Use of remote pilots in the future?

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general aviation plane? With SatNav readily available and with cameras on the nose of high end aircraft (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that such equipped GA aircraft with advanced glass panel avionics, fly-by-wire and night vision could not be remotely flown. (actually the fly-by-wire) is not totally necessary is it? The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled model aircraft.

Is there a push for this? I am not suggesting that passenger plane have no pilot, but is it not feasible for the co-pilot to be remote? The economics would be beneficial to the owner and safety would not be compromised if the remote pilot had full forward vision and and the same displays with all available information available via satcom.

Sing For Supper wrote:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

And the reason for doing this would be?

The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
aircraft is shot down.

The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Sing For Supper writes:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane?

Not that I'm aware of. What would be the advantage, at least for hobbyist
pilots, who fly specifically because they want to pilot the airplane
themselves by hand?

I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.

Sure, but why?

The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

Military drones are remotely flown because it prevents pilots from dying, and
for other reasons that are fairly specific to military use.

Is there a move for this? I am not suggesting that passenger plane have
no pilot, but is it not feasible for the co-pilot to be remote?

If one pilot is local, they should both be local, and vice versa. I don't
think remote control of airliners is in the cards at any time in the
foreseeable future, for reasons already stated, and also because of security
risks and the desire of passengers to make the pilots share the risk (a pilot
who risks dying if he makes a mistake may be more careful than one who's
sitting at a desk hundreds of miles away).

"Sing For Supper" wrote in message
...

Is there a move for this? I am not suggesting that passenger plane have
no pilot, but is it not feasible for the co-pilot to be remote?

Until unmanned airplanes can visually "see, avoid" other planes, and evaluate
other obstacles & hazards at least as well as a human pilot, the technology for
everyday civilian use of unmanned aircraft is not yet "here". The proponents
of general aviation UAV's see a simple solution to all this; simply legislate
other general aviation aircraft out of the sky. On the ground, human piloted
aircraft no longer represent a hazard to UAVs..

Vaughn

writes:

Sing For Supper wrote:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

And the reason for doing this would be?

The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
aircraft is shot down.

And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
(changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
additional crew).

The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.

Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Sing For Supper writes:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

From what I know of the physical connections from controls in the
cockpit to the control surfaces of what individuals fly as general
aviation aircraft, you can't integrate that kind of technology without
completely replacing the control interconnections. It's direct cables
mostly, from what I've seen.

Which would be hugely expensive, especially since it would probably have
to be certified for use in each specific airplane.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:

Sing For Supper wrote:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

And the reason for doing this would be?

The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
aircraft is shot down.

And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
(changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
additional crew).

The military has never cared much how much an aircraft weighes nor how
long the crews stay in the air.

Have you any clue how long SAC B52's used to stay in the air with one
crew?

And UAV's don't do acrobatics; why would they?

The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.

Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.

Police helicopters do not hover over suspects, they fly slow circles
around a point, just like you can do in a fixed wing.

Police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
airport.

The Maule M-5 used to be very popular among police departments that had
more common sense than money to throw away.

Flight Design has a police model LSA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Sing For Supper writes:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

From what I know of the physical connections from controls in the
cockpit to the control surfaces of what individuals fly as general
aviation aircraft, you can't integrate that kind of technology without
completely replacing the control interconnections. It's direct cables
mostly, from what I've seen.

Which would be hugely expensive, especially since it would probably have
to be certified for use in each specific airplane.

Off the shelf autopilots interface with the existing controls, but it is as
you say, expensive.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:

Sing For Supper wrote:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

And the reason for doing this would be?

The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
aircraft is shot down.

And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
(changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
additional crew).

The military has never cared much how much an aircraft weighes nor how
long the crews stay in the air.

Nonsense. They've pushed limits the civilians won't touch, but they've
been very concerned with fatigue effects on performance.

Have you any clue how long SAC B52's used to stay in the air with one
crew?

Very long of course, but the B52 was a bit more set up for it. Also
some of those missions were planned as essentially one-way when it
counted.

And UAV's don't do acrobatics; why would they?

Avoiding missiles and anti-aircraft fire. And in the future, possibly
using guns on other aircraft and UAVs.

The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.

Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.

Police helicopters do not hover over suspects, they fly slow circles
around a point, just like you can do in a fixed wing.

Not "over", of course.

Police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
airport.

I seem them hovering, or moving very slowly, quite frequently. No idea
what they're actually doing of course.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
writes:

Sing For Supper wrote:

Is there an effort to develop flight software and avionics integration
to allow for a remote pilot (using remote control) to co pilot a general
aviation plane? I with SatNav readily available and with cameras on the
nose (regular and night vision) there is really no reason that any GA
plane with advanced glass panel avionics could not be remotely flown.
The technology is all there and working in drones, radio controlled
model aircraft. An incorporation of fly-by-wire technology, satellite
communications and all computerized cockpits can be configured to be
remotely flown.

And the reason for doing this would be?

The reason the military does it is because no crew gets killed when the
aircraft is shot down.

And because the aircraft can be lighter, and can have a smaller
stealthier shape, and because the aerobatics possible aren't limited by
the G tolerance of an on-board pilot. Oh, and can stay up longer
(changing shifts of pilot on the ground, rather than either requiring
immensely long shifts by one pilot, or taking on even more weight for
additional crew).

The military has never cared much how much an aircraft weighes nor how
long the crews stay in the air.

Nonsense. They've pushed limits the civilians won't touch, but they've
been very concerned with fatigue effects on performance.

Yeah, that's why the standard tactic is to issure uppers to the troops.

Have you any clue how long SAC B52's used to stay in the air with one
crew?

Very long of course, but the B52 was a bit more set up for it. Also
some of those missions were planned as essentially one-way when it
counted.

Set up for what; have you ever seen the inside of a B52?

Once in the air it is a giant pain in the ass to do anything other than
sit in your seat and there are no redundant crew members.

And UAV's don't do acrobatics; why would they?

Avoiding missiles and anti-aircraft fire. And in the future, possibly
using guns on other aircraft and UAVs.

Pure fantasy.

The reason the cops want to do it is because they think UAV surveillance
is cheaper than manned surveillance but cops generally run helicopters
for manned surveillance so the whole issue is muddled as they could
save lots of money just by switching from helicopters to fixed wing.

Being able to fly slower than a running suspect is useful, isn't it?
I'd think a fixed-wing would have to lose sight and loop back and hope
to reacquire the suspect -- which mostly would fail fairly soon.

Police helicopters do not hover over suspects, they fly slow circles
around a point, just like you can do in a fixed wing.

Not "over", of course.

Meaning what, exactly?

Police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
airport.

I seem them hovering, or moving very slowly, quite frequently. No idea
what they're actually doing of course.

There is a big differnce between moving at all and hovering in the amount
of maintenance required on a helicopter, which is why it is avoided if
possible.

Howver, police helicopters very seldom hover or land anywhere other than at an
airport.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.