Are pilots going to be replaced by AI?

[Fly Boomer]

42 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

Ummh. If you are talking about Germany I think it is more than 100 mph.

I haven't driven in Germany, but I was just making a funny about ill-prepared drivers in general.

[Fly Boomer]

18 minutes ago, jlunseth said:

From experience, the real limit is how good the suspension, steering, annd aerodynamics are. Get up to the 100-120 area and the cheaper cars start to feel too loose to safely go faster even if they have the power.

Many moons ago, before my brain caught up with my body, I got my Corvette up to a little over 140 indicated on a new stretch of Interstate concrete.  The speed was read by my passenger (another no-brain kid) because I couldn't tear my eyes away from the road -- it was all I could do to keep it on the concrete.  As you point out, neither the suspension nor the aerodynamics were really designed for that.

[MooneyMitch]

7 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I haven't driven in Germany, but I was just making a funny about ill-prepared drivers in general.

My greatest fear in life……. anyone can acquire a driver license!  It so dangerous being on the road with so many drivers inferior to myself!! 
 

[ArtVandelay]

Many moons ago, before my brain caught up with my body, I got my Corvette up to a little over 140 indicated on a new stretch of Interstate concrete.  The speed was read by my passenger (another no-brain kid) because I couldn't tear my eyes away from the road -- it was all I could do to keep it on the concrete.  As you point out, neither the suspension nor the aerodynamics were really designed for that.

Hmmm, I took my 87 up to 150…around a sweeping turn, it tracked like it was on rails, no vibrations. At a more sedate speed I took a picture:

[T. Peterson]

50 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

I think you will find that the population that "had a accident where/because the automated system failed" is far, far smaller than the population that would have otherwise run into the back of other vehicles, backed into moving traffic or parked cars or would have backed over their own children.  As @ilovecornfields has pointed out, the technology or automation does not need to be perfect, it just needs to be significantly better than humans (which it is). 

It sounds like you are in the "technology and automation has to be perfect or I reject it completely" camp.  Seat belts rarely fail, but I am sure there is one instance where one seatbelt has failed and I am sure there is one instance where the seat belt trapped someone that might have otherwise survived.  So should belts be eliminated?  Do you personally not use the seatbelt for these reasons?  The magnetic compass, radio navigation and GPS technology each have their own inaccuracies, flaws and failures. Each embodies growing integration and levels of automation.  Each allows pilots to fly with fewer navigation based accidents.  This population of flights that "had a (navigation) accident where/because the automated system failed" gets smaller and smaller vs. the prior number of accidents (and accident rates) flying by only line of sight.  But I am sure there is an accident caused by a RAIM failure, a data base error, a mapping error - so should we abandon those technologies, throw out all the terrain avoidance technologies?  Do you use these automated navigation technologies or do you only fly VFR line of sight?  (perhaps in an antique plane with no power to fail, no radio to fail, no navigation to fail)?

I think you guys are mixing your categories a bit. Technology to help humans better manage their risks has wonderfully and exponentially increased. Technology to actually do the task instead of merely helping with the task is also increasing, but when it comes to applying that to flying airplanes it certainly isn’t an imminent technology. Even drones have a human in control. I embrace the “helping” technology but am rather skeptical of “controlling” technology. I don’t think I will ever be willing to board an airliner with no humans in the cockpit.
The wise men said the Titanic could not sink and the Airbus could not stall.

[Fly Boomer]

42 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Hmmm, I took my 87 up to 150…around a sweeping turn, it tracked like it was on rails, no vibrations. At a more sedate speed I took a picture:

Mine was a 1967 and, while it looked cool, didn't come close to either the suspension or aerodynamics of yours.

[ilovecornfields]

2 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

Hmmm, I took my 87 up to 150…around a sweeping turn, it tracked like it was on rails, no vibrations. At a more sedate speed I took a picture:

That picture brings back memories of doing stupid teenage things in an ‘85 Corvette. That was a fun car.

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I embrace the “helping” technology but am rather skeptical of “controlling” technology. I don’t think I will ever be willing to board an airliner with no humans in the cockpit.
The wise men said the Titanic could not sink and the Airbus could not stall.

Do you really know the point at which when technology is "helping" you vs. when it starts "controlling" you? There is the issue of speed and complexity.  Automobile engines adjust fuel injection pulse widths in milliseconds.  The GNSS (GPS) system makes changes at the rate of one microsecond.  QA/QC is all automated.  Humans are informed after the fact - the system will make changes long before any human notices.  Humans can't think fast enough to process and respond to many technologies.

Does your autopilot say "Please turn now and BTW - I am just going to keep flying the current heading which eventually goes into the mountains while I wait for you human to do something"?  or does it turn automatically while also informing you (regardless of whether the human is paying attention or not)?  And many aircraft have FADEC controlling the engines - can you over-ride it?  Change mixtures and pressures because you might think you know more than the computer?  NO.  FAA - "Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) means just that. There is no direct pilot control over the engine or manual control mode. If the FADEC fails, the engine fails."

No human is ensuring the real time accuracy of your GPS guidance the exact moment while you are flying.  Humans will be alerted or review data anomalies identified by the automated QA/QC systems potentially after you have made a decision based upon the GPS signal.  Yet I assume that you trust it real time.  

So that line between "help" vs "control" is blurry and getting more blurry.  Many automated systems will have a period where it "takes control" rather than just shut down/disengaging while waiting for the slow human brain to get involved.  Cars may go into "limp mode" when they detect something amiss - bad if it happens just as you need to accelerate on a busy freeway entrance ramp.  You can't over-ride it - it takes control and alerts you.

And as was previously stated the Airbus stalled because a human manually pulled 1.6 G's upward at 7,000 fpm while cruising at 35,000 ft, without full thrust thereby losing needed kinetic energy to fly. 

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by 1980Mooney

[T. Peterson]

40 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Do you really know the point at which when technology is "helping" you vs. when it starts "controlling" you? There is the issue of speed and complexity.  Automobile engines adjust fuel injection pulse widths in milliseconds.  The GNSS (GPS) system makes changes at the rate of one microsecond.  QA/QC is all automated.  Humans are informed after the fact - the system will make changes long before any human notices.  Humans can't think fast enough to process and respond to many technologies.

Does your autopilot say "Please turn now and BTW - I am just going to keep flying the current heading which eventually goes into the mountains while I wait for you human to do something"?  or does it turn automatically while also informing you (regardless of whether the human is paying attention or not)?  And many aircraft have FADEC controlling the engines - can you over-ride it?  Change mixtures and pressures because you might think you know more than the computer?  NO.  FAA - "Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) means just that. There is no direct pilot control over the engine or manual control mode. If the FADEC fails, the engine fails."

No human is ensuring the real time accuracy of your GPS guidance the exact moment while you are flying.  Humans will be alerted or review data anomalies identified by the automated QA/QC systems potentially after you have made a decision based upon the GPS signal.  Yet I assume that you trust it real time.  

So that line between "help" vs "control" is blurry and getting more blurry.  Many automated systems will have a period where it "takes control" rather than just shut down/disengaging while waiting for the slow human brain to get involved.  Cars may go into "limp mode" when they detect something amiss - bad if it happens just as you need to accelerate on a busy freeway entrance ramp.  You can't over-ride it - it takes control and alerts you.

And as was previously stated the Airbus stalled because a human manually pulled 1.6 G's upward at 7,000 fpm while cruising at 35,000 ft, without full thrust thereby losing needed kinetic energy to fly. 

 

You are absolutely correct. The line is blurry and getting blurrier. I imagine that is why we are having this robust discussion. For me at least, the line in the sand is being a passenger in an airplane with no human pilots. At that juncture the blurry line becomes crystal clear. I have no intention of forcing my vision on anyone else. You are welcome to take my seat and I will wish you Bon Voyage.

As far as the Bus pilot pulling 1.7 g’s at 37000 feet, did he just do it for kicks and giggles, or was he responding to an automation failure?

[N201MKTurbo]

In the early 20th Century, nobody would get on an elevator without a trained operator. 
 

In the middle of the 20th century, nobody would think of getting on a train without a trained engineer running it, I can go to Sky Harbor and ride a driverless train. 
 

So people will change their views on these things, especially after they become common and proven.

[Hank]

59 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Does your autopilot say "Please turn now and BTW - I am just going to keep flying the current heading which eventually goes into the mountains while I wait for you human to do something"?  or does it turn automatically while also informing you (regardless of whether the human is paying attention or not)?  And many aircraft have FADEC controlling the engines - can you over-ride it?  Change mixtures and pressures because you might think you know more than the computer?  NO.  FAA - "Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) means just that. There is no direct pilot control over the engine or manual control mode. If the FADEC fails, the engine fails."

So that line between "help" vs "control" is blurry and getting more blurry.  Many automated systems will have a period where it "takes control" rather than just shut down/disengaging while waiting for the slow human brain to get involved.  Cars may go into "limp mode" when they detect something amiss - bad if it happens just as you need to accelerate on a busy freeway entrance ramp.  You can't over-ride it - it takes control and alerts you.

My autopilot was made by the good folks at Brittain, and it does not do anything on a microsecond basis! If I'm using AccuTrak, yes it will fly me towards an obstruction while my G430W is blinking "turn left to XXX Now" until I-the-human actually turn the yoke. And in AccuFlight mode, it will fly a perfect 2D approach, following the pink line, but it won't do anything to altitude, it's like altitude doesn't exist in its stone-knives-and-bearskin-rugs brain.

I wasn't aware that ANY Mooneys had FADEC control, although some much larger aircraft do. Is it in your Mooney? That would be exciting! My only option is to maintain direct control over the throttle, prop RPM and mixture settings, adjusting them as I see fit over the course of the flight from Engine Start to Engine Shut Down.

And that's how I like it! I wish I could still.have direct control.over.which gear my roads vehicle is in, but that option had all.but disappeared. 

[T. Peterson]

55 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Do you really know the point at which when technology is "helping" you vs. when it starts "controlling" you? There is the issue of speed and complexity.  Automobile engines adjust fuel injection pulse widths in milliseconds.  The GNSS (GPS) system makes changes at the rate of one microsecond.  QA/QC is all automated.  Humans are informed after the fact - the system will make changes long before any human notices.  Humans can't think fast enough to process and respond to many technologies.

Does your autopilot say "Please turn now and BTW - I am just going to keep flying the current heading which eventually goes into the mountains while I wait for you human to do something"?  or does it turn automatically while also informing you (regardless of whether the human is paying attention or not)?  And many aircraft have FADEC controlling the engines - can you over-ride it?  Change mixtures and pressures because you might think you know more than the computer?  NO.  FAA - "Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) means just that. There is no direct pilot control over the engine or manual control mode. If the FADEC fails, the engine fails."

No human is ensuring the real time accuracy of your GPS guidance the exact moment while you are flying.  Humans will be alerted or review data anomalies identified by the automated QA/QC systems potentially after you have made a decision based upon the GPS signal.  Yet I assume that you trust it real time.  

So that line between "help" vs "control" is blurry and getting more blurry.  Many automated systems will have a period where it "takes control" rather than just shut down/disengaging while waiting for the slow human brain to get involved.  Cars may go into "limp mode" when they detect something amiss - bad if it happens just as you need to accelerate on a busy freeway entrance ramp.  You can't over-ride it - it takes control and alerts you.

And as was previously stated the Airbus stalled because a human manually pulled 1.6 G's upward at 7,000 fpm while cruising at 35,000 ft, without full thrust thereby losing needed kinetic energy to fly. 

 

On edit:

 I would further add that in my mind ( which may be very small in the opinion of many), all of those things to which you referred are helps, not controls. Fadec, FMS, A/P, A/T etc control mechanical functions, but they don’t determine destinations, diversions due to sick passengers, weather, maintenance failures etc. I do those things in cooperation with Dispatch.

Maybe it would be helpful to change the wording from “control” to “determine”?

At any rate I have to stop this discussion as it is almost time for me to go to the airport to control the automation of my flight to DFW which has been determined by Spirit Airlines.

[MooneyMitch]

6 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

At any rate I have to stop this discussion as it is almost time for me to go to the airport to control the automation of my flight to DFW which has been determined by Spirit Airlines.

Safe travels to you and your passengers 

[Andy95W]

On 3/29/2023 at 12:48 AM, Will.iam said:

But when the shit hits the fan, it’s a human that shines better than the computer. 

I’ll see your “Miracle on the Hudson” where Sully did better than a computer and raise you a Colgan 3407, an Air France 447, and an Atlas 3591 where the humans caused the crashes.

[aviatoreb]

We are in a changing era.

I will be shocked if in 50 years anyone owns a car and if any land vehicles are driven by humans and there will be a great deal of automated air vehicles. I wouldn't venture to say what they will look like.

[MooneyMitch]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

We are in a changing era.

I will be shocked if in 50 years anyone owns a car and if any land vehicles are driven by humans and there will be a great deal of automated air vehicles. I wouldn't venture to say what they will look like.

Hopefully, human driven autos won’t be banned at that point.  
If I were alive in 50 years, it would be fun to a have non-human driven auto for some occasions……. how absolutely boring, however 

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

We are in a changing era.

I will be shocked if in 50 years anyone owns a car and if any land vehicles are driven by humans and there will be a great deal of automated air vehicles. I wouldn't venture to say what they will look like.

I just don't see some rancher that lives 50 miles from the nearest pavement calling for an UBER to hall bales of hay to the south 40.

[MooneyMitch]

Undoubtedly humans will have learned how to defy gravity and perfected teletransportation within 50 years 

[N201MKTurbo]

15 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

Undoubtedly humans will have learned how to defy gravity and perfected teletransportation within 50 years 

When I was a kid I watched the Jetson's. They had flying cars in 2062. Where are our flying cars? They got 39 years to go!

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

You are absolutely correct. The line is blurry and getting blurrier. I imagine that is why we are having this robust discussion. For me at least, the line in the sand is being a passenger in an airplane with no human pilots. At that juncture the blurry line becomes crystal clear. I have no intention of forcing my vision on anyone else. You are welcome to take my seat and I will wish you Bon Voyage.

As far as the Bus pilot pulling 1.7 g’s at 37000 feet, did he just do it for kicks and giggles, or was he responding to an automation failure?

You and others say the line in the sand is “no pilots” up front. But the more likely next step is “one pilot” up front. Is that a line in the sand? 

Many Part 135 operations are already single pilot and I don’t hear anyone complaining other than Pilots Unions.  Perhaps some here arguing that they will only fly with 2 pilots up front have already flown a charter, business or sightseeing flight with a single pilot.  

It will solve the pilot shortage overnight. 

[1980Mooney]

1 minute ago, 1980Mooney said:

You and others say the line in the sand is “no pilots” up front. But the more likely next step is “one pilot” up front. Is that a line in the sand? 

Many Part 135 operations are already single pilot and I don’t hear anyone complaining other than Pilots Unions.  Perhaps some here arguing that they will only fly with 2 pilots up front have already flown a charter, business or sightseeing flight with a single pilot.  

It will solve the pilot shortage overnight. 

Oh - and how many here on MS have flown family, friends, Angel Flights, etc with ONLY A SINGLE PILOT..??!!

[N201MKTurbo]

3 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

You and others say the line in the sand is “no pilots” up front. But the more likely next step is “one pilot” up front. Is that a line in the sand? 

Many Part 135 operations are already single pilot and I don’t hear anyone complaining other than Pilots Unions.  Perhaps some here arguing that they will only fly with 2 pilots up front have already flown a charter, business or sightseeing flight with a single pilot.  

It will solve the pilot shortage overnight. 

Wow, straight from the flight school to the left seat! The budding young pilots dream!

[1980Mooney]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Wow, straight from the flight school to the left seat! The budding young pilots dream!

They just need to have their dog sitting in the Right Seat. Wait - maybe the dog is supposed to sit in the Left Seat!

 

[1980Mooney]

3 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Wow, straight from the flight school to the left seat! The budding young pilots dream!

Actually the young pilots will have to wait. It will take a long time for airlines flying single pilot ops to re-employ all the experienced pilots made redundant.  Budding young pilots won’t even be able to get jobs as drone operators- the redundant pilots will have them first. 

[1980Mooney]

33 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

Undoubtedly humans will have learned how to defy gravity and perfected teletransportation within 50 years 

There is enough hot air in this topic that we are all levitating……