Automated Aircraft
 

Not exactly sure to post this one, but here goes. I'm at uni now, and one of lecturers (a former RAF engineer) is completely anti pilots and thinks the only reason they are on a flight deck is to drink coffee. The best thing we should do is just sit there and not touch anything. He believes that in a few years time (even though the technology is here now) all commercial jets will be completely computer operated with no pilot whatsoever.

I always try to rebut him by things like every single UAV has crashed, and pax wouldn't be confident to sit with only a puter there. etc. etc.

1) how do you feel about that??
2)how can i really rebut his statements before the summer hols start (after he's marked my exam paper of course) so he can sit and fume during what should be an otherwise great summer.:cool: :cool: :cool:

Thanks for your two pence worth:ok:

Hmmmm, I'm thinking of comments like "Why is it doing that?" and "What's it doing now?"

In various discussions I've had regarding full automation of both a flight deck (and ATC for that matter), often the topic of emergency situations and just exactly how much can be done remotely or automatically makes things interesting. IMO, all the variables that come into these unusual events require a couple of heads on the scene to ascertain exactly what's going on.

He sounds like he has a chip on his shoulder. Did he go through Cranwell looking for a pilot commission once??

In the very long term future we might see single pilot operation with one standby, and perhaps eventually in centuries to come, none. But I have to say that I'm an engineering student so understand the tech, and ignoring the fact that I want to fly I still would rather have a pilot sitting up there. And I'm an open-minded guy! It would take much time and adjustment for the market to build the sort of trust that customers must have in the system to loan their lives to something they associate with regular 'crashes'.

Andy

Ask him how often he reboots his PC due to human induced software errors or through situations that the software author didn't conceive. The principle is the same for automated systems even if the frequency is less.

Thats a great example Tinstaafl

I have to agree with whats been said - aircraft may still fly perfectly but in an emergency situation, IMHO they are screwed. The basic concepts of computing still say that a computer will only do what you tell it to. This brings in artificial intelligence, but this is hundreds of years away from anything near intelligent. One of the worlds leading AI chat bots oliverbot seems to work ok, until you ask it to explain one if its opinions or ask it a calculation.

Sorry if this has gone off track a little.

Regards

Maz

I remember reading that the flight control computers of the Airbus aircraft have logic pathways now so incredibly large that they cannot all be possibly checked in combination with themselves. Even simpler aircraft like the Boeing range can have their automatics doing very funny things such that you sit there saying 'what the hell's it doing?' before pressing the 'disengage' button and taking over manually to restore basic and human control over technology. Eventually the pilot will go, but not in our lifetimes! When the family in their shell suits are willing to climb into a pilotless aeroplane, our careers will be terminated, but persuading them that it is safe and sensible?.....Nahhh!

Tin, Maz,

"Ask him how often he reboots his PC due to human induced software errors or through situations that the software author didn't conceive."

Hardly a useful example. PC software is unreliable as to be otherwise would push the price up. Nobody's going to die as a result of your Powerpoint presentation going t1ts up.

"Ask him how often he reboots his FADEC/pacemaker/airbag/ABS software due to human-induced software errors." would be more useful examples. Truly reliable software tends to goes unnoticed because it never requires intervention by its operator.

The posts in this string reveal more about human nature than they do about automation.

The main obstacle to greater automation is fear of the unknown. The great drivers that will eventually bring it about are economics and safety.

We may worry about unreliable computers, but is it not the case that the majority of accidents are caused by human factors?

It may be true that it is impossible to test all of the software paths in a compex computer program, but when was the last time any of us had all of our mental pathways checked?

Full automatics will eventually happen. It is just a matter of when.
Then we can work on computerised passengers so nobody gets to fly.

True. So who do we get to program the computers, build and test the systems, and then install them?

Actually the last two posts are slightly wrong. Read a flight international just after newyears stating that in 2003 the greatest cause for accidents and loss of life (for the first time ever) was mechanical failure and not pilot error. Whether this is due to crappy maintenance or other problems i can't remeber, but thankfully CFIT is no longer the number one problem.

I have read the stats that say 80% or so of all accidents are from human error. That is comparatively easy to measure. Why? There's been a reportable incident or accident which is investigated.
What is much harder to measure is the number of situations that humans have sorted out before they have become accidents/incidents. By humans I mean engineers, ATC and pilots. Humans stop many incidents/accidents from happening.
Humans generally want to live to enjoy their day off.

Hmmm - of course it is possible to run the London Underground without drivers, but public opinion is against it.

It's happening with military aircraft right now. I can imagine unmanned freighters in 20-30 years, but passenger aircraft? Not for a while, unless we have more 9/11 events and need a truly sealed flightdeck

Had a problem with main gear not deploying on an elderly 737-400 the other night. Two green lights, one red. How would the computer open the inspection hatch and peer through to look whether the red markes were properly lined up?

IMO SLF wants to see something with a pulse up front driving. Automate the trolley dollies first.

I don't think we have a lot to fear yet. The extent of unmanned passenger vehicles seems to be airport transit trams and overhead monorails. When trains start becoming automated, then there is an indication our time is limited, but until then, I don't think there is anything to lie awake at night about. Automatic systems don't handle faults/fires/failures well. As for remote control- ask aeromodellers how many models they've lost with signal failures!

Hmm - the Docklands Light railway has been operating for years with driverless trains - without a major accident. And thousands of people use it happily every day.

The reason you don't see them on the undergound is more to do with the costs of converting 50 year old equipment and union resistance.


If you make it cheap enough they will climb in - happens in every other walk of life.

NotsoFantastic:

Docklands Light Railway has been around for years, but the differing scale of complexity makes trains and aircraft incomparable. For example, a train really has only one axis of motion to worry about, whilst an aircraft has three axes of rotation and then the actual position awareness.

Thought the example with the gear not deploying hit the nail on the head.

Andy

I cant. As a freight pilot in 20 years I will be flying aircraft that are being delivered today. We mainly buy 20+ year old aircraft.
The other point is GPS is going on 20 years old and we still cant use it for approaches, So why would UAV's have any shorter a gestation to commercial certification. Thirdly can UAV's fly non radar enviroment NDB to circling approaches to greek islands on changeover day. Er No.

Bit more work required methinks.

How will a computer judge a weather report,a required fuel figure based on assumed hold at lhr,or eventual night fog somewhere else.? Will you ,as a pax, trust a machine to avoid a cb,use the radar smartly to find best course through a ts area?
will a computer know that it should expect turbulance landing shortly after a heavy departure,or that those unsignificant long clouds can sometimes indicate severe turbulance,or...
I think a machine can outperform a human in many ways,but untill we'll have a cyborg on deck we'll see human pilots up in front.Even Enterprise had human pilots,excepting Data,of course.Which was one of a kind.
It is possible to build an automated plane even today,but my guess you won't find pax to fly with it.And , as Daysleeper said,no auto freighter too soon,either.
Tell your teacher that Airbus or whoever ,did built the automated plane.Will he be the first pasanger to try it,fly from Paris to Bangkok tomorow? Of course,with a fat insurance,just in case Bill mistaped some small software string.:ugh:
I won't.

"PC software is unreliable as to be otherwise would push the price up" - as a software engineer it is infuriating to read things like this. It is simply not true. For example, the Apache web server software, which runs pprune.org, ba.com, and so on, costs not a penny. However, as long as certain Large Software Companies can get away with selling unreliable crud, helped by statements such as the above, they will.

Apologies if this is out of place. I shall retreat to the SLF and computer forums again.

Daysleeper

Given the rapid developments in reconnaisance UAVs, the western need to minimise military casualities and the potential performance of unmanned combat aircraft, cruise missile technology (OK, so the landing's not up to much ;) ), it may be that on this timescale landings are handled by remote control. Maybe (even) by ATC.

I'd have thought that any new contemporary aircraft could easily be converted to autonomous and/or remote control given sufficiently robust computer systems, that I'm sure will evolve in my timescale. 25 years ago the concept of a personal computer looked a little far fetched, we've come a long way.

Cheers - SLF