Unmanned planes

[Rebecca]

Yesterday I heard on the radio that passenger planes without pilots are "definitely going to happen." Apparently young people, who trust technology pretty implicitly, are completely accepting of the idea, while older people say "no way would I get on a plane with no pilot." The military uses unmanned planes already, and there are unmanned trains as well.

Do you hear anything in the industry about pilot-free planes being used for passengers? And ... do you have an opinion about it? Thanks!

[EyesSkyward]

Yesterday I heard on the radio that passenger planes without pilots are "definitely going to happen."

I heard the same thing. It was during a report from the Paris Air Show.

The guy saying it, if I recall correctly, was basically selling pilotless* military aircraft technology. So of course he'd claim that it was inevitable that it crossed over to the consumer market. :D

Would I ride in a such a plane? I guess would if there were some way for a pilot (perhaps remotely, on the ground) to override the controls in the event of a problem. Commercial airlines already run by autopilot a large percentage of the time. Ditto for spacecraft.

When all goes well, a computer can fly a plane just fine. But planes fly in an unpredictable environment, and I guess I'd still want some way for a human to intervene when unexpected things occur.

Of course, I'm a computer guy, and a Gen-X'er. So that's two notches in my "more accepting of technology" belt.

Reminds me of a joke about a jet aircraft that was so advanced, the only required cockpit crew was one dog and one human pilot.

The pilot was there to feed the dog, and the dog was there to bite the pilot if he touched anything.

:lol:

- Jeff


* Yes, "pilotless". After all, everytime Patty Wagstaff does an airshow routine, it's an unmanned plane. :tongue:

[mkahanek]

I will fly a pilotless airplane as soon as satan serves snow cones.

Now. If you want a single pilot with a backup by remote on the ground. We can talk about that.

[Rebecca]

At the moment I am in accord with Mark M.

But ... the thought I keep having is ... if "pilot error" is a major factor in accidents ... well, take away that factor (with robust enough technology to replace it more reliably) and you reduce the number of accidents.:confused:

PC trivia of the day: I believe "pilot-free" is the correct term. We're not supposed to imply there's something lacking, only that something is not there. :lol:

Whether or not PC strangles innovation and corrupts communication is, I suppose, another issue ...

[EyesSkyward]

But ... the thought I keep having is ... if "pilot error" is a major factor in accidents ... well, take away that factor (with robust enough technology to replace it more reliably) and you reduce the number of accidents.:confused:
That's true that human error is the major cause of airplane accidents, and that replacing the human with a computer will completely eliminate human error.

But it will, unfortunately, introduce computer error. (Which, technically, is still human error, since they're made by humans, but anyway...)

So the questions are, which system has the lowest chance of any error, and which system has the least catastrophic errors. I'll take a system that always makes minor errors over one that very rarely makes errors, but when it does, they're bad ones!

I think the set-up we have right now is actually pretty good! That's basically a system where computers serve to augment the crew's situational awareness, taking care of much of the fiddly, error-prone stuff, and leaving humans better able to focus on emergencies and overall decision-making.

Advances in technology will increase the amount of fiddly stuff we delegate to the computer. And the computers will get better at doing it. And pilots will be able to know about and anticipate more and more things, thanks the cool new gear. And that gear will (hopefully) get cheaper so it trickles down to we poor GA pilots. But there will probably always be a human there--or somewhere--who will really be calling the shots and taking the reins when necessary.

Heck, the Enterprise still needed someone to fly it. :cool:

- Jeff

P.S. Also, it's easy to automate the piloting of military planes because they're not carrying any people at all. If they malfunction, you can just blow them up in mid-air before they land on anyone. Trains (and monorails, and trams) are easy too, because they travel on pre-determined tracks where the other traffic is a known and controllable quantity. Making the jump to automating a vehicle with complete travel freedom, such as car or plane, is quite a leap!

P.P.S. Speaking of being pendantic about what you call an aircraft flown by a computer, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this little (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=12853) tidbit. (Click on "Message 1" to hear it.) "Wow" is all I have to say. :)

[Rebecca]

Excellent points. I appreciate the analysis. And yes, it took Captain Kirk to pull off that epic hide-and-seek battle of wits with the Romulan captain. Still, it was the Romulan captain's misfortune to eject the ship's garbage without thinking that it would spew out past the cloaking and become visible, giving away his position.Speaking of being pendantic about what you call an aircraft flown by a computer, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this little (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=12853) tidbit. (Click on "Message 1" to hear it.) "Wow" is all I have to say. :):shocked: How could that guy CARE that much! Language is interesting, but .... whoa.

Speaking of language ...

http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=238

:D

[Barb-SAN]

P.P.S. Speaking of being pendantic about what you call an aircraft flown by a computer, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this little (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=5&entry_id=12853) tidbit. (Click on "Message 1" to hear it.) "Wow" is all I have to say. :)

I listened to it, and the minute I heard "Phil Bronstein", my mind did an immediate "National Enquirer" type topic leap....:tongue: http://www.time.com/time/sampler/article/0,8599,133163,00.html sorry....

[LeslieDEN]

Yes, "pilotless". After all, everytime Patty Wagstaff does an airshow routine, it's an unmanned plane.
I have a minor quibble with this. At my company, when talking about UAVs, we're supposed to use PC-approved "uninhabited aerial vehicles" rather than "unmanned aerial vehicles," which is OK by me, but really, "unmanned" doesn't mean "no man in it" any more than "undressed" means not wearing a dress. The "man" buried in "unmanned" is the verb "man," as as in "populate" or "staff" -- man your stations and all that. Then again, I suppose letting "man" fade as a verb couldn't hurt.

[aerobat]

'Uninhabited' seems a little off the mark, in that we don't generally inhabit aircraft either as passengers or as pilots. We ride in them and we operate them, but...move in and set up a domicile? Not usually, but there is at least one exception:

http://thrillingwonder.blogspot.com/2007/03/mystery-photo-jet-in-your-backyard.html

[Barb-SAN]

'Uninhabited' seems a little off the mark, in that we don't generally inhabit aircraft either as passengers or as pilots. We ride in them and we operate them, but...move in and set up a domicile? Not usually, but there is at least one exception:

http://thrillingwonder.blogspot.com/2007/03/mystery-photo-jet-in-your-backyard.html

That guy's website is fascinating...but what a project! It looks and sounds quite overwhelming, though very interesting! http://www.airplanehome.com/Images/29Aug2006ImagesCatalog.htm

[Captain Hutch]

Hi Rebecca,

Hey that is a really good question and worthy of thought. Whether unpiloted airliners will become a reality may be slightly out of the range of answerable questions at this time, but other immediate questions can be asked that probably need to be answered before we can even consider putting a pilotless aircraft up in the air with passengers. A couple of examples come to my mind.
The first has to do with what is known as TCAS, or Threat Collision Avoidance System. The TCAS is a little black box with a screen that shows other aircraft in the vicinity of your own aircraft, both in altitude and range. Should one of these aircraft deviate from its predicted flight path and then therefore represent a possible collision with your own aircraft, the TCAS will direct the pilot to either climb or descend to prevent both aircraft from occupying the same space at the same time. Overall I think that this is an excellent system, works well, and the skies are safer now that the airliners have it. However the technology of the system is such that TCAS can only direct the pilot to climb or descend—it cannot tell the pilot to turn left or right in addition to climbing or descending as an additional safety measure for greater separation during collision avoidance. Also, the system relies on the reaction time of the pilot to promptly take control of the aircraft by disconnecting the autopilot and then manually following the guidance of the TCAS—not normally a problem. If you are a passenger you may or may not notice when an “event” occurs, depending on how gently the pilot can fly the airplane to properly heed the warning since the system is designed to predict flight paths well ahead of possible conflicting aircraft. I guess my point is that the technology to prevent mid-air collisions would have to be pretty much perfect before being used in a pilotless environment, and I think we have a long way to go before that can happen.
The other example concerns communication between the aircraft and Center controller. Without going into great detail, I think most folks would agree that there is little room for error when talking about guiding an airliner from a ground signal. What about when an airliner needs to avoid a thunderstorm? What about when a bunch of airliners need to avoid thunderstorms? How do you keep all those signals straight without a missed transmission? I suppose the technology is there, but making it errorless I believe would be pretty difficult.
Anyway, I think if your elementary grade daughter or son wants to become an airline pilot, I think the chances of that are pretty good.
Hutch :tiphat:

[scottr0829]

I would also be interested in seeing how they deal with turbulence. From what I understand (and hear on United Channel 9), ATC and the pilots are in constant contact in turbulence in terms of severity and trying to move to a different altitude to escape it - how could they automate the pireps and communications with the other planes at different altitudes?

Also, isn't it true that sometimes the turbulence gets a bit too much for Otto to handle so the plane must be flown manually?

[mkahanek]

things like medical emergenices? What about comfort situations in which a pilot will request a different altitude because of turbulence? What about the 1 in 3 americans that are scared of flying but yet do it and are calmed by the "front office" announcements. These are items of not real monetary value that need to be considered.

[Captain Hutch]

Well, I don't think it would be that hard for a plane to sense a certain type of turbulence and then auomatically send a pirep to the controller who could then supposedly pass it on to the other aircraft. One of the big problems would be, as you mention (otto), that the autopilot is not really engineered to fly the aircraft in severe turbulence, which of course no aircraft flies into on purpose, and then there is no pilot to hand fly the aircraft. The pilot attempts to maintain attitude, i.e. a pitch attitude that is normally associated with level flight, but in severe turbulence the altitude might vary quite a bit.

And, as Mkahanek mentions the medical emergencies and front office announcements. Not to mention you would have to have someone in charge at least in the cabin.

No, it is almost too hard to imagine a pilotless aircraft. More automation as Jeff mentions, to fly the aircraft under normal conditions and a pilot to be in charge and take over in case of emergency if necessary. which is almost the way it is now.

Hutch :magic:

[Falcon]

I read something similar to this. I read further and saw Microsoft were heading up the research and relaxed. No need to change job just yet.
:angel: .
The journalist who worte the line that young people trust technology implicitly must me middle aged with no kids. Younger people on average know full well the limits of software and badly designed new technology.

[scottr0829]

I read something similar to this. I read further and saw Microsoft were heading up the research and relaxed. No need to change job just yet.
:angel: .
The journalist who worte the line that young people trust technology implicitly must me middle aged with no kids. Younger people on average know full well the limits of software and badly designed new technology.
Me being in that category of 'younger people' and being a web developer, the fact that M$ is 'heading up the reasearch' scares me to no end. They don't have a reliable product, how are they going to develop a real-time, life critical solution? :shocked:

I really hope that article was written on April 1st. ;) M$ has no place in these type of systems - even their Flight Simulator is unrealistic (especially compared to X-Plane)

[EyesSkyward]

I guess I should revise my original answer. I would never ride in a plane that was piloted by Microsoft software.

Talk about your "blue screen of death" :shocked:

- Jeff