Pilotless automated airliner?

[FlyDave]

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Research-AVweb-Respondents-Iffy-On-Autonomous-Airliners221343-1.html

 

Pilotless cockpit - fully "automated" flight? May be better than an Asiana flight but that ain't sayin' much (as quoted from captain "Bang Ding Owe")!

[N201MKTurbo]

I've ridden on Singapore's driverless subway. They haven't had a single one fall out of the sky.

Seriously, we should revisit this after about 20 years of drone flight in the system so there is real data.

[N201MKTurbo]

I would imagine there would be a pilot on the ground who could take over for the autopilot, just like with current drones.

I wonder what the accident records would look like if we removed "pilot error"? I think a lot more accidents are caused by pilot error then systems failure.

I think air traffic control will be more difficult without the rapid verbal communications.

ALPA will never let it happen.

[Hank]

I'll share the sky with them if I have to, like giant drones that I can see to dodge if necessary. But I don't favor trusting my life to a programmer with no way to correct errors. "Welcome to the first completely automated flight. There are no pilots aboard this aircraft. Rest assured, our staff of engineers and programmers have worked tirelessly to assure that nothing can go wrong . . . go wrong . . . go wrong . . . "

Yes, I realize that most airline flights are flown from gear up to short final using automation, but there's also a crew monitoring it to make sure it works right, and they can correct glitches including turning it off and hand flying if needed.

[fluffysheap]

Most airline crashes are a combination of systems failure and pilot error.  Theoretically, if a systems failure occurs, the pilots can take over, but most of the time they don't improve things any.  Think of the many crashes due to frozen pitot tubes, or the somewhat troubling recurring problems with pilots fighting against the stick pusher in a variety of aircraft.

 

I do see the limiting factor being what happens if there's a combination of a systems problem and an environmental factor.  Like the Gimli Glider, or the Hudson bird strike.  What is a drone airliner going to do in a case like those?  As well, there are likely to be several problems that have actually occurred where pilots correctly reacted to some emergency, but which aren't discussed because there was no accident and thus nobody notices.

 

It's not possible to hijack a drone airliner.

 

Drone airliners become safer when there are more Asiana-style screwups than Sullenbergers out there.  But getting people to believe it is another story.

[Mooneymite]

I don't think that there will ever be pilotless airliners in our lifetimes, but I do believe that we will see a push for single pilot ops in the 135/121 world. The ground computers, aircraft guidance systems and data-link are already in place. Pilots are doing less and less flying and more and more monitoring. At some point, the question will be asked, "do we need two pilots?"

When I started, the raging question was, "Can a turbo-jet aircraft be flown by (just) two pilots?"

[yvesg]

Nope. But this could be an excellent movie scenario... remember War games with Mathew Broderick? Someone somewhere think that they are more clever than all others and will remove the crew seats, replace them with computers... who cannot fall asleep etc. etc. Then something terribly wrong happens... you see the twist?

I am starting to write it right now.

Thanks Flydave!

Yves

[fluffysheap]

Pilots are doing less and less flying and more and more monitoring. At some point, the question will be asked, "do we need two pilots?"

 

Before this happens, the plane will need to be capable of fully automated flight in all non-emergency situations, otherwise the question will be what happens if the single pilot is incapacitated.  But yes, I see single-pilot airliner ops as being a logical next step.  At that point you'll also need a dog in the cockpit, to bite the pilot if he touches any of the controls.

[fantom]

....At that point you'll also need a dog in the cockpit, to bite the pilot if he touches any of the controls.

And to nudge the pilot when he falls asleep. HAL will be at the controls sooner than we would like.

[Hank]

You're all concentrating on aircraft system failures, which with the airlines are few and far between. What I'm leery of are two things that I see problems with at work (with simpler systems) on a daily basis:

1) software glitches. Ever had your computer freeze up and need to be rebooted? I've had to physically unplug mine because Ctrl-Alt-Del wouldn't do anything. I've pressed the correct buttons on our simple robotics and had incorrect responses by the automation. When this happens, there needs to be a person around to override and either fix it or disable it and fly on without the malfunctioning piece(s). Someone on the ground can't press and hold the power button to force a reset, and if the processor locks up, it won't respond to system commands at all. Oh, well . . .

2) incorrect programming. Ever had a bug in your software? Ever had your life depend on not having a bug in your software? Feel like betting your life that someone else's software is bug free? Nah, I'll pass. I don't even buy lottery tickets, and they're just a buck. Oh, yeah, in that line right there, that capital "O" should be a zero "0". Oh, I didn't think THAT would happen, so I didn't program a response for it. You need to do WHAT? I didn't think to add that capability. Oh, you mean it should do THIS instead of what I put in instead. Etc., etc.

[yvesg]

I am in the software testing business. ALL the projects I have been on were risk based coverage ie not everything is tested. I don't know if anyone here worked for the NASA? I think their systems had 3 computers with code written by 3 different teams and the action taken would be based on a voting system... but what if the 3 boxes decide differently?

yves

[DrBill]

I'd like to see the simulation of a bird strike like US 1549 (miracle on hudson) before I trusted any automated system to fly me around. 

 

BILL

[Seth]

Check out the Terrifugia TFX - that's the future of all this technology - for a few rich souls:

 

http://www.terrafugia.com/tf-x

 

-Seth

[carusoam]

Somebody just hijacked Target's credit card system....

Newspaper indicates it was a lone teenager.

Technology has it's challenges. And they aren't the technical capabilities...

It can be done. But can it be done better than the current system?

Best regards,

-a-

[jlunseth]

fluffysheap's post caused me to go back and read about the Gimli Glider.  Wow.  Turned out to have a glide ratio very much like a Mooney except at 220 kts.  12:1 .  Made it to an old airfield converted to a drag strip.  Had to do a forward slip to lose altitude on landing.  The Captain was a veteran glider pilot. That convinced me, I will only fly in commercial aircraft that have experienced glider pilots on board.

 

Chesley Sullenberger was (hopefully still is) a CFI-G.

[201er]

Let's try to recall the major accidents where the pilots saved the day vs where they were the direct cause of it. I think that weighs strongly against the pilots. Think about just how many airliners were stalled into the ground by pilots who had no concept of angle of attack!

[flyboy0681]

Even the completely automated moon shuttle in the film 2001 had pilots monitoring the fully automated vehicle.

 

However, just like N201MKTurbo, I was on a fully automated subway line in Paris a few months ago and it didn't even have an operators cab in the first car. It was more like the the monorail at Disney World where you can put your face up against the front window.

 

 

[Earl]

My response was more psychological than analytical.  I much prefer that the last words of the guy flying the plane to be "oh @!^*%#" than "Dang, that's going to be a lot of paperwork".  There is something comforting to me knowing that the guy driving the bus is also the first one to the scene of the accident and has pretty much the same thing invested in a safe and uneventful outcome as me.  And driverless trains are a whole different ballgame compared to driverless (at least on board) aircraft.  No thanks.......

[N201MKTurbo]

fluffysheap's post caused me to go back and read about the Gimli Glider.  Wow.  Turned out to have a glide ratio very much like a Mooney except at 220 kts.  12:1 .  Made it to an old airfield converted to a drag strip.  Had to do a forward slip to lose altitude on landing.  The Captain was a veteran glider pilot. That convinced me, I will only fly in commercial aircraft that have experienced glider pilots on board.

 

Chesley Sullenberger was (hopefully still is) a CFI-G.

 

I watched a show about him the other night, and yes he was!

[AndyFromCB]

You're all concentrating on aircraft system failures, which with the airlines are few and far between. What I'm leery of are two things that I see problems with at work (with simpler systems) on a daily basis:

1) software glitches. Ever had your computer freeze up and need to be rebooted? I've had to physically unplug mine because Ctrl-Alt-Del wouldn't do anything. I've pressed the correct buttons on our simple robotics and had incorrect responses by the automation. When this happens, there needs to be a person around to override and either fix it or disable it and fly on without the malfunctioning piece(s). Someone on the ground can't press and hold the power button to force a reset, and if the processor locks up, it won't respond to system commands at all. Oh, well . . .

2) incorrect programming. Ever had a bug in your software? Ever had your life depend on not having a bug in your software? Feel like betting your life that someone else's software is bug free? Nah, I'll pass. I don't even buy lottery tickets, and they're just a buck. Oh, yeah, in that line right there, that capital "O" should be a zero "0". Oh, I didn't think THAT would happen, so I didn't program a response for it. You need to do WHAT? I didn't think to add that capability. Oh, you mean it should do THIS instead of what I put in instead. Etc., etc.

 

Software tested to Class A standards tends not to fail at all. It's already done all the time when you fly. It's called CAT III aproach. If that software dies, all board most likely will die if it happens low enought. Hasn't happend yet. No human is capable of doing and or realizing anything at 50 ft AGL doing 140knots in IMC.

 

Actually, it's also called Airbus. No direct connection between side sticks and controls, even in worst case scenario of Direct Law, it's still run thru basic software.

 

Software designed to fly an airliner is an absolute joke compared with what the google crew is doing with driveless cars.

[Hank]

Software tested to Class A standards tends not to fail at all. It's already done all the time when you fly. It's called CAT III aproach. If that software dies, all board most likely will die if it happens low enought. Hasn't happend yet. No human is capable of doing and or realizing anything at 50 ft AGL doing 140knots.

 

Actually, it's also called Airbus. No direct connection between side sticks and controls, even in worst case scenario of Direct Law, it's still run thru basic software.

Yes, but that Class A software dropped off line when AF447 pitot froze over. Think how exciting that would be with no pilots up front. Granted, that crew didn't do too well, but no crew will never recover. Pilotless aircraft will be Hankless aircraft, but please feel free to ride them yourself. I'm opting out.

[AndyFromCB]

Yes, but that Class A software dropped off line when AF447 pitot froze over. Think how exciting that would be with no pilots up front. Granted, that crew didn't do too well, but no crew will never recover. Pilotless aircraft will be Hankless aircraft, but please feel free to ride them yourself. I'm opting out.

 

Actually, the poor people on that flight might still be alive if all 3 of the crew members decided to go to the bathroom at that time and just let the aircraft fly itself as it was trimmed when the autopilot let go. I can only think of two crashes in a long, long time (hudson and sioux city) where having a crew aboard helped anything. Also, the Class A software on the airbus did not fail, as designed it went into direct law as apparently airbus software was written by the Aspen folks and it just decides to take a break when pitots freeze over. Software did what is what designed to do. If it was designed to be crew less from the start then something else would have taken over at that point. Once again, human brains failed, not the hardware/software combo.

[wishboneash]

I would like to see how a pilotless plane would handle the United Airlines Sioux City landing in 1989.

[N201MKTurbo]

I would like to see how a pilotless plane would handle the United Airlines Sioux City landing in 1989.

I want to see how 90% of pilots would handle it.

I believe that they developed software that can fly an airliner all day with just thrust control.

[Lood]

Although I voted for option 4, I also agree with option 3. However, that human in control MUST be up front, in the cockpit, and not somewhere far away behind a desk.

Otherwise, I'm walking or staying at home.