Automation - State of the Art
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
From: East of West and North of South
muduckace
It not just communicating. Cultural differences are more important. Do you want to be a passenger in an aircraft controlled by Romanian ground crew?
Secondly (hence the comment on world peace) some places the neighboring countries are not even acknowledging each others existence. In Europe for example, the is no ATC coordination or handoff between Turkey and Cyprus.
I believe FANS was developed to eventually remedy that nasty little communication problem you have in Europe. It is all over the world, I have experienced it, worst influence is a native tongue in a native land then ATC switching back to english to handle us.
Secondly (hence the comment on world peace) some places the neighboring countries are not even acknowledging each others existence. In Europe for example, the is no ATC coordination or handoff between Turkey and Cyprus.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: FL600
Got this in an email....
From a CAL pilot friend;
"Steve Chealander member of the NTSB 2007-2009 is a retired American Captain. He gave a safety presentation at recurrent training about two years ago. He opened the floor for questions and one guy asked facetiously when are we going to one pilot cockpit?
Chealander said that is not funny. He said Fed Ex and UPS are now, (two years ago), working on the procedures for a one-pilot long haul over-water operation. The pilot would be at the controls for take off and landing then go to the bunk for cruise while the guy back in Memphis would take over for the cruise. One pilot passenger flights will take a bit longer to get approved.
Twelve years ago, I was Director of Operations for the Alaska Air Guard. I went to a high-level conference and this three-star General gave a presentation that said the exact same thing the major said. The only limitation on fighter aircraft now is the pilot. We have the technology to do everything from the ground and it will be a huge cost savings. No search and rescue, no life support systems, no backlash when we lose a plane. So this article is right on the money.
I attended a flight safety presentation last evening from a retired AF Major test pilot from Edwards, Bill Koukourikas, now serving there as a civilian. During the course of his presentation, his statement, "No future attack military aircraft within the next 15 years will have pilots in the cockpit. The last tactical aircraft with a pilot in the cockpit will be the F-35."
He also indicated that, within the next 10 or so years, all UPS and FedX cargo flights will be with pilot-less aircraft. This prediction comes from their test shop at Edwards. All drone testing, development , etc., is taking place just south of Edwards in the Palmdale area. Sounds like a continuation of the Skunk Works developments of Lockheed which previously took place in that area."
Simply amazing! Hey, are we a dying breed or what?
Guess you'll have to invite your computer to "have a beer" after the day's flying is done. Oh, I forgot. They're taking that one away too!
"Steve Chealander member of the NTSB 2007-2009 is a retired American Captain. He gave a safety presentation at recurrent training about two years ago. He opened the floor for questions and one guy asked facetiously when are we going to one pilot cockpit?
Chealander said that is not funny. He said Fed Ex and UPS are now, (two years ago), working on the procedures for a one-pilot long haul over-water operation. The pilot would be at the controls for take off and landing then go to the bunk for cruise while the guy back in Memphis would take over for the cruise. One pilot passenger flights will take a bit longer to get approved.
Twelve years ago, I was Director of Operations for the Alaska Air Guard. I went to a high-level conference and this three-star General gave a presentation that said the exact same thing the major said. The only limitation on fighter aircraft now is the pilot. We have the technology to do everything from the ground and it will be a huge cost savings. No search and rescue, no life support systems, no backlash when we lose a plane. So this article is right on the money.
I attended a flight safety presentation last evening from a retired AF Major test pilot from Edwards, Bill Koukourikas, now serving there as a civilian. During the course of his presentation, his statement, "No future attack military aircraft within the next 15 years will have pilots in the cockpit. The last tactical aircraft with a pilot in the cockpit will be the F-35."
He also indicated that, within the next 10 or so years, all UPS and FedX cargo flights will be with pilot-less aircraft. This prediction comes from their test shop at Edwards. All drone testing, development , etc., is taking place just south of Edwards in the Palmdale area. Sounds like a continuation of the Skunk Works developments of Lockheed which previously took place in that area."
Simply amazing! Hey, are we a dying breed or what?
Guess you'll have to invite your computer to "have a beer" after the day's flying is done. Oh, I forgot. They're taking that one away too!
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hi,
Strange how we need double dual or triplex autopilots to do CAT IIIB automatic landings, with the equipment cross monitoring one other. Yet some think that a single human needs no cross monitoring.
Computers are only as good as the software writers' imagination. How many of us have had to reset any aircraft's computer?
We'll never fly single crew for commercial passenger operations - there will always be two of us - on half pay though.
Strange how we need double dual or triplex autopilots to do CAT IIIB automatic landings, with the equipment cross monitoring one other. Yet some think that a single human needs no cross monitoring.
Computers are only as good as the software writers' imagination. How many of us have had to reset any aircraft's computer?
We'll never fly single crew for commercial passenger operations - there will always be two of us - on half pay though.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,349
Likes: 845
From: Tring, UK
I don't think there is any technical reason why we couldn't one day have pilotless airliners - I feel it is more about cost and being human.
We are complex biomechanical computers that need a considerable amount of programming and environmental exposure to become competent at all respects of operating an air transport. The level of AI required to replicate this I would posit as being "strong". Once this level is reached, we're probably into the scenario of a "technological singularity" anyway, so not much point worrying! Anything a human could do could be done better by an AI...
Being a good pilot has long been about more than the physical aspects of aircraft control; indeed, automation of these functions has been around for a significant part of the history of aviation. The cognitive aspects of decision making have been studied for a much shorter period, however.
We are complex biomechanical computers that need a considerable amount of programming and environmental exposure to become competent at all respects of operating an air transport. The level of AI required to replicate this I would posit as being "strong". Once this level is reached, we're probably into the scenario of a "technological singularity" anyway, so not much point worrying! Anything a human could do could be done better by an AI...
Being a good pilot has long been about more than the physical aspects of aircraft control; indeed, automation of these functions has been around for a significant part of the history of aviation. The cognitive aspects of decision making have been studied for a much shorter period, however.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 423
Likes: 1
From: Malvern, UK
I attended a flight safety presentation last evening from a retired AF Major test pilot from Edwards, Bill Koukourikas, now serving there as a civilian. During the course of his presentation, his statement, "No future attack military aircraft within the next 15 years will have pilots in the cockpit. The last tactical aircraft with a pilot in the cockpit will be the F-35."
Try that argument on your typical fare paying passenger!
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 423
Likes: 1
From: Malvern, UK
Don't Hang writes:
This is off-topic and strictly for your education, Hang.
Here in the colonies, "rubber" is the slang term for condom.
I can now dry my office chair, thank you for the chuckle, and get back to work!
how many rubbers could they realistically get in before catastrophe strikes?
This is off-topic and strictly for your education, Hang.
Here in the colonies, "rubber" is the slang term for condom.
I can now dry my office chair, thank you for the chuckle, and get back to work!
Intriguingly, a double entendre that works equally for male and lady flight crew.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,369
Likes: 3
From: UK.
Automatic approaches to autoland are more demanding than a manual approach. The reason is that the pilots have to understand various complicated failure modes and how to handle them. Sometimes they can be recovered and sometimes they can't. I won't confuse the uninitiated by going into detail; the cognoscenti (Sp?) are too well aware.
As 411A will confirm, the L1011 flies an amazing auto approach, a technique pioneered and perfected by the Brits.
That's all just the final approach; how about the rest of the flight?
Think about en route Cb avoidance, local ATC taking offence and intercepting. Does the on-board computer understand what a fighter pilot means by flying alongside followed by a sharp break? Yes, a ground controller may understand; can we guarantee an uninterrupted datalink?
A 'difficult' country tried to deny us overflight at short notice. Turning back would have been hazardous and the pax wouldn't have been taken to destination. Our understanding of the local psyche and assets followed by an apology permitted a continued flight.
I could go on for paragraphs.
IMHO we are nowhere near an aeroplane with pax & CC flying with no pilot on board.
As 411A will confirm, the L1011 flies an amazing auto approach, a technique pioneered and perfected by the Brits.
That's all just the final approach; how about the rest of the flight?
Think about en route Cb avoidance, local ATC taking offence and intercepting. Does the on-board computer understand what a fighter pilot means by flying alongside followed by a sharp break? Yes, a ground controller may understand; can we guarantee an uninterrupted datalink?
A 'difficult' country tried to deny us overflight at short notice. Turning back would have been hazardous and the pax wouldn't have been taken to destination. Our understanding of the local psyche and assets followed by an apology permitted a continued flight.
I could go on for paragraphs.
IMHO we are nowhere near an aeroplane with pax & CC flying with no pilot on board.
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Toronto
I've never understood the "but if the airplane can land itself, why are you there?" question. To me landing is the easy part. The decisions made prior to push back until landing are the hard parts. It's like saying "the nurse can put in stitches, so why do we need the heart surgeon?".
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
GlueBall:
1. No aircraft on a collision course with an operative transponder.
2. No aircraft on a collision course with an inoperative transponder.
As to automated passenger flights: all is well as long as there are no system failures, nor other phenomena, such as moderate clear air turbulence which could kick off the autopilot(s) . . . .
2. No aircraft on a collision course with an inoperative transponder.
Guest
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
From: On the Beach
Strange how we need double dual or triplex autopilots to do CAT IIIB automatic landings, with the equipment cross monitoring one other. Yet some think that a single human needs no cross monitoring.
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: UK
Hi aterpster,
The automatics can "see" the runway using ILS & Rad ALT information. We gently collide with the runway when we do a visual landing.
I think the two are very similar - so that's why I think we need two pilots.
The automatics can "see" the runway using ILS & Rad ALT information. We gently collide with the runway when we do a visual landing.
I think the two are very similar - so that's why I think we need two pilots.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 35
From: I wouldn't know.
Well, so i arrived at the aircraft today and the maintenance staff told me everything is ok, absolutely flyable. Of course, the lower DU was INOP, and the right RA was inop too, which meant the autopilot would disconnect at GS intercept...
Good thing two of us were there and could normally operate the aircraft without any problem, computers alone probably would have encountered a couple problems.
By the way, it is possible to fly manual CAT III approaches and landings, more than enough CRJs and others around that do it quite often.
Good thing two of us were there and could normally operate the aircraft without any problem, computers alone probably would have encountered a couple problems.
By the way, it is possible to fly manual CAT III approaches and landings, more than enough CRJs and others around that do it quite often.
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
By the way, it is possible to fly manual CAT III approaches and landings, more than enough CRJs and others around that do it quite often.
CATIIIA, I believe, and they are working on CATIIIB, so I'm told.
The HUD is very accurate.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 353
From: UK
The HUD is very accurate,
but is the human? … and what about duplication, monitoring?
Using a single self-monitored HUD raises the question of how to monitor the human derived output. Use the other pilot and head down instruments, or with two HUDs, what if the humans disagree?
The automation issue is not what can be automated or at what cost; it is what should be automated and what reasons drive this decision. For the latter it is often the limits of human performance, the ability to conduct a task, or the reliability of the task in a range of conditions or over time.
but is the human? … and what about duplication, monitoring?
Using a single self-monitored HUD raises the question of how to monitor the human derived output. Use the other pilot and head down instruments, or with two HUDs, what if the humans disagree?
The automation issue is not what can be automated or at what cost; it is what should be automated and what reasons drive this decision. For the latter it is often the limits of human performance, the ability to conduct a task, or the reliability of the task in a range of conditions or over time.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
From: Brisbane, Australia
Are you ready to get aboard an airplane without a pilot...?
As mentioned earlier..."Not bloody likely!"
In fact I have some misgivings about getting on a long range airplane that doesn't have a professional Flight Engineer....
Cheers...FD...
As mentioned earlier..."Not bloody likely!"
In fact I have some misgivings about getting on a long range airplane that doesn't have a professional Flight Engineer....
Cheers...FD...
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
From: Strategic hamlet
It will be interesting to see the career progression of today's young pilots over the next 40-50 years, assuming retirement age is raised to 70+. I seriously doubt the F/O position would still be viable at 2050-2060, and this would mean a mass cull of F/Os as the airlines renew their fleets in the future.
There's also the possibility of automation "dumbing down" the pilot's role to the point where the pilot becomes an extra flight attendant during cruise.
There's also the possibility of automation "dumbing down" the pilot's role to the point where the pilot becomes an extra flight attendant during cruise.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,563
Likes: 35
From: I wouldn't know.
The HUD is very accurate,
but is the human? … and what about duplication, monitoring?
Using a single self-monitored HUD raises the question of how to monitor the human derived output. Use the other pilot and head down instruments, or with two HUDs, what if the humans disagree?
The automation issue is not what can be automated or at what cost; it is what should be automated and what reasons drive this decision. For the latter it is often the limits of human performance, the ability to conduct a task, or the reliability of the task in a range of conditions or over time.
but is the human? … and what about duplication, monitoring?
Using a single self-monitored HUD raises the question of how to monitor the human derived output. Use the other pilot and head down instruments, or with two HUDs, what if the humans disagree?
The automation issue is not what can be automated or at what cost; it is what should be automated and what reasons drive this decision. For the latter it is often the limits of human performance, the ability to conduct a task, or the reliability of the task in a range of conditions or over time.
The fact is humans can fly precise enough to ensure landings nearly every time they try, the majority of all landings is done manually and only very few of them go astray. During low vis the issue is missing visual cues for a normal landing, however if those are artificially supplied by other means, in this case the HUD, humans are perfectly capable to their usual good job.
Sadly i did only my initial typerating on a HUD equipped 733 and haven't flown a HUD since, however during training with the HUD it was basicly a non-issue, the PM by default was the RHS and monitoring was not an issue, of course callouts if somethings doesn't fit, but that is something we do every day anyway, so nothing new there. If one of both calls a go-around it has to be performed, haven't flown in an airline that doesn't apply that principle in normal operation in the first place.
