Times Article
 

haha have a read:

"There have already been successful test flights of pilotless aircraft across the Atlantic and the Pacific, and there are ambitious plans for unmanned cargo craft regularly to fly these routes. It is a strange human vanity to imagine that error-prone human beings are best suited to flying aircraft. Pilots may tell you different, but apart from wearing smart uniforms and tickling air hostesses under the chin, their main function is to sit idly by while the on-board automatic pilot does the donkey work. Now the American aviation industry is planning to replace them with teams of pilots flying aircraft remotely from centralised command centres."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...569882,00.html

It is also a strange human vanity to imagine that error-prone human beings are best writing non-sense newspaper articles.

I posted a thread about future pilotless full-automatic aircraft in the Tech Log or Questions forum a few weeks ago.

Just imagine the beautiful world without humans:

No pilots
No lawyers
No doctors
No politicians
No unions
No press
No pprune

Just peace and love on this planet! Welcome to paradise!

Let's start with replacing Journos

Can't see a problem with any of these proposals. It would save airlines loads of money. It would also save prospective pilots from having to undergo a charisma bypass prior to qualifying.

I assume there are no plans to introduce automated engineers?

Bus 429
The Pilots' Pal! ;)

The problem with these articles is that the majority of passengers who are not familiar with flying airliners think that we just sit there doing nothing! How many airports are there that have the necessary equipment to accept autolands? And who is going to pay to upgrade the ones that aren't? What about airports that can not have autoland status because of the incursion of obstacles on the approach path? etc. etc.

What about developing problems on a takeoff? How will a computer recognise those?

Will people really be willing to sit in an aircraft knowing that there is no one up front?

Hmmmmm.......don't these bleatings sound like:

Wireless operators
Navigators
Flight Engineers
First Officers on ULH flights

Although the article contains the usual journo pap, there is probably a grain of truth in there somewhere.:p

And, what pray, will this imaginary 'unmanned cargo aircraft' do when it gets to Stansted and the runway becomes blocked on short finals?

Employment Opportunity for the Future
 

This is great news! I look forward to joining a ground team - just imagine... No turbulence, unruly pax, slot worries, missing baggage, spilled coffee, sim checks... the list goes on. We still get to fly the machine and have even more time for chucking the ladies under the chin.

Where do I apply?

I presume that the "In Charge" will make the appropriate calls to get level/route changes when there is weather around and keep an eye on the radar and TCAS, as well as run the emergency checklists in case of fire etc.

It's all good for us boys - life just got a whole lot easier...

I would say another article about how "useless" and "lazy" pilots are, and what a coincidence at the same time that talks are being held about new european time regulations:rolleyes:.
A magazine in Italy (L'Espresso) last week issued a defamatory article stating that pilots are a privileged bunch that spends more time on the ground doing nothing than airborne (doing nothing as well of course) :mad:
Obviously the comparison was with a ground employee but the hours per day flown were made on 365 days, speaking only of "flight hours" and forgetting about "duty hours" and ground duty time such as courses or sim.

renaming of PPRUNE
 

Maybe PPRUNE ought to be renamed APRUNE the A standing for "Automated"

B747-400Pilotless
 

So here we have this heavy 747-400P on finals at, say, LAX being asked to 'sidestep', automatics try to contact the 'grounded' pilot just as a light aircraft calls, "crossing your zone" or some such frequency blocker, inbound B747P continues without being aware of the requested sidestep and lands on a blocked runway, 400 pax and $200milions worth of aircraft incinerated.

Either the journo has recently been dumped by a pilot or has just failed to become one.:mad:

Is it even worth replying?

I daresay EVENTUALLY we will replace human beings in all sorts of industries. Anyone remotely involved in aviation will know that it is a million miles away at the moment. In ideal circumstances the technology is there but unfortunately the world does not always comply with the engineers dream. In fact it rarely does.

We should be more interested in the timing of this article rather than the article itself.

Regards

Diesel

Yip, now that be really smart. Lets put all our eggs in one basked . Instead of trying to figure how best get his sticky hands on hundreds of aircraft flying around the world Bin Laden and his cohorts just have to figure out how blow up one of these "Control Centers".

Another masterpiece of "professional" Journalism. NOT :yuk:
But hey, they have to sell the toiletpaper somehow and it does give something for us to talk about.

Cheers

JJ

I'll start worrying for my job when even I remotely consider getting on a pilotless aeroplane! Ask any radio-modeller how long he would trust his life to his radio gear, then start mentioning flying his model aeroplanes from over the horizon. You'd be picking him up.

So even the Times has now joined the Telegraph ("can you catch a pilot who's been drinking?") in pap journalism. I don't buy cr*p papers, and the last 2 bastions of reasonable daily news have now succumbed to the great uneducated dumbed down British Press. I just don't buy papers anymore!

Funny over the years the gap in the general publics actual understanding of what pilots do is getting wider & wider, hence the bean counters depressing pilots pay.
Had a decompression a few years back, guess on that day the pax understood why there is a very qualified driver up the front. Didn't get any comments about sitting there doing nothing!:*

hmmm.
I think we need to have more inflight emergencies. The airplanes are getting more reliable so we are percieved as doing less..
As soon as we do more engine failure work, we will get more "pilot saves the day" stories in the press and the public will love us and our salaries will go up..
Gentlemen, we have become victims of our own and technologies success..

Ice pack and LR drivers, the depressing pilot's pay is not due to beancounters or technology. It's the pilots who accept it together with encreasingly worsening working conditions. Have a thorough reading at pprune, and you'll see how many pilots think it is normal to earn peanuts...and be treated like monkeys!!!

Seen on TV this morning that Gary Kasparov is playing a GrandMaster's chess game against a computer.
Sofar it's a draw, 1-1.

Lads, I think our jobs are secure for the foreseeable future.

Mind you, virtual airlines are sprouting up all over the internet!!!
You don't even have to report for duty at a Ground Control Centre. Just sign on for duty at home. Bliss.......

(Not according to the Missus though. :confused: :

Lets hope this jorno is on the first pax flight of the aircraft- and hope it runs into a load of CBs :)


Ahhh what joy that would bring. :)

Who was the journalist on this? I wonder if he knows Macaskill of the Sunday Times? He at least had the courtesy to tell us of his ideas ("airlines and morale" on prune) and ask our opinions.

I know of a few cabin staff who didn't fancy travelling with some pilots, but I'm sure they wouldn't get on board without any at all. That would mean complete self service for the pax. Seeing the free forall on ej with free seating I'd hate to think of the enviroment if there was not an "in charge" on board.

Then read the post about the windy arrivals at LHR. The autolands would have been a very hit & miss affair.

Perhaps for only cargo and the new ground effect projects that are under study it might be feasable.

For pax. No chance. The idea of only the pilot and a dog is bad enough. That means we could be an eternal cruise pilot for our whole career. Wow!

And there's always the story of the first captain's PA on a the first fully automatic flight. "Ladies & gentlemen, Captain speaking. I'm actually on the ground at your departure airfield conrtrolling things from here and can see all that is happening. Half way to your destination I shall hand over to my colleague at your asrival airfield. This is a revolutionary day and I assure you nothing can go wrong..go wrong..go wrong.. " and that's without all the mobile phones going off.

Yeah!
 

Excellent idea! Now as one of Bin Liner’s Talebs, I can hack the control codes and fly any airliner of my choosing into whichever building I like. I could trash the White House using my lap top whilst I watch from Capitol Hill! And if the USAF shoot me down, why I’ll go get me another one. It’ll be like a real life video game and I don’t even have to get through airport security, beat the flight deck door or be shot by a sky marshall. In fact I don’t even have to be in the country!

Of course in order to get the software to do the job, we’d need quite a bit of expensive development so Microsoft would have to charge a fortune for the licensing. And then there’s the upgrades and patches. Hey, we can’t get it right first time, can we? Oops, sorry about that 767 United!

The passengers will have every confidence flying on a computer chip, people are so comfortable with airline flying these days. ’Miss Moneypenny, book me on an airline with pilots please.’

YAWN, no I think I’ll survive to draw my pension. This is one handed literature for management to read in the privacy of the executive washroom with a box of tissues.:D

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your binary Captain.

I'm sorrry to report that a General Protection fault in module 10134c583938757a has resulted in a failure of the right engine.

Sadly the trial period on the left engine expired a few minutes ago.

CONTROL......ALT........DELETE!

Thank you for dying with Microchip Air"

Well, the A330/340 and B777 are the most advanced airliners plying the skies today.. Still need TWO PILOTS though to keep the computers under control. I for one will never step on board an aircraft that is remote controlled- what a load of bollocks:eek: :eek: :eek:

Once again,all this bleating and yammering sounds more and more like W/Os, N, F/E. Perhaps Boeing would loke to comment? Try the Apache study, which predicted fully pilotless aircraft by 2020....... all in the briefings, which may or may not be on the wall..........

If it is all so easy and automatic (we just sit there and it is all done for us, right?) why was the A-340 course the longest and most technical of all the types I have been on?
It is all envy folks. Some people just can't stand it that pilots in general have a love affair with what they do and get paid for it to boot.
Where is that smilie with a raised middle finger?

from "The Maximum"................

our reporter writes ".....journalists will soon be replaced by a team of monkeys with typewriters. For too long now these journalists have pretended to research serious news and write informed, factual articles - of course, as we all know, all they do is drink too much and then make it all up." A spokesman for the monkeys said "it's amazing what these little banana-munching blue-arsed guys can come up with just randomly banging away at the keyboard - it's certainly as good as anything any journalist has written in recent times. And the money we save on booze is fantastic!!" :D

An honourable profession
 

Journo’s have it easy. All they have to do is criticise something without having to provide a cogent alternative answer. They are the opposite of airline pilots. We exercise considerable responsibility with no power, they exercise considerable power with no responsibility.

Just remember that good news is no news. Today’s scoop is tomorrow’s chip wrapper, and by some of the crap I’ve read over the last weeks, I know where they’ve been scooping.

Mick Stability
 

Very well said indeed. Could not have said it better myself with my "Tourist" English.

Cheers :}

JJ

When I go to work I fly to some of the most boring places in the world, and the flights are full not of holiday makers, but businessmen. There is very little business that cannot be done these days with conference calling, faxes, email and video phone, yet these business men are still more comfortable with the idea of actually travelling themselves rather than trust it to technology. As an example my friend has just returned from a week schmoozing in Tokyo in order to increase customer relations.

It doesn't matter if they can build an automatic aircraft that can even read the pax a bedtime story. For as long as the human touch remains popular there will be the need for it in the air too.

We should STOP degrading our own job. I watched recently a Jackass of a captain with Easyjet describe himself as "only a bus driver". If we hold ourselves with such low esteem no wonder we get bad press. we should be proud of our job because of the exams and flight tests we have had to pass to get the qualifications we need to do the job

Why don't we start with boats first?

Amazingly, the press has not even considered to look at the Mandatory Occurence Report. I remember an USA Today page 1 article "How pilots saved the day". It was published a few weeks before 11 September. Amazingly, it was rather positive about us drunken, spoiled, horney, obese, ugly flying cry-babies.

I don't live in the UK, but for the pilots here that do, isn't it about time to complain about badly researched journalism? Uncle Danny postet a thread about this not too long ago, involving the Daily Telegraph. I am surprised to read idiocy like this by the Times, I was told in English class that the Times is the best daily intellectual newspaper in the UK. What happened? :confused: Let's complain!

Human kind cannot even develop cars that don't break down, look at all the recent recalls by the automobil industry!

All this is jealousy by the insecure!

On a serious note, the problem with remote/pilotless aircraft is the integrity of data transfer from 'down here' to 'up there'.

To go down the road of having a 'remote station' that somehow, in real time, can cope with the complexities of systems management, configuration changes and god forbid, emergencies, one must have a robust process of ensuring that the data-link will not be lost or interrupted. To that end, whilst sun-spot activity, interference from other sources (Steel works are a major source) and atmospheric effects exist, the 'integrity' that would be acceptable isn't there yet.

The Times article is propoganda. Ask any director of an airline "Does he/she believe the pilots could be made obsolete?" and he'd likely reply "No, but it would be nice if they could". An airline without pilots would be an airline without Duty Limitations, Industrial unrest, Human error and many other human 'failings' that to a beancounter are COST.

What this article suggests is that the public are being drip fed the desire to 'automate out' the role of a pilot into the unskilled role of systems monitor. We can prevent this by having spokespersons who can reinforce the truth of our role at every opportunity. BALPA know their job and perhaps the days have ended where we have to endure listening to Eric Moody prattle on without recourse about his opinion of how easy the job is.

We are entering a tough era, guys. One big bankrupt airline (No-ones safe are they?) will flood the market with lots of desperate colleagues very soon and the rules of 'the market' will be slapped across our face by the very people who sponsor the aforesaid Times article. Just stay professional and keep your side of the bargain. Do not devalue your role!

Didn't NASA or a similar organisation try to crash a remote control B707 or DC8 as part of a survival exercise?

From what I remember it crashed just short of the proposed "crash" site

Says it all really!

MP

Closer than you Fink me Hearties
 

Long-Range Unmanned Bomber, 7E7 Airliner Both Promise Major Benefits, Condit Says
By Lee Ewing



An unmanned bomber could offer advantages over manned aircraft for long-range strike missions, Boeing's chairman suggested Feb. 6 in an interview.
Boeing, in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force and the Defense Advanced Projects Agency, is developing the X-45 Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle technology demonstration system. The X-45A demonstrator aircraft first flew May 22, 2002.
An armed version of the aircraft is envisioned as being used first for the dangerous job of attacking enemy air defenses, which has been handled by manned aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16CJ fighter-bomber. The X-45 also could be used as a strike fighter.
While he is pleased with the progress of the company's unmanned combat air vehicle program to date, Boeing's chairman and chief executive officer, Phil Condit, told Aviation Week Group editors in Washington, D.C., that achieving the transformational potential of the UCAV will require steps to integrate it effectively with other nodes in a network-centric system.
The promise offered by unmanned combat air vehicles is exciting, he said, as industry and government officials consider their possible uses.
"Do I think about unmanned bombers? On really big, long missions, am I employing people in the best way to put them into a vehicle and have them sit there for 24 or 40 hours, if in fact I can ... do that as an unmanned task?
"I think there's a lot of people thinking pretty hard about what are the tasks that best conform to an unmanned vehicle."
If the task were initial strike against enemy air defenses, he said, "I think the answer is probably yes," a UCAV would be appropriate.
While development of UCAVs is promising, it also is challenging, Condit said.
Condit said he doesn't expect the UCAV market to move faster, in part because doctrine must first be developed for using UCAVs as part of a network-centric system.
Developing doctrine on which tasks are best for unmanned vehicles and which for manned ones is a fundamental requirement, he said.
Launching the 7E7
Turning to commercial aircraft, Condit noted that Boeing is working through design and specifications for its planned 7E7, an all-new, super-efficient, mid-size airliner, saying proposals should be ready relatively soon for airlines to review.

etcetcetc

unmanned is the operative word. Unmanned flight operations are not even new anymore, at least in the military. There will no doubt be bigger and bigger unmanned a/c, especially in the military role but as soon as you start on about 'pilotless' aircraft and passengers you will see a totally different response.

As far as I am aware the only 'driverless' vehicle you will see anywhere will be a train, and then only on short uncomplicated routes such as the Docklands Light Railway or the little shuttles that move you from terminal to terminal at airports.

People, it would seem, only trust automation for one dimensional travel. We haven't even started on two dimensional and alreacy we have journalists claiming we are as good as redundant when it comes to three dimensional transport.

There will probably come a time when there will be pilotless aircraft that will take pax but dount count on it for at least 5 generations if not more. Never say never!

Maximumpete,
The NASA trial to which you refer was a 720 that was deliberately crashed (by remote control - it can be done!) to test the efficacy of AMK (Anti-Misting-Kerosene). The post-crash fire indicated that it wasn't that good, so back to the chemist's lab it was.

With regard to pilotless aircraft...
We all know it is technically feasible and has been for years. However, even I (and I've been know to try to wind flyboys and flygirls up;) ) would not wish to fly in a vehicle sans pilote. There is that extra comfort added by knowing the dog is being fed!:ok:

The post crash fire in the trials was due to a failure of the remote control. The intention was to basically belly land the test aircraft into a bed of knives and apply a spark. However it went out of control on final and cartwheeled. This was outside the design parameters of the fuel retardent and up in flames it went.
The anti misting fuel works very well in the right circumstances and the main reason we are not filling up with it is as usual cost. :rolleyes:

Kingfisher Yes I too saw that Easyjet pilot on TV and cringed at his crass remark. With people like that around who needs enemies?

Passenger (and PPL with no CPL asperations) adding a comment here.

You guys are paid as much for what you can do rather than what you actually do on a day to day basis. I guess there are those who have a problem with that. But then, you try getting the same people to get on an aircraft with no available pilot.

Strikes me as a nice bit or jounalism designed more to attract readers than to convey sensible information.

Sounds like the sort of article a wannabe would write to make himself feel better about not being a pilot.

The public are not going to trust an unmanned passenger jet given the current level of reliability and flexibility of automated systems, anymore than they trust journalists or politicians. Anyway the cost of setting up and running such a system would make pilots look very good value, which of course we are!

No doubt one day it will happen, but as a current Airbus driver I would have to say at the moment, thank God for pilots who sort out the problems caused by designers/engineers! When pilotless passenger jets become the norm, this is one pilot and former computer programmer who will be travelling by road or sea!

No offence to Airbus designers/engineers intended, fine aeroplanes as long as you have two pilots at the front.

And another thing, had Mr Wapshott read the “Right Stuff”, or any book regarding the space program, he would know that several Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions would have ended in failure if it were not for the pilots twiddling a few knobs! The first manned moon landing would have ended in disaster if not for the manual intervention of the pilot. Ask Gordon Cooper about his manual re-entry following a near total electrical failure; he splashed down just four miles from the recovery ship!

Folks like Mr Wapshott insult the achievements of men and women he can never hope to emulate, better he report on something he is qualified to comment on, perhaps births, deaths and marriages.

Feel much better getting that of my chest!



:p

Land asap, could not agree more!