Aircraft without pilots

[Mxsmanic]

I'm just starting an appropriately-named thread for this topic, as it seems
like something worthy of discussion.

The specter of full automation replacing pilots entirely continues to loom
ever larger in commercial and military aviation. The old arguments against it
are beginning to ring quite hollow. It seems that it is only a matter of time
before aviation for any purpose other than its own sake will be automated for
reasons of safety and economy. The only question is: How long will it be?

I think that automation that effectively carries out an entire flight will be
with us long before pilots are actually removed from the cockpit. We are
almost there already, as even ordinary airliners can fly themselves to a large
extent from 200 feet above the runway on take-off all the way to rollout on
landing. A bit more automation can easily take care of the rest. However, I
also think that, given the proven versatility of human beings when it comes to
handling the unexpected and unanticipated, versus the catastrophic failure
modes of digital systems when they encounter the same, there will be pilots in
the cockpit until long after flights are fully automated, just to be on the
safe side.

Radio control of aircraft is another option, but I think it's a bad one.
There are too many ways in which the vital link between ground station and
aircraft can be interrupted. Even subway trains, which are vastly more
constrained in their behavior and are thus much easier to automate, still
continue to operate with local control within the train (human or computer) in
most cases. The problems with aviation are orders of magnitude greater.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I'm just starting an appropriately-named thread for this topic, as it
> seems like something worthy of discussion.
>
> The specter of full automation replacing pilots entirely continues to
> loom ever larger in commercial and military aviation.

So?

The old
> arguments against it are beginning to ring quite hollow.

Only to morons like you.


Bertie

[Whome?]

On 3/31/2007 6:04:45 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>I'm just starting an appropriately-named thread for this topic, as it seems
>like something worthy of discussion.
>
>The specter of full automation replacing pilots entirely continues to loom
>ever larger in commercial and military aviation. The old arguments against it
>are beginning to ring quite hollow. It seems that it is only a matter of time
>before aviation for any purpose other than its own sake will be automated for
>reasons of safety and economy. The only question is: How long will it be?
>
>I think that automation that effectively carries out an entire flight will be
>with us long before pilots are actually removed from the cockpit. We are
>almost there already, as even ordinary airliners can fly themselves to a large
>extent from 200 feet above the runway on take-off all the way to rollout on
>landing. A bit more automation can easily take care of the rest. However, I
>also think that, given the proven versatility of human beings when it comes to
>handling the unexpected and unanticipated, versus the catastrophic failure
>modes of digital systems when they encounter the same, there will be pilots in
>the cockpit until long after flights are fully automated, just to be on the
>safe side.
>
>Radio control of aircraft is another option, but I think it's a bad one.
>There are too many ways in which the vital link between ground station and
>aircraft can be interrupted. Even subway trains, which are vastly more
>constrained in their behavior and are thus much easier to automate, still
>continue to operate with local control within the train (human or computer) in
>most cases. The problems with aviation are orders of magnitude greater.
>

I think you need to double check the cockpit seal on your bedroom door. I
think you are suffering from some serious hypoxia.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 31, 7:04 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> The specter of full automation replacing pilots entirely continues to loom
> ever larger in commercial and military aviation. The old arguments against it
> are beginning to ring quite hollow.
....
> However, I
> also think that, given the proven versatility of human beings when it comes to
> handling the unexpected and unanticipated, versus the catastrophic failure
> modes of digital systems when they encounter the same, there will be pilots in
> the cockpit until long after flights are fully automated, just to be on the
> safe side.

What are the old arguments?

For ROUTINE flight, I'd say we're nearly there, technically. Given a
few more years to wring the bugs out of the software and spread some
more of the proper equipment around, it could probably be quite
reliable.

The larger problem, as you've mentioned, is what happens when
something goes wrong. First the FAA has to be convinced that the
systems can handle all the unforseen problems that humans could
handle. Then, a much bigger job, the public has to be convinced to
get on a plane run by a computer with no human pilots on board
(YIKES!! SCARY!!). I don't think that will be an easy sell.

I assume the airlines might like this because it eliminates their need
for expensive pilots, however if pilots (or pilot) are still needed
onboard to back up the equipment, then the cost savings, and therefore
the motivation, might disappear.

Now, on the other hand, there is absolutely no way a computer could
fly my Cherokee as well as I do; I refuse to believe it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What are the old arguments?

That computers lack some magic essence that only human beings possess, an
essence that makes it impossible for computers to handle seemingly complex
tasks such as flying a plane.

> For ROUTINE flight, I'd say we're nearly there, technically. Given a
> few more years to wring the bugs out of the software and spread some
> more of the proper equipment around, it could probably be quite
> reliable.

Yes.

> The larger problem, as you've mentioned, is what happens when
> something goes wrong. First the FAA has to be convinced that the
> systems can handle all the unforseen problems that humans could
> handle. Then, a much bigger job, the public has to be convinced to
> get on a plane run by a computer with no human pilots on board
> (YIKES!! SCARY!!). I don't think that will be an easy sell.

I wouldn't get on such a plane. In fact, I'd be even more reluctant than the
average person. I don't even trust fly-by-wire, especially the Airbus flavor.

Computers are completely reliable within the limits of their software. They
can easily be made reliable enough to carry out their instructions with
essentially 100% reliability. The problem is that the instructions are
written by human beings, who (1) make lots of mistakes when they write the
instructions, and (2) fail to foresee every possible situation in advance.
This latter fact is a problem because computers fail catastrophically when
they encounter situations that have not been anticipated in the design of
their software.

Knowing what I know after working with computers for many years, I wouldn't
trust a complete fly-by-wire system further than I could spit.

In fact, I'm amazed at how willing pilots are to entrust their lives to
something like a G1000, which cannot _possibly_ have been developed with
complete safety in the time it took to produce. I guess the glamour of having
that big screen in the cockpit is worth dying for.

> I assume the airlines might like this because it eliminates their need
> for expensive pilots, however if pilots (or pilot) are still needed
> onboard to back up the equipment, then the cost savings, and therefore
> the motivation, might disappear.

Not if the pilots work for a lot less money. You could train pilots to attend
to equipment a lot more cheaply than you could for flying the aircraft. You
could pay them no more than flight attendants.

> Now, on the other hand, there is absolutely no way a computer could
> fly my Cherokee as well as I do; I refuse to believe it.

A computer could fly your aircraft better than you can in normal conditions,
but not in exceptional conditions, because the latter would require software
development methods that simply don't exist today.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 31, 8:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> A computer could fly your aircraft better than you can in normal conditions,
> but not in exceptional conditions, because the latter would require software
> development methods that simply don't exist today.
>
I think part of my human role is to help keep the flight out of
"exceptional conditions"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> What are the old arguments?
>
> That computers lack some magic essence that only human beings possess,
> an essence that makes it impossible for computers to handle seemingly
> complex tasks such as flying a plane.

God you're an idiot.

Computers lack the magic essence known as reality, fjukktard., they
don't represent airplanes accurately and they won'd kill you unless you
stick your finger in the socket.

Why don';t you go do that?

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Mar 31, 8:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> A computer could fly your aircraft better than you can in normal conditions,
>
Probably, but I bet it wouldn't have as much fun!

[george]

On Mar 31, 11:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I'm just starting an appropriately-named thread for this topic, as it seems
> like something worthy of discussion.

It has been pointed out to you that there are no fully automatic
railway systems.
You claimed that there were and mentioned one.
When your claim was checked you were wrong as there are attendants on
each unit who are trained to take over and manually drive the unit
through whatever the emergency was...
Pilots will be flying, monitoring and controlling aircraft until the
end of aviation

[Gary[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Computers are completely reliable within the limits of their software.

Absolutely untrue. You've never heard of a hardware failure?

[Mxsmanic]

Gary writes:

> Absolutely untrue. You've never heard of a hardware failure?

I wasn't talking about hardware.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gary writes:
>
>> Absolutely untrue. You've never heard of a hardware failure?
>
> I wasn't talking about hardware.

That's because you're not a pilot, you're an idiot.


bertie

[george]

On Apr 2, 9:09 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gary writes:
> > Absolutely untrue. You've never heard of a hardware failure?
>
> I wasn't talking about hardware.
>
Riiiiight
Like your claim about automatic systems already in operation
It has been pointed out to you that there are no fully automatic
railway systems.
You claimed that there were and mentioned one.
When your claim was checked you were wrong as there are attendants on
each unit who are trained to take over and manually drive the unit
through whatever the emergency was...
Pilots will be flying, monitoring and controlling aircraft until the
end of aviation

[JB]

On Mar 31, 8:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>
> In fact, I'm amazed at how willing pilots are to entrust their lives to
> something like a G1000, which cannot _possibly_ have been developed with
> complete safety in the time it took to produce. I guess the glamour of having
> that big screen in the cockpit is worth dying for.
>
This has got to be the dumbest 2 sentences I have read...even from
you. Real pilots spend many hours learning how to interpret the
instruments they have and develop contingency plans for when
instruments/display systems fail. Even the most advanced aircraft
have a good ole' fashion wet compass and steam gauges in case displays
go dark.

--Jeff

[Mxsmanic]

JB writes:

> This has got to be the dumbest 2 sentences I have read...even from
> you. Real pilots spend many hours learning how to interpret the
> instruments they have and develop contingency plans for when
> instruments/display systems fail. Even the most advanced aircraft
> have a good ole' fashion wet compass and steam gauges in case displays
> go dark.

I'd venture to say that many pilots wouldn't know how to use those gauges if
they had to get by with them alone, especially the new breed of low-time
Cirrus-style pilots. They learn what they have to learn to get a license, and
then they forget.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Kev]

On Apr 1, 4:42 pm, "Gary" > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Computers are completely reliable within the limits of their software.
>
> Absolutely untrue. You've never heard of a hardware failure?

What he said is absolutely true, from the standpoint that as long as
software is only presented with events the programmer anticipated and
tested for, it's reliable. Beyond that, you're in test pilot
territory.

It's like some of the first FBW software, which didn't have any code
for unusual attitude recovery. Or, heh-heh, like that recent military
flight which crossed the date line and had most of their computers
stop working.

In any case, I suspect the thread is prodded a bit from all those NASA
future air scenarios where we get into a robot air taxi at your local
airport. Not me, not for a while!

Kev

[Bertie the Bunyip]

On 2 Apr, 23:11, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> JB writes:
> > This has got to be the dumbest 2 sentences I have read...even from
> > you. Real pilots spend many hours learning how to interpret the
> > instruments they have and develop contingency plans for when
> > instruments/display systems fail. Even the most advanced aircraft
> > have a good ole' fashion wet compass and steam gauges in case displays
> > go dark.
>
> I'd venture to say that many pilots wouldn't know how to use those gauges if
> they had to get by with them alone, especially the new breed of low-time
> Cirrus-style pilots. They learn what they have to learn to get a license, and
> then they forget.

How the fjukk would you know wannabe boi?

Oh, I forgot, you';re full of divine semen.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

kirjutas:
> On Mar 31, 7:04 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >
> > The specter of full automation replacing pilots entirely continues to loom
> > ever larger in commercial and military aviation. The old arguments against it
> > are beginning to ring quite hollow.
> ...
> > However, I
> > also think that, given the proven versatility of human beings when it comes to
> > handling the unexpected and unanticipated, versus the catastrophic failure
> > modes of digital systems when they encounter the same, there will be pilots in
> > the cockpit until long after flights are fully automated, just to be on the
> > safe side.
>
> What are the old arguments?
>
> For ROUTINE flight, I'd say we're nearly there, technically. Given a
> few more years to wring the bugs out of the software and spread some
> more of the proper equipment around, it could probably be quite
> reliable.
>
> The larger problem, as you've mentioned, is what happens when
> something goes wrong. First the FAA has to be convinced that the
> systems can handle all the unforseen problems that humans could
> handle. Then, a much bigger job, the public has to be convinced to
> get on a plane run by a computer with no human pilots on board
> (YIKES!! SCARY!!). I don't think that will be an easy sell.
>
The second is obviously easier than the first - at least sometimes.

Do you think it is safe to fly a plane where the copilot is alone in
the cockpit while the captain takes a toilet break?

FAA thinks it is. Passengers generally accept it, and do not insist on
third relief pilot when FAA does not require this.

Sometimes they are wrong. See Carole Lombard.

I think the story is that the captain left a DC-3 cockpit - allowed
and supposed to be perfectly safe - and stayed in cabin chatting with
passengers for some time.

The copilot, flying the plane alone for a long time, in poor weather
and mountainous countryside, got lost. And flew into a mountain.

Carole did not tell the captain to go back and mind where they were
flying.

There are plenty of incidents caused by cockpits not being sterile,
and pilot distraction. And there are plenty of pilots who flew in
nonsterile cockpits and got clean away with it, or who were caught and
punished without accident.

Now look at what happens when there are no pilots functioning at all.

Payne Stewart Learjet had double pilot incapacitation from hypoxia.
The plane did not promptly roll into a spiral dive when the pilots
stopped attending to controls - it kept flying till the fuel ran out.
Helios B737 also had double pilot incapacitation due to hypoxia. Again
no prompt spiral dive - the plane actually entered a circling holding
pattern when no one took controls in destination, and also dealt with
one engine failure.

There are also notorious cases of manned planes crashing because
deliberately left unpiloted. A certain American aviation pioneer,
around 1916, invented an autopilot. He also gave flying lessons - a
student of his was a lady (married to another man). Anyway, he had
enough trust in his autopilot - and she shared his trust - so that
they undressed and had sex. Unfortunately, they accidentally switched
off the autopilot - and crashed. Both survived (but did not have time
to get dressed again). Another couple, in 1970-s or so, were not so
lucky - both died.

How many people have either landed without incident and been snitched
on by witnesses, or got clean away with deliberately unpiloted planes?

> I assume the airlines might like this because it eliminates their need
> for expensive pilots, however if pilots (or pilot) are still needed
> onboard to back up the equipment, then the cost savings, and therefore
> the motivation, might disappear.
>
> Now, on the other hand, there is absolutely no way a computer could
> fly my Cherokee as well as I do; I refuse to believe it.

Is there any way a copilot could fly your plane as well as you do?

When could you trust your autopilot as much as to leave the cockpit
unattended for a toilet break while all alone aboard the plane? What
about, carrying passengers and leaving cockpit empty for a toilet
break, or for a Mile High Club break?