Aircraft without pilots

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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"

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

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!

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

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

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