to push the brake pedal, otherwise a 'perfectly serviceable' automobile crashes.
The more 'perfectly serviceable' automobiles crash, the more sense it makes to automate automobile braking by adding cameras, lidars, RF range finders etc etc.
Sorry for the ABS drift, but have been saved by ABS many times, though I've crashed because I haven't pushed the pedal when I should have.
Delete if irrelevant.
Didn't the automation onboard made the ditching easier? I'm not talking about the 'ditch switch' but the alpha protection.
Wouldn't the touch-down be better if the alpha-protection had a sub-mode for ditching, to maintain energy and adjust for the optimal AoA on splash-down? Alpha protection was operating as designed, had it been designed to splash-down at specific AoA and RoD it would have done that pretty good, and assisted even more an excellent pilot.
The pilot is hero because he made a decision and saved the day, but how many would have called him a hero if something had gone wrong in the ditching? Half of this forum (at least) would have been arguing about turning to TEB, which the report now says that could be reachable. A computer would have made it to TEB, a good pilot in an automation augmented plane saved the day, another pilot might have not made it.
Like others said before, an average driver wont break better than the standard ABS in a car. If you are a race driver you don't need ABS. But I'm sure that even race drivers commute with ABS equipped cars.
Of course the you need to push the brake pedal, otherwise a 'perfectly serviceable' automobile crashes.
The more 'perfectly serviceable' automobiles crash, the more sense it makes to automate automobile braking by adding cameras, lidars, RF range finders etc etc.
Sorry for the ABS drift, but have been saved by ABS many times, though I've crashed because I haven't pushed the pedal when I should have.
Delete if irrelevant.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several preloaded scenarios?
Can you expand on that a bit? In my mind it would be several million pre-loaded scenarios but I'm well aware that I am no expert in software programming so may have misunderstood.
Can you expand on that a bit? In my mind it would be several million pre-loaded scenarios but I'm well aware that I am no expert in software programming so may have misunderstood.