Airbus pitches pilotless jets -- at Le Bourget
I was attending a conference where it was confidently stated we were only 15 years from pilotless airliners. I had to pipe up and say "double that". I was challenged and reversed the challenge by pointing out that the statement obviously came from an engineer. This is because engineers have the confidence that they can find a solution to every issue. The FBW Airbus types are a case in point. The engineers design the ECAM procedures for every eventuality they can think of. But there are many more situations they can't anticipate. In about 8000 hours of command on these aircraft, I have had five 'significant' events, none of which were resolved by the ECAM procedures and required the pilot's systems knowledge and analysis to make the aircraft safe. One was a programming error in the Flight Warning Computer software which reported one problem, but ignored a bigger issue. A similar case was with the FWC reporting an issue with a system not actually fitted to our aircraft. Another was an issue with the Navigation System not seen before; another was as a result of a dual failure which the ECAM couldn't resolve (the suggested course of action would have resulted in the aircraft depressurising) and the last was sequence of events which started as an engine fire indication, but led to a depressurisation because of a failure that had not been seen before and which had not been considered in 25 years of the type being in service. This event led to the checklists being re-written.
Until the computers monitoring the systems have sufficient artificial intelligence to evaluate and make decisions based on the information presented, we are a long way from certifying autonomous systems in public transport. I certainly wouldn't get on one of those aircraft, and I suspect many would feel the same. And even then, I wouldn't trust the AI!
Until the computers monitoring the systems have sufficient artificial intelligence to evaluate and make decisions based on the information presented, we are a long way from certifying autonomous systems in public transport. I certainly wouldn't get on one of those aircraft, and I suspect many would feel the same. And even then, I wouldn't trust the AI!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need to.
The FMS has no problem with feel changing which is why MCAS doesn't (didn't) operate with autopilot engaged. MCAS was there because it was thought human pilots would be unable to fly an aircraft with varying force to move the elevator.
The FMS has no problem with feel changing which is why MCAS doesn't (didn't) operate with autopilot engaged. MCAS was there because it was thought human pilots would be unable to fly an aircraft with varying force to move the elevator.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In about 8000 hours of command on these aircraft, I have had five 'significant' events, none of which were resolved by the ECAM procedures and required the pilot's systems knowledge and analysis to make the aircraft safe. One was a programming error in the Flight Warning Computer software which reported one problem, but ignored a bigger issue. A similar case was with the FWC reporting an issue with a system not actually fitted to our aircraft. Another was an issue with the Navigation System not seen before; another was as a result of a dual failure which the ECAM couldn't resolve (the suggested course of action would have resulted in the aircraft depressurising) and the last was sequence of events which started as an engine fire indication, but led to a depressurisation because of a failure that had not been seen before...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just look at the high crash rates of military drones. Not shoot downs...BTW: An RQ-4 is more expensive than a F-35.
Higher risk and higher cost will prevent unmanned commercial aircraft for very long. Maybe we'll see something like unmanned wingmen flying in formation with some manned leader one day.
Single seat means no redundancy and unmanned from a systems reliability standpoint as one man can become unavailable.
Higher risk and higher cost will prevent unmanned commercial aircraft for very long. Maybe we'll see something like unmanned wingmen flying in formation with some manned leader one day.
Single seat means no redundancy and unmanned from a systems reliability standpoint as one man can become unavailable.
