Pilotless Cockpit?

[FN FAL]

One last thought - your left engine is on fire. Do you really think onboard AI plus ground monitoring could possibly cope with such a dire, fluid situation? Maybe a HAL 9000 could, but real-world AI is a joke. Again, you end up with a dude on the ground handling it remotely. He may as well be up in the jet!

Yea, that would be a hard one to program...

Relevent thrust lever to idle.

Relevent thrust lever to cut-off.

Relevent fire lever to first detent.

Select fire bottle #1 and activate.

Note the time: after 30 seconds elapses and fire still detected, select fire bottle #2 and activate.

Consult QRH.

Divert to nearest suitable airport.

Land.

 

[Skyline]

Remote Pilots

The military has enough confidence to send UAV's out with bombs and rockets attached and sucessfully kill people from the back side of the globe. It would take an entirely redesigned flight deck but I am sure it can be done and it would be easier than you would think. In a 777 most of the functions that you mentioned on a privious post are already fully automated. The airbus is a wireless plane. It would be easy to have the signals sent from a computer instead of a switch.

I havent hear it mentioned yet but if the government ever hangs a nuke off of a UAV then I would say that unmanned ground controlled airliner would be a slam dunk.

Slyline

 

[FN FAL]

I havent hear it mentioned yet but if the government ever hangs a nuke off of a UAV then I would say that unmanned ground controlled airliner would be a slam dunk.

What do you think an ICBM or a Cruise Missile is?

 

[Skyline]

Icbm

FN FAL,

I think an ICBM is a NUKE !!!! Oh !! A cruse missile is also a NUKE !!!


Oh My,

Skyline

 

[Swede]

FN FAL my NFA Brother... do you really think it boils down to your simple laundry list? Look at the DHL which took the missile in Baghdad, or the hydraulic-free DC-10, or a windshear escape, wake turbulence upset, there are countless episodes of compounding problems in which a logical, computer-driven flow diagaram from a QRH isn't the solution.

Could AI have saved those folks in the DC-10 with no hydraulics? I suspect the palm pilot flying the thing would crap itself and probably issue a computerized PA saying "Sorry folks, I have reached the end of the QRH... since my sensors detect we are inverted at 3,000 MSL, please kiss your a$$es goodbye! And by the way, I have beamed my program into all of your cell phones so at least one copy of me will survive!"

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL my NFA Brother... do you really think it boils down to your simple laundry list? Look at the DHL which took the missile in Baghdad, or the hydraulic-free DC-10, or a windshear escape, wake turbulence upset, there are countless episodes of compounding problems in which a logical, computer-driven flow diagaram from a QRH isn't the solution.

Could AI have saved those folks in the DC-10 with no hydraulics? I suspect the palm pilot flying the thing would crap itself and probably issue a computerized PA saying "Sorry folks, I have reached the end of the QRH... since my sensors detect we are inverted at 3,000 MSL, please kiss your a$$es goodbye! And by the way, I have beamed my program into all of your cell phones so at least one copy of me will survive!"

:beer:

 

[Skyline]

Swede

Dear Swede,

What about all the other plane crashes from pilot error? Who's to say that a computer couldn't have done as good a job or better with the DC-10 Al Haynes incident? Pilot reaction times are slow and frequently make mistakes in high pressure situations. I do think a computer driven check list could recognise a problem much faster and make the proper corrections before the crew even realized that there was something wrong. I am willing to bet that an airplane with AI running the show would be much safer over all especially considering the skill level average airline pilot. Even today we already have automated most of normal airplane operations. I know it is a blow to the ego but we already are mostly automated compared to the cockpit of a 1946 DC-3. In the near future the free flight concept that the FAA hopes to put in place will entrust our transponders and GPS systems to communicate for us and make altitude and heading changes without any input from the flight deck. In reality we are not to far from total automation now.

Skyline

 

[TonyC]

Who's to say that a computer couldn't have done as good a job or better with the DC-10 Al Haynes incident?

Me.








..

 

[GVFlyer]

I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about pilots.

First, as a gee-whiz note, I was taxiing for takeoff years ago at Davis-Monthan behind an F-100. Yes, a gen-u-ine SuperSabre. When it turned left to take the runway, I saw that the cockpit was empty. It held briefly on the runway, then lit off and blasted skyward. Dangdest thing I ever did see.


But for this discussion, I have three points worth making:

1) A single-pilot airliner makes no sense. If you need one human, you need two. If people won't get on a pilotless airliner (I wouldn't), they won't get on a single-pilot airliner either.

2) There is NO relationship whatsoever to what the Air Force may or may not do in the fighter world and how civilian airliners will operate. The military is the military and can operate way beyond what the civilian world would tolerate. In the same vein, I don't really see pilotless airlifters either, at least none that carry people. No one cares if a drone fighter crashes. Not the case when there are pax aboard.

3) The fact that aircraft are becoming more automated does not equate to computers someday rendering pilots obsolete. They will always need to be there no matter what the level of automation.

CAN it be done? Could have been done years ago. WILL it be done, no way.

I hear a lot of denial at the "O" Club,too. I've seen the X-45 UCAV out in W157A and W158C overlying and the 15 G turns it makes are pretty impressive. But check out the profile for a couple of their most recent test flights.

For test flights 63 and 64, the X-45As departed from the base, climbed to altitude, and autonomously used their on-board decision-making software to determine the best route of flight within the "area of action" or AOA. The pilot on the ground approved the plan and the two unmanned vehicles entered the AOA, a 30 by 60 mile area within the test range, ready to perform a simulated Preemptive Destruction-Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission. The mission involved identifying, attacking and destroying pre-identified ground-based radars and associated missile launchers before they could be used to launch surface-to-air missiles.
During the test flight, the X-45A unmanned aircraft faced a simulated "pop-up" threat, used evasive maneuvers to avoid it, and autonomously determined which vehicle held the optimum position, weapons and fuel to attack the higher priority simulated target. Once the pilot authorized the attack, the unmanned aircraft simulated dropping weapons on the target. After engaging and destroying a second simulated target, the two X-45As completed their mission and safely returned to Edwards.


It's like a Sci-Fi movie...


GV








~

 

[FN FAL]

It's like a Sci-Fi movie...

Yea, I know. Look at DARPA's website. They had a one million dollar prize the last time they held the autonomous land vehicle contest and nobody finished. This time around in the two million dollar contest, all but the Ford SUV guys finished. There has been a big increase in computing power since the last contest.