Pilots to become (sort of) obsolete, says Airbus
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A new autopilot will make another 9/11 impossible. How 'AutoLand' will work.
A hijack-proof piloting system for airliners is being developed to prevent terrorists repeating the 9/11 outrages. The mechanism is designed to make it impossible to crash the aircraft into air or land targets - and enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency.
A hijack-proof piloting system for airliners is being developed to prevent terrorists repeating the 9/11 outrages. The mechanism is designed to make it impossible to crash the aircraft into air or land targets - and enable the plane to be flown by remote control from the ground in the event of an emergency.
The hijackers will now hijack the control room
Last edited by jcjeant; 13th Sep 2012 at 16:51.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No firsthand experience in commercial aviation but somewhat involved in contemporary safety research, and therefore I definitely side with the skeptics concerning total automation. All talk about "80 (or whatever)% of accidents caused by human error" nonwithstanding, there is now wide and increasing agreement that frontline staff "create safety through their practice of reconciling multiple goals in complex, dynamic settings"*). I dare posit that a system as large and tightly coupled, exposed to a quickly changing environment (e.g., weather, congestion and delays etc.) can never be successfully preprogrammed and operated from the back office.
*) S. Dekker, The field guide to understanding human error, Farnham: Asghate, 2006, p. xii
*) S. Dekker, The field guide to understanding human error, Farnham: Asghate, 2006, p. xii
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Science fiction helps sell newspaper well. This is why such fantastic stories come up regularly I guess, especially during the Summer.
I followed a military presentation lately on RPVs control.
We will not talk about the actual "failure" rate , which in PRV terminology means "crashed and/or gone to the enemy " which are in two digits figures , and even 1 out of 3 for some types.
What was interesting for us, ATC, was the lack of security of the control links. In fact one clever hacker in the USA and one in France have recently took control of some UAvs for brief periods to show how vulnerable the systems are and how easy it is to get "inside" the control systems.
That is the main issue today, and why, among other things (*) , outside of military, you are unlikely to see large civil PRVs with people or valuable cargo inside flying around I would say .
Solution : none unless they (and we) use something else than radio frequencies to transmit data. Not sure what it can be. They did not tell us.
So, for me, an hijacked civil airliner with pilots on board being shut off " and then controlled from the ground is pure fantasy. There are far more risks in having such device than without it.
(*) the other issue is cost/benefits as pointed out repeatindly by Huck here, Operating an old 747 or even a new 777F with 2 guys in front is still, and by far, a lot cheaper than using an unproven design with a 2 digits failure rate.
I followed a military presentation lately on RPVs control.
We will not talk about the actual "failure" rate , which in PRV terminology means "crashed and/or gone to the enemy " which are in two digits figures , and even 1 out of 3 for some types.
What was interesting for us, ATC, was the lack of security of the control links. In fact one clever hacker in the USA and one in France have recently took control of some UAvs for brief periods to show how vulnerable the systems are and how easy it is to get "inside" the control systems.
That is the main issue today, and why, among other things (*) , outside of military, you are unlikely to see large civil PRVs with people or valuable cargo inside flying around I would say .
Solution : none unless they (and we) use something else than radio frequencies to transmit data. Not sure what it can be. They did not tell us.
So, for me, an hijacked civil airliner with pilots on board being shut off " and then controlled from the ground is pure fantasy. There are far more risks in having such device than without it.
(*) the other issue is cost/benefits as pointed out repeatindly by Huck here, Operating an old 747 or even a new 777F with 2 guys in front is still, and by far, a lot cheaper than using an unproven design with a 2 digits failure rate.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: England
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RoboLander - the how and the why
These Boeing people are brilliant. Wonder how they ever came up with this concept.
I know, why not Google "RoboLander IASA" and read all about it (a 2001 concept of mine that didn't ring any bells after 911).
Maybe Boeing is just patenting it so as to get it into their kitty and not let Airbus beat them to the punch?
I doubt that it's nowadays impractical on safety grounds. Systems redundancy is reaching very credible levels of reliability now. It's just that you don't hear all that much about it any more.
"Failure is not an option" went out the window with Apollo 13. Now failure, flaws and fallibility are factored into redundancy-based reliability and assurance. Once you expect and anticipate failure, it becomes much easier to cope with happenstance. It's only when you permit human intervention that the glue fails and the future becomes unstuck - a la AF447.
I wonder whether I could touch Boeing up for 50 bucks? Probably not, they'd be admitting that they trawl the internet for their ideas. Like Iridium did for Iridian/Roadshow (now playing in an airplane near you). At least they let me know that they'd cranked it up. And don't start me on Dreadle.....
I know, why not Google "RoboLander IASA" and read all about it (a 2001 concept of mine that didn't ring any bells after 911).
Maybe Boeing is just patenting it so as to get it into their kitty and not let Airbus beat them to the punch?
I doubt that it's nowadays impractical on safety grounds. Systems redundancy is reaching very credible levels of reliability now. It's just that you don't hear all that much about it any more.
"Failure is not an option" went out the window with Apollo 13. Now failure, flaws and fallibility are factored into redundancy-based reliability and assurance. Once you expect and anticipate failure, it becomes much easier to cope with happenstance. It's only when you permit human intervention that the glue fails and the future becomes unstuck - a la AF447.
I wonder whether I could touch Boeing up for 50 bucks? Probably not, they'd be admitting that they trawl the internet for their ideas. Like Iridium did for Iridian/Roadshow (now playing in an airplane near you). At least they let me know that they'd cranked it up. And don't start me on Dreadle.....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its Already Been Done
Huck
Strange you should mention C-130's. They were flying in automated formation many years ago at night and IMC. But its easier to clear a set of military transport full of paratroops to do that rather than a set of A330s with litigious SLF. People in the FAA and EASA would have nightmares about it. i
THen of course it actually is not efficient unless you have a formation where all the aircraft are flying to the same destination with the same TOW and the same engines and engine wear. The SLF in all but the lead aircraft would also have to get used to the throttle hunting and the continual vertical and horizontal adjustments.
I can't see it happening when flying the 'business trajectory' with DARP where necessary has been shown to be able to save more than a ton of fuel per Atlantic crossing.
Lockheed's still selling C-130's. .
THen of course it actually is not efficient unless you have a formation where all the aircraft are flying to the same destination with the same TOW and the same engines and engine wear. The SLF in all but the lead aircraft would also have to get used to the throttle hunting and the continual vertical and horizontal adjustments.
I can't see it happening when flying the 'business trajectory' with DARP where necessary has been shown to be able to save more than a ton of fuel per Atlantic crossing.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ATC Watcher
What they actually did was spoof the GPS signals so the UAS had incorrect ideas of where it was. This only works for those UAS that navigate solely by GPS and have no direct control link. So the UAS is told where to go and flies there rather than being controlled directly by an operator in the ground segment. A UAS with a control link to a 'pilot' in the ground segment who has some level of telepresence such as a video feed or even just instruments would not have been vulnerable. So they cherry-picked their examples a little.
It does get worrying though when you think someone might play like that when a manned aircraft is flying an IMC GPS approach.
What was interesting for us, ATC, was the lack of security of the control links. In fact one clever hacker in the USA and one in France have recently took control of some UAvs for brief periods to show how vulnerable the systems are and how easy it is to get "inside" the control systems.
It does get worrying though when you think someone might play like that when a manned aircraft is flying an IMC GPS approach.
Airbus would say that, wouldn't they? to paraphrase a famous lady. There efforts to make an idiot-proof airplane has repeatedly been defeated by better idiots. Solution: remove the idiots entirely.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try to Grasp the Concept - it ain't "pilotless"
MSBbarratt said:
I think that you've perhaps missed the point. I took the trouble to read into RoboLander (upon which Boeing is basing this) - and the idea is to snatch the initiative away from the hijackers. In the event of a cockpit invasion, RoboLander's security function kicks in and whether or not the pilots are despatched via box-cutters or otherwise:
a. in a best case scenario - the hijackers cannot wrest control from RoboLander and the a/c will be autolanded.
b. The captain/FO cannot resume onboard control unless he (the skipper) punches in a code known only to him (and if he was to do so and permit a 911 style repeat, he'd go down as the worst
quisling coward of all time - notwithstanding that his pitiful alternative might be to die a vainglorious hero death, no doubt).
c. The hijackers manage to disable RoboLander somehow and the airplane crashes harmlessly (i.e. except to all onboard - but an infinitely better outcome than 911 nevertheless).
Like it or not, we are stuck with fanatical terrorism featuring ratbags who are unafraid to die for their god. Just look at what's happening all across the Middle East today, all because of some mischief-making movie-maker. It's total mayhem.... all in the name of religion. We thought that the "Arab Spring" was all about eliminating despots and dictators. That's how it was sold to Western Democracy, but it's actually more about putting aside secularism and elevating the clerics to government complete with the rigors of Sharia Law. The heroes of that society are the martyrs and what martyrs love to do most of all is to bring down Western airplanes. 911 set the bar high for them, but now Boeing is moving it a few rungs higher - and hopefully out of reach. Fighting terrorists with technology is the best solution - apart from killing a mostly unidentifiable enemy. It's become a war where the best defence is no longer a good offence. The best defence is nowadays to remain a tech-step ahead.
RoboLander might also come in handy in the event of pilots becoming disabled (slow acting poison, gas, birdstrike, smoke in cockpit, missile etc).
Conclusion: you won't find me stepping on to a pilot-less aircraft anytime soon.
a. in a best case scenario - the hijackers cannot wrest control from RoboLander and the a/c will be autolanded.
b. The captain/FO cannot resume onboard control unless he (the skipper) punches in a code known only to him (and if he was to do so and permit a 911 style repeat, he'd go down as the worst
quisling coward of all time - notwithstanding that his pitiful alternative might be to die a vainglorious hero death, no doubt).c. The hijackers manage to disable RoboLander somehow and the airplane crashes harmlessly (i.e. except to all onboard - but an infinitely better outcome than 911 nevertheless).
Like it or not, we are stuck with fanatical terrorism featuring ratbags who are unafraid to die for their god. Just look at what's happening all across the Middle East today, all because of some mischief-making movie-maker. It's total mayhem.... all in the name of religion. We thought that the "Arab Spring" was all about eliminating despots and dictators. That's how it was sold to Western Democracy, but it's actually more about putting aside secularism and elevating the clerics to government complete with the rigors of Sharia Law. The heroes of that society are the martyrs and what martyrs love to do most of all is to bring down Western airplanes. 911 set the bar high for them, but now Boeing is moving it a few rungs higher - and hopefully out of reach. Fighting terrorists with technology is the best solution - apart from killing a mostly unidentifiable enemy. It's become a war where the best defence is no longer a good offence. The best defence is nowadays to remain a tech-step ahead.
RoboLander might also come in handy in the event of pilots becoming disabled (slow acting poison, gas, birdstrike, smoke in cockpit, missile etc).
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus would say that, wouldn't they? to paraphrase a famous lady. There efforts to make an idiot-proof airplane has repeatedly been defeated by better idiots. Solution: remove the idiots entirely.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AF447 story would suggest that Airbus already have removed pilots from the aircraft, and replaced them with computer operators.
Their philosophy is so incredibly wrong it makes me feel sick. As a European, I wish I could support our industry, but Mr Boeing gets my vote.
Their philosophy is so incredibly wrong it makes me feel sick. As a European, I wish I could support our industry, but Mr Boeing gets my vote.
If we are going to trot out the oft misquoted joke it is funnier when its told correctly!
The dog is there to bite the hand of the pilot if he tries to touch anything.
The pilot is there to feed the dog!
(see much funnier) A bit like the rubbish that computers will replace commercial airline pilots anytime soon.
The dog is there to bite the hand of the pilot if he tries to touch anything.
The pilot is there to feed the dog!
(see much funnier) A bit like the rubbish that computers will replace commercial airline pilots anytime soon.
Military UAV loss statistics are up to 50% in some fleets. There is no way even .01% would be tolerated for commercial operations. There's a very long way to go before this becomes reality. Not before my retirement date and probably not before my kids retirement dates!
And we haven't even talked about the cost of certification!
And we haven't even talked about the cost of certification!
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a European, I wish I could support our industry, but Mr Boeing gets my vote.
heartbeat. Those Airbus bods started to let technology get ahead of aviation
conventional wisdom when the created the 320 suck-squirt. When one looks
at the 320 back in the late '80s and the latest 321 now, its been a very long
and often uphill battle to change Frog thinking to that required of a pilot. So
that's their learning curve, but I flat out aint interested nor give a crap about
AI's learning curves. Their latest QRH is just starting to resemble something
that a pilot in an extreme emergency can actually use without getting lost in
page-flipping, although its still in the "dogs dinner" category as regards to its
organisation and natural flows.
Also remember Airbus go to engineers and ask 'em for design considerations
whereas Boeing go to pilots.
And Boeings are built by geniuses to be flown by idiots. Airbuses are built by
idiots to be flown by geniuses.
..No one (incl me) is against useful advances in technology that may result in
certain personnel made redundant - but I'm dead against the rubbish Airboos
spouts every 3 years or so. That's why we need Boeing to protect us from the
often ridiculous nonsense of that French mob. And I'm sure the twit who runs
Ryanair must be their speech writer.
Last edited by Slasher; 17th Sep 2012 at 09:27. Reason: changed "tw-t" to "twit"
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree it's all about cost-benefit analysis.
Modern day aircraft have ultimately made airline flying a safer and less demanding environment for the pilot, and that has ultimately led to lower T&Cs.
Consequently, I don't think they necessarily will need to remove flightcrew but just keep lowering their cost, which they have already succeeded in.
Modern day aircraft have ultimately made airline flying a safer and less demanding environment for the pilot, and that has ultimately led to lower T&Cs.
Consequently, I don't think they necessarily will need to remove flightcrew but just keep lowering their cost, which they have already succeeded in.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pub user
The AF447 story would suggest that Airbus already have removed pilots from the aircraft
Originally Posted by Pub user
As a European, I wish I could support our industry, but Mr Boeing gets my vote
Originally Posted by Slasher
..Yep me too
Originally Posted by jcjeant
Hijack- proof ?? ..
The hijackers will now hijack the control room
The hijackers will now hijack the control room
They never have been able to do ATC automation, which is easier than airliner automation.
Even if you could get a UAV or automated aeroplane in certified commercial ops I would suggest that the insurance on the thing may prohibitive. The cost and consequences of losing control of one or having it hacked whilst landing into a big city somewhere would be the end of the program and the insurance company.
Also if you consider the number of accidents where the human saved the day and the computer would have crashed makes the whole idea of pilotless aircraft pointless. A computer would never have recovered QF32, United 232, UsAir 1549.
Also if you consider the number of accidents where the human saved the day and the computer would have crashed makes the whole idea of pilotless aircraft pointless. A computer would never have recovered QF32, United 232, UsAir 1549.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 17th Sep 2012 at 23:23.
Folks,
With all the talk of military drones being some kind of precursor to civil transport operations, there is one rather large pachyderm in the room that nobody mentions ---- ultimately, for military operations, a one way mission is acceptable.
Ultimately, the loss of a drone or a manned military aircraft is no big deal, hardly true for an aeroplane full of warm bodies.
Would somebody like to give serious consideration as to how a computer is going to interpret a weather radar. Even the best current weather radars cannot really define what is ahead (despite the manufacturer's claims) without a lot of experienced human input.
Tootle pip!!
With all the talk of military drones being some kind of precursor to civil transport operations, there is one rather large pachyderm in the room that nobody mentions ---- ultimately, for military operations, a one way mission is acceptable.
Ultimately, the loss of a drone or a manned military aircraft is no big deal, hardly true for an aeroplane full of warm bodies.
Would somebody like to give serious consideration as to how a computer is going to interpret a weather radar. Even the best current weather radars cannot really define what is ahead (despite the manufacturer's claims) without a lot of experienced human input.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 18th Sep 2012 at 05:35.
