"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article
"Incidentally, people talk about the Sully flight or the BA 777 as if they are good examples of why you need a pilot but actually they are perfect examples of where a computer would be better."
umm, but why and how would computer choose to ditch it at the first place, all on itself? AI is still not that advanced, and computer would most likely try to get back to the airport and inevitably crash.
umm, but why and how would computer choose to ditch it at the first place, all on itself? AI is still not that advanced, and computer would most likely try to get back to the airport and inevitably crash.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
!. Technology is not going away.
2. Automation of the flight deck will increase (along with ATC and all matters effecting flight).
3. There will probably be a person(s) sat at the front.
4. These people at the front will be paid very little.
You know it...I know it......
These are your salad days......enjoy them....for you don't have long left.
2. Automation of the flight deck will increase (along with ATC and all matters effecting flight).
3. There will probably be a person(s) sat at the front.
4. These people at the front will be paid very little.
You know it...I know it......
These are your salad days......enjoy them....for you don't have long left.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AreOut
10 If both engines fail over city, try to land in river if runway not available.
That software didn't seem too difficult to write!
Next!
In all seriousness, and no disrespect to Sullenberger who is an awesome pilot who made the correct decision with the knowledge that he had at the time.
'Miracle on the Hudson' Gets Closer Study, Finds Capt. Sully Sullenberger Could Have Landed at LaGuardia Airport - WSJ
This shows that a computer might have had another option. It would not have to guess, it would know whether it had the reach to get to the runway.
10 If both engines fail over city, try to land in river if runway not available.
That software didn't seem too difficult to write!
Next!
In all seriousness, and no disrespect to Sullenberger who is an awesome pilot who made the correct decision with the knowledge that he had at the time.
'Miracle on the Hudson' Gets Closer Study, Finds Capt. Sully Sullenberger Could Have Landed at LaGuardia Airport - WSJ
This shows that a computer might have had another option. It would not have to guess, it would know whether it had the reach to get to the runway.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only if someone had foreseen that particular eventuality and written a programme to deal with it, tourist. Every day, indeed hundreds of times every day, airliners experience conditions or malfunctions which haven't. These are dealt with by pilots as a matter of routine. But without one, each instance would be big news!
Quote:
Thinking AI will replace the role of the pilot in a system such as today's is simply silly
AND IS IF BY MAGIC.... A LEADING WORLD AUTHORITY PUTS IN HIS TWO PENNETH.
Professor Stephen Hawking....
...one of Britain's pre-eminent scientists, has said that efforts to create thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence.
He told the BBC:"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."
His warning came in response to a question about a revamp of the technology he uses to communicate, which involves a basic form of AI.
But others are less gloomy about AI's prospects.
The theoretical physicist, who has the motor neurone disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is using a new system developed by Intel to speak.
Machine learning experts from the British company Swiftkey were also involved in its creation. Their technology, already employed as a smartphone keyboard app, learns how the professor thinks and suggests the words he might want to use next.
Prof Hawking says the primitive forms of artificial intelligence developed so far have already proved very useful, but he fears the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans.
BBC News - Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind
Thinking AI will replace the role of the pilot in a system such as today's is simply silly
AND IS IF BY MAGIC.... A LEADING WORLD AUTHORITY PUTS IN HIS TWO PENNETH.
Professor Stephen Hawking....
...one of Britain's pre-eminent scientists, has said that efforts to create thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence.
He told the BBC:"The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."
His warning came in response to a question about a revamp of the technology he uses to communicate, which involves a basic form of AI.
But others are less gloomy about AI's prospects.
The theoretical physicist, who has the motor neurone disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is using a new system developed by Intel to speak.
Machine learning experts from the British company Swiftkey were also involved in its creation. Their technology, already employed as a smartphone keyboard app, learns how the professor thinks and suggests the words he might want to use next.
Prof Hawking says the primitive forms of artificial intelligence developed so far have already proved very useful, but he fears the consequences of creating something that can match or surpass humans.
BBC News - Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind
Tell me, can a digital computer multiply two numbers together, a and b? Such that y=ab?
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Horsham
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a bit of a pointless question to ask on this forum . You're all going to slap yourselves on the back of those leather flying jackets , adjust those oversized watches & avoid the next round whilst tell everyone how brilliant you are !
The reality is that technology can do what you do . Airbus 320 family , decades old has a fabulous level of automation & more modern technology is advancing day by day. The ability is there to taxi , fly & navigate large aeroplanes remotely & very safely is here. Anyone who follows these advancements will already see the technology to identify & deal with threats in such things as changing extreme weather conditions & system redundancy are readily available.
The publics' perception of the average pilot isn't what you think it is , I don't think they'll be over concerned about pilotless aircraft whatever you'd like to tell yourselves. Pilot errors , drunk pilots & those with limbs falling off are all pushing the industry towards the inevitable !!!
The reality is that technology can do what you do . Airbus 320 family , decades old has a fabulous level of automation & more modern technology is advancing day by day. The ability is there to taxi , fly & navigate large aeroplanes remotely & very safely is here. Anyone who follows these advancements will already see the technology to identify & deal with threats in such things as changing extreme weather conditions & system redundancy are readily available.
The publics' perception of the average pilot isn't what you think it is , I don't think they'll be over concerned about pilotless aircraft whatever you'd like to tell yourselves. Pilot errors , drunk pilots & those with limbs falling off are all pushing the industry towards the inevitable !!!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cough
Of course he can't, any more than a human pilot can always pick the best option, and that's why there will be accidents.
The question is merely of whether there will be less accidents than if there is a human pilot.
Of course, one of the nice things about computers is that they only tend to make the same mistake once and then the software is changed so they don't make it again.
Of course he can't, any more than a human pilot can always pick the best option, and that's why there will be accidents.
The question is merely of whether there will be less accidents than if there is a human pilot.
Of course, one of the nice things about computers is that they only tend to make the same mistake once and then the software is changed so they don't make it again.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure there could be a thousand such examples.
Right off the top of my head, the pilot of the MD82 or whatever it was rejected take-off way over V1 having collided with an SD360 at CDG. Had he continued they would arguably have all perished.
Or the HS748 that landed straight ahead, a baulked take-off if you will at STN after a catastrophic engine failure. The aircraft was not capable of sustained flight of more than a few minutes at best. Had they not done so, the would certainly have perished.
So I'm with Hawking. The CAA have already identified the lack of basic piloting skills in modern aircraft operation. Lawyers who want to minimise risk and transfer liability to the manufacturer, accountants who hate paying pilots, and managers who just hate pilots.
Presumably they would also have their own children undergoing surgery by the local butcher. After all, what's the difference?
Pilotless aeroplanes are unlikely to be acceptable to the travelling public whilst there's the slightest chance of some mad mullah taking over the control channel, and smashing them into The Whitehouse.
I can think of a million reasons why this ridiculous concept will remain the fanciful imaginings of airline executives as they hide in the gents with a box of tissues.
I'm sure you can think of more.
Right off the top of my head, the pilot of the MD82 or whatever it was rejected take-off way over V1 having collided with an SD360 at CDG. Had he continued they would arguably have all perished.
Or the HS748 that landed straight ahead, a baulked take-off if you will at STN after a catastrophic engine failure. The aircraft was not capable of sustained flight of more than a few minutes at best. Had they not done so, the would certainly have perished.
So I'm with Hawking. The CAA have already identified the lack of basic piloting skills in modern aircraft operation. Lawyers who want to minimise risk and transfer liability to the manufacturer, accountants who hate paying pilots, and managers who just hate pilots.
Presumably they would also have their own children undergoing surgery by the local butcher. After all, what's the difference?
Pilotless aeroplanes are unlikely to be acceptable to the travelling public whilst there's the slightest chance of some mad mullah taking over the control channel, and smashing them into The Whitehouse.
I can think of a million reasons why this ridiculous concept will remain the fanciful imaginings of airline executives as they hide in the gents with a box of tissues.
I'm sure you can think of more.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Tourist. I assume the "software" that will be changed when the computer makes its one mistake would be the passengers. The human frame is not very crash-tolerant.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist
10 If both engines fail over city, try to land in river if runway not available.
That software didn't seem too difficult to write!
Next!
In all seriousness, and no disrespect to Sullenberger who is an awesome pilot who made the correct decision with the knowledge that he had at the time.
'Miracle on the Hudson' Gets Closer Study, Finds Capt. Sully Sullenberger Could Have Landed at LaGuardia Airport - WSJ
This shows that a computer might have had another option. It would not have to guess, it would know whether it had the reach to get to the runway.
That software didn't seem too difficult to write!
Next!
In all seriousness, and no disrespect to Sullenberger who is an awesome pilot who made the correct decision with the knowledge that he had at the time.
'Miracle on the Hudson' Gets Closer Study, Finds Capt. Sully Sullenberger Could Have Landed at LaGuardia Airport - WSJ
This shows that a computer might have had another option. It would not have to guess, it would know whether it had the reach to get to the runway.
Yes, there are on-going efforts to develop “artificial intelligence,” and in some ways there is some degree of success – but to my knowledge, the basic function of a computer is still an input, a processing of the data, a series of pre-programmed responses is referenced, and one such response is selected and activated. Of course, these input/process/output functions happen very quickly … allowing a mind-numbing number of them to be “processed” very quickly … but if there is an error in any aspect, the output accomplished is very likely to be unsatisfactory … and, while I probably don’t need to say it, … when an “unsatisfactory” output is a potential in an airborne airplane – that simply isn’t “good enough.” Today’s computers do not think – they do not anticipate – they simply compare presently sensed data against what has been preprogrammed, and any response (speed, magnitude, direction, and either hold, release, or return to initial position) would also have to be pre-programmed. When this “if/then” issue is presented and resolved, the computer may then activate whatever control function has been preprogrammed for that specific “if/then” circumstance. At any time a circumstance is presented for which a preprogrammed response is not anticipated, the computer will not respond. It may only take one such circumstance to result in an uncontrolled situation.
As for the comment by Andy Pasztor, in his May 4, 2010, article in the Wall Street Journal, he suggests that perhaps Capt "Sully" Sullenberger may have been able to return to LaGuardia Airport and landed there safely … and the justification he uses is apparently the fact that some number of pilots had been exposed to the same set of circumstances using an airplane flight simulator, and after “…suddenly losing both engines after sucking in birds at 2,500 feet—repeatedly managed to safely land their virtual airliners at La Guardia.” Perhaps Capt. Sullenberger may have been able to do just exactly that. However, at the time, under the existing circumstances, Capt. Sullenberger decided to do what he did. He used all of his background, training, and experience, be they good, bad, or mediocre – in the airplane he was flying and all of the previous airplanes he had flown – and, undoubtedly, all of his fears, and preferences, calling on what he knew, what he knew best, and what he wasn’t sure of … all focused on getting the airplane safely out of the air in a manner that would provide the best possible safety to all on board – and he did it quite successfully.
The issue that many overlook with the use of simulators is that they are exceptionally fine training tools. As such, if someone were to propose, as a training scenario, a circumstance that essentially duplicated Capt. Sullenberger’s situation, the use of a simulator would provide an excellent way to call to the attention of the crew members being trained, the kind of information available, what was not available, what potentials exist at that time, and what were beyond consideration. All of this can be accomplished in an atmosphere of mutual exploration, without even the first “hint” of danger being present. IF, however, any of those crew members who successfully landed the simulator at the LaGuardia airport, were told that they stood to actually lose something they valued very highly – like their current job – if they made a wrong decision or executed any decision in any way except the most advantageous manner … I think it highly likely that not as many would have had the same outcome. Certainly, anyone can understand that a poignantly significant issue is missing in each such “after-the-fact-demonstration” … the fear of losing one’s own life and the lives of all on board that airplane should a mistake be made in executing the decisions and skills necessary to safely return to LaGuardia. It is this over-powering emotion that could easily make otherwise easily made decisions, much more complicated, and perhaps, executed ever so slightly different in the “real world,” than those existing “in the simulated world.” We’re looking at a pure and simple case of “apples” and “oranges” – only on a MUCH more critical level.
I can’t say that “Star Trek” capabilities will be or will not be part of the future of aviation … but I think I can say that it’s not here now … and it is likely that it won’t be for quite a while yet.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 2nd Dec 2014 at 21:10.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick
I think you are missing the point.
Why would a computer be interested in V1?
V1 was invented to aid the decision making process of the human brain after many accidents showed it to be unable to correctly decision make in time constrained high pressure situations like takeoff. Too many people stopped when they should have gone because there was not enough time for the human brain to gather it's thoughts.
A computer would have no such constraint.
It would stop if it should stop based upon all the info it has, speed, thrust, accel, runway left etc and it would go if that was the better option at all speeds. it would not need artificial constraints. The process would be markedly better.
The same with landing ahead. Engines currently datalink far more info home than they give to the pilot. The computer would have all that information at hand to make the correct decision about whether to land ahead, and how many pilots have got that decision wrong over the years?
And what are you talking about a control channel?
A mad mullah that can hack the computer can certainly hack a current Airbus.
AirRabbit.
Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make so apologies if I have misunderstood, but re the fear factor in the real world, that is exactly what computers are good at removing. They work the same day in day out.
Incidentally, you are all aware that there are lots of aircraft that currently fly around that cannot fly without the computer working?
ie if the computer fails then it crashes?
They seem to be doing fine. Computers are quite reliable when they have to be.
I think you are missing the point.
Why would a computer be interested in V1?
V1 was invented to aid the decision making process of the human brain after many accidents showed it to be unable to correctly decision make in time constrained high pressure situations like takeoff. Too many people stopped when they should have gone because there was not enough time for the human brain to gather it's thoughts.
A computer would have no such constraint.
It would stop if it should stop based upon all the info it has, speed, thrust, accel, runway left etc and it would go if that was the better option at all speeds. it would not need artificial constraints. The process would be markedly better.
The same with landing ahead. Engines currently datalink far more info home than they give to the pilot. The computer would have all that information at hand to make the correct decision about whether to land ahead, and how many pilots have got that decision wrong over the years?
And what are you talking about a control channel?
A mad mullah that can hack the computer can certainly hack a current Airbus.
AirRabbit.
Not entirely sure what point you are trying to make so apologies if I have misunderstood, but re the fear factor in the real world, that is exactly what computers are good at removing. They work the same day in day out.
Incidentally, you are all aware that there are lots of aircraft that currently fly around that cannot fly without the computer working?
ie if the computer fails then it crashes?
They seem to be doing fine. Computers are quite reliable when they have to be.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herod.
The passengers in that circumstance would be dead, yes, just as they are when the human pilot makes his mistake.
The difference is that the next computer won't make the same mistake as the previous one whereas history tells us the next pilot may well do.
All the computer has to do is make less mistakes than a human to make it worthwhile.
The passengers in that circumstance would be dead, yes, just as they are when the human pilot makes his mistake.
The difference is that the next computer won't make the same mistake as the previous one whereas history tells us the next pilot may well do.
All the computer has to do is make less mistakes than a human to make it worthwhile.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're getting rid of pilots, why not cabin crew as well? Passengers could get food and drink from a vending machine, and be responsible for evacuating themselves in case of an emergency, just like how every Public Transportation bus or metro operates today, even the driverless ones! /s
The trend is not about removing the pilot, but de-skilling the profession so that it can be performed either by people with less training and less pay, or by the cabin crew. A pilot in the future may be expected to 'manage' the automation during takeoff and landing, and serve drinks/sell scratch cards in the cabin during cruise.
Well, I'm a Control Systems engineer (although not aviation). I program systems. The unusual and unexpected ways in which software can 'fail' (although it actually just does what is told) is immense, and more likely the more complex the programming. There is also the possibility of code corruption, caused by external factors such as electrical variation/surges, short circuits and so on
But for a moment, let's assume the software has been programmed perfectly, tested to the n th degree and we have redundancy built in.
The software can only act on information fed by other systems, sensors, signals. On a complex installation there are thousands of inputs/outputs, some virtual (internal software values) and some generated physically. For some of these I/O, under certain failure modes, the computer will not be able to tell if a signal or variable is true, or in some cases which of multiple signals is giving the 'real life' value if there is a mismatch. In the case of a major fault developing (e.g. Control panel fire) the computer may lose some or all of its I/O.
This type of issue in ground based transport could simply cause a stop and shutdown scenario, but of course that's not an option available for aircraft.
But for a moment, let's assume the software has been programmed perfectly, tested to the n th degree and we have redundancy built in.
The software can only act on information fed by other systems, sensors, signals. On a complex installation there are thousands of inputs/outputs, some virtual (internal software values) and some generated physically. For some of these I/O, under certain failure modes, the computer will not be able to tell if a signal or variable is true, or in some cases which of multiple signals is giving the 'real life' value if there is a mismatch. In the case of a major fault developing (e.g. Control panel fire) the computer may lose some or all of its I/O.
This type of issue in ground based transport could simply cause a stop and shutdown scenario, but of course that's not an option available for aircraft.
The software can only act on information fed by other systems, sensors, signals. On a complex installation there are thousands of inputs/outputs, some virtual (internal software values) and some generated physically. For some of these I/O, under certain failure modes, the computer will not be able to tell if a signal or variable is true, or in some cases which of multiple signals is giving the 'real life' value if there is a mismatch. In the case of a major fault developing (e.g. Control panel fire) the computer may lose some or all of its I/O.
I work engines - if the software in your FADEC is wrong, it can cause every engine on the aircraft to do the same wrong thing at exactly the same time (e.g. shutdown at 500 ft. AGL after takeoff). Yet I'm not hearing people say they won't fly on an aircraft with FADEC engines. Now, because the aircraft in question can easily fly with one engine shutdown, we don't always try to keep the engine running for certain fault conditions so we don't end up with something worse than a shutdown (e.g. uncontrollable high thrust). We could easily design the engine control to try to keep the engine running no matter what, but we've made a conscious decision to allow the engine to shutdown or default to idle as that's considered to be the safer option.
Today, the design philosophy when things fail is to turn it over to the pilot because he/she knows more about the exact situation than the designers do. I've had some pretty heated discussions on how to deal with various failures - maintaining that we don't to automatically take certain actions because it can mislead the pilots as to what is really wrong (even if taking that action makes sense). But that doesn't always turn out well either (AF 447).
Humans still have one big advantage - being able to react to new and/or unknown situations (although they don't always get them right either). But true, unimaginable 'new' situations are really not that common.
I'm not suggesting it'll happen in the next 10 or 20 years, but it will happen. If you'd told a WWII pilot in late 1945 that, within his lifetime, he'd be able to fly on a computer controlled airplane that could travel 8000 miles at Mach 0.85 without refueling he'd think you were crazy. Computer capability is still growing at exponential rates - basically doubling every 18-24 months (that's showing signs of slowing down, but not by much). Human capabilities, not so much.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line is there will be pilotless passenger aircraft in the next 20 years.
Do some more research on the number of drone crashes in the USA and you will realise that the reliability is nowhere near a level acceptable to the travelling public. Here's one link:
Crashes mount as military flies more drones in U.S. | The Washington Post
Bear in mind that drones are RPVs - remote piloted vehicles, where the pilot has not been eliminated, but simply moved to a ground station out of harms way.
WRT to automation things are actually moving in the opposite direction with the realisation that automation has progressed to the point that the pilot either does not understand what the aircraft is doing, or when things go wrong (as they do), the pilot is out of the loop - hence the Boeing philosophy of keeping the pilot in the loop (thrust levers that move with the auto-throttle, manually setting the track bug, control column as opposed to side stick etc.). Even Airbus is recognising this; the first couple of days of A350 training consists of manual handling with all the automatics turned off.
I honestly do not think that fully automated passenger aircraft will ever be a reality - first of all it would not be practical (the pilot's not only fly the aircraft, but manage the aircraft - dealing with passengers issues, dispatch issues, assessing DDG issues, de-icing decisions and monitoring, making refuelling decisions, weather decisions, managing diversions etc.). Secondly I don't think it could ever be achieved with an acceptable level of safety.
Of course it is technically possible - in fact a fully automated flight is mostly possible now, apart from taxying and takeoff, but in the real world aircraft very seldom follow a pre-programmed route. We seldom do an autoland, and many of the airports we fly to or use as alternates do not support Cat 3B approaches . Even if they do, the ILS would have to be protected to allow for an auto-land, requiring much greater traffic separation and reducing capacity - completely unfeasible at airports such as Heathrow that would be gridlocked as a result.
Remember 95% of the training airline pilots do in simulators is not for the normal day to day operation where things are going swimmingly, but for when things don't follow the script - this is where automation falls down badly and where pilots really earn their salaries.
Automation is great for flying CPDLC across the Pacific (most of the time), but as good as useless for managing an approach into Chicago ORD during busy periods, especially with weather.
How would you automate a flight over the Himalayas that requires constant assessment of alternates and escape routes, and where a depressurisation or engine failure would necessitate a diversion along an escape route to a possibly minimally equipped airport? What about a rejected take-off due to a runway incursion? TCAS avoidance that requires the auto-pilot and auto-throttle to be disconnected? Ditto for unreliable airspeed..
Automating weather avoidance would be virtually impossible since the weather radar requires a lot of interpretation, and then the required avoidance has to be co-ordinated with ATC, taking into account the required flight path.
Furthermore you would just be replacing the pilots in the aircraft with ones on the ground, but with much greater technical sophistication and associated cost. The bottom line is that by far the highest cost is fuel - the savings achieved by eliminating the pilots would be more than offset by the cost of the increased technical sophistication and the additional ground personnel required.
A number of the recent accidents resulted from the failure of auto-flight systems (think Turkish airlines and AF447), but could have been prevented if the flight crew had responded adequately. If you look at the Boeing service bulletins, the majority of them relate to anomalies in the auto-flight system that in most cases came to light many years after the aircraft was certified. Some of them are quite serious (such as dual FMC failures in the case of the 777), and could have been catastrophic if there hadn't been a flight crew there to take over and fly the aircraft manually.
Most pilots of modern fly by wire aircraft have seen the automatics do some very strange things - in some cases requiring a disconnect and reversion to manual flight. Ever watched a 777 attempt an alt capture with a high rate of climb accompanied by an increasing tailwind? Guaranteed low airspeed situation.
Lastly, who will be the first manufacturer to invest billions in developing an aircraft that in all likelihood would be shunned by passengers - I know I wouldn't fly in it!
Last edited by wheels up; 3rd Dec 2014 at 01:08.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired ATC;
Almost 30 years ago, I attended a trade show where I was shown a crude mock-up of an "automated" ATC system. I smiled and went off to find a bar.
20 years ago, I was told by many people, including *pilots*, that computers would soon be able to do my job much better than humans. I giggled to myself.
15 years ago, the FAA wrote off a few billion $ in hardware and software that proved to be unsalvageable.
3 years ago, I retired. Last I looked, there were still AM com radios and radars at my old unit, and humans manning them.
Of course, 50 years ago, flying cars were just around the corner.
I ain't from Missouri, but they're still gonna have to show me.
Almost 30 years ago, I attended a trade show where I was shown a crude mock-up of an "automated" ATC system. I smiled and went off to find a bar.
20 years ago, I was told by many people, including *pilots*, that computers would soon be able to do my job much better than humans. I giggled to myself.
15 years ago, the FAA wrote off a few billion $ in hardware and software that proved to be unsalvageable.
3 years ago, I retired. Last I looked, there were still AM com radios and radars at my old unit, and humans manning them.
Of course, 50 years ago, flying cars were just around the corner.
I ain't from Missouri, but they're still gonna have to show me.
Honestly, just don't worry about it. There is no way that 'pilot-less' aircraft are within 50 years of being in mainstream production. Even UAV's (best tech around at the moment) still require a pilot. Although the thought of working from home sounds good, and imagine how nice it would be just to switch off the monitor and go for a cup of tee when it all goes tits up!!