Pilotless Cockpit?

[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.

 

[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?




.