Will a robot take your job?
 

Looks like pilots are ok for a while:-

Will a robot take your job?

Nope.

Robots ain't that stupid.

Hi Bob, the technology has been available for several years already. Google G-BWWW for info. I used to fly that airframe before it became a test bed for this stuff.

Around the world it is incompetent pilots that cause the accidents. Our era is over.

Will a robot take your job?
 

Intelligent machines: Call for a ban on robots designed as sex toys
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34118482

There goes my fall-back plan...

I think you are forgetting one large element in all of this:

Humans design computers.

Until computers are designed purely by Lord God Buddha, Allah, Jehovah or whatever takes your fancy then the they will ALWAYS be subject to the same human errors that cause pilots to crash aeroplanes.

If aeroplanes still crash when there is NO pilot on board then which scenario do you think the general public will trust - a computer or a human controlled aeroplane.

Lots of engineers on the ground alone cannot fix an airborne problem - where is the resilience in the system without the expertise of a specialist at the source of the problem?

Will a robot take your job?

In many cases it's already been reduced to trained monkey, so...........

Exactly.

It's just the same with pocket calculators.

Humans design pocket calculators.

That is why they will ALWAYS be subject to the same human errors which cause people to get arithmetic wrong.....

Oh. Wait....No...

That's all complete boll@cks isn't it......?:rolleyes:

I can see robots taking over the cargo flights, but I think passengers like the reassurance of having a couple of pilots up front (whether or not it should be reassuring is another thing). More likely is single pilot ops with remote oversight. I think however that may cause a spike in mental health issues... it's going to be a lonely place up there.

With any luck, yes they will.

We're a long way off. Even the RPAS/drones flying around now aren't pilotless, the pilot has just been relocated. In terms of manpower they are at least as labour intensive as manned aircraft.

Silver hawk, assuming you weren't just trying to start an argument with your ignorant post about incompetent pilots perhaps you'd explain why unmanned aircraft accident rates are massively higher than for manned ones.

The category doesn't really fit ... it says "aircraft pilots and flight engineers".

I don't know if they mean those 25 % losing their jobs to automation within 20 years will be the flight engineers, but for a flight engineer, the risk of losing the job to automation within the next 20 years is close to 100 percent ...

That's just not true at all is it.

Why do people post on here without even a moments google to find out if they are going to talk utter cr@p?


Even some of the tiny toys used in Afghanistan have no pilot, merely a mouse-click on a computer screen map.

.....and of course we have had autonomous drones for decades, even used them in many wars.

They are called cruise missiles.

They find their way to their target area, identify the target and then hit it.
All without human input.

Probably not because a bank won't give a loan to a robot in order to pay for a type rating.:hmm:

Posted by Clandestino:Nope, humans are stupid: they fly for peanuts and they can easily be blamed if something goes wrong!

Posted by Tourist: So have a look at some of these videos and then please re-evaluate if you want to repeat that others are talking "utter cr@p." :oh:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q...ndow=1&tbm=vid

ShotOne is correct, these drone pilots sit in a secure bunker somewhere and fly the drone by remote control.

LLuCCiFeR

Yup, re-evaluated, and added you to the list.


Again I say google is your friend.

Reaper and Predator are indeed flown from the ground.

Many many others are not, as even a cursory glance at google will show.

Desert Hawk is mouse click after take-off and is old hat.

This is slightly bigger.

Robocopter arrives | The Economist

The list is growing all the time
X-47B
Taranis

This is an autonomous helicopter planning it's own route to an unbriefed landing in a clearing.

This is orders of magnitude more technically difficult than flying an airliner from A to B
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoCFE8xVhKA

I can see robots taking over the cargo flights,

There was a study many years ago, and I wonder where it is now. The Soviet Union had developed High wing amphibian a/c with over wing engines for cargo flights. The idea was they would take of & land on water and fly in ground effect similar to the Albatross. Indeed that might have been their name. Slow ponderous transoceanic a/c., but at lower fuel burn/kg than a conventional freight a/c and faster than ship. They could fly on a preprogrammed route as per a cruise missile, but still controlled as an RPV via satellite. Ship avoidance was an issue, but perhaps an onboard radar system would solve that. Weather systems and jet streams were of less significance; although low level storms and high waves might make it interesting, but no sick bags required. Any losses would be purely financial and insurance would take care of those.
Take off and landing at sea would negate any fiddly performance issues such as climb % etc. No V1 just full power and go. No noise issues except for fish. They could be taxied, takeoff, landed under local visual RPV control and monitored en-route via a central RPV control.
So what did happen to the idea?

Are you talking about Ekranoplans? Like the A90 Orlyonok?

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/...s/orlyonok.jpg

It certainly will.
it is not the case now, simply due to costs, however if one day it costs cheaper then pilots, yes for sure.
One big reason : no more limits, no more rules about flight hours duties, no complain from pilots, no calls for this or that, no strikes, no call sick, no more alcohol problems or suicide problem etc...

Actually it started. Copilots pay for working and follow strict procedures without much thinking like a robot could do it. Many things a PM (pnf) do can be done by a robot (lights, gear up, calls out, fasten seat belt...) just need to program it.
Making copilots pay, is a first step to remove copilots (at least economically).

Are you talking about Ekranoplans? Like the A90 Orlyonok?

I can't remember, but I did see photos of a water bomber with this configuration. The article continued that research was being done on a huge ground effect freight a/c that could ply their trade over the oceans 24/7. They might not have been pilotless, but with todays RPV technology there is no reason why not.
Airline managers already treat pilots as machines. They treat pax like muppets who will chase the lowest price. Just think where crews would be without FTL's. It would be frightening. 18hr a/c with triple autopilots and 1 crew. It's not long ago, in Italy, that I flew under outrageous tiring FTL's; way wosre than current EASA rules that have pushed boundaries of CAP371. Self service pax drinks machines, or bring your own grub. If managers could turn the a/c into an airborne train with 1 driver and no cabin crew they would do it.

Have a close read: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9116506 , especially read AirBubba's post very carefully. That's how airlines and airline managers think!

That's why there will always be pilots, not because wouldn't be technically possible to design an aircraft, but because the big aircraft manufacturers and airlines rather have some low paid scapegoat signing the tech log.

Why can't you nitwits understand that? The key word is LIABILITY!

li·a·bil·i·ty
ˌlīəˈbilədē/
noun
noun: liability
1.
the state of being responsible for something, especially by law.
"the partners accept unlimited liability for any risks they undertake"
2.
a person or thing whose presence or behavior is likely to cause embarrassment or put one at a disadvantage.
"he has become a political liability"


Just look at what happened to salaries and T&C over the last decade or so. The costs of the scapegoats is either staying the same, or they are becoming cheaper, whilst reliability and the technical advancement of aircraft has increased, so again: why would an aircraft manufacturer or airline assume the liability of piloting an aircraft when you can have humans do it for you?

As for the second definition of liability, i.e. being a liable in case of an accident, that's where technology plays an important role.

The trick is to
1) increase the technology to such a point that accidents are becoming less and less frequent,
2) at the same time NEVER fully assume responsibility (liability) if technology can not prevent an accident, hence "PIC is ultimate 'authority'...blablabla.." and
3) keep on droning (;)) on and on about "pilot shortages" and rosy projections about future aircraft sales so that a never ending stream of ill informed naive pilot wannabe's will continue to drive down the costs of the scapegoats, namely stagnant/decreasing salaries and T&C's.

Lucifer

Are you just going to move on and pretend your last post wasn't proved false?

When you make a statement, it is normal in polite society to at least provide some references that back up your theory.....

Who would control an unmanned aircraft once it heads through Asia, Africa etc? What would occur if the signal was jammed? Would an unmanned aircraft be handed over to different authorities to manage as it passed through their airspace? Who would hand over their asset?
If the technology is here, why can't an aircraft take off from a regional airport in Asia and land in regional airport in Africa without any human input with the pilots just monitoring?
Far too many variables and cost implications at the moment I think.

I don't think computer reliability nor the technological advancements are at the right level yet; the variables in predicting unknown situations and resolving them from the slightest clues on a multitude of inputs remain the domain of skilled humans.

The intention would not be to have it unmanned but controlled from the ground. To work it would have to be autonomous, and I agree that the integration with ATC would be the toughest part.
I think that it will go hand in hand with the long overdue automation of ATC.

It is interesting that people are worrying about the systems dealing with airborne threats.

Ask yourself what TCAS really is.

TCAS detects a developing problem.
It decides what to do to resolve the issue.
It then tells the pilot what to do.
The pilot is not supposed to question the instruction, merely follow it.

Essentially, TCAS is an automated system with a pilot thrown in to add potential for f@ckup.
A potential that pilots fulfil with monotonous regularity. >50% in one of the UKs largest airlines.

The removal of the pilot from this system could only improve safety, and this system is very old tech.

With something like EO DAS fitted, the aircraft would be a lot better placed than airline pilot visual lookout that mostly sees the Times headlines....

First step before pilotless a/c : single pilot.

Don't put the cart before the horse.

I'm sorry to read that, but I would strongly disagree.
If I don't have to work, be assured that my life will not be empty. There are endless amounts of books to read, languages to learn, music to listen to, things to see, experience, debate!

A world centred over culture and philosophy, in the view of some during the Enlightenment, sounds more attractive to me than the one from the XIXth century...

It won't prevent us from flying a Cap232 on the weekend...Or innovate or anything else! But life does not have to be all about enslaved to work...

If I was a bus, taxi, delivery van/truck driver I'd be more worried. We will see driverless vehicles in use in the next 10 years. Then military aircraft and then commercial aircraft.

A military freighter would cost half as much, if it didn't need to support humans in the cockpit. Cockpit, who needs a bleeding cockpit anyway?

As it stands, the aircraft can already land itself. The cruise is a doddle. Programming take off shouldn't be a prob (military already do it.) So all that's left is to program in the company policy and fuel policy and that's it. Job done. Intellect, decision making etc. has already been replaced by procedure. ....and where you find a procedure you will find a computer + a programmer working hard to get you lot the sack.

Seee ya!! :E

Not everywhere, but nearly all the modern ones are.

You are correct that it is a rather easier proposition, but the reason for some still requiring drivers is union based, not technological.

Ozy

You are aware that there are lots of commercial aircraft flying around with one pilot?

The fact that they are smaller is entirely irrelevant to the workload of the pilot, or the difficulty in making systems to help.


I will predict that the route to unmanned will be:

Further autonomous small aircraft/helicopters fielded in US/western military.

Autonomous Combat UAV in western Forces.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw3m7bqrQ64

USAF Strat Cargo Unmanned.

Once sufficient evidence of safety is established,
FEDEX etc start Unmanned

Once greater safety than manned established,
http://www.baesystems.com/magazine/B...%3Dajf4vwvjv_4

Airlines unmanned......

Pilots flying planes into the sea/ground deliberately will only help speed this along.

Pilotless aircrafts coupled up with a controllerless ATC... Doing everything from pushback, taxiing, taking off, sequencing, spacing, landing , taxiing to gate. All the performancedata directly from the aircrafts to the ATC computer, every little detail, like fuel remaining, performance, problems and so forth. The ultimate system, totally independant and without humans to mess it up.

You're already electing to fly the RNAV approaches, cause it's easier to let the computer, controllers let you, cause it's easier than vectoring, so in a lot of points the system is developing itself to one where we all sit on the sideline and monitor.

Sure, an aircraft will crash from time to time, but then we'll file a report to the geeks in programming and they'll fix it.

I'm pretty sure that'll be the future....

No-ones arguing that it wont happen eventually but by the time we have the technology to have unmanned atc and passenger aircraft plus the change in social and cultural attitudes necessary to make it viable, most of the human race will be redundant.

Most occupations could be automated, whether they should be or not is a moral and ethical question not an engineering problem.

Hooray ADFUS. Exactly the point. By the time pilots are removed so will almost all other professions. So then no one will be earning so won't afford travel so no need for planes at all.

Automation
 

Airplanes of the future will be manned by a Pilot and a dog. The Pilot will be there to feed the dog, and the dog will be there to stop the pilot touching anything.

Won't happen because ....
 

Robots can't pay to fly pax (P2FP) or succumb to the pay for interview (PFI) scams we see in LCC and regionals in EU today!

sim centres will go bust. XAA FCL dept's will go bust. SFI/TRI/TRE's will be no more. Computer maintenance engineers will be the new TRE's with annual performance checks. ATC will have achieved their dream of really controlling a./c in every phase.
We shall sit in the garden toasting the contrails above and remembering the halcyon days. Kids will no more run around the play ground with their arms aloft playing fighter pilots. Sadness will rule as dreams collapse. Please let Cap10's and Extra's & Pitts still be produced, then the dreams can live on.