Pilotless aircraft. Look out Fed Ex wannabees

[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.