Pilotless Cockpit?

[Superunknown]

Ring Ring

Gimme a call the day you step into a car in your driveway without a steering wheel.




.

I'm in!

I will sip my coffee and read the sports page on the way to the office no question.

 

[ePilot22]

Brilliant!

Maybe Boeing could still install some placebo yokes and levers to move so that you feel like you have done something.

YES! This is a win/win situation for everyone. The pilots feel like they are serving a purpose and the PX have no clue the pilots aren't flying!

Unfortunetly, I don't think management will fall for this. At least they won't want to pay us to do it.

 

[Skyline]

Tony

Tony,

We all know that a car and airplane are diffrent.

Skyline

 

[mynameisjim]

Are we talking about pilotless aircraft, or unmanned aircraft? I think they are totally different animals, and some people seem to be interchanging them.

Has the military designed a pilotless aircraft yet? The only thing I've seen are unmanned aircraft, like the X-45 series. As I understand it, the X-45 can do some items on its own, but not everything all the time.

 

[Traderd]

Are we talking about pilotless aircraft, or unmanned aircraft? I think they are totally different animals, and some people seem to be interchanging them.

Has the military designed a pilotless aircraft yet? The only thing I've seen are unmanned aircraft, like the X-45 series. As I understand it, the X-45 can do some items on its own, but not everything all the time.

"The Global Hawk is an autonomous, rather than a remotely-piloted vehicle. This means that all missions are pre-planned and loaded into the vehicle’s navigation and mission computers prior to take-off."

http://www.global-defence.com/2002/surv-globalhawk.html

 

[Big Duke Six]

I think Tony brings up a good point. I'll bet a dollar two-ninety-eight that we'll have driverless cars WAY before we have pilotless airplanes. In fact, public acceptance of the cockpitless aircraft can't/won't occur BEFORE driverless cars, IMHO.

If we barely even trust trains (one dimension) to have no operator, imagine the problems involved in operating a driverless car (two dimensions). Add in the third dimension.

What about the transition period, where we need to integrate the pilotless with the piloted aircraft? I mean, with no pilots, I'm envisioning a very inflexible ATC system. Controllers may be needed to sequence the drones to the IAF, but from there the drones can manage their own speeds and altitudes etc to touchdown. The fortunate few pilots who hang on to the end in their antiquated machines will have to work around the drones, giving way etc because of the inherent inflexibilities of the drones. Will the ATC system be less or more efficient with pilotless aircraft? I think there is no doubt it will be less.

20 years huh? No way. But, I only need 18...

 

[A Squared]

We all know that a car and airplane are diffrent.

RIght, an airplane operates in 3 dimensions instead of just two, and it can't be brought to an immediate halt should something go wrong.


what was your point again?

 

[ackattacker]

RIght, an airplane operates in 3 dimensions instead of just two, and it can't be brought to an immediate halt should something go wrong.


what was your point again?

The number of dimensions has little to do with it. Autopilots have been succesufully steering aircraft in three dimensions since the 40's. A car can be easily equiped with robotic steering and braking, but it operates in an environment where it has many things it has to sense and avoid (other cars, curbs, trees, pedestrians, etc) while an aircraft only has to sense other aircraft and the terrain. Which they can already do (TCAS and EGPWS). Clearly aircraft operations are easier to automate. They've had pilotless "drone" or "UAV" aircraft for decades but only recently developed prototype cars that could succesfully drive themselves around without running into things.

 

[TonyC]

Tony,

We all know that a car and airplane are diffrent.

Skyline

Well, some of us do, anyway.

So, perhaps you could describe to us the feelings that you encounter when you consider climbing into a driverless car for the morning commute. Does it offend your macho driver-man ego? Why can't you let go of the steering wheel, Skykline? Do you feel threatened? Do you need a placebo steering wheel to make you feel more secure?


The technology exists to deploy driverless cars now - - but unforeseen problems and unexpected malfunctions would only endanger a few people at a time. Won't you volunteer?




.

 

[Steveair]

If Airbus had it's way, they'd have us all flippin' burgers by now. It's bad enough they degrade our proffession by calling them "-bus"

My favorite clip still remains that of the Airbus trying to do a low pass at an airshow and slamming into the trees. I believe the narrator says something along the lines of "this is the first fully automated plane; flown by a computer"

http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml

 

[TonyC]

My favorite clip still remains that of the Airbus trying to do a low pass at an airshow and slamming into the trees. I believe the narrator says something along the lines of "this is the first fully automated plane; flown by a computer"

http://www.airdisaster.com/download/af320.shtml

That's where the chainsaw joke comes from.







.

 

[A Squared]

The number of dimensions has little to do with it.

It has a great deal to do with it. Sure vehicles can be controlled in 1,2 or 3 dimensions. No argument, this is done every day. The control technology is mature. *controlling* the vehicle is a trivial portion of the issue. Deciding *where* to control it to is the issue, and that issue gets much more complicated with every dimension you add.

Think about the "artificial intelligence" algorithms to deal with a detected collision hazard.

In a train there is one response. Stop the train. Very simple algorithm


Ok, now you're in your robotic car, some other robotic car runs a stop light right in fromt of you. What does your robot do? Brake? Steer? some of both? unless you got you driver's licence yesterday, you know that you need a lot more information about the situation. Is there enough room to come to a complete halt in a straight before you hit the other car? If so that may be the best action. What if you don't? Which way should you steer? WIll you hit other oncoming traffic if you steer left? Will steering left avoid the collision? will you go in the ditch or hit a lightpole if you steer right?. WIll a simultaneous maximum braking effort compromise your ability to steer around the other car? What are the road conditions.

Suddenly your collision avoidance algorithm has gone from a very simple, reliable one that any computer student could program in his first week of class, to a very complex one which would have a team of AI programmers working for quite a while. All by adding one dimension.

 

[Superunknown]

My favorite clip still remains that of the Airbus trying to do a low pass at an airshow and slamming into the trees. I believe the narrator says something along the lines of "this is the first fully automated plane; flown by a computer"

Ironically you just supported the pilot-less aircraft concept.

That crash was found to be pilot error.

 

[ackattacker]

Ironically you just supported the pilot-less aircraft concept.

That crash was found to be pilot error.

Not necessarily... many things were found to be quite fishy about that crash. Not the least of which is that that the CVR and FDR went missing for 10 days after the crash and then turned up with significant gaps and syncronization errors. Photographic evidence proves that the FDR submitted to the court was painted differently than the FDR recovered at the scene. Afterwards, airbus quietly made changes to the engine control software (the pilot reported that the engines failed to respond when he applied power)

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml

 

[Superunknown]

Not necessarily... many things were found to be quite fishy about that crash. Not the least of which is that that the CVR and FDR went missing for 10 days after the crash and then turned up with significant gaps and syncronization errors. Photographic evidence proves that the FDR submitted to the court was painted differently than the FDR recovered at the scene. Afterwards, airbus quietly made changes to the engine control software (the pilot reported that the engines failed to respond when he applied power)

http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml

We can discuss "Grassy Knoll" theories all night.

I was just stating the official cause sited.

I think the "altimeter being off" was the crack in the Captains story that didn't pass the sniff test.

 

[Swede]

You pilotless proponents still haven't addressed the bandwidth and transmission media problems. A level of autonomy could be built in, but an external link will probably always be required. And the only current technology is radio. Ponder that the next time you fly into precip and your ability to communicate drops to zero.

This reminds me of the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey". When the movie was made in 1968, we were orbiting the moon. The pace of the space program was mind-boggling, and Kubrick and Clarke predicted manned flight to Jupiter in 2001. We quickly found out that space flight is vastly more expensive and complex than we thought. I think the same can be said of autonomous passenger jets... the complexity ratchets up enormously and exponentially from a GPS-equipped military drone, and what appears imminent and doable is actually a LONG ways away. This is not "The Jetsons".

Cash drives this industry. It will be cheaper for decades to come to equip your 'bus or boeing with a crew. Huge inertia present in ATC would have to be totally overcome and the system gutted and rebuilt from the ground up, all without disturbing the current schedule.

Yes, the technology is concievable. It is doable. The timeline for it, though, is vastly longer than the proponents think. It is not some pilot-macho wishful thinking, it is economic reality.

 

[Steveair]

Ironically you just supported the pilot-less aircraft concept.

That crash was found to be pilot error.

Gee... lets think about this one. The crash occured in one of the countries that is involved in Airbus... a government subsidized aircraft maker... and the crash was investigated by that same government.... that being the FRENCH.

Pilot error? I push the throttles to full forward and some computer says F-that, we're landing... Not any kind of airplane I want to fly.

 

[FN FAL]

http://www.higherpraise.com/News2.htm

Hey, check this site out...who would have thunk it? Weirdos.

 

[flydrummer]

sounds like what they're trying to accomplish is a cockless pilotpit Yeah, I know that was bad....

 

[Superunknown]

Pilot error? I push the throttles to full forward and some computer says F-that, we're landing... Not any kind of airplane I want to fly.

I will go out on a limb and say that automated airplanes will not be "programed" to "show off". The airplane was stabilized in the landing configuration with gear down and full flaps. below 100 feet it was time to land not do a low pass without putting the machine in go around mode.

Again you make my point. If a pilot would not have been in that aircraft it would have made a beautiful landing on the runway.

 

[Big Duke Six]

For the record, it was actually a grass strip. The crew had quite a hard time finding it, from what I've read. The way I understand the accident, the pilot had put the airplane into a position to land and the engines were, in fact, unspooled. If he had pushed the throttles up sooner, he may have had a chance. But we all know how long it takes for a jet engine to go from "Zero to Hero". If you listen closely to the audio on the video clips, you can hear the engines winding up just in time to start chopping wood.

 

[ePilot22]

Older Thread, Newer Technology

Good article in the Professional Pilot mag this month (Nov 08) about technology advancement in the flightdeck moving the pilot out.

So far we can thank FAR 91.113(b)...vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft.

The FAA is a little concerned about that when it comes to RPVs (remote piloted vehicles) and UAVs.





eP.