Pilotless Cockpit?

[Skyline]

Fn Fal

FN FAL

Hi, You are an interesting character. I like your posts. What is your story?


Skyline

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL

Hi, You are an interesting character. I like your posts. What is your story?

Nothing to see here, Just a ragged out fr8dawg with too much time on my hands.

 

[Big Duke Six]

It IS fascinating stuff, and again I'm not saying it's impossible to do. Clearly, it is. The common thread, even with military drones, is that there is and IMHO always WILL be a "pilot" on the ground managing some aspects of the flight. I just can't envision a completely hands off scenario, especially when it involves a tube full of people. It gets to the point where the business decision would be "Well, if we have to put in all the added systems, software etc, and STILL have a guy on the ground to watch it all, then why not just keep him in the jet?"

Even if we ever get to that point, and I agree with Swede that it is YEARS away at best, I don't think the public will EVER buy it. I've been wrong before, but I think this is a HUGE hurdle.

And again, I believe that if the powers that be determine a human is needed, than you really need to have two. Sounds stupid, but people are people, and can fail occasionally.

The military is a whole different animal.

 

[the_dimwit]

... It gets to the point where the business decision would be "Well, if we have to put in all the added systems, software etc, and STILL have a guy on the ground to watch it all, then why not just keep him in the jet?"

Even if we ever get to that point, and I agree with Swede that it is YEARS away at best, I don't think the public will EVER buy it. I've been wrong before, but I think this is a HUGE hurdle.

And again, I believe that if the powers that be determine a human is needed, than you really need to have two. Sounds stupid, but people are people, and can fail occasionally...

I see your point, but I raise you another. Current subway systems are computer-controlled. While an operator does sit up front, it's mainly to act as a backup in case something happens and to look out the window to verify all passengers have boarded before the doors close.

As technology has advanced, people have become more accepting of transferring control over to a computer. Evidence of this is found in little things such as anti-lock brakes (we no longer have to remember to pump the brakes), but it can also be seen in bigger things like the modern passenger airplane. How many systems in modern aircraft are fully-automated?

Will the pilot ever go away? Perhaps, but as many have said already, the exit is very distant right now. I live in the DC area and use the subway every day to commute to work. I can attest that the system is far from perfect. The trains are sometimes stopping short or long of the platform, and there are other "quirks" that keep me from being totally willing to let the operator go.

--Dim

 

[TonyC]

Current subway systems are computer-controlled. While an operator does sit up front, it's mainly to act as a backup in case something happens and to look out the window to verify all passengers have boarded before the doors close.

One must consider the consequences of a catastrophic failure of those automated systems. What happens when the cockpit goes completely dark? In the case of the subway train, the cars come to a stop safely on the same rails that have guided their course all along. There is no risk to the occupants until they attempt to leave the cars and walk to the nearest tunnel exit.

The outcome in an ariplane is much less certain. Even if the systems were redundant and a complete failure only occurred once every 1,000 flights, we'd have an unnacceptable number of catastrophes.



.

 

[the_dimwit]

One must consider the consequences of a catastrophic failure of those automated systems. What happens when the cockpit goes completely dark? In the case of the subway train, the cars come to a stop safely on the same rails that have guided their course all along. There is no risk to the occupants until they attempt to leave the cars and walk to the nearest tunnel exit.

The outcome in an ariplane is much less certain. Even if the systems were redundant and a complete failure only occurred once every 1,000 flights, we'd have an unnacceptable number of catastrophes.



.

I agree, Tony. However, there is no guarantee that a rail car will simply stop. Consider a scenario where the computer malfunctions and increases the speed of the train to an unsafe speed. Said train takes a corner too quickly and derails. Or, the train doesn't "see" another train in the next station and collides with it. The increased speed could result in a tunnel intersection going very wrong...you get the idea.

While the above doesn't make a great case for computer automation in mass transit, my point is that even though we know the dangers exist, we still choose to use it. Computers are getting smarter. So-called "artificial intelligence" is improving tremendously each year.

You see, I believe that people are getting used to technology and the rapid improvements to it. Fifteen years ago, the Internet would have been a pipe dream. Ten years ago, it became reality. The past five years has seen tremendous growth in terms of popularity and technological innovation. The result has been increasing acceptance of the Internet its role in human society.

The military has been grappling with the role of the pilot for a while now. I think that civilian aviation will begin to do the same at some point, too. As the "older generations" begin to give way to the younger folks who are used to the idea of computers running things, I believe the concept of pilotless airplanes will become reality.

Don't worry, though. As long as government bureaucracy and labor unions are around, there will be a very long road to travel before computers really fly.

--Dim

 

[AdlerDriver]

disregard

 

[Skyline]

Automation

One must consider the consequences of a catastrophic failure of those automated systems. What happens when the cockpit goes completely dark? In the case of the subway train, the cars come to a stop safely on the same rails that have guided their course all along. There is no risk to the occupants until they attempt to leave the cars and walk to the nearest tunnel exit.

The outcome in an ariplane is much less certain. Even if the systems were redundant and a complete failure only occurred once every 1,000 flights, we'd have an unnacceptable number of catastrophes.

Even now with fly by wire and glass cockpits I think there is an accepted risk level on the avionics. Sure failures will happen but would you rather trade your moving map GPS, smooth fly by wire, full glass jet for a scant cluster of steam gauges, slow responding heavy controls, and an E6B? Not me.


We don't have to start out with people hauling. Cargo companies could take the lead. UPS and FedEx are going to have a hard time getting pay cuts out of their pilots. They could just replace them instead and save millions every year per plane. Each plane has about 12 crews at an average pay of 180K per pilot that makes $4,320,000 saved per year, per plane. Not bad.
A ground controller can manage several flights simultaneously. Just like on the subway we could put a low wage technician up front to report conditions back to ground. Maybe it could be a FA or mechanic?

Skyline

 

[mzaharis]

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.

..

I don't have enough experience to offer a valid opinion as to whether a computer could have done better, but I do know that NASA has done research in this area, after the Al Haynes incident. They were attempting to come up with some control laws for a reversionary mode where a pilot could control the aircraft through throttle controls, mediated by a computer system. Presumably, the computer would already have the control laws programmed, and would be able to apply the optimum adjustments in throttle to effect the flight attitude changes commanded by the pilot. Therefore, the pilot wouldn't have to do a "controls test flight" as Al Haynes did, to determine what throttle settings caused the desired attitude changes - they'd already be in the computer. My memory is a bit rusty, but I believe that the pilot would still give control inputs through the yoke and pedals, but they would translate to throttle adjustments.

They had proceeded to some flight testing. I believe that they started with an F-15 (not exactly the best aircraft to start with, due to the near-centerline thrust of the engines), but if memory serves, they were also going to try it in an airliner, possibly a DC-10 (it's been a long time since I read about this). I don't know what became of the research, or if it's still ongoing. A bit of rummaging around nasa.gov (probably at the Dryden or Glenn Center pages) probably could turn something up.

 

[TonyC]

Even now with fly by wire and glass cockpits I think there is an accepted risk level on the avionics. Sure failures will happen but would you rather trade your moving map GPS, smooth fly by wire, full glass jet for a scant cluster of steam gauges, slow responding heavy controls, and an E6B? Not me.

Given that I have recently transitioned from the MD-11 to a 727, I guess you might say I made that trade. Sure, I don't have the moving map or the FMS doing math for me, but I haven't wound up in a heaping pile of aluminum in anybody's back yard. When I was flying the MD-11, it was understood that there were pilots on board to ensure that the FMS and AFS were programmed correctly and behaving correctly. Guess who flew the airplane when there was a dual FMC failure!

We don't have to start out with people hauling. Cargo companies could take the lead. UPS and FedEx are going to have a hard time getting pay cuts out of their pilots. They could just replace them instead and save millions every year per plane. Each plane has about 12 crews at an average pay of 180K per pilot that makes $4,320,000 saved per year, per plane. Not bad.
A ground controller can manage several flights simultaneously. Just like on the subway we could put a low wage technician up front to report conditions back to ground. Maybe it could be a FA or mechanic?

Skyline

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this bologna. Where do I even start? Airplanes with boxes make just as large fireballs as airplanes with pax. 180K average? HA!! "[L]ow wage technician up front to report conditions"?!?!? Let me guess, you'll be applying for that position?




.