Living in one of our crap cities, I, for one, can hardly wait for driverless cars.
The statistics are there to be seen: pilot error, or whatever the buzz word is that covers the majority of the crashes and deaths that occur these days, is the single largest cause of accidents.
I think you are all dreaming if you don't agree the days of having a human being able to make a decision in an instant in adverse conditions (or nice ones, like the German one, the SFO one, a couple of Asian ones and so on) are coming rapidly to a close, your mind is firmly snapped shut. Technology is marching ahead despite our wishes for it not to be so.
When my mother was born, her parent's house had no hot water, no central heating and no electricity. Pilots were flying rag and wood aircraft and they had only just figured out how to fire a gun without shooting off their own propeller. Now my mother is 96 and uses an iPad. We can fly non-stop from Vancouver to Sydney and the biggest task for the pilots is writing down a bunch of numbers, getting the junk back to the gate and staying awake. Everything has evolved except the pilots.
I could say that all of the failures I saw in the sim were caused either by pilots who couldn't use the technology, couldn't program accurately, couldn't set the correct numbers in the box or just couldn't make a correct decision. Few of them failed the stick and rudder stuff. Can't follow an SOP, didn't conduct a MAPP at the right time, didn't follow the correct procedure etc etc.
It can all be done by a machine. Most of it already is, with some guy in a white shirt with indigestion monitoring the whole thing, trying to stay awake.
Pilots, at least in airliners, are doomed.
Which would be more dangerous?
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Holy crap...you're still not getting this responsibility concept. Legal battles over blame begin after a plane crashes, but it's the PIC's job to make sure that doesn't happen in the first place. Does that make any sense to you?
-
Posthumane
- Rank 7
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Yes, that makes sense. And..?Rockie wrote:Holy crap...you're still not getting this responsibility concept. Legal battles over blame begin after a plane crashes, but it's the PIC's job to make sure that doesn't happen in the first place. Does that make any sense to you?
So, do you personally screen all the people maintaining the aircraft you fly and check each component for compliance, since you're responsible for it all?
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
I screen that the proper maintenance checks have been done and signed off, and I ensure there are no outstanding snags that haven't been properly checked and fixed, or released under the appropriate MEL. I further check that any snags deferred under MEL will not impact the safety of my specific flight since whoever signed it off has no idea of the specifics of my flight.Posthumane wrote:So, do you personally screen all the people maintaining the aircraft you fly and check each component for compliance, since you're responsible for it all?
That is one tiny aspect of my job as PIC before I even sit down in the seat. These airplanes are big so you might have noticed with thousands of components that require a huge maintenance department to track. The proper signatures are my assurance that everything has been done. Your question only highlights your total lack of understanding how an airline operation functions. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Posthumane
- Rank 7
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Obviously the question was rhetorical since I know you don't actually check every component. But the point is that you put trust in the people around you to do their jobs. If they didn't, you would die, regardless of how responsible you feel for every aspect of your passengers' safety.
I have no doubt that you are an expert at current airline operations, flying current airplanes, and are familiar with the systems that are currently installed on the planes you fly. You no doub have much more knowledge on these subjects than I, since I am not an airline pilot. However, just as I lack the knowledge about current airline ops, you lack knowledge about technology development and the engineering process, and what is currently being done with autonomous aircraft. The question at hand isn't "can a computer do what a pilot does" since there are already computers doing what pilots are doing, the question is simply "will it be adapted to the civil aviation market, and if so when?" The issues that surround the second quesiton are financial, regulatory, public perception, and while there are still some technical hurdles they are not what you think they are. A lack of detailed knowledge of logging operations doesn't stop a person from creating a chain saw.
I'll sum up with a well known quote from George Bernard Shaw: "People say it cannot be done should not interrupt people doing it."
I have no doubt that you are an expert at current airline operations, flying current airplanes, and are familiar with the systems that are currently installed on the planes you fly. You no doub have much more knowledge on these subjects than I, since I am not an airline pilot. However, just as I lack the knowledge about current airline ops, you lack knowledge about technology development and the engineering process, and what is currently being done with autonomous aircraft. The question at hand isn't "can a computer do what a pilot does" since there are already computers doing what pilots are doing, the question is simply "will it be adapted to the civil aviation market, and if so when?" The issues that surround the second quesiton are financial, regulatory, public perception, and while there are still some technical hurdles they are not what you think they are. A lack of detailed knowledge of logging operations doesn't stop a person from creating a chain saw.
I'll sum up with a well known quote from George Bernard Shaw: "People say it cannot be done should not interrupt people doing it."
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
-
complexintentions
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
- Location: of my pants is unknown.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Why do you assume Rockie lacks knowledge about technology development and the engineering process? Careful, CID might start calling that arrogant! 
Actually, the question at hand absolutely IS "can a computer do what a pilot does" - if you've been following along the last 12 pages, it's kinda the whole debate. And I'm sorry, but you’re wrong about “computer already doing what pilots are going” - I know of no autonomous commercial passenger airline operations, do you? Automating specific tasks of human pilots is not "doing what pilots do". Point and shoot drones doing grid surveys are not a comparison that support your opinion. Nor are military drones - some of them the closest to REAL autonomous flight at this point in time - a valid analog, given the minimal risk to human life should one fail and crash (as they do repeatedly, and often).
I agree with the principle of exponentially advancing technology. But I have yet to see a single compelling argument as to the implementation of it - simply repeating the mantra that since technology advances, it is inevitable, won't cut it. Valid, multiple, specific obstacles to the implementation of wide-spread commercial pax autonomous flight have been presented. Yet specific solutions to these problems are a little thin on the details. Sorry, but "Pilots, at least in airliners, are doomed" is simply an opinion masquerading as an argument. Weak.
If the technical hurdles are not "what we think they are", why don't you tell us what they really are, then? Since you imply you are "already doing it"!
Actually, the question at hand absolutely IS "can a computer do what a pilot does" - if you've been following along the last 12 pages, it's kinda the whole debate. And I'm sorry, but you’re wrong about “computer already doing what pilots are going” - I know of no autonomous commercial passenger airline operations, do you? Automating specific tasks of human pilots is not "doing what pilots do". Point and shoot drones doing grid surveys are not a comparison that support your opinion. Nor are military drones - some of them the closest to REAL autonomous flight at this point in time - a valid analog, given the minimal risk to human life should one fail and crash (as they do repeatedly, and often).
I agree with the principle of exponentially advancing technology. But I have yet to see a single compelling argument as to the implementation of it - simply repeating the mantra that since technology advances, it is inevitable, won't cut it. Valid, multiple, specific obstacles to the implementation of wide-spread commercial pax autonomous flight have been presented. Yet specific solutions to these problems are a little thin on the details. Sorry, but "Pilots, at least in airliners, are doomed" is simply an opinion masquerading as an argument. Weak.
If the technical hurdles are not "what we think they are", why don't you tell us what they really are, then? Since you imply you are "already doing it"!
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
-
Posthumane
- Rank 7
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
I never said that pilots in airlines are doomed. I think it's still a long way off before autonomous flights are allowed on civilian routes carrying even cargo, let alone passengers. What I'm arguing agains is the people saying that it's impossible because a computer can't do tasks x, y, and z that a human pilot is currently doing. Computers have not replace AIRLINE pilots, but there are computers flying aircraft with no human intervention, so computer have replaced the role of pilots in some very limited sectors of aviation. Yes, many UAVs crash often, but lumping all UAVs into a single category doesn't give an accurate represnetation of the state of the art as some UAVs have flown thousands of hours without incident. The RQ-4, as an example has 100k+ combined hours on their airframes (including international and trans-oceanic flights) with a very small number of incidents, not any more than many manned aircraft in their development phase. So while it's not me who is already doing it, it is being done by others, some of whom work down the hall from me (my research areas delve more into how to bring UAVs down ). Btw, the question was should we remove both pilots at once, or one at a time, when this technology makes it down to the civil airline segment.
Some of the main challenges, since you asked:
- Technical: One of the biggest challenges is sensing of a dynamic environment when operating in areas that have NO preparation or ground facilities. Most UAS that are being designed are for military use and tend not to operate to/from smooth runways with approach guidance. Many of them have to be launched from field expedient facilities and fly at low altitudes over complex terrain to carry out their missions. In manned flight this would be strictly VFR, which is much harder to cope with than IFR for a UAS. Humans have very well developed visual processing skills and do quite well in a visual environment, but when relying on guidance from things like nav-aids the information has to be converted into visual information which can be interpreted by a human. Computer navigation systems are the opposite - they do very well with many inputs from nav-aids and other electronic data, but accurate interpretation of optical information is difficult to do. Hence the reason why we have UAVs doing consistent perfect carrier landings when guidance is available, but certain landing scenarios which can be undertaken by a PPL holder (such as landing on a grass farm strip) are not as successful.
-Regulatory: In order for UAVs to be able to fly consistently within civilian airspace (as opposed to having individual flights approved, as has been done so far), they have to be able to fit into the air navigation system which includes a wide mix of aircraft. In order for UAVs to be included in this system they have to have a long, proven track record of being safe, which will take time. The fact that people lump 4 lb quadrotors and 15000 lb high flyers into the same category and determine that because there was a bunch of UAV crashes that they must all be unsafe doesn't help things.
-Public perception: similar to the regulatory issue, some people take a long time to start trusting new tech. This is especially the case when the tech threatens to alter their current life style. Every single time that something was set to be automated in the past there was great pushback from the people doing the tasks themselves with the argument that computers can't do it as well because they can't think/feel/perceive/etc.
Specific solutions to all of the problems that have been mentioned are thin because the problems are obviously not solved yet. If they had been then this discussion would never have come up since autonomous airlines would already have been flying. But not solved does not mean not solvable. Some of the issues mentioned have been solved to an extent, mainly things related to status monitoring of components, fuel state, etc. The fact that the FMS in a current airliner occasionally resets does not mean that the flight guidance system in a high end UAS also suddenly resets - systems are designed to be as robust and redundant as they have to be, and in airliners that isn't 100% because there are pilots on board to monitor and correct them.
And as to why I assumed Rockie lacks knowledge about technology development, it's the same reason he assumed (correctly) that I lack knowledge of airline ops. I don't work at an airline, and he doesn't work for a tech R&D organization. That and his assumptions that engineers work in a vacuum.
). Btw, the question was should we remove both pilots at once, or one at a time, when this technology makes it down to the civil airline segment.Some of the main challenges, since you asked:
- Technical: One of the biggest challenges is sensing of a dynamic environment when operating in areas that have NO preparation or ground facilities. Most UAS that are being designed are for military use and tend not to operate to/from smooth runways with approach guidance. Many of them have to be launched from field expedient facilities and fly at low altitudes over complex terrain to carry out their missions. In manned flight this would be strictly VFR, which is much harder to cope with than IFR for a UAS. Humans have very well developed visual processing skills and do quite well in a visual environment, but when relying on guidance from things like nav-aids the information has to be converted into visual information which can be interpreted by a human. Computer navigation systems are the opposite - they do very well with many inputs from nav-aids and other electronic data, but accurate interpretation of optical information is difficult to do. Hence the reason why we have UAVs doing consistent perfect carrier landings when guidance is available, but certain landing scenarios which can be undertaken by a PPL holder (such as landing on a grass farm strip) are not as successful.
-Regulatory: In order for UAVs to be able to fly consistently within civilian airspace (as opposed to having individual flights approved, as has been done so far), they have to be able to fit into the air navigation system which includes a wide mix of aircraft. In order for UAVs to be included in this system they have to have a long, proven track record of being safe, which will take time. The fact that people lump 4 lb quadrotors and 15000 lb high flyers into the same category and determine that because there was a bunch of UAV crashes that they must all be unsafe doesn't help things.
-Public perception: similar to the regulatory issue, some people take a long time to start trusting new tech. This is especially the case when the tech threatens to alter their current life style. Every single time that something was set to be automated in the past there was great pushback from the people doing the tasks themselves with the argument that computers can't do it as well because they can't think/feel/perceive/etc.
Specific solutions to all of the problems that have been mentioned are thin because the problems are obviously not solved yet. If they had been then this discussion would never have come up since autonomous airlines would already have been flying. But not solved does not mean not solvable. Some of the issues mentioned have been solved to an extent, mainly things related to status monitoring of components, fuel state, etc. The fact that the FMS in a current airliner occasionally resets does not mean that the flight guidance system in a high end UAS also suddenly resets - systems are designed to be as robust and redundant as they have to be, and in airliners that isn't 100% because there are pilots on board to monitor and correct them.
And as to why I assumed Rockie lacks knowledge about technology development, it's the same reason he assumed (correctly) that I lack knowledge of airline ops. I don't work at an airline, and he doesn't work for a tech R&D organization. That and his assumptions that engineers work in a vacuum.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
I would love to have you sit in the jumpseat on a flight between Toronto and New York during a snow storm hitting both places with high winds, contaminated runways and congested de-icing facilities. If you caught 1/10 of what was transpiring it would be a miracle, but even then you could go find a quiet room somewhere and contemplate the engineering challenges to replacing a human brain with a computer. You wouldn't know where to start.
Landing a drone on a carrier deck when the entire task force is focused on that one objective is childishly simple by comparison. And speaking about that, what are the chances somebody somewhere was sitting with their hand on some kind of abort button to destroy the drone in case it was heading out of control toward the carrier's island?
Landing a drone on a carrier deck when the entire task force is focused on that one objective is childishly simple by comparison. And speaking about that, what are the chances somebody somewhere was sitting with their hand on some kind of abort button to destroy the drone in case it was heading out of control toward the carrier's island?
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Yes, that would be challenging. And it is for human pilots as well. There are plenty of battered hulks scattered all over the landscape put there by bad decisions. There's one that just got dragged off runway 05 in Halifax. It appears that crew had new idea "where to start".I would love to have you sit in the jumpseat on a flight between Toronto and New York during a snow storm hitting both places with high winds, contaminated runways and congested de-icing facilities. If you caught 1/10 of what was transpiring it would be a miracle, but even then you could go find a quiet room somewhere and contemplate the engineering challenges to replacing a human brain with a computer. You wouldn't know where to start.
But this really shouldn't be a "man against machine" discussion. It should be a discussion of how automation can make flight safer and if ultimately total automation is possible. I'm hearing that the human brain is the one constant that must remain in the cockpit but it's being compared to current technology which (guess what) was designed to interact with a human pilot. Certainly a good pre-cursor but overall apples and oranges.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
There is no apples to apples comparison. You have not data to drive your conclusion
You're taking something you think might work on paper and saying the real solutions we have are obsoleted by your essentially utopian idea of what could be.
Airliners fly hundreds of thousands of hours for every accident that happens... that's real data.
How many hundreds of thousands of hours do drones fly per accident? No data.
I did a quick Google and I found a stat that 50% of crashes are pilot error. If you fully automate the aircraft 100% will be due to mechanical or electrical malfunction.
You're taking something you think might work on paper and saying the real solutions we have are obsoleted by your essentially utopian idea of what could be.
Airliners fly hundreds of thousands of hours for every accident that happens... that's real data.
How many hundreds of thousands of hours do drones fly per accident? No data.
I did a quick Google and I found a stat that 50% of crashes are pilot error. If you fully automate the aircraft 100% will be due to mechanical or electrical malfunction.
-
Posthumane
- Rank 7
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Just to clarify, which conclusion are you referring to? Is it the one that says "it's possible given enough development time"? There is data available for a given UAS, it's just not publicly available. SOME of the modern autonomous UAS are comparable in incident rate per flight hour as manned aircraft in the development phase which is what the most logical comparison is. Comparing a mature production aircraft to a high performance manned military aircraft in development would yield the same conclusions as the airliner to UAS comparison.DonutHole wrote:There is no apples to apples comparison. You have not data to drive your conclusion
You're taking something you think might work on paper and saying the real solutions we have are obsoleted by your essentially utopian idea of what could be.
Airliners fly hundreds of thousands of hours for every accident that happens... that's real data.
How many hundreds of thousands of hours do drones fly per accident? No data.
I did a quick Google and I found a stat that 50% of crashes are pilot error. If you fully automate the aircraft 100% will be due to mechanical or electrical malfunction.
Agreed.CID wrote:But this really shouldn't be a "man against machine" discussion. It should be a discussion of how automation can make flight safer and if ultimately total automation is possible. I'm hearing that the human brain is the one constant that must remain in the cockpit but it's being compared to current technology which (guess what) was designed to interact with a human pilot. Certainly a good pre-cursor but overall apples and oranges.
Rockie, I'll be happy to take you up on the offer to jumpseat. When do we go? Although while we're doing that, try to save the remarks about me being too stupid to comprehend 10% of what's going on.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Where did I say anything about your intelligence? You wouldn't catch 10% of what's going on because you don't have the background or experience to see the other 90% and I wouldn't have time to explain it to you. I'm sure you're quite intelligent in general and an expert in your own field.Posthumane wrote:Although while we're doing that, try to save the remarks about me being too stupid to comprehend 10% of what's going on.
It's usual in accident investigations to let the investigators find out what went wrong.CID wrote: There are plenty of battered hulks scattered all over the landscape put there by bad decisions. There's one that just got dragged off runway 05 in Halifax. It appears that crew had new idea "where to start".
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
What are you developing? Certainly not autonomous airliners.Posthumane wrote:Just to clarify, which conclusion are you referring to? Is it the one that says "it's possible given enough development time"? There is data available for a given UAS, it's just not publicly available. SOME of the modern autonomous UAS are comparable in incident rate per flight hour as manned aircraft in the development phase which is what the most logical comparison is. Comparing a mature production aircraft to a high performance manned military aircraft in development would yield the same conclusions as the airliner to UAS comparison.DonutHole wrote:There is no apples to apples comparison. You have not data to drive your conclusion
You're taking something you think might work on paper and saying the real solutions we have are obsoleted by your essentially utopian idea of what could be.
Airliners fly hundreds of thousands of hours for every accident that happens... that's real data.
How many hundreds of thousands of hours do drones fly per accident? No data.
I did a quick Google and I found a stat that 50% of crashes are pilot error. If you fully automate the aircraft 100% will be due to mechanical or electrical malfunction.
"Some planes that are absolutely nothing like airliners can do it on an extremely limited basis with a virtually unlimited budget propped up by the largest military industrial complex on earth and it as good as something totally different"
The most logical comparison is so far removed from what we are talking about it seems almost illogical to compare the two.
That's the argument I Am hearing.
You guys are the ones offering an oranges to apples comparison, you're taking a completely different set of variables and directly attributing them to the complexity and specialized nature of passenger carrying airlines. Saying something is possible is a lot different than actually having it happen... ask tesla.CID wrote:But this really shouldn't be a "man against machine" discussion. It should be a discussion of how automation can make flight safer and if ultimately total automation is possible. I'm hearing that the human brain is the one constant that must remain in the cockpit but it's being compared to current technology which (guess what) was designed to interact with a human pilot. Certainly a good pre-cursor but overall apples and oranges.
Last edited by DonutHole on Thu Apr 02, 2015 10:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Hes been doing it for years (implies your an idiot) so dont hold your breath. Frankly the black vs white anonymous your an idiot debating style is pretty sad. Thanks however for the interesting post. Sounds like an interesting task. I saw some algorithm work a few years on terrain following with minimum height deviations was pretty interesting.I'll be happy to take you up on the offer to jumpseat. When do we go? Although while we're doing that, try to save the remarks about me being too stupid to comprehend
I share your view on the sensor problem.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
To be clear.. we are not talking only about a jet that flies itself. We are Also talking about a shitload of ground based infrastructure that also has to have an extremely low rate of failure. The airplane that flies itself is just part of the problem.
-
Posthumane
- Rank 7
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Fair enough, I may have misinterpreted your tone. But since you have the time now, what kinds of things do you think a low class pilot would miss or not understand on a instrument approach to minimums? Are they things that are specific to airliner operation that wouldn't be relevant when doing the same approach in a smaller craft? Not trying to be argumentative, just curious and open to learning.Rockie wrote:
Where did I say anything about your intelligence? You wouldn't catch 10% of what's going on because you don't have the background or experience to see the other 90% and I wouldn't have time to explain it to you. I'm sure you're quite intelligent in general and an expert in your own field.
Perhaps. But built in controls and redundancies are made to a spec to account for a certain failure rate of equipment. The aircraft that are currently flying are doing so with infrastructure which has some failure rate, no different than manned aircraft. In fact, many of them are flying with much lower infrastructure requirements than airliners.DonutHole wrote: To be clear.. we are not talking only about a jet that flies itself. We are Also talking about a shitload of ground based infrastructure that also has to have an extremely low rate of failure. The airplane that flies itself is just part of the problem.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
That's only because they're not flying around hundreds of humans at a timePosthumane wrote:Fair enough, I may have misinterpreted your tone. But since you have the time now, what kinds of things do you think a low class pilot would miss or not understand on a instrument approach to minimums? Are they things that are specific to airliner operation that wouldn't be relevant when doing the same approach in a smaller craft? Not trying to be argumentative, just curious and open to learning.Rockie wrote:
Where did I say anything about your intelligence? You wouldn't catch 10% of what's going on because you don't have the background or experience to see the other 90% and I wouldn't have time to explain it to you. I'm sure you're quite intelligent in general and an expert in your own field.
Perhaps. But built in controls and redundancies are made to a spec to account for a certain failure rate of equipment. The aircraft that are currently flying are doing so with infrastructure which has some failure rate, no different than manned aircraft. In fact, many of them are flying with much lower infrastructure requirements than airliners.DonutHole wrote: To be clear.. we are not talking only about a jet that flies itself. We are Also talking about a shitload of ground based infrastructure that also has to have an extremely low rate of failure. The airplane that flies itself is just part of the problem.
The idea of having unmanned aircraft is to reduce the risk of exposure to dangerous situations to humans. Humans are too expensive to waste doing jobs that machines can do.
The whole paradigm shifts when the idea becomes moving people safely from one destination to another.
The whole idea of military drones is they are cheap and expendable.
Not so with airliners.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Have I implied you're an idiot yet?cgzro wrote:Hes been doing it for years (implies your an idiot) so dont hold your breath. Frankly the black vs white anonymous your an idiot debating style is pretty sad.
Posthumane: I never said you're a "low class pilot" either, although cgrzo may think I implied it. You simply don't have the experience which I'm sure you can appreciate. When I have more time I will try and explain some of the things that go on besides a straight forward approach to minimums.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
What a great post ..... lots of good thoughts to consider.
The US Navy has successfully demonstrated that they can remotely fly an F-47 off and back on to an aircraft carrier. With that kind of technology available today, pilotless aircraft are certainly possible and probable in the foreseeable future. Will they be as safe as aircraft with pilots? Probably not .... there will eventually be accidents and casualties. But here is my slant. Right now, when it comes to assigning blame and liability after an air accident, Pilot Error is a major consideration. With no pilots .... there can be no Pilot Error. Who would the lawyers go after? The remote operator/controller?? The computer manufacturer?? The aircraft manufacturer?? The Government?? TC and the all of the other Regulatory organizations always attempt to blame the pilot. The Pilots are used to this and keep the Lawyers busy making money by defending them in Court. With no pilots to blame, some one else will have to assume that liability (in the event of a an accident with no pilot). There will be snow balls in hell before the manufacturers, the Government or the airlines will accept that kind of liability. I can see a freight airline like Fedex or UPS operating aircraft with no pilots, but not with passengers. We have the technology available today to fly aircraft with out pilots. I doubt we have the will to deal with the liability issues.
The US Navy has successfully demonstrated that they can remotely fly an F-47 off and back on to an aircraft carrier. With that kind of technology available today, pilotless aircraft are certainly possible and probable in the foreseeable future. Will they be as safe as aircraft with pilots? Probably not .... there will eventually be accidents and casualties. But here is my slant. Right now, when it comes to assigning blame and liability after an air accident, Pilot Error is a major consideration. With no pilots .... there can be no Pilot Error. Who would the lawyers go after? The remote operator/controller?? The computer manufacturer?? The aircraft manufacturer?? The Government?? TC and the all of the other Regulatory organizations always attempt to blame the pilot. The Pilots are used to this and keep the Lawyers busy making money by defending them in Court. With no pilots to blame, some one else will have to assume that liability (in the event of a an accident with no pilot). There will be snow balls in hell before the manufacturers, the Government or the airlines will accept that kind of liability. I can see a freight airline like Fedex or UPS operating aircraft with no pilots, but not with passengers. We have the technology available today to fly aircraft with out pilots. I doubt we have the will to deal with the liability issues.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
I'm the one who said "pilots are doomed" and I might emphasize that point based on the general level of reading comprehension.
You cannot compare 'now' to the future. I base my opinion on the advance in technology that I have witnessed in my own lifetime.
The last couple of flights I did in a business jet, the weather was handed to me in the FBO, the flight plan was loaded in the FMS by datalink, I got to start the engines by selecting 'Start' and then run the checks, I had to drive the plane to the runway and brief the departure. I selected auto throttle on, released the brakes, compensated for the crosswind and rotated at Vr. Then, after cleanup, autopilot on. VNAV climb, FMS route, autothrottle for speed, VNAV descent, approach loaded automatically, oh right, I had to select the correct altimeter. Coupled approach, retarded throttles in the flare; I got to pull back a bit and hold it straight with the rudder, auto-brake. I got to taxi in and secure it, engine switches off.
If you do this all the time, it's boring and the biggest challenge is to keep the pilots interested. If you didn't do it too much it's groovy and exciting to fly brand new aircraft.
That's now, the technology is almost all here. If you are flying a 30 year old Airbus, the technology is not there and you haven't seen anything yet. WAAS, ADS-B, only scratching the surface.
One of the things you can do to compensate for your lack of reading comprehension is to open your minds!
Get used to the idea that we might be getting too big, too fast and too complex for a human to spend 12 hours a day to keep up with. We have been trained and conditioned to monitor computers as they do their job. It's what we expect. "What's it doing now?" The opposite situation and the system that works better for humans is for computers to monitor people but industry recognizes that we are too goofy and capricious, we tend to get hangovers and depressed, so the computer gets the job.
I'm convinced it will happen, just not sure when.
You cannot compare 'now' to the future. I base my opinion on the advance in technology that I have witnessed in my own lifetime.
The last couple of flights I did in a business jet, the weather was handed to me in the FBO, the flight plan was loaded in the FMS by datalink, I got to start the engines by selecting 'Start' and then run the checks, I had to drive the plane to the runway and brief the departure. I selected auto throttle on, released the brakes, compensated for the crosswind and rotated at Vr. Then, after cleanup, autopilot on. VNAV climb, FMS route, autothrottle for speed, VNAV descent, approach loaded automatically, oh right, I had to select the correct altimeter. Coupled approach, retarded throttles in the flare; I got to pull back a bit and hold it straight with the rudder, auto-brake. I got to taxi in and secure it, engine switches off.
If you do this all the time, it's boring and the biggest challenge is to keep the pilots interested. If you didn't do it too much it's groovy and exciting to fly brand new aircraft.
That's now, the technology is almost all here. If you are flying a 30 year old Airbus, the technology is not there and you haven't seen anything yet. WAAS, ADS-B, only scratching the surface.
One of the things you can do to compensate for your lack of reading comprehension is to open your minds!
Get used to the idea that we might be getting too big, too fast and too complex for a human to spend 12 hours a day to keep up with. We have been trained and conditioned to monitor computers as they do their job. It's what we expect. "What's it doing now?" The opposite situation and the system that works better for humans is for computers to monitor people but industry recognizes that we are too goofy and capricious, we tend to get hangovers and depressed, so the computer gets the job.
I'm convinced it will happen, just not sure when.
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
-
Posthumane
- Rank 7
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
I know you didn't say that, I said it. I didn't mean it in the "sub-standard" sense, I just mean I'm a pilot with lower class license and less experience than you. Looking forward to further discussion.Rockie wrote: Posthumane: I never said you're a "low class pilot" either, although cgrzo may think I implied it. You simply don't have the experience which I'm sure you can appreciate. When I have more time I will try and explain some of the things that go on besides a straight forward approach to minimums.
That is one reason to use unmanned aircraft, but it isn't the only one. There are several types of tasks that are usually focused on by makers of OEM, usually summarized as "dangerous, dirty, boring, precise..."DonutHole wrote:The whole paradigm shifts when the idea becomes moving people safely from one destination to another.
The whole idea of military drones is they are cheap and expendable.
Not so with airliners.
Unmanned vehicles replacing manned vehicles for dangerous jobs makes sense to most people, and it's one of the reasons that the military wants to use them for things like close air support. However, they are also used in roles such as long range high altitude surveillance, and not because that is a particularly dangerous job where a human pilot can't be risked. Nor is it because those systems are cheap, although obviously losing one is preferable to losing a manned aircraft with crew. Autonomous systems have an advantage in those kinds of tasks in that they don't suffer from fatigue, don't lose focus or precision with time, etc. If you need an aircraft to fly along a designated route for hours without any excitement, an autonomous system can be ideally suited for that task. The UAVs that are made to be cheap and expendable don't have any of the redundancies you would include in the high fliers or manned aircraft simply because that would drive up cost and weight.
The liability question is definitely on everybody's mind. At the end of the day though, there is still always going to be someone to blame. Someone made the decision that the aircraft is safe to fly that day along that route, or that it's safe to make that decision on it's own, and they will be held liable. I think it's a bit of a red herring though. Assigning blame to a scapegoat doesn't solve much. Blaming the pilot is only beneficial if the TSB can make recommendations to improve training or SOPs to reduce that risk. Otherwise, there is no benefit to the public. Airlines will find someone else to take the heat to keep themselves afloat.MacStork wrote:What a great post ..... lots of good thoughts to consider.
The US Navy has successfully demonstrated that they can remotely fly an F-47 off and back on to an aircraft carrier. With that kind of technology available today, pilotless aircraft are certainly possible and probable in the foreseeable future. Will they be as safe as aircraft with pilots? Probably not .... there will eventually be accidents and casualties. But here is my slant. Right now, when it comes to assigning blame and liability after an air accident, Pilot Error is a major consideration. With no pilots .... there can be no Pilot Error. Who would the lawyers go after? The remote operator/controller?? The computer manufacturer?? The aircraft manufacturer?? The Government?? TC and the all of the other Regulatory organizations always attempt to blame the pilot. The Pilots are used to this and keep the Lawyers busy making money by defending them in Court. With no pilots to blame, some one else will have to assume that liability (in the event of a an accident with no pilot). There will be snow balls in hell before the manufacturers, the Government or the airlines will accept that kind of liability. I can see a freight airline like Fedex or UPS operating aircraft with no pilots, but not with passengers. We have the technology available today to fly aircraft with out pilots. I doubt we have the will to deal with the liability issues.
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks here, the free market will decide.
Imagine Air Canada implements a two tier pricing scenario YVR to YYZ. With pilots, flight costs $500. Without pilots, flight costs $300.
At first, not much adoption. And then, a few happy customers on fare #2.. Then more, then more ;
Until finally the market has decided. On price.
Imagine Air Canada implements a two tier pricing scenario YVR to YYZ. With pilots, flight costs $500. Without pilots, flight costs $300.
At first, not much adoption. And then, a few happy customers on fare #2.. Then more, then more ;
Until finally the market has decided. On price.
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
Yeah, but you're replacing two pilots with an entire staff of engineers and the autonomous aircraft will be way more expensive.
The free market will land on airliners with pilots because they do the same job for less money
The free market will land on airliners with pilots because they do the same job for less money
Re: Which would be more dangerous?
The engineering staff already exists: they design aircraft systems. You will likely be able to replace 10 crews for each operator.
To me though, the advantages are beyond monetary; it will remove the biggest cause of accidents.
To me though, the advantages are beyond monetary; it will remove the biggest cause of accidents.
Going for the deck at corner
