Unmanned airliners
11-20-2009, 02:08 PM
#1
Self Employed.
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Unmanned airliners
Unmanned airliners are on their way but not yet according to FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt
"One problem is ensuring unmanned aircraft can see and avoid other aircraft, Babbitt said. "Without a pilot who can look and scan to the left and the right -- just the way you and I do when we're backing out of a parking space -- there's a perceived level of risk that the American public isn't ready for."
I like how he already has supreme confidence in UAV's. The public has a problem of having a perceived risk of traffic avoidance. Not an actual one.
He goes on to say that "The idea of pilots flying remotely has been around for a long time. And it is, I truly believe, the way of the future."
The article link is below:
FAA chief: Unmanned aircraft not ready for routine U.S. use
Skyhigh
"One problem is ensuring unmanned aircraft can see and avoid other aircraft, Babbitt said. "Without a pilot who can look and scan to the left and the right -- just the way you and I do when we're backing out of a parking space -- there's a perceived level of risk that the American public isn't ready for."
I like how he already has supreme confidence in UAV's. The public has a problem of having a perceived risk of traffic avoidance. Not an actual one.
He goes on to say that "The idea of pilots flying remotely has been around for a long time. And it is, I truly believe, the way of the future."
The article link is below:
FAA chief: Unmanned aircraft not ready for routine U.S. use
Skyhigh
11-21-2009, 04:28 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Dream within a dream
Posts: 1,306
You left out this part, Sky:
Also, most unmanned aircraft systems have a single point of failure for hydraulics, electrical, flight control and satellite link, he noted. "When there's a single point of failure for something that runs into trouble every thousand hours, that's a problem."
What about ditching in the Hudson? Or going outside the normal flight envelope to save the airplane? Or placating the pax in the event of an emergency and restoring order? Seeing and avoiding birds? There will always be some human interaction with commercial airliners, and to remove it from the airplane would be ridiculous.
I agree with hawkesaurus. There may be a slight possibility commercial airliners will pop up, but certainly not any time soon. Definitely not until a mastery of automation can be demonstrated by buses, boats, and trains, and until we can build more accurate computer systems. How many times have the redundant computer systems on the A380, advertised by Airbus to be fail-proof, busted in-flight? Hundreds, if not thousands, of failures can be listed. If you feel comfortable traveling on an unmanned airliner with that kind of safety record, then go ahead.
Also, most unmanned aircraft systems have a single point of failure for hydraulics, electrical, flight control and satellite link, he noted. "When there's a single point of failure for something that runs into trouble every thousand hours, that's a problem."
What about ditching in the Hudson? Or going outside the normal flight envelope to save the airplane? Or placating the pax in the event of an emergency and restoring order? Seeing and avoiding birds? There will always be some human interaction with commercial airliners, and to remove it from the airplane would be ridiculous.
I agree with hawkesaurus. There may be a slight possibility commercial airliners will pop up, but certainly not any time soon. Definitely not until a mastery of automation can be demonstrated by buses, boats, and trains, and until we can build more accurate computer systems. How many times have the redundant computer systems on the A380, advertised by Airbus to be fail-proof, busted in-flight? Hundreds, if not thousands, of failures can be listed. If you feel comfortable traveling on an unmanned airliner with that kind of safety record, then go ahead.
11-21-2009, 11:16 AM
#6
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Bovine Manure
Pilots don't have a perfect public-perception record, but overall, we're held in pretty high regard. People believe...or want to believe...that the guys up-front are there to safely take them from A to B.
Until the average person can buy a computer that never requires control-alt-delete during the life of the computer, or never lose a cell-phone signal, or can drive a car that never breaks, they will prefer a human pilot aboard.
For now, automated aircraft can carry "virtual passengers" to ethereal website destinations. They can file virtual-complaints for their "First Gig free; second gig, $25.00" virtual-baggage fees.
Until the average person can buy a computer that never requires control-alt-delete during the life of the computer, or never lose a cell-phone signal, or can drive a car that never breaks, they will prefer a human pilot aboard.
For now, automated aircraft can carry "virtual passengers" to ethereal website destinations. They can file virtual-complaints for their "First Gig free; second gig, $25.00" virtual-baggage fees.
11-21-2009, 06:02 PM
#7
Self Employed.
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
UAV future
Automation will continue its slow advance. The flight deck will get cameras and then free flight will reduce pilot work load to near zero while en-route. Slowly but surly ground control will eventually make an appearance. The pilots will loose actual control of the plane but will still be up front just in case.
Eventually the crew will be cut to one impotent pilot in the flight deck who basically sits there as an organic back up system. A UAV pilot on the ground will be the one who is controlling the aircraft. Every three months the back up pilots will go to the sim to remain current. Once a year they will get to land the real plane.
At one time airport subways and elevators all use to have operators and now they don't. Some transportation systems have a half asleep minimum wage person up front to give the appearance of on-board control for the passengers benefit. Pilots have been slowly loosing control since aviation began. Ground control is the next logical step, but not quite yet.
Skyhigh
Eventually the crew will be cut to one impotent pilot in the flight deck who basically sits there as an organic back up system. A UAV pilot on the ground will be the one who is controlling the aircraft. Every three months the back up pilots will go to the sim to remain current. Once a year they will get to land the real plane.
At one time airport subways and elevators all use to have operators and now they don't. Some transportation systems have a half asleep minimum wage person up front to give the appearance of on-board control for the passengers benefit. Pilots have been slowly loosing control since aviation began. Ground control is the next logical step, but not quite yet.
Skyhigh
Last edited by SkyHigh; 11-21-2009 at 06:18 PM.
11-21-2009, 06:17 PM
#9
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Important Difference
You mean "lose" and "losing," not loose and loosing.
Thie big difference: elevators and trains can stop without dire consequence when there is a systems failure.
Thie big difference: elevators and trains can stop without dire consequence when there is a systems failure.
11-21-2009, 06:23 PM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,388
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HercDriver130
Leaving the Career
143
10-16-2009 08:58 AM
