Pilotless Cockpit?

[TonyC]

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.

Sure. Identify a problem, and spend months and millions studying it, and you can develop an automated machine to deal with it. As they say, hindsight is 20/20.

The point is, Al Haynes didn't have months or millions, he had minutes. In fact, in order to keep the airplane straight and level, he had seconds to figure out how to manage a problem that had never before been envisioned. He didn't rely on so-called "artificial intelligence" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), he relied on experience, expertise, and ACTUAL intelligence.

IF we could envision every malfunction or failure, or combinations thereof, we might be able to build a machine to handle them adequately. HUGE if. The problem is, we can't possibly envision every possible scenario. You will never see a machine that substitutes for sound pilot judgment.


When that scenario presents itself, the one that has not yet been imagined, there is no machine that will do a better job than Al.




.

 

[Superunknown]

I understand the defensiveness that comes with a person with a skill being put to pasture because that skill is no longer needed. pilot's egos are among the highest in any skilled profession.

However, IMO we have reached the end of the "pilots are gods" era and are in the beginning of the "modern aircraft really are not that hard to fly, and an ever more educated society has realized this" era. Next will be the "pilots are not needed" era.

Commercial aircraft being flown without pilots will happen. When, is the question. An educated guess would put it right around 20 years or so for the technology to be sufficient. By then computerization will be monitoring OUR actions not vice-versa.

When Airbus made a GIANT leap and decided that the technology was sufficient for NO actual mechanical connection to the flight controls, and it gave the aircraft the ability to over-ride a pilot's inputs to preserve itself, it marked the beginning of the end for a Human piloted aircraft.

Can you try and imagine the folks on the Mayflower conceptualizing the Internet in their minds? The answers to the problems of fully automated commercial flight will come from technology that WE cannot easily conceptualize now.

 

[ePilot22]

The Only Question IS When?

Can you try and imagine the folks on the Mayflower conceptualizing the Internet in their minds?

This was the basis for the original question on this thread. What we know today will change quicker than what we can imagine. I don't think the Mayflower people thought much about the Internet, but what about walking on the moon? The Wright brothers to an A380? Or Capt. Jeppesen to a Garmin 430 or an EFB for that matter?

Unfortunetly, I also think Superunknown is right in respect to the 20 years or so when techologly and computer automation will do the all flying for us. In my original argument/discussion with the individual that lead me to post this question, he was quite sure that it's a question of when, not if. It really does suck in the end. A computer will never have a love or the desire for flight. No passions, sacrifices or emotions that we all share to get to where we are.

What was the last line in the movie The Aviator, "It's the wave of the future!"

 

[Huggyu2]

Yeah,... just look at Global Hawk and UCAV. They are SURELY going to replace everything... HA! Not in my lifetime.
Tell you what: will you put your kids on a pilotless airliner, or a 787 with a 40 year old Capt and a 26 year old F/O?

 

[ePilot22]

My Kids

Tell you what: will you put your kids on a pilotless airliner, or a 787 with a 40 year old Capt and a 26 year old F/O?

Think about your question! I mean come on, this took all of 3 seconds to respond to.

First of all, kids are more familiar with computers and techology and will most likely trust it more than you or I ever will. Look at how they are growing up right now. Cell phones, internet, email, Xbox, PSP and Microsoft Flight Sim. We have seen the development, the progression of this type of techology and the errors associated with it, but they have not. To them it has always been this way and it's only going to get better, faster and more reliable. When the time comes for my children to board a 787 or whatever we're calling them, they will accept the fact there are no pilots (no human pilots) upfront without question. In fact it may even be your kids who perfect the techology, who knows.

Nobody is saying this is going to happen tomorrow, but it will happen.

 

[Huggyu2]

So answer the question based on 21 Oct 2005.... or 2006.... or 2007....
Which will you do, hoss? Pilot or no pilot for your youngsters??? Or does the answer take more than 3 seconds?

 

[ePilot22]

So answer the question based on 21 Oct 2005.... or 2006.... or 2007....
Which will you do, hoss? Pilot or no pilot for your youngsters??? Or does the answer take more than 3 seconds?

You're right this is going to take a little longer............lets see.

Oct. 21 2005 + oh about 20 years = Oct 21, 2025. Am I right? Math is still a little difficult for me and all.

For me though, it's pilot all the way!!! I don't know if you read the very first post to this thread, but I'm all in favor of human pilots. I posted this thread to find out what ideas and opinions are out there. So if you're looking for hard proof, talk to Marty McFly cause he's the only one who'll know for sure, hoss! If you really think human pilots are going to be flying planes forever, you are mistaken my friend, we'll be as outdated as the horse and buggy at some point.

But if denial floats your boat, or flies your plane, that's fine. I'm not here to convince you of anything, believe what you want.

 

[FN FAL]

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/X-Press/1999/Apr16/smart.html

Smart Controls
By Alan Brown

NASA Photo by Carla Thomas

View attachment 126

The F-15 Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles (ACTIVE) is testing a neural net that could make future flight controls react automatically when a flight control surface is damaged or inoperative by utilizing the aircraft's other control surfaces to compensate.
Aerospace Projects Writer

NASA is working to help pilots who find themselves in potentially disastrous situations flying severely damaged or malfunctioning aircraft by developing new "smart" software that will enable pilots to control and safely land disabled aircraft.

Dryden is conducting flights to research the new software, which is in line with NASA's goal to reduce commercial aircraft accident rates by a factor of five over the next 10 years.

"If an accident occurs, the aircraft will seek useable control surfaces like flaps, rudders or ailerons that would successfully compensate, restoring control to the pilot," said Dr. Charles Jorgensen of Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Jorgensen is the principal investigator for the NASA software program.

The intelligent flight control system employs experimental "neural network" software developed by computer scientists at Ames and the Boeing Company's Phantom Works division, St. Louis, Mo. When it is fully developed, the software will add a significant margin of safety for future military and commercial aircraft that incorporate the system.

The evaluations involved flying the modified F-15 through a variety of maneuvers and formation flying with other aircraft, said Mike Thomson, chief engineer for the flight tests at Dryden.

The maneuvers were flown first in a conventional mode and then with the neural network. Pilots then made comparisons of the two modes.

"The next step is to use the same type of controller with a learning neural net system and actually simulate failures on the aircraft and have the system adapt to those failures," Thomson said.

Jim Smolka, Dryden's chief project pilot for the current flight evaluations, said the system, which also is known as the Intelligent Flight Control System (IFCS), was effective.

"This is a limited-authority system, (so) most of the flight maneuvers we're doing are fairly benign, like pitch, roll and yaw doublets, aileron rolls, some steady heading side-slips, a wind-up turn. We've explored the entire airspeed and altitude capability of the present system," he said. "This is only the beginning for neural network technology."

In addition to Smolka, Dryden research pilots Dana Purifoy and Rogers Smith, Air Force Flight Test Center test pilot Capt. Dawn Dunlop and Boeing Phantom Works test pilot Larry Walker flew evaluation flights of the system. Dryden flight test engineers Gerard Schkolnik, Marty Trout and Bob Meyer, Director of Research Engineering, assisted in the rear cockpit.

Neural network software is distinguished by its ability to "learn" by observing patterns in the data it receives and processes and then performing different tasks in response to new patterns, said Jorgensen. Simple neural network software has been in use since the 1960s with computer modems to enable them to receive error-free data over often-noisy telephone lines, but it never demonstrated that ability in such a complex safety-related environment. Dryden research flights on the highly modified F-15 Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles (ACTIVE) are demonstrating how this version of the neural network software can correctly identify and respond to changes in aircraft stability and control characteristics. It also will show the system's ability to immediately maintain the best flight performance. The tests involve about a dozen flights over a three-week period.

In its flight control application, the neural network software program takes data from the aircraft's air data sensors - airspeed, direction, pressure and force - and compares the pattern of how the aircraft is actually flying with the pattern of how it should fly. These patterns are based on a series of pre-programmed aeronautical equations or control laws that define how the airplane flies. If there is a mismatch due to equipment failures, combat damage or other reasons, the aircraft's flight control computer uses the new neural network programming to "relearn" to fly the plane with a new pattern six times every second.

For example, a military aircraft may sustain combat damage that disables one or more of its control surfaces, such as an aileron or flap. A commercial aircraft could sustain a major equipment or systems failure, such as the inability of using its flaps or encountering extreme icing, both of which could affect the safe performance of the aircraft.

Using its on'line learning capability, the neural net software would identify changes, then reconfigure the flight control computer system to adapt, making the failure or damage almost "transparent" to the pilot. To enable the pilot to maintain or regain control, it may change the way the remaining functional control surfaces and systems are used to compensate for inoperative or damaged surfaces or equipment.

Future versions of the software could be developed for use in new airplanes that have digital fly'by'wire flight control systems, such as the Boeing 777 jetliner, the Air Force's C'17 transport, or the F'22 fighter. The system also has application to NASA's proposed Mars aircraft concept. These software versions will have faster self'learning capability.

Neural net software developed in this NASA project could have a bearing on other aspects of contemporary life.

"Once we prove neural net software can rapidly learn to fly a crippled aircraft and help pilots land it safely, then engineers will be more likely to use the intelligent software in power plants, automobiles and other less-complicated systems to avoid disasters after equipment failures" he said.

 

[A Squared]

And that elevators and trains work in one and two dimensions, where of course, aircraft work in three.

Actually, they both work in one dimenision only. It's a non-linear dimension but it's a single dimension nonetheless. A train operates along the track. It can go faster or slower or stop or back up. that's it. forward backward fast slow stop. a train can no more take a right turn off the tracks than it can float up off the tracks.


Any control problem you could possible inmagine in an automated train could be effectively and safely dealt with by cutting motive power and braking to a stop. Period. That's it, the entire QRF for a just about any problem: motor: off., brakes: apply. If you can keep the passengers from stepping on the third rail until help arrives, the emergency is over.


It ain't than simple in an airplane in flight.

 

[ePilot22]

Opps....

Actually, they both work in one dimenision only

Yep. Anything that runs on a track will have only one dimension. Opps. My point was up/down or forward/backward is easy to control and predict but.....

It ain't than simple in an airplane in flight.

But not impossible.