Pilotless aircraft. Look out Fed Ex wannabees

[slackass]

Posted this on another section I figured it should be here instead.

I've been seeing more and more stories like this. I've also read that we may very well be seeing the last of fighter pilot classes for the military. I think that most of us in the industry are safe right now but this may very well be realistic within one lifetime. Ask some of the grey beards now and ask them what it was like when they started flying. I chuckled the other day in the jumpseat of an Airbus when the seasoned captain turned to the F.O. and after running the "before start checklist" said, "count three blades and start two".
[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva]Cargo Drone In The Works[/FONT]

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/IAI_logo.jpgIsraeli Aerospace Industries is working on an airliner-sized unmanned aerial vehicle capable of carrying 60,000 pounds of freight. And the only reason it’s focusing on a cargo plane is that the flying public won’t accept a pilotless passenger plane. Shlomo Tsach, IAI’s director of flight sciences, told the Jerusalem Post the technology already exists to fly passengers without pilots but "the world is not yet ready to be flown without a pilot at the stick.” However, he said, a study by Boeing suggests there’s no such resistance to sending packages without direct human intervention, so the idea of a pilotless cargo plane is gaining some traction.

 

[Fedora]

Aviation Week & Space Technology03/05/2007, page 19


The Israel Air Force plans to unveil its big, new long-range unmanned aircraft within the next few weeks. The Eitan, also known as the Heron II, has the wingspan of a Boeing 737.
The aircraft has flown clandestinely several times. IAF will announce its introduction to military service. It also may be displayed at the Paris air show in June.
Eitan is being considered for use for intelligence-gathering and surveillance, and as a strike platform for ballistic missile intercept in boost phase and ground attack of missile launchers. The design also is being considered, along with the Eagle I, as an aerial refueler. Technion, Israel's premier technological institute, is developing a prototype refueling system.

Credit: Northrop Grumman ConsceptThat means Israel joins Northrop Grumman and European guided weapons manufacturer MBDA in undertaking preliminary study work on UAV air-to-air refueling.
Northrop Grumman is eyeing development of the high-flying Global Hawk UAV as an aerial refueler; company officials posted this first image in a private corner of a booth at the annual Air Force Assn. show in Orlando, Fla., late last month. Air Force leaders have requested preliminary work on the refueler, although the mission requirement is still vague.
A company official says the tanker would carry fuel to other Global Hawks conducting intelligence-collection missions, to extend their endurance. However, some experts speculate the refueler may be used for other high-flying aircraft that haven't yet been developed or made their debut in the unclassified world. The design also is being examined for use as a tanker for stealthy, unmanned combat aircraft with shorter ranges.
IAF officials also are looking at a UAV tanker to fuel manned aircraft in enemy airspace where manned tankers would be too vulnerable.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force plans to demonstrate the Global Hawk in the Asia-Pacific area. The project will involve the deployment of a Global Hawk to Guam and overflights from there. Ten nations have signed up to participate and have specified regions they would like observed. Another possible use of Global Hawk in the region is to provide security surveillance in the Straits of Malacca, where pirates have been known to board oil tankers sailing from the Persian Gulf to the Far East.

 

[RedGuy]

As I understand it the Global Hawk isn't a Pilot less A/C. It actually has a crew of 4, they just happen to not be in the A/C but at a remote terminal. Personally I think it will probably be along time before unmanned A/C are allowed to fly over the U.S.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

The idea of "pilotless" or robotic aircraft is not that far off by technology
or by legislative limitations.

The aircraft will still have a manager but you can easily have one person or
one team manage a fleet of aircraft. Systems are advanced enough that
a "pilot" is not required to "fly" the plane, merely a manager telling it where
to go.

The next level of automatic avoidance and sequencing is all that's required.

CE

(you still have the number of that truck driving school 'Truckmaster'?)
(I think I'm gonna need that)

 

[Bjammin]

We still have 727's and 737's flying around and the 75-767's we designed over 30 years ago still have 20+ years left in them.

Now we have some more TWO pilot airplanes just coming out the 787, A-350 and A-380. I bet those will be in production and flying for at least 40+ years. I also bet any follow-on plane in the works at Airbus or Boeing is also a 2 pilot airplane which will be flying for at least 50+ years from now.

To put it another way, we will have airplanes for all our great grandchildren to fly.

Military wise we are still building new fighters that require pilots and I'm sure they will be in service for at least 30+ years like the F-18 has been.

We have generations to go before the pilot no longer exists. I will be worm food by then and will have other things on my mind, like DIRT!

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

I am not losing sleep, but consider this:

Many of these older airframes have glass cockpits. Why?
'cause it's cheaper to maintain, fewer parts and over all a lower
parts inventory and MTBF. The new technology makes keeping the
older hull cost effective.

You don't have to replace the entire hull.

A severe pilot shortage or high profile CFIT in an A380 could
spur a change.

CE

(FedEx and Evergreen have (are?) looked(-ing?)into similar projects)

 

[abxaviator]

How about the first time a "pilotless" plane crashes into an aprtment building, what do you think the public would say then? Not to mention that I would imagine taking over a ground control center of some private company might be much easier for those with ill will.

 

[AerroMatt]

How about the first time a "pilotless" plane crashes into an aprtment building, what do you think the public would say then? Not to mention that I would imagine taking over a ground control center of some private company might be much easier for those with ill will.

Yes, the lawyers must be having pre-orgasmic fits just anticipating the juicy lawsuits they will be able to mount against everyone when the first "automatic freighter" slams into that apt building. They'll be able to sue not only the freight company, they could also sue the manufacturer and the federal government for BILLIONS. Just think about how the press would work up public opinion into a frenzy over this?

I think we still have a few more decades before such machines are allowed over anything but a combat zone or open water.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

How about the first time a "pilotless" plane crashes into an aprtment building, what do you think the public would say then? Not to mention that I would imagine taking over a ground control center of some private company might be much easier for those with ill will.

Yes, of course!

Piloted airplanes have NEVER flown into buildings.


CE

 

[AV8OR]

"A severe pilot shortage...."

Is this Kit Darby? Come on now.....

 

[abxaviator]

Yes, of course!

Piloted airplanes have NEVER flown into buildings.


CE

I didn't say that or even mean to imply that. Only addressing the fact that the majority of the public is ignorant of the technology and all they would fixate upon (as fed to them by the media and said lawyers) would be the term "pilotless". The Monday morning quaterbacking would focus heavily on the lack of a flightcrew to deal with the emergency.

Not saying the technology is good or bad, just that the public will have a VERY difficult time accepting it.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

To sell it you'd hear:
"Now that we have automatic cargo carriers, our pilots can now concentrate
on the safety of the passenger fleet"

Granted, pilotless Pax flights is likely far off. A more realistic outcome would
be a single monitoring flight crewmember.

As for the catalysts to push such technology? It's anyone's guess, I just
threw out a few examples.

CE

(i have no idea who Kit Darby is)

 

[brett]

If the "Gimli Glider" would have been an automated plane, it would have crashed. One crewmember knew of a closed airport turned into a dragstrip within gliding range. The other had a lot of glider time and slipped the plane in to make the strip.

Computers could avoid thunder storm cells but visual avoidance of building CUs not yet producing lightning or heavy precip would be difficult -- pax would get a wild ride more often than they would with flesh in the cockpit.

Ask any of the survivors of Al Haynes' DC10 (Sioux City crash) if they would have rather had a computer flying the plane. Humans can think outside the box and come up with creative solutions.

Even if robot planes could statistically maintain a better safety rating, people will still want seasoned humans up front for passenger flights. A high profile accident or two where a computer flubs and kills people on the ground may even get the pilotless freight planes banned. We can be more understanding and forgiving of each other than we can of machines.

 

[brett]

If you have computers flying planes then the terrorists can save money -- flight training no longer needed, just a good hacker.

- Brett

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
Yes, of course!

Piloted airplanes have NEVER flown into buildings.


CE

I didn't say that or even mean to imply that. Only addressing the fact that the majority of the public is ignorant of the technology and all they would fixate upon (as fed to them by the media and said lawyers) would be the term "pilotless". The Monday morning quaterbacking would focus heavily on the lack of a flightcrew to deal with the emergency.

Not saying the technology is good or bad, just that the public will have a VERY difficult time accepting it.

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

If the "Gimli Glider" would have been an automated plane, it would have crashed. One crewmember knew of a closed airport turned into a dragstrip within gliding range. The other had a lot of glider time and slipped the plane in to make the strip.

Computers could avoid thunder storm cells but visual avoidance of building CUs not yet producing lightning or heavy precip would be difficult -- pax would get a wild ride more often than they would with flesh in the cockpit.

Ask any of the survivors of Al Haynes' DC10 (Sioux City crash) if they would have rather had a computer flying the plane. Humans can think outside the box and come up with creative solutions.

Even if robot planes could statistically maintain a better safety rating, people will still want seasoned humans up front for passenger flights. A high profile accident or two where a computer flubs and kills people on the ground may even get the pilotless freight planes banned. We can be more understanding and forgiving of each other than we can of machines.

The DC-10 United 232 would have landed safely if it was automated.
Robust programing can easily overcome multiple system failures.
A MD11 landed itself using the only engines 1 and 3 and a slightly modified
autopilot with newer software.

CE

 

[Huck]

The MD11 also had the "Souix City valve", which retained half the elevator trim and one aileron panel.....

 

[brett]

I seriously doubt it. I'm not familiar with the one you're talking about. Did it have a total hydraulic failure like the DC? Was the "slightly modified" software based on the DC10 crew's creative solution that wouldn't have been known otherwise? I don't think an autopilot could have, "figured that one out" on its own the first time.

Automation can't always be trusted to fly a good plane, much less an instant experimental. Ever watched an autopilot do weird stuff and wonder why? Who here has never had to turn one off because it wasn't acting right?

Again, I say: ask the people that were on the Gimli Glider and the Sioux City DC (and the people on the ground between where the incident started and the eventual landing site) whether they would have preferred a robot plane.

The DC-10 United 232 would have landed safely if it was automated.
Robust programing can easily overcome multiple system failures.
A MD11 landed itself using the only engines 1 and 3 and a slightly modified
autopilot with newer software.

CE

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

It was landed without hydraulics.

I have a bit to add, but I don't have time right now.

CE

 

[tomgoodman]

MD-11 test

NASA Dryden X-Press - September 1995

NASA program achieves first propulsion-controlled landing of a transport aircraft


by J. D. Hunley, External Affairs Office
NASA research pilot and former astronaut Gordon Fullerton recently landed a McDonnell- Douglas MD-11 transport aircraft here using only engine power for control.
The milestone flight on Aug. 29 was part of a NASA project, initiated by Bill Burcham, chief of Dryden's Propulsion Branch, to develop a computer-assisted engine control system that enables a pilot to land a plane safely when its normal control surfaces such as elevators, rudders, and ailerons are disabled.
Following several incidents in which hydraulic failures resulted in loss of part or all of an aircraft's flight controls, notably the crash of a United Airlines DC-10 at Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989, NASA started developing a propulsion-controlled aircraft (PCA) system in which engine thrust provides the control needed to land an aircraft safely.
Gordon Fullerton had previously landed a NASA F-15 research aircraft using a similar PCA system in April 1993. The recent landing was the first one ever performed in an actual transport aircraft - the wide body MD-11 that replaced the earlier DC-10.
The success of the program was the result of a partnership between NASA and McDonnell-Douglas Aerospace, St. Louis, Mo., and Pratt & Whitney, along with Honeywell, which designed the software used in the aircraft's flight control computer.
"We actually flew the airplane today to a PCA landing two months ahead of schedule and approximately $3 million under the cost that we had originally signed up for," said NASA project manager Bob Baron, immediately following the event.
Following an earlier flight at Yuma, Ariz., in which the MD-11 did not land, a combined crew including Gordon Fullerton and Douglas Aircraft's flight test team headed by pilot John Miller, made three practice approaches at Dryden before making the initial landing at 11:38 a.m. PDT. The test team then made a second landing at 12:18 p.m., proving that the PCA concept was feasible for a commercial transport.
"What is most impressive about the system is the precision of its control," said Fullerton. "From the first time that we turned it on, John Miller and I were amazed at how accurately it can hold a commanded altitude and steer to exactly a precise heading. The result is that you can bring it in, not only for a survivable crash landing, but a precise normal landing, which is what we did."
The PCA system uses a standard autopilot control already present in the cockpit, together with the new programming in the aircraft's flight control computers. The PCA concept is simple - for pitch control, the program increases thrust to climb and reduces thrust to descend. To turn right, the autopilot increases the left engine thrust while decreasing the right engine thrust. Since thrust response is slow, and the control forces are relatively small, a pilot would require extensive practice and intense concentration to do this task manually. Using computer- controlled thrust greatly improves flight precision and reduces pilot workload.

 

[Mud Eagle]

I've also read that we may very well be seeing the last of fighter pilot classes for the military.

We're nowhere remotely close to that. While the UAV community has expanded significantly over the last 5-10 years, the USAF is not even thinking about slowing or stopping the fighter training pipeline yet.