Boeing studies pilotless airplane

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by rookiepilot »

Rockie wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 4:57 pm Because you see it cannot be trusted. It isn't a pilot and never will be until someone builds a real AI.
I admit I can be a dinosaur in many things, but I'm still very much smarter and capable - and necessary - than any automation I've seen.
Hmmmmm. Interesting comment.

Do you hand fly Cat 3 approaches because you don't trust the automation to fly the approach?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

rookiepilot wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:23 pm
Rockie wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 4:57 pm Because you see it cannot be trusted. It isn't a pilot and never will be until someone builds a real AI.
I admit I can be a dinosaur in many things, but I'm still very much smarter and capable - and necessary - than any automation I've seen.
Hmmmmm. Interesting comment.

Do you hand fly Cat 3 approaches because you don't trust the automation to fly the approach?
I am on the controls all the way to a stop because a) it's required, and b) I don't trust the automation. Aircraft accidents happen too frequently because pilots "trusted" the automation when it didn't do what it was supposed to do, or wasn't designed to do it in the first place. You guys know all about that because you shit all over the crews when it happens. Are you changing your tune now?

CAT III requires an autoland because there is insufficient visibility to land or roll out visually. There are stringent weather, wind and airport equipment and operational limitations to meet before low visibility approaches are permitted, and we are trained and prepared to abort the landing as soon it starts to go wrong. If you do these approaches yourself do you slide your seat all the way back and tuck into a good book while it's going on?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by complexintentions »

@rookiepilot (Rockie beat me to the reply!)

A human pilot is still flying the aircraft on a Cat 3 approach. The land/go-around decision is made by a human. The automation simply holds the controls as dictated by the pilot. "Otto" is as dumb as they come.

You seemed to have missed the entire point that flying an aircraft is far more than manipulating the controls.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by rookiepilot »

Rockie wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:30 pm
Aircraft accidents happen too frequently because pilots "trusted" the automation when it didn't do what it was supposed to do, or wasn't designed to do it in the first place. You guys know all about that because you shit all over the crews when it happens. Are you changing your tune now?
Another interesting comment.

Isn't it also true aircraft accidents sometimes happen because pilots don't use the automation available, misuse or disable it, (like some annoying warnings disabled by flight crews that have contributed to past accidents) or misread the information provided by the automation?

As One example only -- the countless accidents that have occurred from simply running out of fuel, -- in spite of automated, distance rings available even on single engine aircraft PFD's -- prove the weak link in the chain, is far more often, the human one.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Mon May 14, 2018 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by complexintentions »

Now you're just arguing for its own sake.

If you're determined to place the blame on humans for automation-related accidents, you must also consider the humans that designed the man-machine interface and the automation itself.

Technology is not magic. It's imagined, built, and used by humans. All of the human errors are baked right in. Automation may perform certain singular mindless tasks very well, like pointing the aircraft in a instructed direction, but unless you have true AI (not algorithm, self-aware) it doesn't replace a human.

As rockie has stated repeatedly, it's just a tool to be used.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by C.W.E. »

UREKA!!!

I finally agree with Rockie. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

T
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by rookiepilot »

complexintentions wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 6:10 pm Now you're just arguing for its own sake.

If you're determined to place the blame on humans for automation-related accidents, you must also consider the humans that designed the man-machine interface and the automation itself.

Technology is not magic. It's imagined, built, and used by humans. All of the human errors are baked right in. Automation may perform certain singular mindless tasks very well, like pointing the aircraft in a instructed direction, but unless you have true AI (not algorithm, self-aware) it doesn't replace a human.

As rockie has stated repeatedly, it's just a tool to be used.
I do not disagree with any of this, or the need for human oversight.

The implication correctly programmed technology is more dangerous than human factors as a dominant cause of aircraft accidents, even in the ultra safe airline world today? Sorry, I'm not seeing that.

If there was such zero trust in the automation, as Rockie implies, required to fly a Cat 3 autoland, those approaches wouldn't happen, to such precise minima.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2183
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by complexintentions »

rookiepilot wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 5:59 pm As One example only -- the countless accidents that have occurred from simply running out of fuel, -- in spite of automated, distance rings available even on single engine aircraft PFD's -- prove the weak link in the chain, is far more often, the human one.
Your argument is growing increasingly incoherent.

Your example mentions "automated distance rings" that didn't prevent a fuel starvation accident. But automation is the answer...?

Your statement about humans being the weak link in the chain is completely misleading. More correctly, it could be stated that in the absolutely overwhelming majority of flights the human factor is the reason flights are completed safely and successfully. And in a minuscule percentage of flights, a sequence of events - a "chain", if you will - of events led to an accident. Again, overwhelmingly, it has been shown over and over again that "human error" was only one factor in that chain. And ironically, in the modern age many of those errors are related to the design, use, misuse, malfunction, or over-reliance (aka TRUST) of...automation.

All of which does not in any support the premise that automation can ever eliminate human error as automation is conceived, built, and operated by humans.

It's Only A Tool.

As far as trusting automation on a Cat IIIb, there is so little trust in it as to require 3 redundant systems chock-loaded with warnings overseen by two humans to intervene the second there is a malfunction. LVO ops are so cumbersome they slow airport arrival rates to the degree that they're only used when visibility makes them absolutely necessary for landings. Meanwhile, the most efficient way for airports to sequence arrivals is using visual (aka human-flown, human-judged) approaches. Hmmm.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by complexintentions on Mon May 14, 2018 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

Technology - correctly programmed or not - does not work in isolation to human factors Rookie. The human is the lynchpin, the Jesus nut if you will of the whole operation. It is up to engineers to build technology that seamlessly and reliably aids humans, not replace them. Because that won’t work in this business. Unfortunately pure engineers are the last people who should be entrusted with that task without direct human supervision. Kind of like automation when you think of it.

You also clearly have no idea of the concept or practical application of low visibility approaches. I suggest you drop that line of thought.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by rookiepilot »

Is airline safety many orders of magnitude greater today than in say, the 1960's, due to,
A) better training and understanding of human factors (CRM, Ect)
B) technology enhancements?

To be fair I would say it's a combination, no? ---

Anyway I've asked a couple of what I thought are reasonable questions, not really getting direct answers -- welcome to the internet -- because surely as the sun rises, greater automation is coming to a whole host of industries, whether we like it or not.

One day in our futures, likely long after I'm gone to be fair, the skies will be filled, Jetsons style, with thousands of automated aircraft. Battery technology, AI, and VTOL technology will mature enough to see this happen.

I have little doubt of this, nor the fact only computer guided aircraft could possibly maintain safe separation in such an environment. So Rockie, I think you're wrong, given enough time. Humans will be replaced, as they have in many other industries.

Look where autos are headed. It's coming, to a highway near you. Am I comfortable with this? Not particularly.

The computer, Deep Blue, defeating the leading chess grandmaster years ago, was a sign of things to come. I'm not sure I like the world that is being created, but it is what it is.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

True. Our safety record is a combination of human factor and technological advances.

Chess master beating computers are as Complex says, mathematical formulas, not self aware thought. Even in chess the variables are limited and given enough time possible to program. Flying, as is real life, is not so predictable.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 959
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by confusedalot »

wow.

And now for a reality check, 175 year old railroad technology (apart from the monorails you see from time to time) still require at least one operator, even with the far advanced bullet train system.

And that is on a huge piece of equipment that cannot go anywhere else than the rails it is on. Don't know how people can think that technology can do everything when even the most controllable of transportation modes have not yet achieved operatorless levels.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?
Noo
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:41 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Noo »

I've been on driverless trains.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

Noo wrote: Mon May 14, 2018 10:31 pm I've been on driverless trains.
Me too, including one that went 500 kph. But they were on elevated tracks with multiple safeguards that would bring the whole shebang to a stop at the first sign of trouble. If only we could do that at FL370 and 500 kts...
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by goingnowherefast »

Don't forget that aircraft are much more reliable than they were in the 60s, and that makes them substantially safer too. How often were Super Connie's blowing engines vs 787s today.

The A320 is substantially more automated than the 737, yet both are exceedingly safe aircraft. Automation doesn't automatically make aircraft safer, it just provides alternate means to control the aircraft, often with increased capabilities and efficiencies. For example, CAT II and III approaches.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by rookiepilot »

I'm not trying to be negative on the industry, But it's not hard to foresee perhaps not pilotless aircraft in the near future, but certainly elimination of the FO position. Ground based control options would likely need to be put in place for that to happen, but that all exists today, in military drones.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2052
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by C-GGGQ »

Military drones have a horrific crash rate actually. But no one cares because usually no lives are lost.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... esponding/
---------- ADS -----------
 
Posthumane
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Posthumane »

It seems there are a few different topics being discussed in the thread. My comments regarding two crew vs one crew were with regard to the comments made by ALPA that one crew cargo ops would be unsafe due to the workload requirements in congested airspace, and they don't want it to even be studied. But then whey are one crew biz jets allowed to fly in the same airspace? Are they a dangerous menace to all? A crash in a biz jet is no less a tragedy as a DHL crash.

My other comments regarding automation in the cockpit were in response to Rockie's comments that he is familiar with modern automation and can definitively state that making an autonomous aircraft that is safe is impossible. That I completely disagree with. Air Canada does not have any aircraft with "cutting edge" automation - they have aircraft incorporating automation that was cutting edge 20 or 30 years ago. That's the nature of airliner development. The stuff that was in R&D centres some decades ago is finding their way into airliners now, and the stuff that's in R&D labs now may, in some shape, find its way into certified aircraft a few decades from now. Being familiar with even the newest of certified hardware does not make you an expert on what's possible with technology. I don't think pilotless airliners are going to happen any time soon, but not because it's not technically feasible. Rather, it's because the demand for it is not that high. The cost savings are minimal. The demand in the military, on the other hand, is much higher since it allows the elimination of risk to the crew in dangerous missions, so the development is going at a much faster pace there.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

Posthumane wrote: Tue May 15, 2018 9:27 am My other comments regarding automation in the cockpit were in response to Rockie's comments that he is familiar with modern automation and can definitively state that making an autonomous aircraft that is safe is impossible.
I never said it was impossible. I've said numerous times it can't happen until true artificial intelligence is invented (don't hold your breath waiting for that), and that way before it makes its way into passenger aircraft there are countless practical, ethical and moral obstacles to overcome.
Posthumane wrote: Tue May 15, 2018 9:27 am The demand in the military, on the other hand, is much higher since it allows the elimination of risk to the crew in dangerous missions, so the development is going at a much faster pace there.
Well you said it right there didn't you? Pilotless drones are expendable whereas people are not....
---------- ADS -----------
 
Posthumane
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Posthumane »

Yes you have said that numerous times, and been wrong every time. There is no requirement for artificial intelligence or self awareness within the system to be able to operate it safely. There is zero research that shows that it would be beneficial. I'm not sure if you're aware how many times you've shared Cl A airspace with unmanned aircraft. While the accident rate of some of the semi-autonomous aircraft developed in the late 90's has been high, it is coming down and in many years has been comparable to GA accident rates. Early manned aircraft had much worse accident rates, and I'm sure there were all sorts of people lamenting about the risk to the public that these contraptions caused, and yet, through continual development, it was eventually brought down to where it's considered acceptable by most.

And yes, pilotless drones can be expendable. That is why they are often not made to the same standards as manned aircraft. But what does that have to do with the discussion?
---------- ADS -----------
 
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”