By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotlessplanes. [Archive]

Skywise

September 27th 05, 05:56 AM

" > wrote in
ups.com:

>>>>And if the plane runs out of fuel, the plane can be remotely flown by
>>>>an outsourced Indian
> pilot in a cubical in Bangalore<<<
>
> You mean "can be glided to a landing by said Hadji in cubicle in
> Bangalore" : )
>
> Even with triple redundant systems things can still go kerflooey... I
> can't imagine a commercial acft ever not having at least one pilot
> aboard. Maybe that'll be the next great cost savings for the airlines.
> Single pilot with Mr. Roboto for backup... or do I have that backwards?

Would the pilot be named Kilroy?

Besides, someone has to be there to give the computer the three
finger salute when the blue screen of death pops up.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Scott Cunningham

September 27th 05, 06:24 AM

Skywise wrote:

> Would the pilot be named Kilroy?

Nah, it'll be Hal Airlines. I can see it now:

"Good afternoon, Seattle Center. Hal 666 checking in at three-two-zero."

"Hal 666, ten right for separation."

"I'm afraid I can't do that, center."

Scott

Greg Farris

September 27th 05, 09:49 AM

Technologically, we're just one step away. As soon as clearances are
entered directly into the aircraft's navigation computer, via datalink,
instezad of having to be punched in by the crew, fully automatic
operation will be possible. This will reduce workload for controllers,
who will have direct command,and not have to waste time with
unpredictable human elements.

In reality though, I do not believe the day will ever come when there is
not someone physically on board the aircraft capable of flying it and
landing it safely. There's just no good reason why we would want to do
that.

Once the airlines get pilots' salaries down to bus driver levels, the
"full automatic" system could serve to free one pilot to help with cabin
crew duties, while the other monitors. Later still, the compliment may
be reduced to one pilot only, who, in the course of his normal duties,
never touches the controls.

We will always need someone though to take the blame if something goes
wrong. Pilots are so handy for that.

G Faris

Neil Gould

September 27th 05, 12:42 PM

Recently, Bob Fry > posted:

> Not my statement. See
> http://www.longbets.org/4
>
> What sayeth the group wisdom? I think eventually there will be
> pilotless aircraft, the question is when.
>
I say this will be obviated by the use of personal jetpacks and flying
autos. ;-)

People can dream, but we have far too many lawyers for this to become a
reality.

Neil

Garner Miller

September 27th 05, 01:34 PM

In article >, Skywise
> wrote:

> Besides, someone has to be there to give the computer the three
> finger salute when the blue screen of death pops up.

Heh:

http://www.neisg.org/Archive/2004/05Graphics/bluetooth.jpg

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=
http://www.garnermiller.com/

Gig 601XL Builder

September 27th 05, 02:18 PM

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Not my statement. See
> http://www.longbets.org/4
>
> What sayeth the group wisdom? I think eventually there will be
> pilotless aircraft, the question is when.

No way. considering the cost of aircraft and the liability of having
passengers it will always be cheaper to have someone there to watch over
things in the case of error.

N93332

September 27th 05, 02:39 PM

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> Technologically, we're just one step away. As soon as clearances are
> entered directly into the aircraft's navigation computer, via datalink,
> instezad of having to be punched in by the crew, fully automatic
> operation will be possible. This will reduce workload for controllers,
> who will have direct command,and not have to waste time with
> unpredictable human elements.

Why would there be controllers? If the system is more automated, the
controllers could be eliminated also.

Brad Zeigler

September 27th 05, 02:54 PM

"N93332" > wrote in message
...
> Why would there be controllers? If the system is more automated, the
> controllers could be eliminated also.

By the time we get rid of pilots, the controllers will be long gone.

[email protected]

September 27th 05, 04:47 PM

Greg Farris wrote:
> Technologically, we're just one step away. As soon as clearances are

Yeah, like the one step Neil Armstrong made.

> In reality though, I do not believe the day will ever come when there is
> not someone physically on board the aircraft capable of flying it and
> landing it safely. There's just no good reason why we would want to do
> that.

Exactly. Look at the JetBlue incident last week. A relatively simple
emergency but a whole chain of decisions needed to be made and executed
for the flight to end successfully. Now talk about engine failure, etc.
I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?

> Once the airlines get pilots' salaries down to bus driver levels, the

I suspect that if you compute pay on a seat basis (i.e. $salary per
person carried) that you're already there.

-cwk.

George Patterson

September 27th 05, 05:22 PM

wrote:

> I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
> less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?

Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It has a
problem if something comes up that nobody thought of -- like the Sioux City
accident, or if it doesn't have certain information -- like the closed airport
used by the "Gimli Glider." And, of course, it can't handle failure of itself
very well.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Jeroen Wenting

September 27th 05, 05:33 PM

Greg Farris

September 27th 05, 05:37 PM

In article <mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01>,
says...

And, of course, it can't handle failure of itself
>very well.
>

But then, human operators haev that problem too :
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19991011-0

Peter Duniho

September 27th 05, 06:36 PM

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01...
>> I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
>> less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?
>
> Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It
> has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of

The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
perfectly good airplanes.

I admit, I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I suspect that
human error in the cockpit causes more accidents than human novelty recovers
from.

This is the same reason that autopilot cars are a good idea, no matter how
offensive they may seem to some people. Yes, there will be failures of the
equipment. But that will happen MUCH less often than the failures of the
humans, and will improve the reliability and efficiency of our
transportation infrastructure at the same time.

Pete

peter

September 27th 05, 06:55 PM

P. Duniho wrote:

> This is the same reason that autopilot cars are a good idea, no matter how
> offensive they may seem to some people. Yes, there will be failures of the
> equipment. But that will happen MUCH less often than the failures of the
> humans, and will improve the reliability and efficiency of our
> transportation infrastructure at the same time.

Agreed. But the idea has been around for a long time without much
progress being made to implement it. I remember the GM pavilion at the
NY World's Fair in '64 where the diaramas showed the cities of the
future with computer-controlled cars all running smoothly along the
freeways. At that time I would have considered it a virtual certainty
that we'd have auto-piloted cars by 2000 if not much sooner. There
were demonstration projects in the '60s and there are still such
projects and research studies being done today, but I don't see much
evidence that they're much closer to reality now than they were back
then.

So even if all technical hurdles of pilotless airliners can be solved I
don't expect to see them in operation by 2030 or for a long time beyond
that.

Peter Duniho

September 27th 05, 07:03 PM

"peter" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Agreed. But the idea has been around for a long time without much
> progress being made to implement it.

I think it's possible it may NEVER happen. Culturally, especially here in
the US (but I think this is somewhat of a problem nearly everywhere), I
seriously doubt enough people could be convinced to relinquish control of
their cars to a computer. For the same reasons that they think that
spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to prevent a handful of
deaths from terrorists makes sense, they would rather be in control of their
own demise, even if it means that demise is more likely than if they gave up
control to a computer.

The average person just isn't all that good at evaluating risk and benefit.

> So even if all technical hurdles of pilotless airliners can be solved I
> don't expect to see them in operation by 2030 or for a long time beyond
> that.

Pilotless airliners likely will happen before cars, and I agree that "by
2030" is VERY optimistic. :) I don't know how old you were at the '64
World's Fair, but I fear you may not live long enough to see pilotless cars
OR airplanes, even if you live to 100 years. :(

Pete

Bob Noel

September 27th 05, 07:14 PM

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It
> > has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of

A computer can do a great job, if the solution is properly developed.

>
> The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
> inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
> perfectly good airplanes.

Another valid question is:

Would the effort required to develop hardware/software for pilotless
aircraft be more or less effective than the effort to develop hardware/software
to help protect pilots from error?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

John T

September 27th 05, 07:30 PM

wrote:
>
> I can't imagine a commercial acft ever not having at least one pilot
> aboard.

Actually, one pilot and one dog: The pilot is there to feed the dog and the
dog is to keep the pilot from touching anything in the cockpit.

(not mine, but I like it :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[email protected]

September 27th 05, 07:37 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
> news:mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01...
> >> I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
> >> less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?
> >
> > Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It
> > has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of
>
> The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
> inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
> perfectly good airplanes.

Looking at major air accidents in the US over the past 5 years I'd say
humans are doing awfully well. Aside from the AA airbus right after
9/11 (which has lots of question marks) it's not at all clear to me
that well trained pilots in modern airliners don't save more than they
cause. A fairly large chunk of Part 121 accidents involve maintenance
or systemic causes that a computer pilot would not presumably make any
difference with.

OTOH, fully-automated aircraft would probably make a huge difference
for GA safety, where pilot failure is the primary cause of accidents.

> This is the same reason that autopilot cars are a good idea, no matter how
> offensive they may seem to some people. Yes, there will be failures of the
> equipment. But that will happen MUCH less often than the failures of the
> humans, and will improve the reliability and efficiency of our
> transportation infrastructure at the same time.

Look at this for an idea of the state-of-the-art in robot cars. It's
pretty pathetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_DARPA_Grand_Challenge

OTOH, ABS and stability control, etc. have unquestionabaly made driving
much safer. Some high-end cars use forward-looking radar to sound an
alarm if you start closing in on the car ahead of you very quickly and
even cruise control which maintains a following distance rather than
fixed speed. Presumably this trend will continue much as an Airbus
today is a largely automated plane but with big decisions still made by
pilots.

-cwk.

Peter Duniho

September 27th 05, 08:36 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Looking at major air accidents in the US over the past 5 years I'd say
> humans are doing awfully well.

I'm not talking about restricting one's view to "major air accidents". In
any case, if you have actual statistics to refute my intuition, I'm all
ears. Otherwise, your intuitive view is no more compelling than my own (no
less either, granted).

> [...]
> Look at this for an idea of the state-of-the-art in robot cars. It's
> pretty pathetic.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_DARPA_Grand_Challenge

The DARPA event is a completely different scenario from a general
autopiloted transportation infrastructure. For you to use it as a
comparison is laughable. Instead, try the many successful demonstrations of
computer-driven cars on paved roadways with appropriate guidance technology.

Pete

george

September 27th 05, 09:29 PM

Bob Fry wrote:
> Not my statement. See
> http://www.longbets.org/4
>
> What sayeth the group wisdom? I think eventually there will be
> pilotless aircraft, the question is when.
In a word no.
Not passenger carrying aircraft.
It may well be that computorised flight systems become more reliable
but people have the capability to think outside the square using
previous experience.

Casey Wilson

September 27th 05, 10:49 PM

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> "George Patterson" > wrote in message
>> news:mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01...
>> >> I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more
>> >> or
>> >> less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?
>> >
>> > Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of.
>> > It
>> > has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of
>>

How about:

Pilots Battle Computer For Control Of 777

Stanley Kubrick couldn't have scripted anything more eerie than the
real-life odyssey of a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 that seemed hell-bent
on crashing itself on a trip from Perth to Kuala Lumpur last Aug. 1.
According to The Australian newspaper, the Malaysian flight crew had to
literally battle for control of the aircraft after something went wonky with
the computerized controls. The plane was about an hour into the flight when
it suddenly climbed 3,000 feet and almost stalled. The Australian Transport
Safety Bureau
<http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=767> report
said the pilot was able to disconnect the autopilot and lower the nose to
prevent the stall but the autothrottles refused to disengage and when the
nose pitched down they increased power. Even pushing the throttles to idle
didn't deter the silicon brains and the plane pitched up again and climbed
2,000 feet the second time. The pilot was able to fly manually back to Perth
but the autothrottles wouldn't turn off. As he was landing, the primary
flight display gave a false low airspeed warning and the throttles
firewalled again. The display also warned of a non-existent wind shear.
Boeing spokesman Ken Morton said it was the only such problem ever
experienced on the 777 but airlines have been told via an emergency AD
<http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/25F9233FE09B613F8625706C005D0C53?OpenDocument>
to load an earlier software version just in case. The investigation is
focusing on the air data inertial data reference unit (HAL for short?),
which apparently supplied false acceleration figures to the primary flight
computer.

Robert M. Gary

September 28th 05, 12:44 AM

Certainly techonology isn't a barrier, a lot can be done in 25 years.
The real question is whether or not pax will pay to ride in such a
device. I suspect they would

-Robert

George Patterson

September 28th 05, 12:44 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:

> I admit, I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I suspect that
> human error in the cockpit causes more accidents than human novelty recovers
> from.

I doubt that anyone has good statistics. People investigating a accident in
which the pilots don't survive are (or at least were) likely to declare it
"pilot error" anytime they couldn't figure out what went wrong. And if the pilot
survives, he's probably going to try very hard to hide any mistakes he might
have made.

There's also the tendency of the NTSB to blame the pilot for *something*, even
if the basic cause was beyond anyone's control. If the engine fell off, one
"cause" of the accident is likely to be "failure to maintain adequate clearance
from terrain."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Robert M. Gary

September 28th 05, 12:45 AM

> No way. considering the cost of aircraft and the liability of having
> passengers it will always be cheaper to have someone there to watch over
> things in the case of error.

But without the pilots you may actually have less crashes i.e. less
liability. Pilot error is already the number 1 reference of the NTSB.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary

September 28th 05, 12:46 AM

> Pilots Battle Computer For Control Of 777

I also remember when it took two people to fire up the Tandem mainframe
computer. Today PCs are more powerful than that old tandem. Don't fall
into the belief that things can't change a lot in 25 years.

-Robert

[email protected]

September 28th 05, 01:42 AM

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Certainly techonology isn't a barrier, a lot can be done in 25 years.
> The real question is whether or not pax will pay to ride in such a
> device. I suspect they would
>
> -Robert

Hopefully, Airbus fixes their nose-gear issue by then. And 380's
maintain cabin pressure:

"Joseph Mangan, 41, is a whistle-blower. As a result he and his family
find themselves in a foreign country with unfamiliar laws, fighting a
legal battle that has left them almost penniless.

A year ago, Mangan told European aviation authorities that he believed
there were problems with a computer chip on the Airbus A380, the
biggest and costliest commercial airliner ever built. The A380 is a
double-decked engineering marvel that will carry as many as 800
passengers - double the capacity of Boeing Co.'s 747. It is expected
to enter airline service next year.

Mangan alleges that flaws in a microprocessor could cause the valves
that maintain cabin pressure on the A380 to accidentally open during
flight, allowing air to leak out so rapidly that everyone aboard could
lose consciousness within seconds.
....
To discuss his case with The Times, Mangan took a five-hour train ride
to Munich, Germany, where the gag order doesn't apply. "I don't want to
destroy TTTech," he said. "But I still get nightmares of people dying.
I just can't let that happen."

To help pay living expenses and legal fees, Mangan sold his house in
Kansas. With only about $300 left in his bank account, Mangan missed a
Sept. 8 deadline to pay his $185,000 fine and faces up to a year in
jail. Next month he's likely to be called before a judge on his
criminal case.

The family expected to be evicted this month from their apartment, but
their church in Vienna took up a collection to pay their rent.

At the moment, Mangan is hiding out at a church member's home because
he fears he could be arrested at any time.
....The Mangans live day to day, not sure what will come next. If they
can't pay their rent, they hope to return to the U.S. to live with
Diana's parents in Ohio, although they have maxed out their credit card
and can't afford plane tickets.

Mangan is getting ready to file for personal bankruptcy.

TTTech has offered to drop its legal action against Mangan, court
records show, and pay him three months of severance, if he retracts his
statements. But Mangan has refused.

Mangan said he was looking for a new job. He has contacted dozens of
aerospace firms in the U.S. and Europe, but none have returned his
calls. "Nobody wants to touch me," he said."

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't Going...JG

Icebound

September 28th 05, 02:20 AM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> > Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of.
>> > It
>> > has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of
>
> A computer can do a great job, if the solution is properly developed.
>
>>
>> The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
>> inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
>> perfectly good airplanes.
>
> Another valid question is:
>
> Would the effort required to develop hardware/software for pilotless
> aircraft be more or less effective than the effort to develop
> hardware/software
> to help protect pilots from error?
>

You don't set out to build a pilotless aircraft immediately. That is why
Ford built a Model A before he learned how to build a Mustang Convertible.

Effective big systems evolve from effective small systems.

You keep adding automated decision support systems and automated control
systems, and automated planning systems, into the existing cockpit
environment.... and one day, you may wake up and realize: Hey, the pilot no
longer has anything to do.

*THEN* you build your pilotless aircraft.

[email protected]

September 28th 05, 02:42 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Looking at major air accidents in the US over the past 5 years I'd say
> > humans are doing awfully well.
>
> I'm not talking about restricting one's view to "major air accidents". In
> any case, if you have actual statistics to refute my intuition, I'm all
> ears. Otherwise, your intuitive view is no more compelling than my own (no
> less either, granted).

I assumed Part 121 and did mention that it would clearly be an
improvement for GA. But, let's look at just 121 for a minute:

Searching for domestic accidents since 1/1/2000, Part 121, with
fatalities, I find 14 NTSB records, 4 of which are from 9/11. The other
10:

6/05: Belt loader truck crash kills driver
10/04: 13 pax killed on a regional crash during approach in IMC.
Awaiting final report.
8/04: Convair 580 (freight) crash on approach kills 1 of 2 crew,
awaiting final report
9/03: Tug driver crashes into DC-9, is killed
1/03: US Air Beech 1900 crashes in Charlotte, 21 dead, maintenance
error
11/01: AA Airbus 300 crash due to rudder failure, pilot error (insert
alt. theory here)
8/01: Ramp agent walks into propeller, 1 dead
11/00: 1 FA killed when cabin door opened on ground before
depressurizing during evacuation, FA opened door and was blown out and
fell to the ground
2/00: Emery DC-8 lost with all crew (3) due to "A loss of pitch control
resulting from the disconnection of the right elevator control tab. The
disconnection was caused by the failure to properly secure and inspect
the attachment bolt"
1/00: Alaska Airlines MD-83 lost with all on board (88) after
stabilizer trim problem caused by improper maintenance

This leaves us with 6 actual aviation accidents, 3 of which are due to
mechanical/maintenance issues. 2 are awaiting the final report, but
pilot error looks like a safe bet. The AA crash is open-and-shut except
that I recall some debate that the pilot was in fact following the book
as written by AA. Still, I'll give that one to the computer.

What this analysis doesn't include is how many non-accidents we had due
to humans acting intelligently and non-computerish. Also, others might
protest that restricting this to US accidents in the past 5 years (an
unprecedentedly safe period) is cherry-picking my data. Fair 'nuff.
Still, it suggests that human flight crews properly trained can achieve
extremely high levels of safety.

> > [...]
> > Look at this for an idea of the state-of-the-art in robot cars. It's
> > pretty pathetic.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_DARPA_Grand_Challenge
>
> The DARPA event is a completely different scenario from a general
> autopiloted transportation infrastructure. For you to use it as a
> comparison is laughable. Instead, try the many successful demonstrations of
> computer-driven cars on paved roadways with appropriate guidance technology.

I gave a link for my argument. Now you try.

At best the things you speak of are capable of handling traffic flow on
the Interstate, and could make a difference. Preventing rear-endings,
lane drift, asleep at the wheel would be good. Of course, we could get
most of this benefit a lot more cheaply if we assumed the human was
still in control. Radar could be used to warn of cars slowing ahead,
and a guidance stripe painted on the highway could be used to provide
directional "assistance" and to alarm for instance if you started to
drift off the centerline without using your turn signal. (Ha! What
chaos that would cause in Boston...) This is something we could roughly
do with today's technology and automobiles and would not cost a
gogoobillion dollars to rewire our highways.

Once you get off the highway, the problem becomes pretty gnarly what
with pedestrians, interchanges of every kind, etc. Don't forget
generational problems where you have autopilot and non-autopilot
vehicles. We're having a hard enough time switching to HDTV so don't
try to tell me this would be straightforward. Actually, aerial
navigation is a much simpler problem. In any case, this just
underscores my point that "assistance" systems are a far cheaper and
more effective path to enhanced safety.

-cwk.

Morgans

September 28th 05, 06:27 AM

> wrote

> I suspect that if you compute pay on a seat basis (i.e. $salary per
> person carried) that you're already there.

Met and passed.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

September 28th 05, 06:54 AM

"peter" > wrote

> Agreed. But the idea has been around for a long time without much
> progress being made to implement it. I remember the GM pavilion at the
> NY World's Fair in '64 where the diaramas showed the cities of the
> future with computer-controlled cars all running smoothly along the
> freeways.

Most all of the systems have required that the roads have some kind of
technology installed, and until it is figured out who pays for it, we will
keep waiting.
--
Jim in NC

Montblack

September 28th 05, 07:34 AM

"Peter Duniho"
> Pilotless airliners likely will happen before cars, and I agree that "by
> 2030" is VERY optimistic. :) I don't know how old you were at the '64
> World's Fair, but I fear you may not live long enough to see pilotless
> cars OR airplanes, even if you live to 100 years. :(

Wonder which World's Fair showcased the first pilotless elevator?

Montblack :-)

george

September 28th 05, 09:25 PM

Peter Duniho

September 28th 05, 10:51 PM

"george" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
> saves a year.

You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
"pilot skill" saves, either. So what?

> And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
> it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
> spite of other factors.

Yes, it IS unfortunate that so many accidents turn out to be attributable to
"pilot error", and that in spite of other factors, the inspectors CAN still
attribute the accidents to "pilot error". Seems to me you're just making
the point that more automation would be good.

Pete

Jon A

September 29th 05, 12:28 AM

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:01:31 -0700, Bob Fry >
wrote:

>Not my statement. See
>http://www.longbets.org/4
>
>What sayeth the group wisdom? I think eventually there will be
>pilotless aircraft, the question is when.

Can't really say anything except it will give the airline pilots
something else to bitch about while they're home collecting their
checks!

Bob Noel

September 29th 05, 02:00 AM

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
> > it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
> > spite of other factors.
>
> Yes, it IS unfortunate that so many accidents turn out to be attributable to
> "pilot error", and that in spite of other factors, the inspectors CAN still
> attribute the accidents to "pilot error". Seems to me you're just making
> the point that more automation would be good.

That is not at all what George said.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Gord Beaman

September 29th 05, 02:12 AM

"george" > wrote:

>And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
>it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
>spite of other factors.

What an asinine statement to make...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

beavis

September 29th 05, 12:50 PM

In article >, Peter Duniho
> wrote:

> > The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
> > saves a year.
>
> You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
> "pilot skill" saves, either. So what?

I'll give you an example: We had an electrical short a few months ago,
causing smoke in the cockpit and cabin. First checklist item for us,
after putting the oxygen masks, is to shut off all electric power.

Had that been a "pilotless airliner," you *couldn't* shut off all
electric power, and the wire would have continued to burn. I doubt it
would have been as uneventful as it turned out with humans at the
controls.

Peter Duniho

September 29th 05, 07:14 PM

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Had that been a "pilotless airliner," you *couldn't* shut off all
> electric power, and the wire would have continued to burn. I doubt it
> would have been as uneventful as it turned out with humans at the
> controls.

I don't dispute that one can imagine scenarios where only a human would
help. I don't even dispute that a fully-automated cockpit (no pilot at all)
could still fail (and of course, would fail in ways in which a human never
would).

Your example is meaningless, as would any single example of some event. The
question is who would cause accidents more often: human beings, or
computers. Only a complete statistical study can answer that question;
individual experiences are irrelevant.

That said, the event you describe was most dangerous because of the smoke in
the cabin. A computer wouldn't care about smoke. Yes, the short would
likely cause some failure to other components, but I would expect any
computer-piloted aircraft to include various redundancies and
system-isolation features.

No computer would eat the fish for lunch, either.

To think that a computer couldn't have safely handled the event you describe
is to have a complete lack of imagination for what is possible.

Pete

george

September 29th 05, 09:17 PM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
> > saves a year.
>
> You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
> "pilot skill" saves, either. So what?
>
> > And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
> > it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
> > spite of other factors.
>
> Yes, it IS unfortunate that so many accidents turn out to be attributable to
> "pilot error", and that in spite of other factors, the inspectors CAN still
> attribute the accidents to "pilot error". Seems to me you're just making
> the point that more automation would be good.

No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.
Many pilots are aware of incidents in their own countries and at their
own airfields where accident inspectors get it wrong and the civil
aviation body of that country maintain the fiction.
Pilots learn from air accident reports.
If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
will always be doubted .

Peter Duniho

September 29th 05, 10:59 PM

"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..

Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.

> Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.

That's because so many accidents are caused by pilot error.

> Many pilots are aware of incidents in their own countries and at their
> own airfields where accident inspectors get it wrong and the civil
> aviation body of that country maintain the fiction.

So what? First of all, "many pilots" don't actually have the same
information that the accident inspector is working with. They are "aware"
of something based on their uninformed opinion.

Secondly, that position assumes that every accident attributed to something
OTHER than pilot error was correctly assessed. If inspectors are making
mistakes, they could just as easily make a mistake that would incorrectly
fail to blame pilot error.

Saying the one happens but not the other shows a pretty blatant bias.

> Pilots learn from air accident reports.

How do they do that if the reports are, as you appear to claim, incorrect?

> If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
> will always be doubted .

What's that got to do with computer-piloted aircraft?

Pete

Dan

September 30th 05, 12:11 AM

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "george" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
>
> Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.
>

They still put drivers in subway cars, we won't live long enough to see
commercial aircraft with no crew.

george

September 30th 05, 01:13 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
>
> Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.

Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
systems
>
> > Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.
>
> That's because so many accidents are caused by pilot error.

I do not know why you have this bias against pilots.
Are you envious?

> > Many pilots are aware of incidents in their own countries and at their
> > own airfields where accident inspectors get it wrong and the civil
> > aviation body of that country maintain the fiction.
>
> So what? First of all, "many pilots" don't actually have the same
> information that the accident inspector is working with. They are "aware"
> of something based on their uninformed opinion.

Read -very- carefully what I wrote and not what you have interpreted as
being what I wrote.

I have one incident that the Accident Report claimed pilot error.
The second enquiry negated the first on -new- engineering evidence

> Secondly, that position assumes that every accident attributed to something
> OTHER than pilot error was correctly assessed. If inspectors are making
> mistakes, they could just as easily make a mistake that would incorrectly
> fail to blame pilot error.
>
> Saying the one happens but not the other shows a pretty blatant bias.
>
> > Pilots learn from air accident reports.
>
> How do they do that if the reports are, as you appear to claim, incorrect?

Ahah. now you're getting it. See that wasn't hard was it....
>
> > If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
> > will always be doubted .
>
> What's that got to do with computer-piloted aircraft?

There you go again reading your own idea of some-one elses post

Peter Duniho

September 30th 05, 03:34 AM

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> They still put drivers in subway cars, we won't live long enough to see
> commercial aircraft with no crew.

I already agreed with that statement.

Peter Duniho

September 30th 05, 03:36 AM

"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
>>
>> Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.
>
> Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
> systems

Like I said, opinion. You're welcome to it, but don't go thinking it proves
anything.

> I do not know why you have this bias against pilots.
> Are you envious?

Ahh, yes...the old "I'm losing ground, so insult my foe" tactic. How's that
working for you?

> [...]
> I have one incident that the Accident Report claimed pilot error.
> The second enquiry negated the first on -new- engineering evidence

So what? That doesn't show a general problem.

Pete

Happy Dog

September 30th 05, 03:56 AM

"george" > wrote in
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> "george" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
>>
>> Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.
>
> Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
> systems

That's still an opinion. Got some proof. Or, at least, strong evidence?
What is the evidence that computers (of the future) will fail more often
than humans at the task of piloting planes?

m

cjcampbell

September 30th 05, 04:54 AM

Bob Fry wrote:
> Not my statement. See
> http://www.longbets.org/4
>
> What sayeth the group wisdom? I think eventually there will be
> pilotless aircraft, the question is when.

Hmmph. I was told in 1980 that by the year 2000 everybody would have
flying cars and personal rocket belts would be practical. Everything
would be run with nuclear power and we would have permanent colonies on
the moon and Mars. Disease and starvation would be a thing of the past.
Men would dress in tight jumpsuits and women in short skirts and
everyone would wear little space emblems. We would all eat food with
the consistency of paste. Robots would be in every household.

OTOH, I was also told that we would now be living in post-apocalyptic
society barely surviving a radioactive, half frozen world. Every nation
would be under totalitarian rule and war would be a permanent state of
affairs, as men dressed in battle armor fought it out with laser cannon
and robot tanks.

Maybe all those things will happen someday. Maybe it is all a question
of when. But given the track record of people being able to predict
things 25 years into the future, I am not going to hold my breath
waiting for pilotless airplanes.

Orval Fairbairn

September 30th 05, 05:05 AM

In article >,
"Happy Dog" > wrote:

> "george" > wrote in
> > Peter Duniho wrote:
> >> "george" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
> >>
> >> Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.
> >
> > Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
> > systems
>
> That's still an opinion. Got some proof. Or, at least, strong evidence?
> What is the evidence that computers (of the future) will fail more often
> than humans at the task of piloting planes?
>
> m

One term: "KISS" Keep It Simple, Stupid!

No controller has ever died from crashing his scope; likewise, no
programmer has ever died from his computer crashing.

Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.

Happy Dog

September 30th 05, 05:56 AM

"Orval Fairbairn" >
>> That's still an opinion. Got some proof. Or, at least, strong evidence?
>> What is the evidence that computers (of the future) will fail more often
>> than humans at the task of piloting planes?
>
> One term: "KISS" Keep It Simple, Stupid!
>
> No controller has ever died from crashing his scope; likewise, no
> programmer has ever died from his computer crashing.

That's not evidence.
>
> Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
> unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.

Like playing chess?

moo

george

September 30th 05, 06:15 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "george" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >> > No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
> >>
> >> Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.
> >
> > Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
> > systems
>
> Like I said, opinion. You're welcome to it, but don't go thinking it proves
> anything.

I have only ridden on one computorised rail system the Docks Light Rail
in London.
And they had so many problems they put staff back on....
>
> > I do not know why you have this bias against pilots.
> > Are you envious?
>
> Ahh, yes...the old "I'm losing ground, so insult my foe" tactic. How's that
> working for you?

You have spent time insulting pilots with the old 'blame the dead guy'
as the explanation for accidents..
It just isn't that simple.
Again , are you envious of pilots?

> > [...]
> > I have one incident that the Accident Report claimed pilot error.
> > The second enquiry negated the first on -new- engineering evidence
>
> So what? That doesn't show a general problem.

How many errors does it take before you'd say "Hey, there's something
not right" ?

Montblack

September 30th 05, 07:24 AM

("Happy Dog" wrote)
>> Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
>> unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.

> Like playing chess?

Thank you for flying JetBlue. Your captain today is Deep Blue. We will arive
at our destination in 47 moves ...unless of course the screen goes blue.

Montblack

Peter Duniho

September 30th 05, 09:16 AM

"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I have only ridden on one computorised rail system the Docks Light Rail
> in London.
> And they had so many problems they put staff back on....

So what? There are plenty of examples of poorly written computerized
systems. I'll give you another one, just because I'm so generous: the
Denver baggage handling system. That doesn't mean all computerized systems
are poorly written.

Again, you have offered merely opinion. No proof. Not anything even
approximating proof.

> You have spent time insulting pilots with the old 'blame the dead guy'
> as the explanation for accidents..

Insulting? Give me a break. It's the truth. Human error is a huge factor
in aviation accidents, generally. It's unfortunate you take it as an
insult, but it's not my fault you do. If you find yourself insulted, you
need to get a less fragile ego, or quit being a pilot.

> It just isn't that simple.

Just isn't what simple? It most certainly is *frequently* as "simple" as
the pilot screwed up. Of course, there are numerous ways to screw up, and
there are often contributing factors. But that doesn't mean the pilot
didn't screw up.

> Again , are you envious of pilots?

I have no idea why you ask that. Being a pilot myself, it makes no sense
that I might be "envious of pilots". Why would I be envious of myself?

Your line of questioning here is just plain stupid. And I mean that in the
most direct, unambiguous way.

> How many errors does it take before you'd say "Hey, there's something
> not right" ?

Certainly more than one.

Pete

cjcampbell

September 30th 05, 09:42 AM

Peter Duniho wrote:

>
> The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
> inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
> perfectly good airplanes.
>
> I admit, I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I suspect that
> human error in the cockpit causes more accidents than human novelty recovers
> from.
>

That question is really at the heart of a long-running difference in
design philosophy between Boeing and Airbus. Airbus favors greater
automation, citing the fact that most accidents are caused by pilot
error. Boeing favors greater pilot control over systems, saying that
the only reason system error has not caused more accidents is that it
has not had the opportunity to do so. The truth of the matter is, no
one really can claim to know which is better: at this point it all
boils down to emotion and marketing.

I think if pilotless aircraft are to become successful, they will first
be widely used by the military. As the public gains acceptance that
these aircraft are safe, then eventually commercial will follow. There
is a huge attitude problem to overcome. Heck, Australia doesn't even
want private pilots to share airspace with commercial airliners. Who
knows what regulators there and elsewhere would demand of pilotless
airplanes?

beavis

September 30th 05, 05:11 PM

In article >, Peter Duniho
> wrote:

> To think that a computer couldn't have safely handled the event you describe
> is to have a complete lack of imagination for what is possible.

I'm having trouble imagining how that computer could have run without
electric power. Backup battery? What if the computer was where the
fire was?

Had the short circuit continued, the cabin would have continued to fill
with smoke, and my passengers would have been dead. (Airline oxygen
masks are not sealed systems -- they mix with ambient air, and smoke.)

Computers have a LONG way to go before they'll be completely foolproof,
and intelligent enough to adapt to scenarios. I'm not saying it can't
happen, but I'm willing to bet it's going to take a lot longer than 25
more years.

Orval Fairbairn

September 30th 05, 06:11 PM

In article >,
"Happy Dog" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" >
> >> That's still an opinion. Got some proof. Or, at least, strong evidence?
> >> What is the evidence that computers (of the future) will fail more often
> >> than humans at the task of piloting planes?
> >
> > One term: "KISS" Keep It Simple, Stupid!
> >
> > No controller has ever died from crashing his scope; likewise, no
> > programmer has ever died from his computer crashing.
>
> That's not evidence.
> >
> > Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
> > unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.
>
> Like playing chess?
>
> moo

In chess, you have set, predictable moves and progressions of moves. In
aviation, you have an infinite number of those moves and progressions.
The chess problem becomes trivial in comparison.

Montblack

September 30th 05, 06:16 PM

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
> So what? There are plenty of examples of poorly written computerized
> systems. I'll give you another one, just because I'm so generous: the
> Denver baggage handling system. That doesn't mean all computerized
> systems are poorly written.

I've had a perverse pleasure watching that thing over the years. My sister
lives in Colorado so I've gotten a local perspective on the 'project from
hell' as well.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L52C545EB
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

<http://www.computerworld.com/managementtopics/management/project/story/0,10801,102405,00.html>
Problems with Denver's baggage system

My background is in (factory floor) production and warehousing:
Seasonal Pepsi plant (18)
Ford Assembly plant (18) ...and dumb. Didn't like working the 'chassis line'
so I quit.

Full time paper mill (19) Paid for some college, Dune Buggy, motorcycle,
car...

Hamm's/Stroh's Brewery (21) Ten years packaging and warehouse, QA

Throw in some (extra $$) school bus driving from 78-83 ...routing,
scheduling, independent decision making, mechanical issues, kids!,
parents!!, district office!!!

Yes. I think I could have fixed their baggage handling problems. :-)

Montblack
Overall, it was never 'really' a software problem.

Andrew Sarangan

September 30th 05, 06:40 PM

The human analog of your question is a pilot becoming unconsicous
during flight. Yes, we have a backup pilot, but there is no reason why
we can't put MANY backup computers and backup power sources.

Computers will never be fool proof, but they can be more reliable than
humans, especially in repetitive tasks. Like it or not, flying is a
repetitive task.

Peter Duniho

September 30th 05, 06:47 PM

"beavis" > wrote in message
...
> I'm having trouble imagining how that computer could have run without
> electric power. Backup battery? What if the computer was where the
> fire was?

From my previous post (you might try reading it):

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> That said, the event you describe was most dangerous because of the smoke
> in
> the cabin. A computer wouldn't care about smoke. Yes, the short would
> likely cause some failure to other components, but I would expect any
> computer-piloted aircraft to include various redundancies and
> system-isolation features.

You also write:

> Computers have a LONG way to go before they'll be completely foolproof,
> and intelligent enough to adapt to scenarios. I'm not saying it can't
> happen, but I'm willing to bet it's going to take a lot longer than 25
> more years.

We are there now. We have the engineering know-how to produce
computer-flown airplanes, including solving all of the various redundancy
and system-isolation issues to address issues such as the one you think is a
problem.

The problem is social. There's no way people will get on an airliner flown
by a computer. And you're right about that: it's going to take a LOT longer
than 25 more years for that to change. It may *never* happen.

Pete

Andrew Sarangan

September 30th 05, 06:52 PM

This reminds me of a movie I watched some time ago. Can't remember
which one, could have been 'Right Stuff'. The aircraft was designed to
fly without pilots, but for some reason they elected to have pilots in
the aircraft. But there were no windows for the pilots. So, the pilots
vehemently objected to it, and wanted to hand fly the aircraft. Then I
think there was some discussion of putting a monkey in the aircraft
instead of pilots. Any way, in the end the pilots won, and they had to
redesign everything with windows and controls. It went to show how
egoistical pilots can be. It is not a question of safety or efficiency.
It was mostly about ego. I believe that is still true today.

Bob Noel

September 30th 05, 06:58 PM

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> We are there now. We have the engineering know-how to produce
> computer-flown airplanes, including solving all of the various redundancy
> and system-isolation issues to address issues such as the one you think is a
> problem.

What we don't have is the ability to formally prove the correctness of software.
(which is not to say that humans always are correct).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Peter Duniho

September 30th 05, 08:00 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> What we don't have is the ability to formally prove the correctness of
> software.

We DO have the ability to prove "correct enough". That is, we have
engineering strategies designed to ensure correctness to some given degree.
These are the same techniques that were used for the space shuttle computers
(though, unfortunately, not for recent unmanned space probes), and similar
techniques are used for existing automation in aviation.

It's true that we don't have mathematical proofs for correctness. Of
course, it's widely believed we may never be able to have that. But
physical engineering suffers from similar limitations, and it seems to get
by just fine. Theoretical design can always be undermined by human
implementation, but there is an idea of "good enough" in both types of
engineering. You simply design in assumptions of human failure of
implementation.

I don't see this as a fundamental barrier to pilotless airliners.

Pete

george

September 30th 05, 09:36 PM

Happy Dog wrote:
> "george" > wrote in
> > Peter Duniho wrote:
> >> "george" > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
> >>
> >> Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.
> >
> > Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
> > systems
>
> That's still an opinion. Got some proof. Or, at least, strong evidence?
> What is the evidence that computers (of the future) will fail more often
> than humans at the task of piloting planes?
>
One example does come to mind.
The Lunar Lander computor/s that shut down on approach.

Happy Dog

October 1st 05, 03:16 AM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>> > Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
>> > unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.
>>
>> Like playing chess?
>
> In chess, you have set, predictable moves and progressions of moves. In
> aviation, you have an infinite number of those moves and progressions.
> The chess problem becomes trivial in comparison.

That makes two subjects you confirm knowing nothing about. But, anyway,
name some piloting challenges that can never be solved by computers.

I predict numerous mirthful responses.

moo

Happy Dog

October 1st 05, 03:17 AM

"george" > wrote in message
>> That's still an opinion. Got some proof. Or, at least, strong evidence?
>> What is the evidence that computers (of the future) will fail more often
>> than humans at the task of piloting planes?
>>
> One example does come to mind.
> The Lunar Lander computor/s that shut down on approach.

And pilots become incapacitated and planes crash on a regular basis. The
above isn't evidence.

moo

Arketip

October 1st 05, 12:24 PM

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> The human analog of your question is a pilot becoming unconsicous
> during flight. Yes, we have a backup pilot, but there is no reason why
> we can't put MANY backup computers and backup power sources.
>
> Computers will never be fool proof, but they can be more reliable than
> humans, especially in repetitive tasks. Like it or not, flying is a
> repetitive task.
>
Have you ever flown one of the new state of the art aircraft?

7 times out of 10 when you start up the aircraft you get some kind of
nuisance message or glitch, and like any computer you just go with the
old Control Alt Delete routine.
There are still too many computer glitches to even think to have
aircrafts without pilots.

Orval Fairbairn

October 1st 05, 09:48 PM

In article >,
"Happy Dog" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> >> > Computers are fine for solving routine, known problems -- it is the
> >> > unknown, nonroutine stuff that gets you.
> >>
> >> Like playing chess?
> >
> > In chess, you have set, predictable moves and progressions of moves. In
> > aviation, you have an infinite number of those moves and progressions.
> > The chess problem becomes trivial in comparison.
>
> That makes two subjects you confirm knowing nothing about. But, anyway,
> name some piloting challenges that can never be solved by computers.

And -- it confirms that "Happy Dog" knows nothing about aviation!

> I predict numerous mirthful responses.
>
> moo

1. stuck landing gear.
2. identifying asymmetric flap extension.
3. wake turbulence.
4. hijackers.
5. midair collisions.
6. birdstrikes.
7. lightning strikes (EMP will play havoc with the computer).
8. ice.
9. catastrophic engine failure.

Happy Dog

October 1st 05, 10:37 PM

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message news:
>> That makes two subjects you confirm knowing nothing about. But, anyway,
>> name some piloting challenges that can never be solved by computers.
>
> And -- it confirms that "Happy Dog" knows nothing about aviation!

Your musings about chess weren't exactly genius.

> 1. stuck landing gear.
> 2. identifying asymmetric flap extension.
> 3. wake turbulence.
> 4. hijackers.
> 5. midair collisions.
> 6. birdstrikes.
> 7. lightning strikes (EMP will play havoc with the computer).
> 8. ice.
> 9. catastrophic engine failure.

Nothing above is inherently impossible for a non-meat computer to handle.
Pick a couple and explain why if you feel differently.

moo

Les Wilson

October 3rd 05, 03:53 AM

With seniority and overtime, you'd be surprised at what city bus drivers
make. They drive Hummers and Lexus' - I drive a Ford Taurus.

>> Once the airlines get pilots' salaries down to bus driver levels, the

Les Wilson

October 3rd 05, 03:57 AM

Given the recent crash near Athens, Greece, and the Payne Stewart LearJet
incident... I'd say we have a long ways to go.

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> Not my statement. See
> http://www.longbets.org/4
>
> What sayeth the group wisdom? I think eventually there will be
> pilotless aircraft, the question is when.

Markus Voget

October 3rd 05, 02:44 PM

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:

> This reminds me of a movie I watched some time ago. Can't remember
> which one, could have been 'Right Stuff'. The aircraft was designed to
> fly without pilots, but for some reason they elected to have pilots in
> the aircraft. But there were no windows for the pilots. So, the pilots
> vehemently objected to it, and wanted to hand fly the aircraft. Then I
> think there was some discussion of putting a monkey in the aircraft
> instead of pilots. Any way, in the end the pilots won, and they had to
> redesign everything with windows and controls.

The movie title is correct, however the cited example referred not to an
aircraft but to the first manned American spacecraft, the Mercury capsule.

Greetings,
Markus

[email protected]

October 5th 05, 12:00 AM

Arketip wrote:
> Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
> > The human analog of your question is a pilot becoming unconsicous
> > during flight. Yes, we have a backup pilot, but there is no reason why
> > we can't put MANY backup computers and backup power sources.
> >
> > Computers will never be fool proof, but they can be more reliable than
> > humans, especially in repetitive tasks. Like it or not, flying is a
> > repetitive task.
> >
> Have you ever flown one of the new state of the art aircraft?
>
> 7 times out of 10 when you start up the aircraft you get some kind of
> nuisance message or glitch, and like any computer you just go with the
> old Control Alt Delete routine.
> There are still too many computer glitches to even think to have
> aircrafts without pilots.

The 70% failure rate is quite alarming. Have you discussed this with
the designers? What do they have to say about it?

In any case, I am sure a similar discussion once took place about
navigators in the cockpit. Present day computer technology is quite
capable of coming up with a pilotless aircraft. The technology is
here; it is a matter of correctly implementing it. However, to allay
fears, the first step will be a single-pilot aircraft, which I believe
is not too far in the future.

Neil Gould

October 5th 05, 01:17 PM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What we don't have is the ability to formally prove the correctness
>> of software.
>
> We DO have the ability to prove "correct enough". That is, we have
> engineering strategies designed to ensure correctness to some given
> degree. These are the same techniques that were used for the space
> shuttle computers (though, unfortunately, not for recent unmanned
> space probes), and similar techniques are used for existing
> automation in aviation.
>
> It's true that we don't have mathematical proofs for correctness. Of
> course, it's widely believed we may never be able to have that. But
> physical engineering suffers from similar limitations, and it seems
> to get by just fine. Theoretical design can always be undermined by
> human implementation, but there is an idea of "good enough" in both
> types of engineering. You simply design in assumptions of human
> failure of implementation.
>
> I don't see this as a fundamental barrier to pilotless airliners.
>
In the same vein, piloted airliners are "good enough". The number of
catastrophic losses are quite small in comparison to the number of
flights. There is no evidence that aircraft piloted by computer would fare
any better, much less signficantly better.

As I see it, the question isn't whether a computer can fly an airplane
from A to B, but whether it can handle the unanticipated problem
successfully. This amounts to being able to anticipate the opportunities
to fail, and the possibilities extend well beyond the ability to predict
them (the DARPA land XC example demonstrates that this may be an issue).
While computer-piloted aircraft may eventually be able to succeed "most of
the time", human-piloted aircraft have done so for quite some time. So, I
question the benefits of such an effort.

Neil

[email protected]

October 5th 05, 06:17 PM

As far as high jacking: I think that a pilotless plane would be more
secure. The designers could put in a code or something and make it
impossible for a hi-jacker to take control of the plane.

Of course he could still blow the damn thing up in mid-flight, but he
wouldn't be able to fly it into the WTC or such.

George Patterson

October 5th 05, 06:32 PM

wrote:

> As far as high jacking: I think that a pilotless plane would be more
> secure. The designers could put in a code or something and make it
> impossible for a hi-jacker to take control of the plane.

Given the demonstrated abilities of hackers, I think it might make hijacking easier.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Arketip

October 5th 05, 06:44 PM

George Patterson wrote:

> wrote:
>
>> As far as high jacking: I think that a pilotless plane would be more
>> secure. The designers could put in a code or something and make it
>> impossible for a hi-jacker to take control of the plane.
>
>
> Given the demonstrated abilities of hackers, I think it might make
> hijacking easier.
>

Quote

Then instead of having 3 or 4 hijackers taking 1 aircraft, we will have
1 Hacker taking over several aircrafts and flying them wherever he wants

Peter Duniho

October 5th 05, 06:51 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> In the same vein, piloted airliners are "good enough". The number of
> catastrophic losses are quite small in comparison to the number of
> flights. There is no evidence that aircraft piloted by computer would fare
> any better, much less signficantly better.

What would you consider "evidence"? It's not like we've got airliners
without pilots that we can use for comparison. There's no question
automation would avoid certain kinds of losses; the valid question (without
an answer for the moment) is whether human pilots balance that out with
actions that a computerized pilot could not take.

I am sure the pilots' unions will invest great resources in showing that
human pilots are better. But I'd just as soon see an independent source for
that analysis.

Saying "there is no evidence" may be true, but it doesn't answer the
question. It simply describes the current lack of information.

As far as "good enough" goes, that's a social issue. For the time being,
I'd agree things are "good enough", especially the distrust that the public
would have with an fully automated airliner. But long-term, airlines are
looking at two things, at least:

* Overall loss rate
* Cost of operations

Both of these affect their bottom line, and if they can save money by using
airliners without human pilots, they will. They will, of course, have to
take into account the effect making that change will have on ridership. But
if the airliners can convince the public that taking the human out of the
equation is safer, that won't be an issue.

Pete

Neil Gould

October 5th 05, 08:01 PM

Recently, Peter Duniho > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> In the same vein, piloted airliners are "good enough". The number of
>> catastrophic losses are quite small in comparison to the number of
>> flights. There is no evidence that aircraft piloted by computer
>> would fare any better, much less signficantly better.
>
> What would you consider "evidence"?
>
I meant "evidence" in a loose way, not as legally valid terminology. ;-)
So, any vehicle capable of operating autonomously over long distances and
time could provide some "evidence", one way or the other.

> There's no question automation would avoid certain kinds of losses;
> the valid question (without an answer for the moment) is whether
> human pilots balance that out with actions that a computerized pilot
> could not take.
>
> I am sure the pilots' unions will invest great resources in showing
> that human pilots are better. But I'd just as soon see an
> independent source for that analysis.
>
I see it a little differently. The contest is not between humans and
computer control a computer can fly an airplane autonomously from point A
to B. That's a ways off, considering the current state of AI.

> As far as "good enough" goes, that's a social issue. For the time
> being, I'd agree things are "good enough", especially the distrust
> that the public would have with an fully automated airliner.
>
I also don't see this as an issue of public trust, because the mindset
that we have about such things today is not relevant. By the time AI has
achieved the required sophistication to pull this off, I'd expect that
autonomous machines would be quite the norm and everyone would be able to
accept the introduction of autonomous airlines as the next logical step,
pun intended. ;-)

> But
> long-term, airlines are looking at two things, at least:
>
> * Overall loss rate
> * Cost of operations
>
I am skeptical that the overall loss rate would change much, for the
reasons I stated in my last post.

As for cost of operations, it seems to me that support for autonomous
aircraft would require an even larger and more costly infrastructure than
the airlines have now. Who is going to service and pre-flight these
systems? Considering the number of service stations capable of dealing
with the problems identified by the computers in our cars and the expense
of repair, I don't think the airlines can expect to save much (if
anything) by eliminating pilots.

Regards,

Neil

Greg Farris

October 5th 05, 11:14 PM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>I see it a little differently. The contest is not between humans and
>computer control a computer can fly an airplane autonomously from point A
>to B. That's a ways off, considering the current state of AI.
>

What AI?? The scenario you've just described is thousands of times simpler
than what happens every time you turn on your computer to check the
aviation ng. Taxiing is the only element in this scenario that is not
already fully automated, and performed better by machines than by people.
We only fly today to keep ourselves in practice, in case we "really" have
to fly "someday".

The question of pilotless aircraft is not a technical question. The
technical part is trivial. The question is when, and especially WHY would
we want to do such a thing? The revenue value of an airline flight makes
the cost of at least one pilot very small. Passengers will not want to fly
in an aircraft that does not have the ability to be taken over "in
extremis" by a human pilot, and insurance companies will never go for a
scenario where there is no hopeless sucker (especially a dead one) to take
the blame when something goes wrong.

G Faris

Morgans

October 6th 05, 04:59 AM

> wrote in message

> As far as high jacking: I think that a pilotless plane would be more
> secure. The designers could put in a code or something and make it
> impossible for a hi-jacker to take control of the plane.
>
> Of course he could still blow the damn thing up in mid-flight, but he
> wouldn't be able to fly it into the WTC or such.

Never again will a terrorist be allowed to fly a plane into a high value
target. The 4th plane on 9-11 proved that.
--
Jim in NC

Neil Gould

October 6th 05, 12:57 PM

Recently, Greg Farris > posted:

> says...
>>
>>
>> I see it a little differently. The contest is not between humans and
>> computer control a computer can fly an airplane autonomously from
>> point A to B. That's a ways off, considering the current state of AI.
>>
>
> What AI?? The scenario you've just described is thousands of times
> simpler than what happens every time you turn on your computer to
> check the aviation ng. Taxiing is the only element in this scenario
> that is not already fully automated, and performed better by machines
> than by people. We only fly today to keep ourselves in practice, in
> case we "really" have to fly "someday".
>
I suspect that you are confusing "autonomous" with "automatic". There is
no question but that machinery can follow programmed instructions
precisely (that is at the heart of CNC), however that machinery is not
making decisions in a greatly dynamic environment. In your example, the
location of airports are fixed, and it is a relatively simple task to have
a set of instructions that would get an aircraft from one to the other;
OTOH, taxiing is a dynamic environment, requiring informational
interaction and control based on mutually agreed decisions -- i.e.
autonomy. AFAIK, today's systems are incapable of that. Weather is also a
dynamic environment, one which every aircraft must contend with on every
flight; course deviations based on developing weather also require
autonomy. How do current-day automatic systems handle that? AFAIK, they
can't.

One point of the DARPA challenge (cited earlier in this thread) is to
create autonomous vehicles capable of simply getting from point A to B in
a dynamic environment. The results speak for themselves.

Regards,

Neil

Greg Farris

October 6th 05, 02:33 PM

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Recently, Greg Farris > posted:
>

>
>One point of the DARPA challenge (cited earlier in this thread) is to
>create autonomous vehicles capable of simply getting from point A to B in
>a dynamic environment. The results speak for themselves.
>

They do - and what they tell us is that navigating over uncharted terrain,
full of obstacles, is a challenge for land vehicles. Quite a different
challenge from taxiing across a few hundred feet of perfectly charted,
smooth pavement, custom designed to fit the particularities of your
vehicle!

If we really wanted pilotless airliners (and my argument is that we do not,
and will not, probably ever) it will be a simple matter to eliminate the
human-controlled taxiing phase. Simply towing the aircraft would be one way
to do it. Besides, ground operations are one of the most error-prone phases
of aircraft operations, usually because pilots misunderstand
instructions. So this would be a good candidate for automation, even
without getting rid of the pilots.

G Faris

Andre

October 6th 05, 05:45 PM

As was pointed out earlier, I think the issue is more social then technical.
We have UAVs that are towed to a takeoff point, a computer program lauches
and later lands the vehicle and a pilot sees what the plane sees via
satilite. The flight is carried out, 99% by the program put into the UAV
before departure and the "pilot" takes over only if they see something on
the ground that makes them want to take a closer look.

The military has already started to launch hellfire missiles from UAVs
flying in Afganistan on orders from someone looking at a TV in Washington.

Before 9/11 I got to sit in the cockpit of a Dash8 from TO to YOW. In
response to changes from the tower, the pilot just entered the change into
the autopilot and it did the rest. The pilot did not take the controls until
he was about 500 AGL on approach. If the controller could just click on the
aircraft on his screen, type in the new heading or alt. and the computer
would do it that might simplify everyone's job with fewer communications
errors. You might still get a few people killed getting the bugs out of the
system, like when they sent the lander to Mars with one subroutine working
with KM/min and the other subroutine working in miles/hour.

Mind you at that point the highjacker just has to capture a control tower
and send a bunch of aircraft into the same location and doesn't get to be
with a single virgin, let alone 70.

So we should be clear on what constitutes autonomous, what parts would the
plane control and where would the pilot be who can override the computer.

The problem is that society will not accept a pilotless plane because of the
what if factor. What if the computer failed, who will reboot it, what if the
weather goes bad, etc. And the old quetion seen in all airplane disaster
movies, "who is flying the plane"?

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >
> >Recently, Greg Farris > posted:
> >
>
> >
> >One point of the DARPA challenge (cited earlier in this thread) is to
> >create autonomous vehicles capable of simply getting from point A to B in
> >a dynamic environment. The results speak for themselves.
> >
>
> They do - and what they tell us is that navigating over uncharted terrain,
> full of obstacles, is a challenge for land vehicles. Quite a different
> challenge from taxiing across a few hundred feet of perfectly charted,
> smooth pavement, custom designed to fit the particularities of your
> vehicle!
>
> If we really wanted pilotless airliners (and my argument is that we do
not,
> and will not, probably ever) it will be a simple matter to eliminate the
> human-controlled taxiing phase. Simply towing the aircraft would be one
way
> to do it. Besides, ground operations are one of the most error-prone
phases
> of aircraft operations, usually because pilots misunderstand
> instructions. So this would be a good candidate for automation, even
> without getting rid of the pilots.
>
> G Faris
>

Neil Gould

October 6th 05, 07:17 PM

Recently, Greg Farris > posted:

> says...
>>
>> One point of the DARPA challenge (cited earlier in this thread) is to
>> create autonomous vehicles capable of simply getting from point A to
>> B in a dynamic environment. The results speak for themselves.
>>
>
> They do - and what they tell us is that navigating over uncharted
> terrain, full of obstacles, is a challenge for land vehicles.
>
Apparently, you missed the part where most of the vehicles also failed the
"charted" course. In other words, they failed because they were not
capable of functioning autonomously. Regardless of the notions, acting
autonomously in a 2D dynamic environment will always be easier than
operating in a 3D dynamic environment. It really is a problem based in the
limitations of AI; we aren't there yet.

Neil

Neil Gould

October 6th 05, 07:18 PM

Recently, Andre > posted:

> As was pointed out earlier, I think the issue is more social then
> technical. We have UAVs that are towed to a takeoff point, a computer
> program lauches and later lands the vehicle and a pilot sees what the
> plane sees via satilite. The flight is carried out, 99% by the
> program put into the UAV before departure and the "pilot" takes over
> only if they see something on the ground that makes them want to take
> a closer look.
>
(rest snipped for brevity)

All that has happened is that the pilot is outside the cockpit. The UAVs
are *not* acting autonomously, which is a pre-requisite for _pilotless_
operation.

Neil

Greg Farris

October 6th 05, 07:46 PM

In article >,
says...
>

>>
>Apparently, you missed the part where most of the vehicles also failed the
>"charted" course. In other words, they failed because they were not
>capable of functioning autonomously. Regardless of the notions, acting
>autonomously in a 2D dynamic environment will always be easier than
>operating in a 3D dynamic environment.

Euh - we were talking about taxiing - on the ground.
Now, imagine you have full control of all environmental variables. No rules
- you can do anything you want. Plough it flat, remove all obstacles, pave
it, put down wires,tapes, optical encoders every two inches - you can even
gouge a groove in it and put a pin in the nose of your vehichle if you
want.

Do you still maintain that the present state of our AI is not up to the
challenge?

G Faris

Neil Gould

October 6th 05, 09:01 PM

Recently, Greg Farris > posted:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>
>>>
>> Apparently, you missed the part where most of the vehicles also
>> failed the "charted" course. In other words, they failed because
>> they were not capable of functioning autonomously. Regardless of the
>> notions, acting autonomously in a 2D dynamic environment will always
>> be easier than operating in a 3D dynamic environment.
>
> Euh - we were talking about taxiing - on the ground.
>
I was talking about autonomous operation. It doesn't matter where that is.

> Now, imagine you have full control of all environmental variables.
>
No point, because that's never the case.

> No
> rules - you can do anything you want. Plough it flat, remove all
> obstacles, pave it, put down wires,tapes, optical encoders every two
> inches - you can even gouge a groove in it and put a pin in the nose
> of your vehichle if you want.
>
> Do you still maintain that the present state of our AI is not up to
> the challenge?
>
Look at the results of the DARPA challenge, and decide for yourself.

Neil

Stubby

October 6th 05, 09:42 PM

Neil Gould wrote:
....
> All that has happened is that the pilot is outside the cockpit. The UAVs
> are *not* acting autonomously, which is a pre-requisite for _pilotless_
> operation.

>
Right. The SALT II treaty forbids dropping weapons or launching
vehicles from _pilotless_ vehicles. But _remotely piloted_ vehicles do
not violate this restriction.

Greg Farris

October 6th 05, 10:16 PM

In article >,
says...

>>
>I was talking about autonomous operation. It doesn't matter where that is.

The thread is about airline operations without pilots. Not about
philosophical considerations of autonomous operation.

>
>> Now, imagine you have full control of all variables.
>>
>No point, because that's never the case.
>

If you're building an airport it is . . .

Neil Gould

October 7th 05, 02:46 AM

Recently, Greg Farris > posted:

> says...
>
>>>
>> I was talking about autonomous operation. It doesn't matter where
>> that is.
>
>
> The thread is about airline operations without pilots. Not about
> philosophical considerations of autonomous operation.
>
And, my point is that you won't have pilotless airline operations without
autonomous capabilities. It isn't a philosophical matter because the
evidence of today's capabilities is pretty clear. If you wish to suggest
otherwise, show some proof that it works in any kind of vehicle, anywhere.
The difference between autopilots and autonomous airline operations is
pretty significant.

Regards,

Neil

Greg Farris

October 7th 05, 07:50 AM

In article >,
says...

>>
>> The thread is about airline operations without pilots. Not about
>> philosophical considerations of autonomous operation.
>>
>And, my point is that you won't have pilotless airline operations without
>autonomous capabilities. It isn't a philosophical matter because the
>evidence of today's capabilities is pretty clear. If you wish to suggest
>otherwise, show some proof that it works in any kind of vehicle, anywhere.
>The difference between autopilots and autonomous airline operations is
>pretty significant.
>
>Regards,

I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups. Perhaps
you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)

You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
(human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
do.

To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster, because it
is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not making any decisions
by themselves, or very few. This, however, was not the point of the initial
thread, which was only concerned with removing costly, error-prone pilots
from airliners.

Perhaps you are not involved in aviation, or not aware of how the system is
organized. By the time a plane takes off, under an IFR flight plan, its
route has been scheduled, and the airspace is progressively cleared of all
conflicts. The FMS in the plane is programmed for the entire route, and it
is rare to have to deviate from this program. During the approach phase
though, significant decision making and clearance modifications are often
necessary - but the are buffers (holding patterns) built in, which machines
fly better than people anyway. If the air traffic control system (human or
machine) had the authority to write directly into the aircraft's FMS, then
the entire flight could be managed without a pilot, and would be less error
prone than the current system. We don't do so today for reasons of
responsibility - socially, legally and administratively it is not
acceptable today to remove this responsibility from the pilots.
Technically, it would not be a big step, and it does not involve artificial
intelligence.

My argument is that socially, this is not something we would accept today,
and I believe there are significant hurdles that argue against the initial
premise, which is that within 25 years we will all be flying in planes
without pilots.

G Faris

Neil Gould

October 7th 05, 12:51 PM

Recently, Greg Farris > posted:

> says...
>
>>>
>>> The thread is about airline operations without pilots. Not about
>>> philosophical considerations of autonomous operation.
>>>
>> And, my point is that you won't have pilotless airline operations
>> without autonomous capabilities. It isn't a philosophical matter
>> because the evidence of today's capabilities is pretty clear. If you
>> wish to suggest otherwise, show some proof that it works in any kind
>> of vehicle, anywhere. The difference between autopilots and
>> autonomous airline operations is pretty significant.
>>
>
> I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups.
> Perhaps you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)
>
Perhaps you're contributing from alt.rec.dream-on? ;-)

> You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't
> the point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that
> they have to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of
> us, it means they are controlled from the ground, with a level of
> human supervision and intervention scaled to the complexity of the
> task. This means, as you say, the pilot is not physically in the
> airplane. It also means that one 'pilot' (human or otherwise) can
> manage several airliners, and moreover manage conflict between them
> better than any one pilot in any one airplane could do.
>
Well, this is a shift to a slightly different approach, and adds both
complexity and unnecessary risk.

> To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster,
> because it is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not
> making any decisions by themselves, or very few. This, however, was
> not the point of the initial thread, which was only concerned with
> removing costly, error-prone pilots from airliners.
>
Your system of having remote pilots *increases* the potential for errors.
How many screens will the pilot have to watch to replace the simple task
of scanning (this isn't as simple as it sounds, either)? And, you want to
have one guy managing more than one flight? At the very least, this is not
likely to improve the loss rate, which would more than offset the cost of
the pilot's salary. Add to that the expense of maintaining the requisite
systems, and it's easy to see that the cost of operation would be higher,
not lower than today. How much will an A&P with a computer science degree
cost?

> Perhaps you are not involved in aviation, or not aware of how the
> system is organized.
>
The FAA is satisfied that I am involved in aviation by virtue of a
certificate and current medical. And, I pass my checkrides without
problems, so I suppose I understand, at least to some degree, how "the
system is organized". ;-)

> By the time a plane takes off, under an IFR
> flight plan, its route has been scheduled, and the airspace is
> progressively cleared of all conflicts.
>
Except for such things as developing weather (see the thread about XM
weather / Garmin 396), which is why we still have PIREPS, for example.

In short, *I* won't be flying on any airliner where the pilot is not on
board.

Neil

Arketip

October 7th 05, 01:04 PM

Greg Farris wrote:

>
> I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups. Perhaps
> you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)
>
> You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
> point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
> to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
> are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
> intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
> the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
> (human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
> conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
> do.
>
> To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster, because it
> is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not making any decisions
> by themselves, or very few. This, however, was not the point of the initial
> thread, which was only concerned with removing costly, error-prone pilots
> from airliners.
>

So you want to remove error prone pilot from the aircraft and put him on
the ground in charge of several aircrafts?

Gord Beaman

October 7th 05, 02:34 PM

Greg Farris > wrote:
snip
>
>My argument is that socially, this is not something we would accept today,
>and I believe there are significant hurdles that argue against the initial
>premise, which is that within 25 years we will all be flying in planes
>without pilots.
>
>G Faris

Well thought out and presented Greg...certainly food for
thought...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Chris Colohan

October 7th 05, 02:37 PM

Greg Farris > writes:

> You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
> point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
> to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
> are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
> intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
> the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
> (human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
> conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
> do.

Okay, let's accept that this system is built. What happens when
communication is interrupted? Radio failure is not an unheard of
event, is it?

In the case of communication failure, it would appear that you have
two choices. You could have the planes automatically go into a
holding pattern of some sort, or you could have the planes act
autonomously. If you went into a holding pattern, the planes would
have to be able to break out of the holding pattern and land
autonomously if they ran low on fuel or detected incoming weather.

Having a pilot on the ground remotely controlling the plane does not
remove the need for autonomous operation -- it just means that the
autonomous operation is only used during unusual situations. I
believe that handling these unusual situations are exactly parts of
the autonomous controller which will be the most difficult to design
correctly.

So, you are left with two choices: 1. Try to design a communication
system which is so robust that communication failure is virtually
impossible; or 2. Include some sort of autonomous system as a backup
for when communication fails.

Do I think this is impossible? No. Do I think it is quite hard to
get right? Yes. It certainly will take quite some time to get this
right enough to win the trust of the average passenger.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

Neil Gould

October 7th 05, 07:51 PM

Recently, Chris Colohan > posted:
[...]
>
> So, you are left with two choices: 1. Try to design a communication
> system which is so robust that communication failure is virtually
> impossible; or 2. Include some sort of autonomous system as a backup
> for when communication fails.
>
> Do I think this is impossible? No. Do I think it is quite hard to
> get right? Yes. It certainly will take quite some time to get this
> right enough to win the trust of the average passenger.
>
I completely agree, but as I wrote earlier, by the time this idea is even
a remote possibility, we'll have all kinds of autonomous machines running
around us, and we'll take it in stride.

Neil

george

October 9th 05, 08:37 PM

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Chris Colohan > posted:
> [...]
> >
> > So, you are left with two choices: 1. Try to design a communication
> > system which is so robust that communication failure is virtually
> > impossible; or 2. Include some sort of autonomous system as a backup
> > for when communication fails.
> >
> > Do I think this is impossible? No. Do I think it is quite hard to
> > get right? Yes. It certainly will take quite some time to get this
> > right enough to win the trust of the average passenger.
> >
> I completely agree, but as I wrote earlier, by the time this idea is even
> a remote possibility, we'll have all kinds of autonomous machines running
> around us, and we'll take it in stride.
>
I see that they ran the 'robot/remote controlled ground vehicle trials
again and some actually completed the course.
If they're that unreliable on the ground where you can stop and rectify
faults I don't think the possibility of pilots being removed from the
cockpit is going to arise...