jimjim 1

Isn't it a fact that if the median wage is £24,000 pa., or let's call it "X", then there will be many more than half of the workforce on less than "X" & only a relatively few "Higher Earners" on "X+".

Ie, if the average is "X" that does not mean that half of wage earners receive above "X" & half below "X". Rather, it means that far more are below "X" in order to weight the average down to "X".

Or, to put it another way, 1 person earning 100,000 & 14 persons earning 20,000 gives you an average pay of £25,333.

A ratio of 14:1 !

I would not want to fly on an aircraft not piloted by human beings up front. It's quite illogical to take that stance but I feel that is the way most people feel. Earlier today I asked 8 people I was having drinks with, all currently or previously involved in some way aviation.

They all said 'no way'.

I think there is a lot of resistance to overcome before this becomes commercial reality for passenger carrying aircraft.

Computers are not capable of anticipating more than 3 seconds ahead which is why pilotless airplanes will never happen. And Im pretty sure management is the biggest airliner expense after fuel!

Direct Law
 

@BBK, exactly. One of the enduring lessons from AF447 is that of a sophistacted automation system giving up & dropping out; leaving the remaining people in a worse off situation than had the automation never been provided. Any fully autonomus system must be failure hardened to orders of magnitude greater than currently economic (note i didnt say possible..)
More automation will come, it allows aircraft to operate more efficiently over more direct routes and at optimum altitudes, but the economics of pilotless aircraft are a very long way away.

Funny coz, AF477, actually, proved that automation did not work at first...

but one thing I am sure :

the day, the automation will be less expensive than pilots, then for sure they will replace them.

it's all about money... not about pscyhology of passengers, safety or any others "excuses".

Drake`s Golden Hinde weighed in at 300T displacement with a crew complement of 80 men.

Today a ultra large crude carrier weighs in at 440,000DWT and has a crew of 20-30. The biggest container carrier is 18000TEU with a 165,000DWT and a crew of 13.

We all know that given the economies of scale offered by wide bodied aircraft the maginificent Concorde was a still birth, but kept alive more for political reasons than anything else.

We all know why the Titanic and Costa Concordia went down.

In a world driven by commercial exigencies there can be no room for romanticism. I am afraid the future will be dictated by bankers and financiers, as it always has been and will always be.

Passengerless airliners safer - Daily Telegraph

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0_interior.jpg

Reverse engineering brains
 

That is precisely what Mr Kurzweil says is being worked on. He estimates that the reverse engineering will be complete in 2029. I think this is based at least partly on the rate at which the resolution of brain scanning is improving. He says that a great deal is now known about the architecture of the brain.

I don't understand it myself of course but he is quite a convincing character, essentially being an engineer. I have been watching few hours of his stuff on youtube:-) He has not yet set of my bulls**t detector.

The big thing that is very, very hard to grasp is that the rate of development of new stuff is accelerating and that there is no end in sight to that acceleration. Setting aside for the moment the religion of peace of course.

More Kurzweil.

Once upon a time ... not too long ago, certainly in my youth .... lifts had human beings employed to open and close metal gates and to press buttons to set in place the machinery necessary for the lift to move between floors.

This is now a bygone era, and may well make younger members of this forum snigger at the very idea.

So maybe, just maybe, the idea of a plane flight with no human on the flight deck is not so far-fetched after all ...

Absolutely, it will happen one day for sure. Future generations will evolve trusting such technology. Thankfully I shall be long gone before it does happen though!

It will happen: as someone said up above, spacecraft are moving to full automation as computers are better at flying them than humans, and Buran already demonstrated that capability years ago, even with Soviet-era computers.

But spacecraft don't have to fly in bad weather, or in a sky crowded with other aircraft. Replacing pilots in those conditions won't happen any time soon, just like cars driving themselves around a race track doesn't mean driverless cars are coming to the High Street any time soon. They'll begin with better and better adaptive cruise control on the highways, and progress from there, rather than suddenly appearing in the car showrooms with no steering wheel.

I was watching a DVD a while back with old documentaries about the postal service and banks, showing how money moved from one account to another when you mailed a cheque. The number of people involved in that process, from collecting the mail to updating the bank records, was enormous, compared to the number now required to make an online payment.

UPS has said they plan to start flying pilot less freighters on transpacific routes by 2025. This will pave the way to automated ground controlled flights with a "safety" pilot to take over if something goes wrong which will eventually lead to the elimination of any pilots.

It is inevitable, the only question is when. My guess by 2035 it will be the norm for long haul over ocean and by 2040 it will be the norm for all sched airlines.

As for passenger reluctance, dream on. If the pilotless airline is 10 dollars cheaper than the one with pilots, their airplanes will be full and the other one will fire the pilots or go bankrupt.......

If $10 was all it took to make us pick a different airline, most of them would have gone bust by now. If I'm already paying $1000+ for a ticket, I'm not going to switch to Pilotless Air just to save $10.

But you're right, cargo is likely to be where it happens first. Just like trucks are likely to be where driverless vehicles first appear on the highways, running between truckstops outside cities.

pilotless airplanes will never happen. First of all if its a computer controlled from the ground it can be hacked and someone else can take over control. The pentagon hasnt even figured out a way to stop hackers getting into their servers you reckon some low cost airline whos trying to save 10 bucks is going to figure it out? naaaaah id definitely call their bluff on this one!

I guess in many ways I'm being overly philosophical here. Do forgive me, I just can't see a way for man to design a level of judgement and wisdom that exceeds his own (those that do have clearly been brainwashed by Hollywood) and it's for that reason I don't believe it will ever be a better solution overall. Yes ultimately everything will be judged by safety statistics and given a human brain vs computer brain performing repetitive tasks, 99% of the time the computer will win for obvious reasons but that 1% will forever haunt.

If this is the argument for automation then it should be the same argument for computers running the rest of our lives. An automation bubble will form one day very soon where we discover we have very little to live for if computers are doing everything. What is it that makes this world go around at the end of the day? It is the ability to do something someone else can't or won't whilst taking financial reward in the process. What worth will we have as humans if we can't do anything? We certainly can't rely on the state for help! The automation bubble will burst and it will probably burst long before pilotless airliners are a reality. Automation is making great strides in every sector, what's to say the whole idea of flying from one part of the world to another will still be around by then?

"The myth of A.I.": Jaron Lanier
 

The Myth Of AI | Edge.org

Jaron Lanier may not have "invented the electric piano" but he knows a thing or two on the subject of what computers are and aren't capable of.

London's Docklands Light Railway has been driverless since it opened in 1987 and in 2013 carried 101 Million people, its accident rate is way way less than rest of London Underground with drivers attached.

UK's Rail Network uses GPS to decide what door needs to be opened and at which station because simply drivers couldn't cope with the sheer variety of station platforms sizes and door which need opening. There is a manual facility in event GPS goes down but rarely used.

I see Pilotless airlines within 20 years and also believe after initial scepticism they will be accepted.

There is the weather issue but believe that Fuel use will allow airlines to slow and wait outside of weather cells with fuel economy better than current position and closer to other airlines also waiting.

It just has an inevitability about it where computers do the work and humans become drones always at leisure.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a recorded message. Welcome on board this fully automated, pilotless aircraft. We understand that some of you might be feeling a little nervous about this potentially ground breaking, new era of aviation. Please be assured, nothing can go wrong. The aircraft has a full backup facility in case anything should go wrong......go wrong......go wrong.... BEEP!".

"Ladies and gentlemen, we appear to have a minor problem. Our main flight computers seem to have frozen. The backup facility will now be initiated. Could the passenger in seat number A1 open the small panel on the wall directly above the entertainment screen and press CONTROL, ALT, DELETE."

Some people are mentioning the light rail systems as being driverless. Fair enough but these are highly constrained systems and if all else fails they can apply the brakes and stop.

Any plans to go driverless on high speed trains? No? well I wonder why. Anyone want to be in a high speed train without a driver on board.

Back to aviation how about an automated airliner into that free for all known as JFK. Reckon the software can cope with a Canarsie with the ubiquitous tailwind. Ninety degrees off the runway and about 200 feet below profile. Over to you HAL!

Never say never I suppose. Of course some of you have mentioned freighters and it's not like they ever have technical problems like fires on board that would knock out the automation.

How about the cost of the datalink you'd need. Real time and in the middle of the ocean. After all, lose an engine and you need to react very quickly so what's the cost of satellite comms to facilitate that. It's not that I don't think that it's feasible to remotely fly an airliner but just that the resources involved would be MORE than that currently required by having a suitably trained crew. What the FAA and CAA have recognised is that the human is actually more important not less so hence the encouragement to hand fly where possible.

Anyone who has flown a large jet on the line for a decade or more knows this guy has a wicked case of cranial rectal inversion.

There isn't a 3 day trip I've flown that didn't involve "saving" automation systems from situations which they couldn't handle. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

50 years? Maybe. Big Maybe. Someday in the far future, well of course. In the meantime this clown, while perhaps being an expert at the automation of pianos, has only demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge of daily line operations and what pilots do everyday to make aviation the safest form of transportation.

Would it be technically possible to have a fully automated airliner, well most likely. Is it practically possible, not likely when you account for all the variables. And there are several tangents to that.

Technology integration and possible investment failure is a line of thought. In fact prematurely introducing a technology before it is mature enough can deal a devastating blow to its image and potentially cripple it for a very long time.

So along these lines. It is one thing testing, its another thing introducing it to the real world. We know for a fact that real world use can bring out all sorts of bugs and faults that should have been foreseen, and others that where not, and could not have been foreseen. Now we don't need to go though a list of aircraft models and faults do we?

The effect is, apart from the general apprehension associated with Jo public in the first place, what do you think is going to happen after the first one or two aircraft inevitable drop out the sky?

Automation on ground vehicles is still in its infant stages, and has troubles. The mining industry is trailing automated haul trucks, and they barely work. We have a long way to go before we have practical automated aircraft.

Personally I can't see myself ever boarding a pilotless aircraft. I want someone up the front who wants to get home as much as I do. Even if they were to perfect the technology, what does the computer do when you're climing out of LaGuardia and lose both your engines at 2700ft. Does it have the decision making ability that will bring you to a safe stop in the Hudson River? Getting aircraft to fly from A to B on a predetermined flight path is all well and good, but what happens when the unexpected happens?

Cat 6050 - oops RH200
 

You have a point, but not a very good one.
The only doubt here is WHEN!
If not now, then sooner or later .....


You are correct in saying that introducing immature technology would be a disaster.
But the technology is maturing (refer drones) and will, eventually get there.


And undoubtedly, somewhere down the track, the first pilotless aircraft will come to a sticky end.
But that is unlikely to spell the end of pilotless aircraft.
A banner headline saying "pilotless aircraft flies into seawall at SFO" is no more likely to stop people flying than one that says "piloted aircraft flies into seawall at SFO"


I am not arguing the pros and cons - just stating the obvious / inevitable.


As for autonomous trucks "barely working" then I think you would get an argument from Komatsu / Rio / CRA about that.
"... to date, 19 autonomous haul trucks (AHT's) have moved 100 million tonnes of rock in the Pilbara region of Western Australia"


If not now... then when!

Mixed up math
 

KCOCKAYNE :


You are quite correct about AVERAGE salaries, both in essence and mathematically.


But your first line is about MEDIAN salaries - not average.
And MEDIAN does mean "half above and half below".

I think the vast majority of people here on pprune are totally missing the point. This is actually not a piloted-vs-pilotless aircraft debate.

There will always be 'pilots' in the future, especially on passenger aircraft. However that 'pilot' will also be called the 'purser'

It's ironic the constant talking about the Hudson landing as an example of human vs machine.
In fact, the landing was highly aided by automation... The protections kicked in several times, and when the plane actually landed on the river, Sully inputs were practically being ignored.

Had Sully been piloting a Boeing, the outcome could have been very different.

Regarding fully automated airplanes, it's not going to happen in the short term... Not that's technically impossible, it's more than possible, but the costs and other factors (liability, when an accident happen, who is liable?) would never justify the adoption in the near future.

Now, it's obvious that in the long term, it's going to happen.

Regards.

The docklands light railway has exactly one variable: speed. The amount of variables involved in flying an airliner to destinations around the world is orders of magnitude higher - there is no sensible comparison.

Reading the Boeing service bulletins in the flight crew operating manual of the 777 I fly is enough to convince me that I wouldn't want to ever fly in a pilotless aircraft - I personally don't think it will ever happen, even though it is technically feasible.

And a driverless car, which is more complex in many orders of magnitude than a pilotless aircraft, is already possible. There are some prototypes from several brands (Mercedes and so on).

So, if it's possible to have a driverless car, why can't we have a pilotless airplane, which infinitely less complex?

Regards.

You might want to read up on real 'driverless cars', rather than the media fantasy, before you say things like that.

Yes, they can drive themselves so long as the road is meticulously mapped out beforehand, and nothing unexpected happens. But the technology is a long way from being useful on urban roads where the unexpected happens all the time.

I seem to remember that Google cars can't handle rain, either? Not much use in the UK.

6050 It stopped being a real machine when they b@asterized it with Cat engines.

Its not about stopping people flying, its about choice and market pressure. The fact is if it was going to happen, it would start as a single model. The first major crash attributable to the automation will have a devastating psychological effect on the punters. Basically they fly on the competition.

Basically the standard to do it may make it uneconomic.

As for Komatapillars and Rio, 100 million tonne isn't that much. Also don't forget Cat is doing the same thing at FMG and elsewhere. Don't believe all the PR hype, there are significant problems ( the brake parts business is doing well out of it), but the potential savings are that great, it makes it worthwhile.

The point is, if autonomous systems, such as those in haulage in well structured system is having problems, any such system for the general public will be even worse. Throw in aviation and the falling out of the sky scenario, and it becomes even harder.

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

Those trucks operate in a closed environment in a big dirt pit, being stopped to load up with rocks, drive to another location via GPS then dump them. Hardly the same parameters as an aircraft

Plenty of pilotless airliners already and with a perfect safety record too! They are all sitting at terminals or in hangars. :ok:

Cheers,
BH.

It Will Happen
 

I don't think it really matters much if at all what workers and professionals think about this issue, it's only a matter of time until it happens, for two main reasons. First, folks like this punditing Gent are in control of our world and when they find a chance to make another buck, it gets taken, no matter how many people get hurt. Second, humanity in general has an unfortunate and innate characteristic, namely that when something becomes possible, it eventually gets regarded as necessary.

Pretty good description of certain airlines, I'd say.

As usual money will determine what happens. Equipment manufacturers have the ear of politicians and finance directors. There is a lot of pressure to install more 'black boxes' because it is claimed they will improve safety, cut costs, reduce emissions, let us all live happily ever after blah blah blah.

Increasing use of and eventual dependency on automation will probably result in jobs being 'evaluated' into a lower skill/responsibility category i.e much lower pay rates. Pilots and controllers will be retained to reassure the public BUT the airlines and ATC organisations will make sure the public are told how much less demanding their jobs are compared with the past.

Hard Taskmaster
 

Thanks Fizz ... My thoughts also.


None of this is about whether they can do this right now.
It's whether they will go down that track at some undefined time in the future.
And why there is even conjecture about that I do not know.


The military is working now on getting pilots out of aircraft, though remote operation is likely to become common before autonomous fighters become a reality.
That may be an interim step for commercial aircraft too.
It will all depend on the economic argument at the time that the technology becomes available.


As for haultrucks vs aircraft ... again, no real comparison was implied.
But 15 years ago autonomous trucks were just somebody's crazy idea.
Now they are a reality. Maybe not perfect yet but they're getting there.
The fact that they are in a pit does not mean they use the pit walls for containment.
In fact the manufacturers have had to build some randomness into their tracking to prevent haul roads rutting from multiple loaded trucks all tracking within millimetres of each other.


And truck drivers salaries constitute a very small percentage of total operating costs. But the equipment owners still perceive real advances by getting rid of them.


And if you think that moving 5 million tonnes of rock from one place to another a few kms away (per truck) is "hardly working" then I'm bl...y glad I don't work for you.

Speaking as SLF but one with a background in technology...

Will there eventually be pilotless planes? Maybe.

Will anybody working today be made redundant by such technology? Not you your or my lifetime.

Consider this. Trains have to be the easiest form of transport in the world to convert to driverless. There's no steering, route control is done remotely by changing points/switches, etc. Yet the number of rail lines all over the world that have converted to driver less is still relatively small--and many of those still have a driver on board, just changed to spend most of his time opening doors and such.

The next easiest vehicle to convert to driverless would be the automobile. After all, cars only operate in two dimensions, not three. They're working on driverless cars and debating liability issues but I'm not holding my breath.

So, of all the things a pilot should lose sleep over, I'd say that pilotless planes should be pretty low on the list.

That involes combat aircraft in a warzone, not flying mum and the kids to their holidays

Sometimes I get annoyed with pilots who devalue our profession. It's bad enough when members of the public loudly proclaim we just "sit in the cockpit and watch the autopilot fly the plane", but when pilots themselves do it?

I would argue now (and I know this is going to go against the general trend), that the profession of airline pilot is in some respects harder than the "good old days". With more congestion in skies and on the ground, cheaper budgets, tighter turnarounds, huge pressures to save costs and fuel, increased public awareness of our activities through social media, more competition and more complex aircraft, I believe we need our work to be valued more higher by ourselves first.

Patrick Smith is a currently serving airline pilot who hosts the blog "Ask the Pilot"
He writes about the myths of automated airliners with a passion, some links on this are below:

We are told that planes basically fly themselves. How true is this?
Cummings and Kelly: More Media Claptrap About Cockpit Automation
Automation and Disaster

And this quote from one of the articles:

There are many, many things computers can do better than man. And if an autopilot controlled from the ground flew my aircraft, relegating me to little more than a passenger, my aircraft would probably have been flown more efficiently and more accurately. And probably safer too. Every approach would have been stable and every touchdown would have been in the right place. But we all know there is a 'but' coming... That is apart from the birds I've missed, the three autopilot disconnects, the two lightning strikes that removed chunks of avionics necessary for automatic (and full panel flying) flight, the decisions regarding diversions, the taxiing on icy taxiways, the missing of FOD, people and vehicles on the apron, etc. Banging my own gong, I have improved the ride quality for the passengers, saved time and money by selecting more efficient routes and pride myself on a reasonable number of early departure by working with my colleagues on the ground. Finally, I haven't had six updates of software (bug fixes and "reliability solutions") and I dont really care that CPDLC refuses to work on my aircraft.

When the automatics are better than me, replace me. But never think they will be. That because I'm self programming and generally capable of providing a solution to an unforeseen problem. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have to consider a pension. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure we'll get close to autonomous flight in my life. But this won't happen until we have perfect aircraft systems, airports and weather.

And while we are here, remember that the greedy will try and save a few coppers by out-sourcing the software to somewhere cheap. That will serve them right. Just ask the project managers in charge of large systems how much their 'savings' have cost them. Cheap software is generally nasty software and in aircraft terms, lethal.

PM

I think it will happen far sooner than people think . One of the security services biggest worries is 'sleepers' being employed by airlines . The minute that happens along with the outcome of the Malaysian crash , the next drunk pilot removed from the flight deck , the general public will be running towards aircraft which can be controlled or overridden by ground based controllers !