"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fairly easy:
First it was radio operators who gone.
Then navigators.
Then flight engineers.
If memory serves me right the last new non-russian aircraft type with FE entered service back in 1983 and this was 747-300. And the last all-new aircraft with FE was A300 back in 1974 - 40 (forty!) years ago.
So few decades past that milestone it is the right time to start changing regulations in order we can see pilotless commercial aircraft in 10 years from now.
Hopefully you don't feel that 50 years span between eliminating flight engineer and flight crew is too quick and things done in a rush?
First it was radio operators who gone.
Then navigators.
Then flight engineers.
If memory serves me right the last new non-russian aircraft type with FE entered service back in 1983 and this was 747-300. And the last all-new aircraft with FE was A300 back in 1974 - 40 (forty!) years ago.
So few decades past that milestone it is the right time to start changing regulations in order we can see pilotless commercial aircraft in 10 years from now.
Hopefully you don't feel that 50 years span between eliminating flight engineer and flight crew is too quick and things done in a rush?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neville
It is interesting that we both read the same article but take different things away.
I read the article to be saying that certifying the systems is going to be the challenge, rather than building the systems. Nobody knows how to certify learning systems. A challenge, possibly an insurmountable one, but a totally different challenge.
This, of course, is due to autonomous/automatic systems being held to a higher standard than manned because it is impossible to code check a human.
The article does also say that it thinks the driver for all this may well come from the automotive industry which is interesting because they will have to solve the problem for exactly the same reasons, though with possibly less of a required safety level.
The 1 pilot plus old style automation not as good as 2 plus old style automation bit seems a bit of a "well obviously!" to me.
Uplinker
"Here are a few of the considerations that I and the other pilot will be making as we are following the ECAM:-
Where is the high ground?
Computers better at SA than humans
How much fuel have we got?
Computers better at calculations than humans
What is our endurance?
Computers better at calculations than humans
Is a fuel imbalance building up? If so, why?
Computers better at calculations and systems knowledge than humans
Where are the CB's ?
Computer knows.
Do we have any icing?
Even current airliners have auto deice
What stopping systems have we lost?
Computer knows
What landing distance do we require?
Computers better at calculations than humans
What landing distance is available?
Computer knows
Have we lost any landing capability, e.g auto land?
Computer knows
What is the weather situation at our destination and alternates?
Computer can read a TAF
Do all our slats and flaps work?
Computer knows better than you.
Will the landing gear deploy - What if it doesn't?
Computer can follow checklist
Will our noeswheel steering work? If not, how are we going to control the roll out?
Computer can control better than humans
When we land, will we need to evacuate the aircraft on the runway? If so, we need to brief the Cabin crew and the passengers.
Auto briefs already in use.
All this stuff will take a computer a millisecond, and it can keep updating constantly.
The calculations will be correct and instantaneous, unlike the 10 minute sweaty events we have all seen in a sim that rarely give the correct or accurate LDA
There are examples where a human is better. This is not one of those areas.
Re dumping the fuel.
The fact that an ECAM led human pilots to dump their fuel in to the ocean is hardly an advert for humans.
Your suggestion is that the Humans are there to catch the ECAM errors.
That only works if they catch them.
Saying that a computer would do the same as a human doesn't really help your case.
At least a continually monitoring computer might have caught the problem before they were empty as it noticed what was happening.
Oh, and if you don't think airline flying is dull and repetitive then you really need to get out more. I can think of no duller form of flying, and I've tried most. The tipping point for me to get out was when I read about the BA A320 cowling doors flying off and my first thought was "lucky b@stards! They got to do some of that piloting stuff!"
p.s. There, I've gifted you naysayers a good example of where a computer would have had snags!
It is interesting that we both read the same article but take different things away.
I read the article to be saying that certifying the systems is going to be the challenge, rather than building the systems. Nobody knows how to certify learning systems. A challenge, possibly an insurmountable one, but a totally different challenge.
This, of course, is due to autonomous/automatic systems being held to a higher standard than manned because it is impossible to code check a human.
The article does also say that it thinks the driver for all this may well come from the automotive industry which is interesting because they will have to solve the problem for exactly the same reasons, though with possibly less of a required safety level.
The 1 pilot plus old style automation not as good as 2 plus old style automation bit seems a bit of a "well obviously!" to me.
Uplinker
"Here are a few of the considerations that I and the other pilot will be making as we are following the ECAM:-
Where is the high ground?
Computers better at SA than humans
How much fuel have we got?
Computers better at calculations than humans
What is our endurance?
Computers better at calculations than humans
Is a fuel imbalance building up? If so, why?
Computers better at calculations and systems knowledge than humans
Where are the CB's ?
Computer knows.
Do we have any icing?
Even current airliners have auto deice
What stopping systems have we lost?
Computer knows
What landing distance do we require?
Computers better at calculations than humans
What landing distance is available?
Computer knows
Have we lost any landing capability, e.g auto land?
Computer knows
What is the weather situation at our destination and alternates?
Computer can read a TAF
Do all our slats and flaps work?
Computer knows better than you.
Will the landing gear deploy - What if it doesn't?
Computer can follow checklist
Will our noeswheel steering work? If not, how are we going to control the roll out?
Computer can control better than humans
When we land, will we need to evacuate the aircraft on the runway? If so, we need to brief the Cabin crew and the passengers.
Auto briefs already in use.
All this stuff will take a computer a millisecond, and it can keep updating constantly.
The calculations will be correct and instantaneous, unlike the 10 minute sweaty events we have all seen in a sim that rarely give the correct or accurate LDA
There are examples where a human is better. This is not one of those areas.
Re dumping the fuel.
The fact that an ECAM led human pilots to dump their fuel in to the ocean is hardly an advert for humans.
Your suggestion is that the Humans are there to catch the ECAM errors.
That only works if they catch them.
Saying that a computer would do the same as a human doesn't really help your case.
At least a continually monitoring computer might have caught the problem before they were empty as it noticed what was happening.
Oh, and if you don't think airline flying is dull and repetitive then you really need to get out more. I can think of no duller form of flying, and I've tried most. The tipping point for me to get out was when I read about the BA A320 cowling doors flying off and my first thought was "lucky b@stards! They got to do some of that piloting stuff!"
p.s. There, I've gifted you naysayers a good example of where a computer would have had snags!
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since man has been the weak link, pilot less a/c with us. Have been for years. A computer actually "landed" on a comet not too long ago. So whats the problem with pilot less a/c?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Limoges/Sussex
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah..
I see the fuel balancing reference has now been edited out completely and that's probably the right thing to do...
Surely fuel balancing IS on of the things that could be left to the computers. I remember over 20 years ago a British-registered 737 over Italy had been left in the fuel transfer configuration because the crew got distracted and, there being no warning system, the aircraft flew merrily on its way with the A/P gradually applying more and more aileron trim until it was at maximum deflection. And then it came to a waypoint and tried to turn in the opposite direction to the imbalance which caused the A/P to exceed its authority just as it reached the bank angle demanded for the turn. The crew, snapped awake by the disconnect warning, instantly saw the roll and the position of the yoke in the same direction (heavy wing now up) and did what 99% of us would have done and tried to roll the other way. Gravity did the rest and 60 degrees of bank was achieved before order was restored. A bit like the Azores glider this one in that a human c**k-up was followed by a brilliant recovery.
On another day in '06 my own A321 was following a VS 744 round the pattern at about 6am on a clear, still, morning correctly spaced by radar at 5nm. On a 40 degree intercept for finals we caught the LOC and the plane rolled snappily to 30 degrees of bank (max authority for LOC*) just as we hit the full force of the wake vortex left behind the jumbo, rolling us further in the same direction. Without thinking I applied full stick, disconnecting the auto-pilot and with no immediate response in roll, applied some rudder to get the wing up. We hit about 50 degrees of bank and I don't know to this day if the A/P would have recovered this on its own - but at 2,700' AGL I certainly wasn't going to wait to find out.
In these instances, as with the Azores glider, it eventually needed a human to resolve a dangerous situation. But it would be a syllogism to assert that the two fuel-related incidents justify removing pilots because they caused the problems in the first place. A sudden uncommanded roll close to the ground still has to be factored in to the equation. Are the automatics ready?
Surely fuel balancing IS on of the things that could be left to the computers. I remember over 20 years ago a British-registered 737 over Italy had been left in the fuel transfer configuration because the crew got distracted and, there being no warning system, the aircraft flew merrily on its way with the A/P gradually applying more and more aileron trim until it was at maximum deflection. And then it came to a waypoint and tried to turn in the opposite direction to the imbalance which caused the A/P to exceed its authority just as it reached the bank angle demanded for the turn. The crew, snapped awake by the disconnect warning, instantly saw the roll and the position of the yoke in the same direction (heavy wing now up) and did what 99% of us would have done and tried to roll the other way. Gravity did the rest and 60 degrees of bank was achieved before order was restored. A bit like the Azores glider this one in that a human c**k-up was followed by a brilliant recovery.
On another day in '06 my own A321 was following a VS 744 round the pattern at about 6am on a clear, still, morning correctly spaced by radar at 5nm. On a 40 degree intercept for finals we caught the LOC and the plane rolled snappily to 30 degrees of bank (max authority for LOC*) just as we hit the full force of the wake vortex left behind the jumbo, rolling us further in the same direction. Without thinking I applied full stick, disconnecting the auto-pilot and with no immediate response in roll, applied some rudder to get the wing up. We hit about 50 degrees of bank and I don't know to this day if the A/P would have recovered this on its own - but at 2,700' AGL I certainly wasn't going to wait to find out.
In these instances, as with the Azores glider, it eventually needed a human to resolve a dangerous situation. But it would be a syllogism to assert that the two fuel-related incidents justify removing pilots because they caused the problems in the first place. A sudden uncommanded roll close to the ground still has to be factored in to the equation. Are the automatics ready?
A computer actually "landed" on a comet not too long ago.
On Rosetta the decision where to try and land was made by human beings before the "computer" was set in motion.... Of course as it turned out the machine ended up in a less than ideal place because the automation/equipment didn't quite work as planned, the probe bounced and there was no means of human's intervening in the process to finesse the final stopping point.......
I suppose if this thread carries on long enough I'm sure Tourist and others will be shown to be correct, but I'm guessing it will be their offspring, or their offspring's offspring posting: "told you so".
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we have pilots aboard now? For their flying skills? Give me a break, the flying skills if they were there in the first instance, are being eroded at an alarming rate. No the flying skills aren't needed now.
As for problem resolution, it should be able to solved from the ground, should it not?
Passenger appeal? As a passenger and knowing the caliber of a few pilots I know, who in my view should never have been allowed near an a/c I would sleep easier at night knowing they were not at the controls.
As for problem resolution, it should be able to solved from the ground, should it not?
Passenger appeal? As a passenger and knowing the caliber of a few pilots I know, who in my view should never have been allowed near an a/c I would sleep easier at night knowing they were not at the controls.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wiggy
That's a bit of a stretch to try to suggest that a human was all that was needed to solve the landing issues.
We may never know what exactly happened, but it is hardly relevant.
Pininstauld
While generally I agree with your post, obviously, your statement about needing humans to recover the situation is problematic.
No human could beat a computer at flying a perfect glide approach to a landing if you fitted one designed to do it.
That is the sort of thing they are particularly good at. No different from flying a perfect cruise. It has all the performance info/glideslopes/AoA data to finesse it better than a human who is trying it for the very first time.
That's a bit of a stretch to try to suggest that a human was all that was needed to solve the landing issues.
We may never know what exactly happened, but it is hardly relevant.
Pininstauld
While generally I agree with your post, obviously, your statement about needing humans to recover the situation is problematic.
No human could beat a computer at flying a perfect glide approach to a landing if you fitted one designed to do it.
That is the sort of thing they are particularly good at. No different from flying a perfect cruise. It has all the performance info/glideslopes/AoA data to finesse it better than a human who is trying it for the very first time.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Qatar
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact of the matter is Tourist is right. The question is the timeframe. I think we are a long way off and it is not something I nor my children will have to worry about. In the mean time I will continue to ensure I maintain my skills at the appropriate times and be as professional as I can be on the flight deck.
The biggest tragedy of all when we get to the point of having pilotless aircraft is that PPruNe will fade away.
The biggest tragedy of all when we get to the point of having pilotless aircraft is that PPruNe will fade away.
That's a bit of a stretch to try to suggest that a human was all that was needed to solve the landing issues.
Maybe but there certainly wasn't a cat in Hades chance of the "computer" solving it.. so it's back to the likes of Armstrong using Mark 1 eyeball and experience to decide to redesignate the LM touchdown spot on Apollo 11 when it was discovered all the computing power and Ph.D's at NASA couldn't really predict the effect of Mascon's and the effect of the undocking manoeuvre on the LM State vector. Yes, we're well over 40 years on from that event but we still haven't got technology that think out of the box, "recognise" a good secondary landing spot and re-designate to it.
As I see it we are back to that problem about computers, problem solving and decisions yet again....
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Limoges/Sussex
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
obviously, your statement about needing humans to recover the situation is problematic.
There is a folder full of incidents that I could quote from where a fully serviceable aircraft, in benign weather, has been destroyed or come close to a serious accident simply because the pilots demonstrated that they couldn't fly even close to the level of proficiency demanded by their licence.
Neural networks have not arrived, nor do we yet have a truly AI-capable robot that improvises better than its human counterpart (not saying that it won't happen, btw). So, instead of asking “how can we get rid of the fallible pilot?”, the question should be "what can WE change to make the existing generation of pilots better at piloting?"
There is an elephant in the room and it won't go away just by removing pilots from aeroplanes.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOP,
I hope your Rosetta example was deliberately ironic - I'll credit you with having your tongue in cheek. But for those who would argue this as a good example of automation over human pilots, then consider that it was a failure - Rosetta died within 24hours of landing because the automation screwed up and allowed the craft to bounce off, twice, and land in the wrong zone where it gets no light. That decision to have automation was made of necessity - had it been possible to have human operation by some fantastic faster-than-light remote control or an astronaut, then no doubt the mission would have been saved, just like Armstrong saving the Apollo 11 mission by manual intervention, and Lovell saving Apollo 13... Even then, the automation had to be commanded and updated by a whole room of warm blooded humans to even get Rosetta to make contact with the asteroid, an amazing feat in itself that is testomony to the abilities of humans, not computers.
I hope your Rosetta example was deliberately ironic - I'll credit you with having your tongue in cheek. But for those who would argue this as a good example of automation over human pilots, then consider that it was a failure - Rosetta died within 24hours of landing because the automation screwed up and allowed the craft to bounce off, twice, and land in the wrong zone where it gets no light. That decision to have automation was made of necessity - had it been possible to have human operation by some fantastic faster-than-light remote control or an astronaut, then no doubt the mission would have been saved, just like Armstrong saving the Apollo 11 mission by manual intervention, and Lovell saving Apollo 13... Even then, the automation had to be commanded and updated by a whole room of warm blooded humans to even get Rosetta to make contact with the asteroid, an amazing feat in itself that is testomony to the abilities of humans, not computers.
I recollect, in 1989, when operating a new type, we would occasionally have to tell the passengers that it was about to go dark as we carried out a complete power off and reboot on the ground.
Fortunately, never an airborne requirement
Fortunately, never an airborne requirement
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take on it, technically it wouldn't be any problems to remove pilots.
BUT, there is no way the A/C manufacturers would like the human factor to totally disappear from the F/D.
Who would it be to blame after an accident?
Always the producer?
It could become very expensive for Boeing, Airbus etc, when A/C starts falling from the skies due to technical/software malfunctions.
BUT, there is no way the A/C manufacturers would like the human factor to totally disappear from the F/D.
Who would it be to blame after an accident?
Always the producer?
It could become very expensive for Boeing, Airbus etc, when A/C starts falling from the skies due to technical/software malfunctions.
passengerless aircraft?
I am SLF and my only piloting experience is on hang gliders so I will not be too upset if modded.
All the what if? scenarios discussed above need to have been thought out by humans in advance, if the computer is to do anything useful. I worked for a small IT firm that was quite sure its systems were year 2000 compliant but reluctantly spent £250,000 proving it, only to find four bugs. Each was small and easily fixed but had they passed unnoticed, some of our clients (quite large building societies) would not have been able to do their year-end accounts. We did not even find all four ourselves during the testing, our customers found some of them.
If you look at advances in communications technology there is ever less need to travel for business reasons. My son defends cases in patent courts in Europe via video link. From 2014 on many of his business trips are no longer to Munich or the Hague but down the corridor to the video conference room.
That leaves travel for pleasure. With the diminution of cultural differences there is arguably less fun. McDonald's in Moscow is pretty much the same as in London.
If losing pilots saved 50% of costs there might be some point in it, but for 5% saving? I also heard, and there are doubtless experts here who can confirm this or otherwise, the additional insurance costs for single pilot business aircraft wipes out the salary saving of a first officer. Only perhaps OK if the same person owns the business and both owns and flies the aircraft.
All the what if? scenarios discussed above need to have been thought out by humans in advance, if the computer is to do anything useful. I worked for a small IT firm that was quite sure its systems were year 2000 compliant but reluctantly spent £250,000 proving it, only to find four bugs. Each was small and easily fixed but had they passed unnoticed, some of our clients (quite large building societies) would not have been able to do their year-end accounts. We did not even find all four ourselves during the testing, our customers found some of them.
If you look at advances in communications technology there is ever less need to travel for business reasons. My son defends cases in patent courts in Europe via video link. From 2014 on many of his business trips are no longer to Munich or the Hague but down the corridor to the video conference room.
That leaves travel for pleasure. With the diminution of cultural differences there is arguably less fun. McDonald's in Moscow is pretty much the same as in London.
If losing pilots saved 50% of costs there might be some point in it, but for 5% saving? I also heard, and there are doubtless experts here who can confirm this or otherwise, the additional insurance costs for single pilot business aircraft wipes out the salary saving of a first officer. Only perhaps OK if the same person owns the business and both owns and flies the aircraft.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faire
I think you are embarrassing yourself.
Go read up on the accident.
One of us is making a of themselves here, and the fact that the people on here that disagree with everything I'm saying don't think that the AF447 is a good example to press their case should point you in the direction of who that might be....
I think you are embarrassing yourself.
Go read up on the accident.
One of us is making a of themselves here, and the fact that the people on here that disagree with everything I'm saying don't think that the AF447 is a good example to press their case should point you in the direction of who that might be....
Your solution is to provide additional data sources for the automatics, and give 100% authority to the automation and proclaim that this will be safer.
However, you are not comparing like with like.
The automation of the A330 in AF447 was incapable of dealing with the scenario it found itself in. That is a fact, even if seems some posters here don't understand that. The A330 automatics were completely incapable of dealing with the circumstances.
To support you argument for pilotless aircraft you must deal with the likes of AF447. Your solution is to provide more data (you mention accelerometers in mobile phones, as an example, apparently unaware of similar technology in the ADIRUs) and on this basis you proclaim your pilotless aircraft will be safer that an aircraft with a pilot.
But data from additional technology would also aid any human pilot as well and so improve their safety records. Thus you can't fairly compare the performance of pilots - without your additional data - and future automation - with your additional data -.
Hence the safety argument is spurious.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we thinking about this the right way
Everyone,
Over the many pages are we thinking about pilots vs computer, when we could be thinking about pilots vs pilots who are programmers, working with manufactures to put their experiences into control (event triggered) with feedback systems all in order to follow the designed way to fly (operate).
now if the book is wrong, it needs fixing, yes I get that but putting to one side when to ignore the book and when not is a different subject,
I suggest the approach is - write the use case - ie to challenge the automation guys & lay the gauntlet down.
The endless what if but in a systematic way.
Cost effectiveness is a factor for development, but only one of many factors (space, defence, acadeaminea, would (and are) developing, and will continue to,
Compute power is increasing the last 40 years to the next will be shocking just 1970 computers to Internet connected iPhone.
Over the many pages are we thinking about pilots vs computer, when we could be thinking about pilots vs pilots who are programmers, working with manufactures to put their experiences into control (event triggered) with feedback systems all in order to follow the designed way to fly (operate).
now if the book is wrong, it needs fixing, yes I get that but putting to one side when to ignore the book and when not is a different subject,
I suggest the approach is - write the use case - ie to challenge the automation guys & lay the gauntlet down.
The endless what if but in a systematic way.
Cost effectiveness is a factor for development, but only one of many factors (space, defence, acadeaminea, would (and are) developing, and will continue to,
Compute power is increasing the last 40 years to the next will be shocking just 1970 computers to Internet connected iPhone.
Hi Pininstauld, (I see what you've done there), yes I had a human moment and decided that I was making a possibly weak and confusing point, so I edited it out. No shame in that. I have been out all day and didn't see your reply until just now, so I wasn't reacting to you. No harm done.
Tourist:
Most of your replies to mine are baffling. So which commercial aircraft currently do all the things you say they can do, or are you just saying that it is theoretically possible for computers to do them?
"Computers better at SA than humans" Do you really, seriously believe that??? What do you actually know about computers? Do you understand how they are made, how they are programmed and how they work? Honda made a robot called ASIMO. He was impressive. He could walk up and down stairs (which had strategically placed reflective dot markers on them to help him work out the complex positional calculations). Sadly, as he left the room after his demonstration, ASIMO walked into a door.
Your last point is a really weird one. I don't know what flying you did, but you sound very bitter and twisted. I enjoy my work. Flying to the Maldives or Florida for example, or even good old Malaga, is brilliant. Beats working in a factory. If you found that sort of thing dull, what were you before? an Apollo astronaut?
That ECAM fuel balance checklist was written by humans, and has since been revised after the error was discovered. And humans will write the software in the computer that you think will be able to do everything we do so much better. Computers are good at being a tool for humans, for example, as you say to calculate a landing distance or meter the fuel to the engines. But to actually fly the whole aircraft and conduct the whole flight?? A computer is just a machine that has to be programmed for every possible variable and each different set of circumstances. It is very difficult to do that for something as complicated as a commercial airliner at the design stage and not miss anything out or make mistakes. That is why you need the humans - to sort out the unforseen, think around the problem and to plan ahead.
I am not saying humans are infallible, far from it, But humans designing a computer to take their place in the cockpit? Why add a whole raft of extra potential programming errors and problems and remove the very pilots who could take control and land safely in the event of a problem? When a software or hardware fault is uncovered, or realised in the computer in your airliner, where will the humans be to sort it out, or in the case of AirTransat, perform a deadstick landing?
A final thought. Surgeons make mistakes too. Would you remove humans from the operating theater?
Tourist:
Most of your replies to mine are baffling. So which commercial aircraft currently do all the things you say they can do, or are you just saying that it is theoretically possible for computers to do them?
"Computers better at SA than humans" Do you really, seriously believe that??? What do you actually know about computers? Do you understand how they are made, how they are programmed and how they work? Honda made a robot called ASIMO. He was impressive. He could walk up and down stairs (which had strategically placed reflective dot markers on them to help him work out the complex positional calculations). Sadly, as he left the room after his demonstration, ASIMO walked into a door.
Your last point is a really weird one. I don't know what flying you did, but you sound very bitter and twisted. I enjoy my work. Flying to the Maldives or Florida for example, or even good old Malaga, is brilliant. Beats working in a factory. If you found that sort of thing dull, what were you before? an Apollo astronaut?
That ECAM fuel balance checklist was written by humans, and has since been revised after the error was discovered. And humans will write the software in the computer that you think will be able to do everything we do so much better. Computers are good at being a tool for humans, for example, as you say to calculate a landing distance or meter the fuel to the engines. But to actually fly the whole aircraft and conduct the whole flight?? A computer is just a machine that has to be programmed for every possible variable and each different set of circumstances. It is very difficult to do that for something as complicated as a commercial airliner at the design stage and not miss anything out or make mistakes. That is why you need the humans - to sort out the unforseen, think around the problem and to plan ahead.
I am not saying humans are infallible, far from it, But humans designing a computer to take their place in the cockpit? Why add a whole raft of extra potential programming errors and problems and remove the very pilots who could take control and land safely in the event of a problem? When a software or hardware fault is uncovered, or realised in the computer in your airliner, where will the humans be to sort it out, or in the case of AirTransat, perform a deadstick landing?
A final thought. Surgeons make mistakes too. Would you remove humans from the operating theater?
Last edited by Uplinker; 10th Dec 2014 at 09:38.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLF appears after a long time lurking...
There will come a time when the general opinion will be that flying is too dangerous to be entrusted to the control of pilots. Its a good few years off, beyond my lifetime I'd have thought, but it will come, of that there is zero doubt.
Computers are already better at operating planes than humans, have been for years, and having read this entire thread, I don't think anyone has stated an opinion to the contrary. Every example of "humans being better" is an example of when it's all gone wrong, and the pilot has bailed the automation and/or the aircraft out.
Could a fully autonomous aircraft have "done a Sully"? Unlikely.
Despite this undoubted fact, it is also a fact that losses are caused by pilots. At some point in the future, the losses due to automated aircraft being unable to get themselves out of a mess will be less than the losses caused by pilots. And that'll be the time when the air gets segregated into "pilots allowed" and "pilots not allowed" airspace. The change, when it happens, will happen with breathtaking speed.
It's already been stated above: the autonomous planes don't need to be perfect, they just need to be, averaged over the years, just better than pilots.
There will come a time when the general opinion will be that flying is too dangerous to be entrusted to the control of pilots. Its a good few years off, beyond my lifetime I'd have thought, but it will come, of that there is zero doubt.
Computers are already better at operating planes than humans, have been for years, and having read this entire thread, I don't think anyone has stated an opinion to the contrary. Every example of "humans being better" is an example of when it's all gone wrong, and the pilot has bailed the automation and/or the aircraft out.
Could a fully autonomous aircraft have "done a Sully"? Unlikely.
Despite this undoubted fact, it is also a fact that losses are caused by pilots. At some point in the future, the losses due to automated aircraft being unable to get themselves out of a mess will be less than the losses caused by pilots. And that'll be the time when the air gets segregated into "pilots allowed" and "pilots not allowed" airspace. The change, when it happens, will happen with breathtaking speed.
It's already been stated above: the autonomous planes don't need to be perfect, they just need to be, averaged over the years, just better than pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And with that, I will bow out.
The arguments appear to be getting circular with nothing new being input, plus more importantly my dull seminar is over and I can get back to flying!
Thank you for giving me something to think/argue about.
Revisit in 20yrs?
The arguments appear to be getting circular with nothing new being input, plus more importantly my dull seminar is over and I can get back to flying!
Thank you for giving me something to think/argue about.
Revisit in 20yrs?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
of that there is zero doubt.
it is also a fact that losses are caused by pilots
Another important fact being ignored, pilots, on a daily basis, save situations and the number far outweighs the losses.
Finally, you have not considered the insurance industry, not just the aircraft and their manufacturers, (Product Liability), the airlines, (Hull insurance, as well as pax and third party legal liability), and the airports themselves who have to carry billions of dollars of indemnity. Speaking to a leading underwriter of one of the major aviation syndicates at Lloyds, who enjoys PPRuNe very much, the attitude of the market is that cover will be so expensive as to preclude the possibility of pilotless aircraft. (In 1983 the annual Product Liability premium for General Dynamics was $250million).