"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article
CargoOne
ps. Some of the major automotive manufacturers expect to release fully autonomous cars to the market in 2020. You can say it is not the same speed. True. But then road environment is also much less structured and less predictable. Current prototypes driving cities and highways without major issues, it took around decade to get there.
ps. Some of the major automotive manufacturers expect to release fully autonomous cars to the market in 2020. You can say it is not the same speed. True. But then road environment is also much less structured and less predictable. Current prototypes driving cities and highways without major issues, it took around decade to get there.
The military has solved that problems with their drones by carrying some decent amount of explosives and an automatic or radio operated fusing system.
Both methods (stopping or blowing up) are less suitable for commercial air traffic. But you and some others still think that expierience in autonomous cars and military drones are of significant relevance?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I guess you are not real ex F4 since you are taking stuff from the movies.
Reaper and pred and the like do not self destruct as a safety method.
Cars can stop but have far smaller safety tolerances than aircraft. They routinely pass within feet of each other for hours on end with no height separation. It is an equally or more difficult problem to solve. They have no deconfiction system beyond staying on the right hand side of the road. They have no warnings. The turning radius and slowing distances are variable with weather.
Reaper and pred and the like do not self destruct as a safety method.
Cars can stop but have far smaller safety tolerances than aircraft. They routinely pass within feet of each other for hours on end with no height separation. It is an equally or more difficult problem to solve. They have no deconfiction system beyond staying on the right hand side of the road. They have no warnings. The turning radius and slowing distances are variable with weather.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hands-free cruise control that requires the driver to watch the road and shut it down when something unusual happens, and leaves all liability on the driver for using it, almost certainly. Driving on urban streets in a snow storm during rush hour, while I nap in the back seat? No way.
Current prototypes driving cities and highways without major issues, it took around decade to get there.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Just stop' is not a solution to programming problems in heavy traffic, it's an accident waiting to happen.
Canute
I guess you are not real ex F4 since you are taking stuff from the movies.
Reaper and pred and the like do not self destruct as a safety method.
I guess you are not real ex F4 since you are taking stuff from the movies.
Reaper and pred and the like do not self destruct as a safety method.
@MG23
Cars stop on a daily basis in heavy traffic, even with drivers. And I didn't say they would be programmed to stop within the second on the driving lane. Get real, highways have emergency parking lanes and exits and streets have parking spaces close by. Nothing compareable to an autonomous aircraft flying anywhere except on a ten mile final.
But if you think that soft- and hardware are not able to park an future autonomous car in short time to prevent it from causing accidents, what do you then expect from an autonomous airliner?
Last edited by RetiredF4; 9th Dec 2014 at 13:26.
The elephant in the room here is surely that:
a) Any computer taking the place of a human pilot will have to be able to think, predict and plan as well as a human. This means that humans will need to be able to model the human brain in a computer.
b) Any such computer will be built and programmed by humans.
c) The 'computerphiles' are assuming that such a computer will be 100% reliable and never have a bad internal connection or a memory fault or a CPU conflict.
So they are talking about a system on aircraft which will also be made by humans and that will introduce another whole set of potential glitches and software errors. Not only that, but there will be no pilots on the aircraft to sort the problems out when they arise. Would you put your family on such an aircraft?
Computers are excellent at assisting humans. They can hold a course and a level while the pilots oversee the navigation. They can provide numerical data such as landing distance required. They can augment pilots' control inputs to avoid overstressing the aircraft or cause accelerations of more than 1g etc. etc. But they cannot conduct a flight.
Those arguing for computers to replace pilots are obviously not current commercial airline pilots themselves, and therefore do not appreciate the full potential complexity of conducting a flight.
They also, I suspect, have never actually programmed computers themselves, (as I have). If they had, they would realise how difficult it really is to make a computer register and react to any and all circumstances as a human can.
Yes, human pilots over the years have cocked up and crashed, and that is a terrible thing that nobody wants to see happen again. BUT Instead of arguing for computers to replace us, let's argue for better training and conditions for pilots. This is an area that has been declining in recent years owing to the competition of low cost airlines etc., and is the real area where changes need to be made.
a) Any computer taking the place of a human pilot will have to be able to think, predict and plan as well as a human. This means that humans will need to be able to model the human brain in a computer.
b) Any such computer will be built and programmed by humans.
c) The 'computerphiles' are assuming that such a computer will be 100% reliable and never have a bad internal connection or a memory fault or a CPU conflict.
So they are talking about a system on aircraft which will also be made by humans and that will introduce another whole set of potential glitches and software errors. Not only that, but there will be no pilots on the aircraft to sort the problems out when they arise. Would you put your family on such an aircraft?
Computers are excellent at assisting humans. They can hold a course and a level while the pilots oversee the navigation. They can provide numerical data such as landing distance required. They can augment pilots' control inputs to avoid overstressing the aircraft or cause accelerations of more than 1g etc. etc. But they cannot conduct a flight.
Those arguing for computers to replace pilots are obviously not current commercial airline pilots themselves, and therefore do not appreciate the full potential complexity of conducting a flight.
They also, I suspect, have never actually programmed computers themselves, (as I have). If they had, they would realise how difficult it really is to make a computer register and react to any and all circumstances as a human can.
Yes, human pilots over the years have cocked up and crashed, and that is a terrible thing that nobody wants to see happen again. BUT Instead of arguing for computers to replace us, let's argue for better training and conditions for pilots. This is an area that has been declining in recent years owing to the competition of low cost airlines etc., and is the real area where changes need to be made.
Amazingly visceral responses to an innocuous newspaper comment. Luddite tendencies much?
Uncrewed aircraft are certainly possible, but getting there will be slow, if only because they still need to share the air and terminal space with conventional designs. Passenger reactions will be nil imho, even now they only interact with the cabin staff, apart from some pro forma welcome allegedly from the pilot.
The driver for the shift to unscrewed would be economic, because crew is a sizeable chunk of operating costs. If McDonalds can justify replacing its budget burger flippers with robots, then the benefit of ditching highly paid crew that can operate only 80 hours/month has to be really compelling. The evolution would plausibly begin with drone rules for ATC, followed by an extension to unscrewed cargo carriers. Corporate and passenger flights would presumably be the last to switch, a process maybe accelerated by some ultra low cost 'Automatic Airlines' that offers a true self loading cargo experience.
Uncrewed aircraft are certainly possible, but getting there will be slow, if only because they still need to share the air and terminal space with conventional designs. Passenger reactions will be nil imho, even now they only interact with the cabin staff, apart from some pro forma welcome allegedly from the pilot.
The driver for the shift to unscrewed would be economic, because crew is a sizeable chunk of operating costs. If McDonalds can justify replacing its budget burger flippers with robots, then the benefit of ditching highly paid crew that can operate only 80 hours/month has to be really compelling. The evolution would plausibly begin with drone rules for ATC, followed by an extension to unscrewed cargo carriers. Corporate and passenger flights would presumably be the last to switch, a process maybe accelerated by some ultra low cost 'Automatic Airlines' that offers a true self loading cargo experience.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because crew is a sizeable chunk of operating costs.
Oh Buddha....
1) Add up the highest hourly rates you can find, PIC + SIC
2) Divide by the number of seats in their plane
3) If that total number for crew services exceeds $2 an hour per seat, let us know....
Airline operating costs are capital to buy the gear, fuel to run it, crew to operate it and maintenance to preserve it. Note this excludes indirect costs such as management, marketing, insurance, taxes and fees.
Capital is currently dirt cheap, fuel is less than it was, maintenance is getting reduced by a younger fleet with increasing equipment MTBO, so crew is the stand out variable. It may be small on a $ per seat mile basis, but in the aggregate afaik, it is 15-30% of direct operating costs. That makes crew costs a priority target.
Capital is currently dirt cheap, fuel is less than it was, maintenance is getting reduced by a younger fleet with increasing equipment MTBO, so crew is the stand out variable. It may be small on a $ per seat mile basis, but in the aggregate afaik, it is 15-30% of direct operating costs. That makes crew costs a priority target.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, they don't. I don't remember the last time a car just stopped in the middle of the road in front of me, unless there was a queue of traffic ahead, or some other obstacle that we all had to stop for.
If the car doesn't know what to do, it has to stop before the 'I don't know what to do' becomes 'oops, I crashed'. It can't just keep driving because you just said it doesn't know how!
And highways have lanes of traffic the car has to get through to the side of the road before it runs into the thing it doesn't know how to handle. It has to slow down, because otherwise it will crash, and then it has to get between those other cars that aren't slowing down.
A real autonomous car has to be able to handle all situations by itself, or it's an accident waiting to happen. It can't 'just stop' when it runs into something it's not programmed to handle.
When was the last time you saw an airliner swerve to a stop at the side of the sky?
Besides, the airliner would apparently be pilotless, so it has to handle every possible situation, since it has no pilot left to take over.
And I didn't say they would be programmed to stop within the second on the driving lane.
Get real, highways have emergency parking lanes and exits and streets have parking spaces close by. Nothing compareable to an autonomous aircraft flying anywhere except on a ten mile final.
A real autonomous car has to be able to handle all situations by itself, or it's an accident waiting to happen. It can't 'just stop' when it runs into something it's not programmed to handle.
But if you think that soft- and hardware are not able to park an future autonomous car in short time to prevent it from causing accidents, what do you then expect from an autonomous airliner?
Besides, the airliner would apparently be pilotless, so it has to handle every possible situation, since it has no pilot left to take over.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so crew is the stand out variable. It may be small on a $ per seat mile basis, but in the aggregate afaik, it is 15-30% of direct operating costs. That makes crew costs a priority target.
If one exists they will be lucky to see the A350 in service never mind pilotless aircraft.
@MG23
I do not know what you are getting at, I hope you read my other posts too.
I'm not advocating driverless cars or pilotless airplanes in any way. But I think the issue to stop an autonomous car in traffic is a lot more easier to handle than stopping an autonomous airliner inflight.
And while the timeline for a driverless car might be closer than we wish, the timeline for an autonomous aircraft is thankfully still decades away.
I do not know what you are getting at, I hope you read my other posts too.
I'm not advocating driverless cars or pilotless airplanes in any way. But I think the issue to stop an autonomous car in traffic is a lot more easier to handle than stopping an autonomous airliner inflight.
And while the timeline for a driverless car might be closer than we wish, the timeline for an autonomous aircraft is thankfully still decades away.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bradford
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Elephant in Room
The point has been made on this thread before, but I think it bears underlining:
You *can* make hypothetical technical arguments until the cows come home (Let's face it, few on here have many relevant FACTS).
The point is most fare paying customers (me included) will simply not buy a ticket on a pilotless airliner.
Now - they may try and sneak it up on us by having a single "pilot" and a box of processors in the R/H seat. This might then be advanced... but I still think most consumers will have the same ultimate objection.
Many many many years away guys.
You can tell it's a slow "smoking hole" year as we are still kicking around this puff-piece...
You *can* make hypothetical technical arguments until the cows come home (Let's face it, few on here have many relevant FACTS).
The point is most fare paying customers (me included) will simply not buy a ticket on a pilotless airliner.
Now - they may try and sneak it up on us by having a single "pilot" and a box of processors in the R/H seat. This might then be advanced... but I still think most consumers will have the same ultimate objection.
Many many many years away guys.
You can tell it's a slow "smoking hole" year as we are still kicking around this puff-piece...
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autonomous commercial flight services have already commenced. DHL has launched a autonomous cargo delivery service to an Island in the North Sea.
It's a small drone, and has ground controllers liaising with ATC, but it's a start.
It's easy to see the incremental road map from here to bigger, faster and higher until autonomous flight becomes mainstream.
It's a small drone, and has ground controllers liaising with ATC, but it's a start.
It's easy to see the incremental road map from here to bigger, faster and higher until autonomous flight becomes mainstream.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You *can* make hypothetical technical arguments until the cows come home (Let's face it, few on here have many relevant FACTS).
The point is most fare paying customers (me included) will simply not buy a ticket on a pilotless airliner.
Yes, but, you will not give a toss about the rewards the pilots receive. You will only be interested in the cost of the ticket. The cost of operating the a/c has reduced due to oil prices; further costs e.g. ATC, landing fees etc. will not reduce, but the pax expect reduced ticket prices. So where is that reduction in cost going to come from? There aren't too many choices. Why is the travelling public so naive?
You go to a 'Fast food outlet" you can eat; you go to a 3* restaurant & you can eat. One is more enjoyable and better than the other. They are both licensed. You get on a 3* airline and you can travel in safety; you get on an airline who pays peanuts and you take your chance. One is more enjoyable than the other. Both are licensed.
QED.
The point is most fare paying customers (me included) will simply not buy a ticket on a pilotless airliner.
Yes, but, you will not give a toss about the rewards the pilots receive. You will only be interested in the cost of the ticket. The cost of operating the a/c has reduced due to oil prices; further costs e.g. ATC, landing fees etc. will not reduce, but the pax expect reduced ticket prices. So where is that reduction in cost going to come from? There aren't too many choices. Why is the travelling public so naive?
You go to a 'Fast food outlet" you can eat; you go to a 3* restaurant & you can eat. One is more enjoyable and better than the other. They are both licensed. You get on a 3* airline and you can travel in safety; you get on an airline who pays peanuts and you take your chance. One is more enjoyable than the other. Both are licensed.
QED.
The cost of certifying pilotless airliners will outweigh the cost savings of taking out the pilots. Especially bearing in mind you will have to have higher qualified operators on the ground and one person trained to take over in flight if required, so the numbers will not reduce significantly. And bear in mind low cost airlines won't make money out of training new pilots.
It's not going to happen in my lifetime.
It's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
because crew is a sizeable chunk of operating costs