YourPilotFriend
YourPilotFriend
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,570
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Pilotless Airliner - They're looking at it again!
- Thread starter bvt1151
- Start date
- Watchers 33
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
LowlyPropCapt
PBR For Life, and Beyond!
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,256
The part of the article that got my attention was the proposal for the use of airspace. Each operator is supposed to have a corridor that they, by contract, do not leave during operations. If airline management abides by this contract the same way they abide by my labor contract, the body count will be very high indeed.
It would take a month of summertime weather on the east coast to sink this idea completely.
It would take a month of summertime weather on the east coast to sink this idea completely.
YourPilotFriend
YourPilotFriend
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Posts
- 1,570
With management making the go/no-go decision, weather is no longer a factor. Clear and a million, it's a GO!.............Light Rain and fog, it's a GO!.............Plane partially on fire, It's a GO!
Phaedrus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Posts
- 932
The bottom line
In a word, money. Airlines' single largest cost is staff wages, which consume half of a typical airline's annual revenue—far more than fuel, aircraft leasing or servicing costs. Pilots are the most costly airline workers to employ. At a typical airline, industry insiders say, 97 of the 100 most highly paid employees will be pilots. #'s 98, 99, and 100 however make more than all the pilots combined.
Pilots are well rewarded, and with good reason: people trust them with their lives. Captains on long-haul flights are the most highly paid. According to Aviation Information Resources, a pilot-recruitment firm, the most senior captains earn an average of $178,000 a year. Some airlines pay far more: the most generous is Delta, which pays its top pilots $248,000. dated?
There are other costs too, including per-diem and overnight expenses. Pilots expect to stay in fancy hotels when stopping overnight between flights. And why not? Before they take hundreds of lives in their hands, pilots ought to have had a good night's sleep. Safety considerations, which preclude pilots working too many consecutive hours, impose other costs. Airlines maintain elaborate rostering systems to ensure that there are enough pilots ready for duty, since each one can only work a few days a week. When a flight is delayed, the pilot may find that proceeding with the flight will require him to work more than the permitted number of hours; so a new pilot must be found, or the flight cancelled.
Automating flights completely would, of course, do away with these costs. Auto-pilots are amenable types: they never get tired, demand pay rises, go on strike, or drink too much. (Nice touch there) It would require lots of expensive new systems, but if it could be made to work, the cost savings would be enormous: billions of dollars a year for a large airline. Even partial automation, perhaps involving shifts of pilots looking after several semi-autonomous aircraft at once via remote control, would save money. Again, Global Hawk points the way: a single operator can control two or more aircraft from the same command console on the ground. And research by Boeing, which is building an unmanned fighter aircraft for the American air force, suggests that operators could efficiently control up to four aircraft at a time.
None of this is likely to happen any time soon, of course. But the technological trend is clear. Craig Mundie, chief technical officer at Microsoft, the world's largest software firm, estimates that passengers will routinely travel in pilotless planes by 2030, a claim he has backed up with a public bet to that effect (see www.longbets.org/bet/4). For his part, Mr Mitchell believes it is unlikely to be before 2050, but that it will happen eventually.
In the meantime, there may be nearer-term opportunities for unpiloted planes. Northrop Grumman is examining commercial uses for unpiloted aircraft including surveillance, communications—a drone aircraft flying over a city could act as a low-altitude communications satellite—and even crop-dusting. In November 2001, Boeing set up a dedicated unmanned-systems unit, which will initially concentrate on military aircraft, but with the aim of transferring the technology into civil and commercial aviation.
Assuming they can prove themselves in small commercial applications, the next big step would be to use unmanned aircraft for freight. Federal Express has discussed this possibility with Mr Mitchell. If unpiloted freighters then became commonplace, the way would be clear to consider passenger flights. And at that point, advocates of unpiloted planes would face their greatest challenge: convincing the public to get on board.
That could be a tall order. For while it would be possible to make a case for pilotless planes on safety grounds, this would mean pointing out some of the hazards associated with piloted flights. No aircraft maker or airline is going to do that.
Yet more than half of air-travel deaths are the result of “controlled flight into terrain” (CFIT), which is industry-speak for “the plane was working perfectly, but the pilot flew it into the ground”. CFIT accidents cause the most casualties because few passengers survive them. People are far more likely to survive if a plane overshoots a runway, or its landing-gear collapses, than if it flies into a mountain. Of the 18 fatal air accidents in the first half of 2002, nine are thought to have been due to CFIT, resulting in 397 deaths.
Other forms of pilot error can also be fatal. On July 1st 2002, two planes collided over Germany, killing 71 people. The airborne collision-avoidance system worked perfectly, but human error, both in the air and on the ground, meant the collision happened anyway. It would be foolish to suggest that unpiloted planes would never crash or go wrong. But a few years of data from unpiloted freight flights would make meaningful comparisons possible, and might favour more automation.
Another problem with advocating unpiloted aircraft as a means of reducing pilot error, however, is that it would mean drawing attention to the realities of air safety—a subject the industry seems keen to avoid, with the tacit approval of passengers. No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water, for example. The engines, which hang in “pods” beneath the wings, make such a landing almost impossible, notes Mr Jackson. So the life jackets, with their little whistles and lights that come on when in contact with water, have little purpose other than to make passengers feel better. Yet airlines and passengers seem happy to pretend that there is some point in having them.
Similarly, there is abundant evidence that rear-facing seats are safer than forward-facing ones in the event of an emergency landing. But any airline that made all its seats rear-facing would probably go out of business, because most people prefer facing forwards. Only soldiers, who have no choice, routinely travel in aircraft with rear-facing seats. The rest of us, it seems, put comfort above safety, or would rather not be constantly reminded of the possibility of an emergency landing. (the Economist)
In a word, money. Airlines' single largest cost is staff wages, which consume half of a typical airline's annual revenue—far more than fuel, aircraft leasing or servicing costs. Pilots are the most costly airline workers to employ. At a typical airline, industry insiders say, 97 of the 100 most highly paid employees will be pilots. #'s 98, 99, and 100 however make more than all the pilots combined.
Pilots are well rewarded, and with good reason: people trust them with their lives. Captains on long-haul flights are the most highly paid. According to Aviation Information Resources, a pilot-recruitment firm, the most senior captains earn an average of $178,000 a year. Some airlines pay far more: the most generous is Delta, which pays its top pilots $248,000. dated?
There are other costs too, including per-diem and overnight expenses. Pilots expect to stay in fancy hotels when stopping overnight between flights. And why not? Before they take hundreds of lives in their hands, pilots ought to have had a good night's sleep. Safety considerations, which preclude pilots working too many consecutive hours, impose other costs. Airlines maintain elaborate rostering systems to ensure that there are enough pilots ready for duty, since each one can only work a few days a week. When a flight is delayed, the pilot may find that proceeding with the flight will require him to work more than the permitted number of hours; so a new pilot must be found, or the flight cancelled.
Automating flights completely would, of course, do away with these costs. Auto-pilots are amenable types: they never get tired, demand pay rises, go on strike, or drink too much. (Nice touch there) It would require lots of expensive new systems, but if it could be made to work, the cost savings would be enormous: billions of dollars a year for a large airline. Even partial automation, perhaps involving shifts of pilots looking after several semi-autonomous aircraft at once via remote control, would save money. Again, Global Hawk points the way: a single operator can control two or more aircraft from the same command console on the ground. And research by Boeing, which is building an unmanned fighter aircraft for the American air force, suggests that operators could efficiently control up to four aircraft at a time.
None of this is likely to happen any time soon, of course. But the technological trend is clear. Craig Mundie, chief technical officer at Microsoft, the world's largest software firm, estimates that passengers will routinely travel in pilotless planes by 2030, a claim he has backed up with a public bet to that effect (see www.longbets.org/bet/4). For his part, Mr Mitchell believes it is unlikely to be before 2050, but that it will happen eventually.
In the meantime, there may be nearer-term opportunities for unpiloted planes. Northrop Grumman is examining commercial uses for unpiloted aircraft including surveillance, communications—a drone aircraft flying over a city could act as a low-altitude communications satellite—and even crop-dusting. In November 2001, Boeing set up a dedicated unmanned-systems unit, which will initially concentrate on military aircraft, but with the aim of transferring the technology into civil and commercial aviation.
Assuming they can prove themselves in small commercial applications, the next big step would be to use unmanned aircraft for freight. Federal Express has discussed this possibility with Mr Mitchell. If unpiloted freighters then became commonplace, the way would be clear to consider passenger flights. And at that point, advocates of unpiloted planes would face their greatest challenge: convincing the public to get on board.
That could be a tall order. For while it would be possible to make a case for pilotless planes on safety grounds, this would mean pointing out some of the hazards associated with piloted flights. No aircraft maker or airline is going to do that.
Yet more than half of air-travel deaths are the result of “controlled flight into terrain” (CFIT), which is industry-speak for “the plane was working perfectly, but the pilot flew it into the ground”. CFIT accidents cause the most casualties because few passengers survive them. People are far more likely to survive if a plane overshoots a runway, or its landing-gear collapses, than if it flies into a mountain. Of the 18 fatal air accidents in the first half of 2002, nine are thought to have been due to CFIT, resulting in 397 deaths.
Other forms of pilot error can also be fatal. On July 1st 2002, two planes collided over Germany, killing 71 people. The airborne collision-avoidance system worked perfectly, but human error, both in the air and on the ground, meant the collision happened anyway. It would be foolish to suggest that unpiloted planes would never crash or go wrong. But a few years of data from unpiloted freight flights would make meaningful comparisons possible, and might favour more automation.
Another problem with advocating unpiloted aircraft as a means of reducing pilot error, however, is that it would mean drawing attention to the realities of air safety—a subject the industry seems keen to avoid, with the tacit approval of passengers. No large airliner has ever made an emergency landing on water, for example. The engines, which hang in “pods” beneath the wings, make such a landing almost impossible, notes Mr Jackson. So the life jackets, with their little whistles and lights that come on when in contact with water, have little purpose other than to make passengers feel better. Yet airlines and passengers seem happy to pretend that there is some point in having them.
Similarly, there is abundant evidence that rear-facing seats are safer than forward-facing ones in the event of an emergency landing. But any airline that made all its seats rear-facing would probably go out of business, because most people prefer facing forwards. Only soldiers, who have no choice, routinely travel in aircraft with rear-facing seats. The rest of us, it seems, put comfort above safety, or would rather not be constantly reminded of the possibility of an emergency landing. (the Economist)
The bridge to pilotless airliners would probably be a single-pilot airliner. This however, still requires pilot cooperation to make it work before going to the next step. It would also likely have a back-up ability for a ground-based operator to take over and land it from the ground.
If pilots refuse to operate equipment that can be controlled, or taken over, by persons not ON BOARD the aircraft in flight, the "next step" cannot be taken.
But....history shows that pilots might be found that are willing to go along with it for a price.
If pilots refuse to operate equipment that can be controlled, or taken over, by persons not ON BOARD the aircraft in flight, the "next step" cannot be taken.
But....history shows that pilots might be found that are willing to go along with it for a price.
abxaviator
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2002
- Posts
- 372
I would guess not so well with compound emergencies (a QRH is NOT all-encompassing); AI can't exercise judgement quite yet.
aussiefly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Posts
- 384
Well if you are the flying public then piss off back to them and stay away from pilots messageboards. From your attitude its clear you are both flamebaiting AND patently not a 121 pilot.
So run along.
My flame baiting? Somebody made a comment that the flying public wouldn't be in support of computerized aircraft, who better to make a comment on that then the flying public.
If you are going to make the argument the public should care because of the professional nature of the pilots, try acting like one instead of a 12yr old. Merry Christmas.
NEDude
yada yada yada
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2001
- Posts
- 1,611
A pilotless airplane will become a surefire target for computer hackers and terrorists. I wonder if the cost of firewalls, anti-virus software and computer geeks to oversee the system will cost more than a couple of pilots.
Humans are the only species that actively work to make themselves obsolete.
Humans are the only species that actively work to make themselves obsolete.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
