Precisely. If this isn't done, how will an aircraft be ordered to "go around" or enter a holding pattern? As I wrote before, what is technically achievable from an engineering stance is one thing, but fitting fully automated aircraft safely into the existing infrastructure is another kettle of fish altogether.

Cavok-flyer

The fact that some military UAVs, particularly the little ones have "20 minuter" lifespans is utterly irrelevant.

Nobody is suggesting loading them up with passengers.

The ME262 had a huge death rate and engine life spans in single figures, yet within 5 years the Comet was airborne.

Where the military goes, the civvy world follows in aviation.

Shyt

Humans need data just as much as computers to make a decision, unless you have mystical powers.

Don't hang up.

I totally agree.
I think the problems are not technical so much as integrational.

I think the biggest problem will be the transitional phase. I think the initial integration will be very dificult to organise, and as said earlier, ATC is crying out to be computerised.
It is probably easier to computerise ATC first.

The difference is that I think despite the difficulties that it will be achieved within the next 20 yrs.

Sorry, that seems totally nonsensical to me!

Would you put your child in a driverless school bus? In winter? (If you know what winter actually is..) Thought not. Too many variables, just like flying an airliner from Yellowknife to Inuvik. Ever flown from Norman Wells to Baker Lake? FYI: The entire world is not under ATC radar coverage.

BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) was originally designed to be driverless, or conductorless if you prefer, but the ridership demanded human beings up front after a very trouble prone start.
Most high-speed trains could easily be driverless, but are not. Japan, a tech-savvy nation if there ever was one, has demanded conductors be retained.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of conductorless subways, but there are far fewer variables on a closed track, weather protected tube than flying an airliner from Thompson to Churchill. Ever watch "Ice Pilots"?

Here are duties of a BART conductor (Train Operator):

Train operator duties may include, but are not limited to, the following:

Monitors console and radio communications to ensure that vehicles are operating within established guidelines;
Observes and detects problems with passengers entering and exiting train doors and takes corrective action; observes and detects hazards on the track, in the station or platforms, or the train itself, reports them to Operations Control Center personnel via radio, and take necessary corrective action;
Make announcements to passengers regarding station arrivals, transfer points, delays, and emergencies and answers passenger questions;
In yards, on test tracks, turntables and wash facilities, follows directions from Tower personnel and operates console to move trains as directed;
Takes prescribed action such as evacuating passengers, administer first aid, and using a fire extinguisher during emergencies;
Reports basic equipment malfunctions of mechanical or electrical nature to Operations Control Center; works with foreworkers and technicians to isolate reported problems;
Maintains logs of work activities; completes forms to report unusual circumstances and action taken;
Uses a variety of communication equipment, including a public address system, two‑way radios and emergency telephones;
Monitors and learns to apply changes in operating and emergency procedures;
Maintains and upgrades knowledge of policies and procedures as required.


Hmm... anyone considering driverless snowplows, (snowploughs), and sweepers on runways?

A serious question guys and this applies to every industry not just aviation. Once we've finished putting everyone out of a job through automation, who exactly is going to be travelling anyway? How will we even have an economy with such a tiny workforce? Perhaps a more pertinent issue here as it applies to everybody.

Watch some documentaries from the 30s/40s/50s, and marvel at how we have more people working today, even though most of the jobs you'll see them doing in those documentaries are gone. Some of the Royal Mail documentaries, for example, are simply staggering when you see how many people used to be required to do things that are mostly automated today.

When we see human-level AI at a low cost, yeah, we're doomed. Until then, people will always find useful things to do that others will pay for.

Tourist,
you keep pointing to the military. Ok, i follow.
Why do you think, the present non piloted military aircraft operations originate from places with overall clear sky WX conditions and land at those places as well? Why do they operate from remote bases with not much traffic, climb to high cruising altitudes and stay there throughout the mission?
Because it is easier, it can be done that way and it would be a lot more difficult to operate those gadgets from high traffic zones under typical north european weather conditions. But passengers like to fly from airports close by their home, and most live in heavily populated areas where all those military gadgets have no fly zones now for good reason.

What is the biggest safing from those unmanned military jets? There is no need for the whole life support system for the aircrew, two ejection seats, oxygen, cabin heating, cooling and ventilation, accessible glassed and instrumented cockpit area and the whole flight control handles. That is a heavy weight burden for jet carrying only two people and reduces the possible payload significantly.

There will be no way to safe that much weight in a passenger aircraft, as all those people on board still need to breath and like to have it warm and cozy. The percentage in weight safing in an A380 would be minimal.

That raises the question what advantage would air travel gain by pilotless aircraft except the costs for the crew? I see none at all at the moment.

The RetiredF4

It is not quite as simple as you make out.
Yes, good weather flatters the reaper/predator UAVs because they don't have to carry deice anti-ice. If they had to be fitted with all the expensive heavy stuff that a proper all round military jet had to carry around like flaps and a DAS and ejection seats then yes they would be far less capable and attractive.
The fact that the initial attraction had more to do with cost, endurance and safety benefits does not alter the fact that a lot of the work has been done. The thin end of the wedge is in and designers are seeing other benefits.

Your suggestion about only operating from quiet airfields is incorrect however. Kandahar is/was like Heathrow and it was routine to be queueing with the drones.

Yes, in a A380, the percentage weight/space saving is small, but it would still be a few extra 1st class seats per flight and a few tonnes of freight and lots of extra flexibility with no crew duty problems.

The big benefit is that it will be safer.
We are the failure point in a huge percentage of accidents.
I truly believe that the only reason that the safety rate is so good is that the engineers have created amazingly foolproof aircraft. Probably the best engineered machines in history.

They are so good that today's pilots have forgotten how to fly. The managers don't want them to practise, and 2 sims sessions a year is a joke.
On those occasions that something really bad happens and the aircraft gets handed to the pilot we hear about it in the news.

I have sat in sims with guys from both seats from "quality" airlines that quite simply cannot fly a raw data ILS. I'm sure they once could, but they forgot long ago.
Won't practise hand flown approach if it is a bit gusty.
Won't practise manual thrust.
The simple fact is that if you can't do it any time any place, then you can't do it period.
Aircraft always seem to fail on ****ty days.
Computers don't skill fade.
I think there are a lot of people out there who must just pray that they retire before it happens to them.
Yes there are some awesome guys out there. I don't know how they remain at that standard without the chance to practice.
The point being as I said before that autonomous airliners don't have to be perfect, they just have to be equal or better.
There are a lot more Asiana flights just waiting to happen.
The sooner you remove us from the system the better.

p.s. You say that UAVs are not replacing helicopters now or in the future and that they can't make decisions, only follow them.
There have been unmanned helicopters in Afghanistan for years moving freight very successfully. No, they are not autonomous, they require a mouse click, but as I have said many times since nobody seems to bother to watch the links I post, go and watch the autonomous Blackhawks video I posted.
That is autonomous, low level tactical flight to an LS it reccys itself.

This whole argument is based on the premise that computers can do everything perfectly all of the time, or will be able to in the near future. Best of luck with that.

P.S. My computer has crashed twice trying to post this.

Tourist - how would your totally computerised aircraft have handled the AF447 scenario?

Humans are slow at programming, make mistakes but have a brilliant mind.


Computers are fast at programming, do not make mistakes but are stupid.


I know what I prefer if locked in a tube high above the earth.

Ah, perhaps a bad example!!

If the autonomous programming was not allowed to hand back control to a flight crew, then it would have been programmed to do another level of fallback. Which would almost certainly be something like "power and pitch".

MG 23 said Yep, like flying airliners. The argument has come full circle.

Faire

You really are not reading what I post are you?

No.
I don't say that they will be perfect or even close.
There will be tragic accidents caused by the blue screen of death.

What matters is whether they can be safer than human pilots. I think that they can, others not so much.

Don't hang up.

Thank you. Just what I was going to say.


"There is no way a machine will ever weave like me!"
"That contraption will never beat a horse!"
"Ridiculous! A ship without sails!"
"Paper money!? That will never work!"
"Voices down a wire!? Preposterous!"
"A phone you can carry in your pocket!?"
"A computer you can keep in your home!?"
"Nobody is ever going to buy a mobile phone with a camera and address book. Why would you want one?!"

By George
Some people have brilliant minds.
Some are total :mad:
Do you interview your airline pilot before you fly?
It ain't hard to get a license nowadays.....

Main issue, getting SLF on board. Not volunteering.

Yes, that is the main issue.

They had that issue with planes, once.

Now your true thinking shows up. I wait that you prove that statement, at the moment every system and every computer fails, and it fails more often then it is reported and makes the headline. That's because still human operators are still doing the important things and computers the routine stuff. Why has nobody invented a system which cuts in to execute the apropriate emergency actions when the sh*t hits the fan? Your drones blow up in those cases, mission failed, lets do "booom" before more damage is done. That is not good for headlines with more than 300 souls on board.

And while AF447 crew failed to act like they should have done, over 30 reported cases did their job well. Those are 30 reported sensor failures where the autopilot quit working and the pilots did the job. Reported ones and mentioned in the BEA report, but there are much more out there not mentioned and not reported, just handled safe and well by the crews. Those had all been cases where a simple airspeed failure caused the computers to quit. One missing input leading to BS output.

Remove the pilots, and you will have more accidents than ever before.

You are forgetting another thing. Humans make mistakes, and computers and their software are made by humans too. They make mistakes as well, and until this mistake is discovered it is hidden deep in the codes in multiple systems all over the world.

I would suggest we change the managers, or remove them at all. Let aircrews keep proficiency and make it again a profession with knowledge and honor. Get rid of MPL and pilot to pay jobs. In my country a mason can try to pass his final test three times, after that he is out. A student pilot can repeat his test as long as his money lasts, that way an ape can learn flying.

The system has made them that way, guys like yourself who trust in man made computers and software more than in human manual skills. We only hear from bad pilots, the uncountable good ones do not count in your way of thinking. And its not the pilots fault, it is the system which is wrong.

Wasn't your argument that they do not fail at all? And maybe those pilots, who you talked about think the same. No need to train, computers will not fail, automation will always work. And it was not their idea either. The system has formed them that way.

Particularly like post 186. Wrong and wrong. As a pax count me out! As an engineer, what problem do you think you are solving because you sure are introducing a shed load of new ones going along a automation path. Don't think it will ever happen because a) it's a dumb idea and b) there are easier solutions (like what we have now).

I think Tourist is being a bit if a troll. Because he is missing some really important elements. The first one is that we are not killing enough people. We will have to park a few more aircraft on hills and in smoking holes every year before it becomes economically worthwhile. The cost of implementing this will be enormous and even given our current appalling record, not presently viable. The work being done at the moment is to place the companies working on these projects in first place if this looks like it's viable. They are counting on generating infra-structure, consulting and training income to enable this sort of operation to take place. Next we have the cost issues. Who will pay for the improvements to infra-structure and training to handle aircraft in the less developed parts of the world? Thirdly, we haven't got a single sky over Europe yet. Not until this exists, plus reliable and secure C(remote)PDLC will this be a flyer. Then we have the failure cases. Who can foresee a controller accepting an unmanned aircraft with a problem? Also, will the cabin crew now run the aircraft? Will they press the "something is wrong button" and be told by the cheapest handler, say one in Bangalore or Calcutta to go away or fail to communicate? Who will change international law to make a person in a remote office the "captain"? And there are hundreds more hurdles to be overcome. Will it happen - probably. But not in my lifetime. And when it does, after the first few prangs, prangs only possible because of the stupidity of computers, the public will want to know why it's not safe. And we'll send them over to the Tourist for an answer.

This all reminds me of a story about a group of managers from software companies, who were asked "if you got onto a plane, and found out that the software controlling the plane had been written by your own team, would you get off again?". All the managers except one said they would. When they asked that one manager why he would stay on he said "I would be perfectly safe - if my guys wrote the software, we wouldn't even get off the ground".


:ok: