NEWS: Aviation's future -- pilotless planes

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 20:13:25 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote in ::

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 16:54:53 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

[...]
So in the opinion of FAA officials there is no need for UAV operators to
prove that they can safely operate in the NAS? Pilots have [to] prove they
can't. That's a ridiculous attitude for the federal agency tasked with
making flight safe. The very least that Congress should mandate is that
the UAV operators bear _sole_ responsibility for an Mid Air Collision
that may occur.

What would that possibly mean?

It might mean a lot of things. It could mean your estate won't have
to make tort restitution to the passengers you have aboard when the
UAV fails to see-and-avoid your flight. Or it could mean that those
directly controlling the UAV may feel some personal responsibility for
their actions. It could mean that our government is back to passing
balanced legislation that is fair, equitable, and just. Little
things...

If I'm dead from a midair with a UAV, what
difference does it make to me if the UAV operator is held "responsible"?

If the UAV operator knows he will be held responsible for the hazard
his UAV poses to airline and GA public transportation, he may choose
to be more prudent than if he and his UAV are held harmless from
responsibility for the hazard to flight they cause.

[Unless by "responsible" you mean "dropped from an airplane w/o a chute".]

While not as equitable as the sentence you propose above, in this
case, I think the UAV operators' personal financial responsibility
would be sufficient to elevate their level of caution.

Here's a question for you: How many of the 7 people that comprise the
team that operate the UAV are currently required to possess a valid
airmans certificate an medical certificate?

It is natural for pilots to disagree with anyone proposing to eliminate
their roles. As much as I like the sensation of being in control of an
airplane, I believe that computers can be designed to do a better job
than people. For that to happen, airplanes need to be designed and
built differently. ATC need to be designed and built differenty. It
would be a complete revamp of the system. I don't think it would be
possible to take your average Piper Cherokee and retrofit it for
pilotless flying and send it into a busy class B airspace controlled by
talking humans. The same will be true for airliners as well. This is
also why most pilots think of automated flight as being impossible.
They are thinking of the the conventional cockpit, and the amount of
human interactions that are required to make a safe flight. If one
could start with a clean slate, a much more efficient and better system
could be built.



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:04:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.

There is little question of the latter. Has anyone seen any proof of
the former?

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Would that be a result of the effort of lobbyists, or a genuine need
for UAVs? If the latter, I would like to see a cost justification.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.

UAVs can't even see and avoid other aircraft; how are crop dusting
UAVs going to avoid things like electrical wires, etc?

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote

I believe that computers can be designed to do a better job
than people.

That may be true, until the **** hits the fan. Then I want a biotec
computer there, to figure it out right, in the real time instant that will
make the difference between live and dead.

It is on the top of a torso, called the pilot, and the computer is called a
brain.

There does not exist, in this world, an infallible machine.
--
Jim in NC

A positive move would be to replace verbal communications with bit
streams. Receivers can convert the bit streams back to audio for your
enjoyment, but computer programs could process the info in addition.

Then we need to know if somebody can write a "pilot" program that
accepts comms, radar, weather, plane state, etc and makes sense of it
such it such that a plane can be controlled safely.


Andrew Sarangan wrote:
It is natural for pilots to disagree with anyone proposing to eliminate
their roles. As much as I like the sensation of being in control of an
airplane, I believe that computers can be designed to do a better job
than people. For that to happen, airplanes need to be designed and
built differently. ATC need to be designed and built differenty. It
would be a complete revamp of the system. I don't think it would be
possible to take your average Piper Cherokee and retrofit it for
pilotless flying and send it into a busy class B airspace controlled by
talking humans. The same will be true for airliners as well. This is
also why most pilots think of automated flight as being impossible.
They are thinking of the the conventional cockpit, and the amount of
human interactions that are required to make a safe flight. If one
could start with a clean slate, a much more efficient and better system
could be built.



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 08:04:06 -0000, Skywise
wrote in
::

From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.
There is little question of the latter. Has anyone seen any proof of
the former?

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.
Would that be a result of the effort of lobbyists, or a genuine need
for UAVs? If the latter, I would like to see a cost justification.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.
UAVs can't even see and avoid other aircraft; how are crop dusting
UAVs going to avoid things like electrical wires, etc?

The standing joke around Boeing was that flight deck automation would
proceed to the point where everything was so automated, all you needed
was one pilot and a dog.

The pilot is there in case something goes wrong.

The dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything...

Of course that is never likely to come to pass because the PETA folks
would have a fit over risking a dogs life like that...

Dean

Skywise wrote:
From http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/p....ap/index.html

Here's the opening paragraphs....

Aviation's future -- pilotless planes

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Pilotless planes could be the "next great step forward" in
aviation, or a new safety hazard in already crowded skies, a House panel was
told Wednesday.

Since 1997, unmanned aircraft have been used in U.S. airspace primarily by
the military. But now the government wants to fly more of them to patrol the
nation's borders, catch criminals, monitor the environment and assist in
disaster relief.

Some companies think pilotless planes have a vast commercial potential for
uses that range from crop dusting to weather prediction.




Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?