Pilotless airliner.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: BRUSSELS
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just ain't so. Ever tried unscrambling an egg? My point was that the technology needed to render the whole air transport system completely pilotless may just be prohibitively expensive. I have no doubt that absolutely unimaginable advances in our industry are possible - given a blank cheque and say, the gross national product of a small country.
Call me old-fashioned, but being a paid up member of the old f#rt's club, I would prefer that when something is going badly wrong up front, that the person responsible for arranging my return to earth has his @rse up there with me ... rather than at that precise moment sitting drinking a caffe latte in some bar in silicon valley.
Call me old-fashioned, but being a paid up member of the old f#rt's club, I would prefer that when something is going badly wrong up front, that the person responsible for arranging my return to earth has his @rse up there with me ... rather than at that precise moment sitting drinking a caffe latte in some bar in silicon valley.
It looks like we're of the same generation hey! Indeed, as soon as I am prevented to fly an airliners myself, there is no way you'll find me travelling in the back of them. I love on an island, and I'd rather row my way to the continent than let myself flown to it, even with nowadays pilotfull aircraft.
However, different ideas on a subject being always stimulating for old brains, I do not share your view on "egg-unscrambling". First, it is chemichally possible, even if expensive. It is possible to turn lead into gold, just "pointlessly" expensive. But I do not thing that the humongous price of making the industry pilotless is pointless. I mean, not in the mind of some people who insist calling people "a market". WE, aviators will never put our butts in a pilotless aircraft. It does not necessarily mean that Mr&Mrs Beachmeat won't, if the ticket price is right. Remember, The whole dream of democracy is to raise the proletarian to the level of stupidity attained by the bourgeois. (Gustave Flaubert). Remember the fuss about ETOPS, EROPS? Remember the United 777 from AUK to LAX who went 190 (yep, one hundred and NINETY, not eighty) minutes on one engine over CEPAC before landing? 777s are still full swing over CAPAC, SOPAC, NOPAC with 380 SLF on board who just sleep as their arrival place&time is as much a sure thing as their departure's.
Again, I do not want to predict pilotless liners will happen. My point is that as we cannot perceive the present, how could we possibly predict the future and take it for granted that because of what we know today, we can project it on tomorrow.
A merry, serene and peacful Christmas to you all.
Humus Motor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: A little place called Samsonite
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lemper, I think I'd enjoy flying with you.... we could talk for hours about all this while the aeroplane sorts itself out - would make a 5 hour sector whistle along. I'll bring the eggs, you bring the Wittgenstein!
A Merry Christmas!
A Merry Christmas!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: XUMAT
Age: 61
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
won't happen any time soon, but it will happen someday.
For all the reasons given so far of course, but also because computers are not compact enough or advanced enough (or both, which is what's needed). To do the job properly you would need something approaching Turing-compliant systems which can make intelligent decisions rather than just today's mindless automation.
Then you would need years of experience and testing before they were able to be put into practical use on heavy jets.
Finally, would you trust your life to anything with a Microsoft label on is....?
For all the reasons given so far of course, but also because computers are not compact enough or advanced enough (or both, which is what's needed). To do the job properly you would need something approaching Turing-compliant systems which can make intelligent decisions rather than just today's mindless automation.
Then you would need years of experience and testing before they were able to be put into practical use on heavy jets.
Finally, would you trust your life to anything with a Microsoft label on is....?
http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co....er/sandys.html
Been here before on the unmanned flight issue. Anyone remeber Duncan Sandys, did a great hatchet job on GB PLC?
Been here before on the unmanned flight issue. Anyone remeber Duncan Sandys, did a great hatchet job on GB PLC?
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This SLF says
Just take a look at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...41#post3036041 on this very board!
I think there's an expression something about "tea" and "China"
P.S. - Merry Christmas Prooners!
NO!
Just take a look at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...41#post3036041 on this very board!
I think there's an expression something about "tea" and "China"
P.S. - Merry Christmas Prooners!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Age: 73
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr. William Knecht
Gentleman,
As a private designer of collision avoidance systems, your commentary on this thread is extremely valuable and infinitely respected, professionally. I can't agree more that the deployment of pilotless commercial passenger aircraft faces an uphill battle all the way. Publically, 5 years working for the FAA has taught me the glacial pace of technological change in civil aviation--and that is when a basic idea is sound and supported by both the public AND professional communities. In the case of the particular idea we're discussing, both those assumptions are seriously in doubt.
IMHO, neither the pilot nor the air traffic controller are going anywhere in this lifetime. Limited use may be made of UAS for the military, law enforcement, and freight ops. IF the record of these ops goes 10-15 years without a hitch, THEN we may begin to see more extensive freight-handling, with a possibility of limited single-pilot passenger flights (the co-pilot being stationed on terra firma). BUT--I believe that's about as far as passenger flights will get in the next 50-100 yr. Why? Because Murphy's Law, politics, and human nature & wisdom will join hands to keep humans in the loop.
I once wrote an auto-CAS system based on Martin Eby's "force-field" algorithm. You could aim 10 aircraft all at a single point, and they'd miraculously jockey around each other. Cool. But, it never occurred to me that time could be a negative number inside a computer. So, once 2 a/c passed each other, repulsion became attraction (because time to contact went negative). And, in some instances, we ended up with a/c orbiting around one another in a neat, little circle. Lesson: Just because the guy who thought of the idea came from M.I.T. doesn't mean that the schmuck (i.e. me!) programming the computer code has thought of all the ways this thing could go wrong. Nor has his manager (what about the mixed-equipage situation??).
This is why (a) engineers should listen to pilots & controllers, (b) we can't let common sense leave the building, (c) we should give pilots & controllers good decision SUPPORT tools--not ones that make all the decisions for them.
Y'all are terrific. Take care.
WR "Billy Bob" Knecht
As a private designer of collision avoidance systems, your commentary on this thread is extremely valuable and infinitely respected, professionally. I can't agree more that the deployment of pilotless commercial passenger aircraft faces an uphill battle all the way. Publically, 5 years working for the FAA has taught me the glacial pace of technological change in civil aviation--and that is when a basic idea is sound and supported by both the public AND professional communities. In the case of the particular idea we're discussing, both those assumptions are seriously in doubt.
IMHO, neither the pilot nor the air traffic controller are going anywhere in this lifetime. Limited use may be made of UAS for the military, law enforcement, and freight ops. IF the record of these ops goes 10-15 years without a hitch, THEN we may begin to see more extensive freight-handling, with a possibility of limited single-pilot passenger flights (the co-pilot being stationed on terra firma). BUT--I believe that's about as far as passenger flights will get in the next 50-100 yr. Why? Because Murphy's Law, politics, and human nature & wisdom will join hands to keep humans in the loop.
I once wrote an auto-CAS system based on Martin Eby's "force-field" algorithm. You could aim 10 aircraft all at a single point, and they'd miraculously jockey around each other. Cool. But, it never occurred to me that time could be a negative number inside a computer. So, once 2 a/c passed each other, repulsion became attraction (because time to contact went negative). And, in some instances, we ended up with a/c orbiting around one another in a neat, little circle. Lesson: Just because the guy who thought of the idea came from M.I.T. doesn't mean that the schmuck (i.e. me!) programming the computer code has thought of all the ways this thing could go wrong. Nor has his manager (what about the mixed-equipage situation??).
This is why (a) engineers should listen to pilots & controllers, (b) we can't let common sense leave the building, (c) we should give pilots & controllers good decision SUPPORT tools--not ones that make all the decisions for them.
Y'all are terrific. Take care.
WR "Billy Bob" Knecht
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: BRUSSELS
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Billie Bob,
Thank you very warmly for this very informative and (finaly!) authorised unbiased opinion! I'd love to have you in my flight deck on a long haul flight.
I wish and hope the moderator would (will?) re-open this thread for all to read it.
I do not want to contradict anything of what you laid down so clearly in your post, as I haven't got the the intelectual nor educational backgorund to do so, however, on a strictly philosophical level, one little sentence tickled my aviator's cynically rebellious mind:
Why? Because Murphy's Law, politics, and human nature & wisdom will join hands to keep humans in the loop.
Either I am still blind form a 1968 revolutionary mentality, or is it that in the past......so many years ( I won't tell how many, as I am still hoping to get Cindy Crawford in my flight deck too...we've got bunks!) I have been flying all around the planet, I have the impression that exactly the opposite of what you state has happened, is happening, and shows all the signs of continuity.
Come on Earthmover, jump in!
And a very happy New Year to all!
Thank you very warmly for this very informative and (finaly!) authorised unbiased opinion! I'd love to have you in my flight deck on a long haul flight.
I wish and hope the moderator would (will?) re-open this thread for all to read it.
I do not want to contradict anything of what you laid down so clearly in your post, as I haven't got the the intelectual nor educational backgorund to do so, however, on a strictly philosophical level, one little sentence tickled my aviator's cynically rebellious mind:
Why? Because Murphy's Law, politics, and human nature & wisdom will join hands to keep humans in the loop.
Either I am still blind form a 1968 revolutionary mentality, or is it that in the past......so many years ( I won't tell how many, as I am still hoping to get Cindy Crawford in my flight deck too...we've got bunks!) I have been flying all around the planet, I have the impression that exactly the opposite of what you state has happened, is happening, and shows all the signs of continuity.
Come on Earthmover, jump in!
And a very happy New Year to all!
Humus Motor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: A little place called Samsonite
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Lemper. Give me a day or two. I've been working (working for goodness sake!) and have just completed the washing of the pile of dishes/glasses from the New Year celebrations with a large bunch of friends in Earthmover House.
But I have to agree with your last point ..... up to a point!
Happy New Year
But I have to agree with your last point ..... up to a point!
Happy New Year
Guest
Posts: n/a
You're all missing the point. Has anyone checked the score board lately?
This is not about economizing pilot salary cost, this is about safety. 60% of all accidents are still pilot induced.
If those can be eliminated, all the better. And the only examples you can dish out for not computer controllable situations are so incredibly rare, that a meritorious service award is handed out, for every one of them!
I love flying (piloting) just as much as those of you defending your jobs so ferociously, but you really have to look at that from a different angle. It will happen that you won't get paid for doing what you like best, sadly I should say.
This is not about economizing pilot salary cost, this is about safety. 60% of all accidents are still pilot induced.
If those can be eliminated, all the better. And the only examples you can dish out for not computer controllable situations are so incredibly rare, that a meritorious service award is handed out, for every one of them!
I love flying (piloting) just as much as those of you defending your jobs so ferociously, but you really have to look at that from a different angle. It will happen that you won't get paid for doing what you like best, sadly I should say.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotland/Sweden
Age: 40
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humans make errors, but does that mean that we shall be replaced by computers and robots?
I think that we at some point will dig our own grave with our love for automation.
60% human errors yes, but in how many cases are there only one cause for an accident? there is a chain of errors that leads to disaster and not only the 2/3 persons sitting up front. One wonder who they are going to blame if they cannot blame the pilots
I will not place my butt on an airliner without a pilot, that is for sure.
I can leave a seat for those who are so eager to sit in a tube controlled entirely by a computers.
It is pretty funny that people think that airliners without a human pilot is no big deal, especially these days when trains and boats still are controlled by people and not computers
.
I think that we at some point will dig our own grave with our love for automation.
60% human errors yes, but in how many cases are there only one cause for an accident? there is a chain of errors that leads to disaster and not only the 2/3 persons sitting up front. One wonder who they are going to blame if they cannot blame the pilots
I will not place my butt on an airliner without a pilot, that is for sure.
I can leave a seat for those who are so eager to sit in a tube controlled entirely by a computers.
It is pretty funny that people think that airliners without a human pilot is no big deal, especially these days when trains and boats still are controlled by people and not computers
.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flying is relatively simple... why? Because you don't have to plan for the eventuality that an obstacle is on the tracks, or a 3rd world country fishing boat is crossing your shipping lane.
Virtually all obstacles that are in the air give an automated system enough time to plan for evasive action.
There is never just one cause for an accident, but unfortunately, we humans have a habit of facilitating multiple errors leading to disaster through a number of behavioural and psychological properties that, as you point out, also happen to be strengths on an interpersonal level. Of course I'd rather not go to bed with a computer, but when it comes to flying an aircraft, routine jobs and the likes, I'll take machine over man any day.
Virtually all obstacles that are in the air give an automated system enough time to plan for evasive action.
There is never just one cause for an accident, but unfortunately, we humans have a habit of facilitating multiple errors leading to disaster through a number of behavioural and psychological properties that, as you point out, also happen to be strengths on an interpersonal level. Of course I'd rather not go to bed with a computer, but when it comes to flying an aircraft, routine jobs and the likes, I'll take machine over man any day.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Gotland/Sweden
Age: 40
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok. So aircrafts are easier to automate than trains and boats? if that is the case, then there is even more reasons to not take humans out of the flightdeck.
I would say that airliners operate in a way more dynamic environment than trains and boats. If they cannot get things that follows a rail to operate perfectly without a driver, how on earth can they then make aircrafts pilotless?
Are you a pilot? I am just wondering.
I do not belive that computers can cope with that environment without humans yet!
Maybe in a 100 yrs+ but to do that now would be truly foolish.
As some people already has ponted out. How often are situations when pilots have prevented accidents brought up?
I would say that airliners operate in a way more dynamic environment than trains and boats. If they cannot get things that follows a rail to operate perfectly without a driver, how on earth can they then make aircrafts pilotless?
Are you a pilot? I am just wondering.
I do not belive that computers can cope with that environment without humans yet!
Maybe in a 100 yrs+ but to do that now would be truly foolish.
As some people already has ponted out. How often are situations when pilots have prevented accidents brought up?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: BRUSSELS
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, Lemper. Give me a day or two. I've been working (working for goodness sake!) and have just completed the washing of the pile of dishes/glasses from the New Year celebrations with a large bunch of friends in Earthmover House.
But I have to agree with your last point ..... up to a point!
Happy New Year
But I have to agree with your last point ..... up to a point!
Happy New Year
OK, earthmover, just drop it....not worth it.
There is ONE guy in this whole forum who sends a post worth to read at least twice, on a subject which, though very academic, is worth reflecting upon, and all you get is politician style ranting, where all they talk at the same time and nobody listens except to himself.
I've had it. I go back to the thread about "what we do on long haul flights", and try a real excentric one.
See you there!
L
PS: Thanks for the up a point, but I am not really into competition. Just happy to learn something.....makes me feel younger.
Guest
Posts: n/a
David_Lid,
You're wrong.
It's the number of unknowns that make a system of equations difficult or impossible to solve, not the amount of dimensions. Something that moves in 2D, but you don't know what's going to be in its way, can be impossible to automate.
Aviation is extremely structured compared to anything that moves at ground level in an unprotected environment.
There are only a few cases where pilots saved the day because of malfunctioning computers. 60% of all crashes are still caused by pilots. You have to get your statistics straight, chap!
And yes, I am a pilot...
You're wrong.
It's the number of unknowns that make a system of equations difficult or impossible to solve, not the amount of dimensions. Something that moves in 2D, but you don't know what's going to be in its way, can be impossible to automate.
Aviation is extremely structured compared to anything that moves at ground level in an unprotected environment.
There are only a few cases where pilots saved the day because of malfunctioning computers. 60% of all crashes are still caused by pilots. You have to get your statistics straight, chap!
And yes, I am a pilot...
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Humans make errors, but does that mean that we shall be replaced by computers and robots?
I think that we at some point will dig our own grave with our love for automation.
60% human errors yes, but in how many cases are there only one cause for an accident? there is a chain of errors that leads to disaster and not only the 2/3 persons sitting up front. One wonder who they are going to blame if they cannot blame the pilots
I will not place my butt on an airliner without a pilot, that is for sure.
I can leave a seat for those who are so eager to sit in a tube controlled entirely by a computers.
It is pretty funny that people think that airliners without a human pilot is no big deal, especially these days when trains and boats still are controlled by people and not computers .
I think that we at some point will dig our own grave with our love for automation.
60% human errors yes, but in how many cases are there only one cause for an accident? there is a chain of errors that leads to disaster and not only the 2/3 persons sitting up front. One wonder who they are going to blame if they cannot blame the pilots
I will not place my butt on an airliner without a pilot, that is for sure.
I can leave a seat for those who are so eager to sit in a tube controlled entirely by a computers.
It is pretty funny that people think that airliners without a human pilot is no big deal, especially these days when trains and boats still are controlled by people and not computers
.Humans programme computers, will the accident reports some decades into the future be attributed to Programmer Error.
Note that this post is being submitted by someone who is both a pilot and a serious aviation computer programmer. I make more mistakes at the key-board than I do in the cockpit
Regards,
Old Smokey
Flying is relatively simple... why? Because you don't have to plan for the eventuality that an obstacle is on the tracks, or a 3rd world country fishing boat is crossing your shipping lane.
For 'obstacle' substitute 'uncontrolled intruder'.
For '3rd world country fishing boat' substitute '3rd world country intercepter'.
There are only a few cases where pilots saved the day because of malfunctioning computers. 60% of all crashes are still caused by pilots. You have to get your statistics straight, chap!
Primary nav goes down - switch to backup/ground aids/DR.
Engine control packs in - shut down or control manually.
Pressurisation, electrics etc etc all computer controlled and all can fail.
744 used to occasionally require a complete power off and reboot (on the ground
)As an engineer and pilot I don't consider myself a Luddite (had a few disagreements with the 'Standing up in a hammock' brigade) but . .
remember Apollo 13
