Unmanned airliners in the future
06-07-2015, 08:31 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: Port Bus
Posts: 725
First start-up that places a order for any type of "unmanned" airliner, I am dropping what I am doing at the time and showing up at their door step. Just image the sorority advantages you would have....... I am sure that if you were super senior, that you might be able to mow your grass and "monitor" a flight maybe once or twice a week. 
06-07-2015, 09:04 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 148
Not going to happen any time soon. If they still have humans inside trains, what makes you guys think we're going to go to unmanned airplanes? If they haven't done that yet with a piece of equipment that only goes forward and backwards, what makes you think they're about to do what you're saying with a piece of equipment that moves in many more directions than a train? Like I said in a previous post, until you see unmanned trains, you don't need to wonder about unmanned planes other than the ones we already have in airline ops: those operated by an all female crew. That's the only "unmanned" plane you'll see in your career.
Last edited by jamesrhatcher; 06-07-2015 at 09:14 AM.
06-07-2015, 09:33 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: 737 Left
Posts: 1,827
Single pilot with remote technician will happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sticking their heads in the sand. The incidence of pilot incapacitation is so low that using remote backup for that purpose will become tolerable from a risk/reward standpoint. I'm 48, so I won't be affected, but new guys ... I think there exists cause for concern.
06-07-2015, 12:14 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
The technology exists now.
The question is cost effectiveness vs safety.
Unmanned a/c have a terrible safety record right now and they're not necessarily any cheaper than manned a/c. Especially an airliner that already has to have all the life support equipment in it. How is it incrementally too expensive to put a couple guys in it to make it about 1000x safer.
Even when this technology happens, there will still be human oversight and as pilots we are most qualified to do those jobs and I think those jobs will pay just as much as the jobs we do now.
The question is cost effectiveness vs safety.
Unmanned a/c have a terrible safety record right now and they're not necessarily any cheaper than manned a/c. Especially an airliner that already has to have all the life support equipment in it. How is it incrementally too expensive to put a couple guys in it to make it about 1000x safer.
Even when this technology happens, there will still be human oversight and as pilots we are most qualified to do those jobs and I think those jobs will pay just as much as the jobs we do now.
06-07-2015, 09:33 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
Single pilot with remote technician will happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sticking their heads in the sand. The incidence of pilot incapacitation is so low that using remote backup for that purpose will become tolerable from a risk/reward standpoint. I'm 48, so I won't be affected, but new guys ... I think there exists cause for concern.
The technology is already there, no question. The problems in the implementation are the cost of securing and monitoring the data connection are extremely expensive. The minute there becomes a remote data connection that allows control of an airliner is the minute terrorists and hacker groups all over the world begin attempting to hack the network and take over. As we have seen in recent news people are already trying to do it while onboard an aircraft. The cost and manpower of securing data is immense and the success at securing it is not always great. The Chinese government just successfully hacked into the U.S. government and stole the data of of U.S. government employees. Countries like North Korea are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually building up their computer hacking ability. Many experts feel the cost and man hours required to try and secure the data lines will be more expensive than having two pilots in the airplanes.
In the event of an emergency or abnormal situation the workload will become almost unbearable, even with remote help. The situation NASA was proposing was having a ground based pilot assisting several aircraft at once, sort of like how dispatchers work now. In normal situations it works just fine. But in an emergency or even abnormal situation the workload of both the pilot on board and the ground pilot becomes very high. If more than one aircraft has issues, the ability of the ground pilot to assist becomes virtually eliminated. Also the vast majority of communication between people in non-verbal. When you only have a radio line, or even a limited camera view, much of the communication ability between the airborne pilot and the ground pilot is lost. This was surprising to the researchers and they had not anticipated the communication issues that would arise by separating the pilots.
The ability of pilots to gain experience is limited. By having only one pilot on board the aircraft, how will new pilots gain experience. Do you send guys straight from the simulator into the flight deck? "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. I am very excited to be flying you this morning, this is my very first flight! But not to worry, I got great scores in flight school and everything up here looks exactly like it does in the simulator." It will not be too long before airlines of the word could begin selling all of their fancy A350s, 787s and such and replace them with a handful of Cessna 152s because that is all the passenger capacity they will require.
06-08-2015, 08:54 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: Port Bus
Posts: 725
NASA was conducting a study about single pilot aircraft at the Ames Research Centre. I participated in the study and here is what was discussed while I was there:
The technology is already there, no question. The problems in the implementation are the cost of securing and monitoring the data connection are extremely expensive. The minute there becomes a remote data connection that allows control of an airliner is the minute terrorists and hacker groups all over the world begin attempting to hack the network and take over. As we have seen in recent news people are already trying to do it while onboard an aircraft. The cost and manpower of securing data is immense and the success at securing it is not always great. The Chinese government just successfully hacked into the U.S. government and stole the data of of U.S. government employees. Countries like North Korea are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually building up their computer hacking ability. Many experts feel the cost and man hours required to try and secure the data lines will be more expensive than having two pilots in the airplanes.
In the event of an emergency or abnormal situation the workload will become almost unbearable, even with remote help. The situation NASA was proposing was having a ground based pilot assisting several aircraft at once, sort of like how dispatchers work now. In normal situations it works just fine. But in an emergency or even abnormal situation the workload of both the pilot on board and the ground pilot becomes very high. If more than one aircraft has issues, the ability of the ground pilot to assist becomes virtually eliminated. Also the vast majority of communication between people in non-verbal. When you only have a radio line, or even a limited camera view, much of the communication ability between the airborne pilot and the ground pilot is lost. This was surprising to the researchers and they had not anticipated the communication issues that would arise by separating the pilots.
The ability of pilots to gain experience is limited. By having only one pilot on board the aircraft, how will new pilots gain experience. Do you send guys straight from the simulator into the flight deck? "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. I am very excited to be flying you this morning, this is my very first flight! But not to worry, I got great scores in flight school and everything up here looks exactly like it does in the simulator." It will not be too long before airlines of the word could begin selling all of their fancy A350s, 787s and such and replace them with a handful of Cessna 152s because that is all the passenger capacity they will require.
The technology is already there, no question. The problems in the implementation are the cost of securing and monitoring the data connection are extremely expensive. The minute there becomes a remote data connection that allows control of an airliner is the minute terrorists and hacker groups all over the world begin attempting to hack the network and take over. As we have seen in recent news people are already trying to do it while onboard an aircraft. The cost and manpower of securing data is immense and the success at securing it is not always great. The Chinese government just successfully hacked into the U.S. government and stole the data of of U.S. government employees. Countries like North Korea are spending hundreds of millions of dollars annually building up their computer hacking ability. Many experts feel the cost and man hours required to try and secure the data lines will be more expensive than having two pilots in the airplanes.
In the event of an emergency or abnormal situation the workload will become almost unbearable, even with remote help. The situation NASA was proposing was having a ground based pilot assisting several aircraft at once, sort of like how dispatchers work now. In normal situations it works just fine. But in an emergency or even abnormal situation the workload of both the pilot on board and the ground pilot becomes very high. If more than one aircraft has issues, the ability of the ground pilot to assist becomes virtually eliminated. Also the vast majority of communication between people in non-verbal. When you only have a radio line, or even a limited camera view, much of the communication ability between the airborne pilot and the ground pilot is lost. This was surprising to the researchers and they had not anticipated the communication issues that would arise by separating the pilots.
The ability of pilots to gain experience is limited. By having only one pilot on board the aircraft, how will new pilots gain experience. Do you send guys straight from the simulator into the flight deck? "Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. I am very excited to be flying you this morning, this is my very first flight! But not to worry, I got great scores in flight school and everything up here looks exactly like it does in the simulator." It will not be too long before airlines of the word could begin selling all of their fancy A350s, 787s and such and replace them with a handful of Cessna 152s because that is all the passenger capacity they will require.
Thanks for sharing, sounds like we will all just have to keep our pants on while flying.
06-08-2015, 09:09 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Right Seat - Low Wing
Posts: 229
[QUOTE=NEDude;1898213]The minute there becomes a remote data connection that allows control of an airliner is the minute terrorists and hacker groups all over the world begin attempting to hack the network and take over. As we have seen in recent news people are already trying to do it while onboard an aircraft. The cost and manpower of securing data is immense and the success at securing it is not always great.
QUOTE]
This right here
I highly doubt it will happen anytime soon based on this alone
QUOTE]
This right here
I highly doubt it will happen anytime soon based on this alone
06-08-2015, 09:27 AM
#29
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: E145 FO
Posts: 83
The fault in everyone's thinking here is in applying the current rate of technological advancement and extrapolating that to imagine what the future will look like. The advancement of technology is exponential. The entire progress of human kind could have been achieved in 20 years had it been at today's rate. Once we reach artificial general intelligence (human level) the advancement of technology will explode. Problems that we percieve today as needing hundreds of years to solve will be solved in months if not weeks. Decision making, handling of emergencies, troubleshooting, movie reviews, anything you can think of that seems like it is exclusive to humans will ultimately be done better by a computer. Our world is about to be fundamentally changed, if for better or worse depends on who you ask.
As for losing our jobs to computers, it's not an issue of possibility but practicality. Regulations, burocracy, and the logistics and cost of system wide replacment might be enough to let us all reach 65 with a job. Remember the next gen system that we're still patiently waiting to see will consist of 90s technology....
As for losing our jobs to computers, it's not an issue of possibility but practicality. Regulations, burocracy, and the logistics and cost of system wide replacment might be enough to let us all reach 65 with a job. Remember the next gen system that we're still patiently waiting to see will consist of 90s technology....
06-08-2015, 10:03 AM
#30
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
The FAA won't allow manufactures to develop aircraft that have less than two pilots, so they don't even bother trying. This leads to a false sense of security that we can't be replaced. If the FAA allows a relax on certification, watch out.
NASA has its head up its ass, that's why companies like Space X will leave it in the dust. Until a major manufacturer is tasked with the project, we are safe.
NASA has its head up its ass, that's why companies like Space X will leave it in the dust. Until a major manufacturer is tasked with the project, we are safe.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
