"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A billion years of evolution will always be better than the machine it is capable of producing. By definition"
nonsense - any 2 bit calculator can run rings round your mathematical capabilities, any car can travel faster than you can run, any light bulb is better than you rubbing sticks together
nonsense - any 2 bit calculator can run rings round your mathematical capabilities, any car can travel faster than you can run, any light bulb is better than you rubbing sticks together
Tabs please !
Given the choice, I would rather have two chaps or chapesses up front who fly real stick and rudder aircraft at the weekend.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nonsense - any 2 bit calculator can run rings round your mathematical capabilities, any car can travel faster than you can run, any light bulb is better than you rubbing sticks together
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even Starship Enterprise with all its bells & whistles had Capt Kirk, Mr. Zulu and Spocky to manage the office. They did not just strap in, push the TOMTOM button then go to sleep for a few days an wake up in required destination. Pilotless a/c would kill the Greek island holiday market. These are the rantings of a bystander who has a limited view over his subject. If he thinks that everyone flies only between major autoland airports, in calm air with no weather, no diversions, no snags etc, then he is in cuckoo land. Technically it might be possible from LHR to Sydney with ground control monitoring the flight and being able to takeover and manipulate the a/c from the ground; even carry out QRH items. But we all know Murphy is alive and well and lurking in the dark corners. QRH's are used because something has malfunctioned. Who's to say the down-link telling the ground pilot there is a problem will function, or that the the up-link with the solution will function. Electrons have a tendency to migrate without warning. Atmospheric effects can affect the signals. Oops! Try Samos or Corfu at night sitting in an armchair in NATS.
Can he really believe what he spouts? Perhaps he should have listened to Eisenhower instead of MOL.
Can he really believe what he spouts? Perhaps he should have listened to Eisenhower instead of MOL.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd say that 3% sounds rather low, but supposing it's correct, most airlines would bite your hand off at the prospect of saving 3% of DOCs.
Though it's not that simple, of course.
Though it's not that simple, of course.
Compare that with 40% of total operating costs going towards fuel, 14% for overflight/landing charges, 8% for maintenance, and pilots begin to look relatively cheap. I suspect most pax wouldn't really notice a 4% reduction in ticket prices. They would sure notice the first headline announcing that a remotely piloted/autonomous passenger airplane had crashed killing everyone on board...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Nashville
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His statement was "at some point in the not so distant future" -- that is the problem, combined with system-wide (not just aircraft) redundancy and reliability requirements for safety-of-life mass transport.
In narrow cases unpiloted human transport is possible now. The once-planned space shuttle replacement VentureStar would have been unpiloted yet passenger carrying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar Likewise the air-breathing Skylon space plane (if ever built) is planned for unpiloted but passenger-carrying operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
However those are highly specialized cases, built in very small numbers, where any needed degree of engineering and redundancy can be added. They were planned from the very beginning for unpiloted operation. Airliners were not.
Besides the aircraft themselves it would almost certainly require complete and reliable NextGen deployment. That itself would have to be re-engineered for safety-of-life unpiloted transport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_G...rtation_System
It would require total rethink of flight control and navigation redundancy and reliability. Existing planes could not be software upgraded. Today if you lose redundancy during an autoland, the pilot can take over. If there's no pilot, the entire system must be more robust and have deeper, better-tested redundancy. The space shuttle flight control system was quintuple redundant, and it only carried volunteers.
It would likely *first* require a gradual transition to single-pilot operation over many years, first in non-passenger cargo operations, while carefully analyzing the results. Then would come very limited test cases of "no pilot" operation for cargo, where a minimally trained backup pilot would be available. As experience was gained that feedback would refine the aircraft and air transport systems needed to safely support broader unpiloted commercial operations.
Only after the data from early steps in non-piloted cargo transport was available and understood would similar steps be stared for passenger service. It would be very slow and gradual.
I can't see it happening for 50 years or more. It's not in the "not too distant future".
In narrow cases unpiloted human transport is possible now. The once-planned space shuttle replacement VentureStar would have been unpiloted yet passenger carrying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VentureStar Likewise the air-breathing Skylon space plane (if ever built) is planned for unpiloted but passenger-carrying operation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)
However those are highly specialized cases, built in very small numbers, where any needed degree of engineering and redundancy can be added. They were planned from the very beginning for unpiloted operation. Airliners were not.
Besides the aircraft themselves it would almost certainly require complete and reliable NextGen deployment. That itself would have to be re-engineered for safety-of-life unpiloted transport. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_G...rtation_System
It would require total rethink of flight control and navigation redundancy and reliability. Existing planes could not be software upgraded. Today if you lose redundancy during an autoland, the pilot can take over. If there's no pilot, the entire system must be more robust and have deeper, better-tested redundancy. The space shuttle flight control system was quintuple redundant, and it only carried volunteers.
It would likely *first* require a gradual transition to single-pilot operation over many years, first in non-passenger cargo operations, while carefully analyzing the results. Then would come very limited test cases of "no pilot" operation for cargo, where a minimally trained backup pilot would be available. As experience was gained that feedback would refine the aircraft and air transport systems needed to safely support broader unpiloted commercial operations.
Only after the data from early steps in non-piloted cargo transport was available and understood would similar steps be stared for passenger service. It would be very slow and gradual.
I can't see it happening for 50 years or more. It's not in the "not too distant future".
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: USA, Vermont
Age: 79
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just another SLF here saying hell no as far as my ever flying on a crew-less airliner, but then at my age (70) I'm sure I'll never be faced with that choice
I'll put my money on better automatics and their integration with the human pilots.
I was very pleased to learn while watching an inflight demo of the B787 autopilot capabilities being demonstrated by Boeing test pilots. One point that .
I found interesting, was that the 787 autopilot can lose all airspeed input in the case of blocked pitot tubes and not drop out, but rather revert to pitch and power rather than hand the crew a box of rocks. To my mind, this sounds like a good move on Boeing's part.
Hey, I only fly toy airplanes, so what do I know
Pete
I'll put my money on better automatics and their integration with the human pilots.
I was very pleased to learn while watching an inflight demo of the B787 autopilot capabilities being demonstrated by Boeing test pilots. One point that .
I found interesting, was that the 787 autopilot can lose all airspeed input in the case of blocked pitot tubes and not drop out, but rather revert to pitch and power rather than hand the crew a box of rocks. To my mind, this sounds like a good move on Boeing's part.
Hey, I only fly toy airplanes, so what do I know
Pete
@Superpilot
"A truly pilotless commercial jet aircraft is pure fantasy."
"A truly pilotless commercial jet aircraft is pure fantasy."
It seems inevitable that driverless cars will shortly be with us and indeed I predict that eventually we will not permit cars to have drivers due to the (very likely vastly) superior safety record of the driverless ones.
Thus accustomed to automated vehicles, air travelers will I feel accept pilotless aircraft when their safety record demonstrates that they are significantly safer than the piloted version. I guess we will start out with cargo. It seems certain to me that this will happen in a time scale of decades.
@Superpilot
"singing to the tune of what are a bunch of globalist bandits who want to destroy the middle class."
"singing to the tune of what are a bunch of globalist bandits who want to destroy the middle class."
A few other countries have balanced the increasing earnings of a relatively few with the tax system, Sweden is an oft mentioned example. This is being strenuously resisted in the UK and USA. No one of course knows what the future will bring but it could get quite bleak for many people unless there is a change in direction.
Superpilot
A billion years of evolution will always be better than the machine it is capable of producing. By definition.
A billion years of evolution will always be better than the machine it is capable of producing. By definition.
[Oh, it's Superpilot again, I wrote much of this before noticing:-) Please accept that I am not setting out to argue with everything you write.]
What if a machine was designed that was equal to human intelligence. Then you make a faster one. Would that be more intelligent?
Ray Kurtzweil writes popular books on topics like this. He is no fantasist having invented the electric piano and turned it into a huge business[1]. He has many other interests. An Electric piano is a device that sounds very, very like a real grand piano and it was not at all easy to make.
Ray Kurzweil was recently presented with the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Eta Kappa Nu honor, the societies top honor.
He is convinced that machines will be able to be more intelligent than humans in a few decades.
The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology is a 2005 non-fiction book about artificial intelligence and the future of humanity by inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil.
The Singularity Is Near - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He uses the term "Singularity" to mean the point in time where computers are as intelligent as humans.
Quite poor sound but managable.
This is a complex, cryptic TV word game that I can't play at all.
IBM built a machine that beat the best human players. The humans are stunning. The questions were sent as files.
Three years after 'Jeopardy,' IBM gets serious about Watson
Where IBM are taking Watson now.
IBM Watson: The inside story of how the Jeopardy-winning supercomputer was born, and what it wants to do next - Feature - TechRepublic
Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence is his Artificial intelligence web site.
[1] Kurzweil Music Systems is a company that produces electronic musical instruments for professionals and home users
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
The caption to the picture says "The 2009 Hudson River heroics could have been performed by a machine". OK, how do you programme a machine for "Ooops, we've just lost both engines. We can't turn back, we can't make Teterboro. I know, let's ditch in the Hudson"? It wasn't just Sully's flying skill that saved the day, it was his HUMAN decision-making.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we can't make an autopilot that won't throw up its hands and give up in a situation like AF447, we're a heck of a long way from a driverless car that can operate in any but the most contrived and controlled of conditions.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seoul
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF speaking - Since when does my ticket NEED to get 3% cheaper (assuming figure above is correct)? What I pay for a ticket rarely has much to do with the actual operating costs of the flight (remember that thing about how much it costs to paint the hall). I would be a lot happier with fair pricing on all flights than 3% saved with no flight crew.
Plus, the technology and pilot on the ground to intervene if needed will still cost 1.5%, so the savings is not even 3%.
As for the comment on the BART system, I do not know about it, but driverless trains are now proven tech. They have been in Vancouver since 1986. I have no problem with diverless when the variables are minimal and problems just result in safely stopping where you are. Trains OK, cars maybe, ships perhaps, planes no.
Plus, the technology and pilot on the ground to intervene if needed will still cost 1.5%, so the savings is not even 3%.
As for the comment on the BART system, I do not know about it, but driverless trains are now proven tech. They have been in Vancouver since 1986. I have no problem with diverless when the variables are minimal and problems just result in safely stopping where you are. Trains OK, cars maybe, ships perhaps, planes no.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AI is something else that's been 'a few years away' for as long as I remember. I'm guessing that, when it eventually happens, it won't come from humans developing software, but from scanning humans brains and simulating them in software.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Richmond Texas
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's relatively easy to remove humans in ground transport."
It's easy to remove them all right, what is not easy is to deal with the consequences. Just have a look at what happened at Lac Megantic when the human was removed!
It's easy to remove them all right, what is not easy is to deal with the consequences. Just have a look at what happened at Lac Megantic when the human was removed!
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AI is something else that's been 'a few years away' for as long as I remember. I'm guessing that, when it eventually happens, it won't come from humans developing software, but from scanning humans brains and simulating them in software.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Lgw
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPDLC , the first step is here already . The equipment allows ground control of the FMGC , the accept option a software requirement only .
Within the next 5-10 years , the technology will allow a CTC McPilot to watch & smile at the passengers for min wage.
Within the next 5-10 years , the technology will allow a CTC McPilot to watch & smile at the passengers for min wage.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I don't have to remind everyone the most obvious title that rhymes with Banker 
I don't write articles pontificating about his "profession" (even though I, like most people shafted by them, undoubtedly hold a fairly strong opinion)
Perhaps he should think twice before sharing with us his "wisdom" concerning stuff he is clearly inept at forming a rational view of.
I don't write articles pontificating about his "profession" (even though I, like most people shafted by them, undoubtedly hold a fairly strong opinion)
Perhaps he should think twice before sharing with us his "wisdom" concerning stuff he is clearly inept at forming a rational view of.