Unmanned commercial airliners

Would you fly on a commercial airliner with no human pilot helping the "drone

  • Yes.

    Votes: 11 14.1%

  • No.

    Votes: 67 85.9%
  • Total voters
    78
Henning said:
Actually quite a few accident investigations, yes. 'Human Error' is the overwhelming root cause.
Click to expand...

Accident investigation <> safety analysis.

But you knew that, didn't you?
 
saracelica said:
Was having a conversation with another pilot. They said they would be hesitant to ever fly on a plane that was only controlled by computers. (No human "monitoring" inside the aircraft). So the question to you other pilots. If you were to board "American Airlines/Southwest/Other" to go across the country would you mind if there was no human helping the computer do it's thing. My theory is that computer does alot as it is. If it does go "bezerk" I wouldn't be able to over power it. One time I had to land in order to pull the circuit breaker. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Then this other pilot should never fly commercially. There is no cable / hydraulic / mechanical connection from the cockpit to the movable surfaces in the current generation of airliners. The control surfaces are 100% controlled by computers.

So, yes, if the computer goes "bezerk" U B screwed. It doesn't matter if there is a pilot in the cockpit.

Pilots are handy to give direction to the computer in the event that something unplanned / unforeseen happens. But they still need the computer to do the actual control of the aircraft.

Palmpilot said:
Eliminating human pilots is equivalent to saying that pilots are fallible, but computer programmers are infallible.
Click to expand...

No, it is equivalent to saying that human pilots fail 0.0X% of the time and the computer controlled aircraft fail less than 0.0X% of the time.
 
Bob Noel said:
Accident investigation <> safety analysis.

But you knew that, didn't you?
Click to expand...

Yep, safety analysis is in the land of make believe, accident analysis is in the world of reality. For every 'pilot save' there are dozen or more 'pilot kills'. This is about pilot reality, not pilot egos.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Then this other pilot should never fly commercially. There is no cable / hydraulic / mechanical connection from the cockpit to the movable surfaces in the current generation of airliners. The control surfaces are 100% controlled by computers.
Click to expand...
So fly MD-80s.
 
Henning said:
How many CAT III approaches have turned into flaming wrecks? They have been bringing planes from altitude to landing autonomously at SFO with a quick uplink of data from ATC for over a year now safely while flying profiles that save thousands of dollars in fuel.
Click to expand...

Actually, a/p's kick off or slip out of parameters often enough (although the reliability lately is pretty good). The humans on board initiate a go-around and either fix the problem or go somewhere else. The question wasn't whether automatic flight / FMS / etc. isn't more efficient or safe - it usually is - but we're nowhere near the point where automation can work "unsupervised".
 
There is no cable / hydraulic / mechanical connection from the cockpit to the movable surfaces in the current generation of airliners. The control surfaces are 100% controlled by computers.
Click to expand...

Absolutely untrue.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So, yes, if the computer goes "bezerk" U B screwed. It doesn't matter if there is a pilot in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

If ALL the "computers" fritz, the A-320 series has a manual backup. It's just rudder and pitch trim, though. There's a whole boatload of stuff that would have to fail permanently for you to have to land in that configuration, though. It hasn't happened yet, afaik. :wink2:

The furthest I've gone in Boeings is the 737, so I'm not familiar with that company's FBW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer will be for an airline to offer cheaper flights in an Autonomous Airliner and the others to offer flights with humans in the cockpit. :D

I can just see all those folks who have had their phone/PC/new car computer/whatever fail flocking to an airplane running totally by what they perceive as similar devices. :rolleyes:

Cheers
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
No, it is equivalent to saying that human pilots fail 0.0X% of the time and the computer controlled aircraft fail less than 0.0X% of the time.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that if we change "fail" to "cause a fatality during airline-type operations" Unfortunately, we don't have data sufficient to determine whether that is the case.
 
DouglasBader said:
Absolutely untrue.
Click to expand...

Then what is that little joystick connected to?

airbus-a380-cockpit.jpg
 
I am attaching the Welcome Aboard briefing:
 

Attachments

  • Microsoft Airlines.mp3
    59.9 KB · Views: 3
Henning said:
How many CAT III approaches have turned into flaming wrecks? They have been bringing planes from altitude to landing autonomously at SFO with a quick uplink of data from ATC for over a year now safely while flying profiles that save thousands of dollars in fuel.
Click to expand...

Flying a CAT III approach is a very limited subset of what's required to have a safe flight. Designing a system that could safely handle all aspects of a flight is a MUCH more complex problem. The latter would require enough artificial intelligence to perform such tasks as sizing up hazardous weather, making appropriate decisions about it, communicating and/or negotiating with ATC about it, and dealing with unanticipated problems of all kinds. It's not valid to attribute failure data from a single-purpose automation system to a dramatically more complex task.
 
Henning said:
Yep, safety analysis is in the land of make believe, accident analysis is in the world of reality. For every 'pilot save' there are dozen or more 'pilot kills'. This is about pilot reality, not pilot egos.
Click to expand...

Here's a clue for you: the technology you are so hot for and sold on is dependent on the output of the safety analysis process.

This is about recognizing the limitations of the state of the art.
 
Bob Noel said:
Here's a clue for you: the technology you are so hot for and sold on is dependent on the output of the safety analysis process.

This is about recognizing the limitations of the state of the art.
Click to expand...

I do recognize them, I just make a comparison with the 'state of humanity' and technology now wins. Humans are more fallible than the technology.
 
Henning said:
I do recognize them, I just make a comparison with the 'state of humanity' and technology now wins. Humans are more fallible than the technology.
Click to expand...


So where is your analysis that shows technology today is capable of meeting the applicable safety standards?
 
Henning said:
Simple as can be, onboard radar finds the smoothest available surface and sets up a glide holding it to that surface. It can even distinguish what type of surface and I bet it would not have forgotten to hit the ditch switch.
Click to expand...

You're certainly glossing over a lot of difficult design problems. Evaluating the incredible variety of obstacle environments that exist in the real world does not seem "simple as can be" to me.

Many problems are simple to solve in our imaginations, but making our imagined solutions work when it comes time to design the hardware and software is often far more difficult than we imagine.
 
Henning said:
I do recognize them, I just make a comparison with the 'state of humanity' and technology now wins. Humans are more fallible than the technology.
Click to expand...

You're making the comparison without data sufficient for the tasks involved.
 
The evidence suggests that we are not currently ready, much development in both land and air automated transportation is underway, and we will eventually see both land and air automated transportation.

The interaction of regulators, insurers, transporters, customers, unions, drivers, pilots, etc will slow the process and make it more expensive. It will also insure a conservative adoption. Cars and trucks over the next decade seems plausible to me, air transport longer, passenger air transport even longer.

And I would fly an automated airplane, just not today.

My 2 cents.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/when-will-we-have-unmanned-commercial-airliners/0
 
Looking at this in the context of Air France. When the airplane went into alternate law, the pilots crashed. But most pilots tested later in simulators recognized the situation and recovered from it.

The question is - how many computer control systems could have recognized the stall absent airspeed data and taken the correct course of action?
 
Considering most crashes are pilot error, I would say yes. Not yet, but yes.
 
bflynn said:
Looking at this in the context of Air France. When the airplane went into alternate law, the pilots crashed. But most pilots tested later in simulators recognized the situation and recovered from it.

The question is - how many computer control systems could have recognized the stall absent airspeed data and taken the correct course of action?
Click to expand...
I would think any and all designed to replace pilots. There was no data available to the pilots of air france that wouldn't be available to automation.

Rapid decent, high aoa, major reduction in gps ground speed - the data was fully available.
 
Not to mention pitch + power = airspeed at any particular density altitude.

The computer certainly could have calculated that.
 
rotorhead1026 said:
If ALL the "computers" fritz, the A-320 series has a manual backup. It's just rudder and pitch trim, though. There's a whole boatload of stuff that would have to fail permanently for you to have to land in that configuration, though. It hasn't happened yet, afaik. :wink2:

The furthest I've gone in Boeings is the 737, so I'm not familiar with that company's FBW.
Click to expand...

I bellieve a DHL A300 landed in Bagdad using only stab trim and rudder only after a hit from a SA-7.
 
I'm voting "yes" but with some assumptions.

-This is a future hypothetical
-There have been many flight hours of testing, with human pilots on board but never having to take over for any reason
-Autonomous airliners would have multiple backup systems, sensors, and computers
-In the event of a catastrophic drone pilot failure, commands could still be sent to a sequestered system via satellite and landed by a human
-Cabin announcements would be in that robotic Stephen Hawking type voice
 
Henning said:
Which is allowed to make the lowest vis landing, the computer or the pilot?
Click to expand...

The computer as monitored by the Pilot? Chicken and Egg question?

I suppose since the ultimate decision authority is the Pilot, he/she is the one allowed to land in lowest viz. Of course I have direct knowledge of how it works in practice and if the pilot is not allowed to touch anything after the computer is engaged for the landing until the airplane is off the active then it is the computer. If they have the ability to override Otto, the Pilot is the winner of the "Who is allowed" debate.

Cheers
 
X3 Skier said:
The computer as monitored by the Pilot? Chicken and Egg question?

I suppose since the ultimate decision authority is the Pilot, he/she is the one allowed to land in lowest viz. Of course I have direct knowledge of how it works in practice and if the pilot is not allowed to touch anything after the computer is engaged for the landing until the airplane is off the active then it is the computer. If they have the ability to override Otto, the Pilot is the winner of the "Who is allowed" debate.

Cheers
Click to expand...

No, the pilot is not allowed to land it, only to abort the landing. If the system fails and requires an abort he must wait for better conditions or go elsewhere. Only the computer is allowed to LAND the plane in CAT III conditions.
 
Henning said:
No, the pilot is not allowed to land it, only to abort the landing. If the system fails and requires an abort he must wait for better conditions or go elsewhere. Only the computer is allowed to LAND the plane in CAT III conditions.
Click to expand...

OK for LAND but just to prolong the agony, does the system self abort if it "fails" and execute a go around? Or is the Pilot necessary to abort the landing when the system "fails"?

I suppose it could be implemented either way and I don't know how they are done. I have an insatiable need to learn something new every day. :D

Cheers
 
maddog52 said:
I bellieve a DHL A300 landed in Bagdad using only stab trim and rudder only after a hit from a SA-7.
Click to expand...

Might have; I don't recall. However, the A300 isn't FBW. :)

Overall a complete failure of a FBW system seems unlikely. Your point is well-taken, though. A "shrapnel event" in the E&E compartment could do anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently Google has a driverless car that has racked up 300,000 accident-free miles in road tests.

http://www.tecca.com/columns/googles-automated-car-is-the-wave-of-the-future/

http://www.tecca.com/news/2011/05/11/google-cars-nevada/

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/08/07/google-car-safety-record/

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/07/google-cars-300000-miles-without-accident/

While this is obviously very positive news for the project, Google warns that “there’s still a long road ahead.” The cars still need to learn how to handle snow-covered roads, for example, and how to interpret temporary construction signs and other situations that could throw its systems for a loop.

It’s not clear how many of these 300,000 miles were driven on Google’s secret racecourse, by the way.

According to today’s update, Google also plans to soon let some of the team’s members drive the cars solo for their daily commutes. Currently, the cars are always driven by at least two people, but the team apparently feels that the project has reached a point where it’s safe to just have one person operate the cars.
Click to expand...

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/12/er...redominant-mode-of-transport-in-our-lifetime/

The current biggest problem is that it runs at the speed limit and nobody drives at the speed limit...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Apparently Google has a driverless car that has racked up 300,000 accident-free miles in road tests.

http://www.tecca.com/columns/googles-automated-car-is-the-wave-of-the-future/

http://www.tecca.com/news/2011/05/11/google-cars-nevada/

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/08/07/google-car-safety-record/

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/07/google-cars-300000-miles-without-accident/

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/12/er...redominant-mode-of-transport-in-our-lifetime/
Click to expand...

Mercedes (Freightliner) also has an autonomous program that operates a a 'truck train' at drafting distances getting excellent fuel economy, although I don't believe they've put them on the open road.

The Article ocean bottom was mapped by an autonomous submarine steering itself through the ice flow.
 
No traffic light at the intersection (animation)...
 

Attachments

  • NoTrafficLight.wmv
    8.5 MB · Views: 6
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
No traffic light at the intersection (animation)...
Click to expand...

What's your problem uploading a file that an iPad can't use? Don't you know that the iPad is the premier, preeminent piece of technology on the planet and that anything that won't work on it is forbidden?:mad::mad::mad::rofl:
 
X3 Skier said:
OK for LAND but just to prolong the agony, does the system self abort if it "fails" and execute a go around? Or is the Pilot necessary to abort the landing when the system "fails"?

I suppose it could be implemented either way and I don't know how they are done. I have an insatiable need to learn something new every day. :D

Cheers
Click to expand...

Most require the pilot to simply press the TOGA button. Depends on the system what happens after that. Also depends on where it happens in the game, so to speak. Late in the landing process you're going to bounce off the runway. Inertia and mass are in control.

Search YouTube for Cat III landing/approach for numerous examples of what it looks like out the window.
 
here's a thought for everyone.
remember that UAV that Iran supposedly hijacked and put on the ground in their country using computers?

whats to stop terrorists, or anyone else for that matter, from doing the same with a fully loaded airliner? far easier than trying to sneak aboard with weapons to hijack right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top