Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




TheFly
06-08-2017, 08:40 AM
Boeing studies pilotless planes as it ponders next jetliner | Reuters (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18Z12M)

"Airlines are among those backing the idea, in part to deal with a projected need for 1.5 million pilots over the next 20 years as global demand for air travel continues to grow."

It may not be here now, but it's on its way.


yeahbutstill
06-09-2017, 10:41 AM
Boeing studies pilotless planes as it ponders next jetliner | Reuters (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN18Z12M)

"Airlines are among those backing the idea, in part to deal with a projected need for 1.5 million pilots over the next 20 years as global demand for air travel continues to grow."

It may not be here now, but it's on its way.

Thats until some 16 year old in his mom's basement is able to hack into their systems and take control of the aircraft. :p

CrimsonEclipse
06-17-2017, 12:14 PM
Thats until some 16 year old in his mom's basement is able to hack into their systems and take control of the aircraft. :p

Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
:rolleyes:


C130driver
06-17-2017, 02:12 PM
Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
:rolleyes:

Oh Man I totally forgot, Airbuses are unmanned! Discussion over, you win! Pilotless airplanes next decade and UBI for everyone to follow.

UAL T38 Phlyer
06-17-2017, 02:17 PM
Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
:rolleyes:

Airbus: not connected to the ground via data-link.

What Boeing is proposing: data-link, either primary, or backup.

While scoffed at initially, it is now believed Iran did successfully hack into the data-link of a US drone, and either forced it to crash, or directed it to Iran. Either way, they captured it. (RQ-170; 2011).

If Boeing is proposing a fully-autonomous plane with no human backup, that will never fly (pun intended).

If it does have a data-link, it can probably be hacked.

tomgoodman
06-17-2017, 06:07 PM
Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
:rolleyes:

No need for that any more; they just hack your implanted chip.

Don't think you have one? Then it's working perfectly. :D

CrimsonEclipse
06-17-2017, 07:08 PM
Airbus: not connected to the ground via data-link.

What Boeing is proposing: data-link, either primary, or backup.

While scoffed at initially, it is now believed Iran did successfully hack into the data-link of a US drone, and either forced it to crash, or directed it to Iran. Either way, they captured it. (RQ-170; 2011).

If Boeing is proposing a fully-autonomous plane with no human backup, that will never fly (pun intended).

If it does have a data-link, it can probably be hacked.

I love all of the communications majors here.

Oh, and it will fly, it has flown.
Likely a flying wing or BWB variant as a military refueler/cargo plane followed by civie cargo followed by single pilot pax.

And stop using the RQ-170 as an example.
You don't know what happened and you're guessing.

UAL T38 Phlyer
06-18-2017, 04:00 AM
I love all of the communications majors here.

Oh, and it will fly, it has flown.
Likely a flying wing or BWB variant as a military refueler/cargo plane followed by civie cargo followed by single pilot pax.

And stop using the RQ-170 as an example.
You don't know what happened and you're guessing.

For the record: engineering background/degree/work experience.

Not contesting it can fly...that's demonstrated. What I do find unlikely is public---or even govermental---acceptance.

Global Hawk has a dismal record...it's why the U-2 has not been retired. 40% of the initial Block were lost due to mechanicals. In one case, it disappeared...and they never did figure out where it went.

The RQ170 is not my "guess;" it is the generally accepted explanation, by various technical accounts. One analysis said it was as simple as the Air Force didn't encrypt the datalink, because they didn't think it was an Achilles Heel.

Point being: Germanwings, Silkair, and Egypt Air will raise doubts about single-pilot without a backup. All forms of electronic communication can be exploited, given the right adversary, time, and tactics.

rickair7777
06-18-2017, 07:31 AM
I love all of the communications majors here.

Oh, and it will fly, it has flown.
Likely a flying wing or BWB variant as a military refueler/cargo plane followed by civie cargo followed by single pilot pax.

I agree, but it's going to take a lot longer than many people seem to think. At least 100 years, and that's probably on the low side.



And stop using the RQ-170 as an example.
You don't know what happened and you're guessing.

I do know what happened. The true story is more complicated, but does not bode well for autonomous aircraft in the near future. Bottom line autonomous aircraft carrying pax will need to be able to function in a TOTALLY autonomous manner, without relying on any help from the ground, because the EM spectrum is vulnerable on so many levels.

CrimsonEclipse
06-19-2017, 06:14 AM
"Pilotless planes is unpossible! Because eveeel Haxx0rs!"

So, they forgot to encrypt it?

"EVEEL HAXX0RS!!!!!

Sam York
06-19-2017, 07:20 AM
The pilot is still in the loop somewhere, just not in the cockpit.

I wouldn't mind turning a room in my house to a UAV office. Fly 2 PHL-BOS round trips in the morning then head to my hangar, pull the bug smasher out and fly to lunch. Yeah, I'd be interested. No driving to a big airport, no hotels etc.

C130driver
06-19-2017, 07:25 AM
The pilot is still in the loop somewhere, just not in the cockpit.

I wouldn't mind turning a room in my house to a UAV office. Fly 2 PHL-BOS round trips in the morning then head to my hangar, pull the bug smasher out and fly to lunch. Yeah, I'd be interested. No driving to a big airport, no hotels etc.

So where would the cost savings be if you're still paying for the pilot!? There would be zero economic or safety advantage to this. Give it a rest conspiracy theorists!

tomgoodman
06-19-2017, 07:33 AM
"Pilotless planes is unpossible! Because eveeel Haxx0rs!"

So, they forgot to encrypt it?

"EVEEL HAXX0RS!!!!!

Not "unpossible", but for passenger airliners, unwise.
You commit the hyperbole of which you accuse others. :rolleyes:

rickair7777
06-19-2017, 07:47 AM
"Pilotless planes is unpossible! Because eveeel Haxx0rs!"

So, they forgot to encrypt it?

"EVEEL HAXX0RS!!!!!

Well considered and articulate counterpoint.

Mesabah
06-19-2017, 09:20 AM
So where would the cost savings be if you're still paying for the pilot!? There would be zero economic or safety advantage to this. Give it a rest conspiracy theorists!You are looking at this completely wrong. There will never be a pilotless passenger aircraft. However, the automation will be such that a skilled pilot is no longer necessary, just a technician with a few weeks training. Pay will crater, as management can replace you the same way Northwest did with its mechanics.

TurboFanMan
06-19-2017, 09:42 AM
The ATC system is not setup to even deal with this technology. I highly doubt they would even sign it, do to the liability. Many many years before this would be seen imo.

rickair7777
06-19-2017, 11:54 AM
The pilot is still in the loop somewhere, just not in the cockpit.

I wouldn't mind turning a room in my house to a UAV office. Fly 2 PHL-BOS round trips in the morning then head to my hangar, pull the bug smasher out and fly to lunch. Yeah, I'd be interested. No driving to a big airport, no hotels etc.

This is actually more likely than pure autonomous airliners. Some cost savings since pilots could work more than one flight at a time. Perhaps instead of two pilots on one flight, you could have one pilot doing two flights (staggered departure/arrival times of course).

But the cost of a "secure" comms infrastructure would be vast and epic. It would be hard to get over that initial hump (who's going to make the investment) given the relatively small savings, which would only add up over a very long period.

All things considered, not any time soon.

Mesabah
06-19-2017, 01:59 PM
The ATC system is not setup to even deal with this technology. I highly doubt they would even sign it, do to the liability. Many many years before this would be seen imo.
A self driving car is orders of magnitude more complicated than an autonomous aircraft. That said, you will still need some kind of pilot on board for security, and data integrity monitor. I would put the odds of single pilot aircraft in the next ten years at 99%, the odds of a pilot-less aircraft is 0% in the next 50 years.

F4E Mx
06-20-2017, 06:27 AM
The airline executives said they wanted to operate it. They did not say they would be caught dead as a passenger on board. When one augers in their public relations firm will tell us how sorry they really are.

CrimsonEclipse
06-20-2017, 07:00 AM
The ATC system is not setup to even deal with this technology. I highly doubt they would even sign it, do to the liability. Many many years before this would be seen imo.

Privatize it then automate it.

It's the American way!

tomgoodman
06-20-2017, 08:34 AM
.... you will still need some kind of pilot on board for security, and data integrity monitor.

"Folks, this is your data integrity monitor. I don't fly, but just report when our data link has been hacked.
It has been hacked." :p

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BGDlZ1Thzrk

rickair7777
06-20-2017, 08:46 AM
I would put the odds of single pilot aircraft in the next ten years at 99%

We've had those since 1903.

Single-pilot airliners would require levels redundancy and autonomy which doesn't currently exist (the former could be bought, the later we just don't know how to do yet).

Or they need a secure and redundant datalink, the likes of which only one example exists that I'm aware of: command and control of nuclear capabilities.

Mesabah
06-20-2017, 08:51 AM
"Folks, this is your data integrity monitor. I don't fly, but just report when our data link has been hacked.
It has been hacked." :p

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BGDlZ1Thzrk
Needs more heavy foreign accent. "Fwoks, this is yo data intgwity monitoe. I don fwy, but weport whn data no gooo, I wrill bwe back to swerve yo drink soon"

Mesabah
06-20-2017, 08:59 AM
We've had those since 1903.

Single-pilot airliners would require levels redundancy and autonomy which doesn't currently exist (the former could be bought, the later we just don't know how to do yet).

Or they need a secure and redundant datalink, the likes of which only one example exists that I'm aware of: command and control of nuclear capabilities.The technology absolutely exists, and is mature, the problem is it doesn't integrate with the current ATC system at all. If you update the ATC system, you can dump one pilot. The second pilot is there to cross verify the flying pilot, you can move that function to the on board machine learning CPU, coupled to a ground based monitor. Aircraft will eventually go direct to every destination, and space themselves. In an environment like that, hand flying would be strictly prohibited. It wouldn't surprise me if they remove the yolk and rudder pedals in the Boeing 797. The pilot will have a tiller for the ground, and an autopilot FCP/FMS for inflight emergencies.

inverted25
06-20-2017, 09:54 AM
The technology absolutely exists, and is mature, the problem is it doesn't integrate with the current ATC system at all. If you update the ATC system, you can dump one pilot. The second pilot is there to cross verify the flying pilot, you can move that function to the on board machine learning CPU, coupled to a ground based monitor. Aircraft will eventually go direct to every destination, and space themselves. In an environment like that, hand flying would be strictly prohibited. It wouldn't surprise me if they remove the yolk and rudder pedals in the Boeing 797. The pilot will have a tiller for the ground, and an autopilot FCP/FMS for inflight emergencies.



I want what your smoking

Mesabah
06-20-2017, 12:03 PM
I want what you're smoking
We are on the cusp of a big movement in tech, things are going to happen rapidly.

rickair7777
06-20-2017, 06:29 PM
The technology absolutely exists, and is mature, the problem is it doesn't integrate with the current ATC system at all. If you update the ATC system, you can dump one pilot. The second pilot is there to cross verify the flying pilot, you can move that function to the on board machine learning CPU, coupled to a ground based monitor. Aircraft will eventually go direct to every destination, and space themselves. In an environment like that, hand flying would be strictly prohibited. It wouldn't surprise me if they remove the yolk and rudder pedals in the Boeing 797. The pilot will have a tiller for the ground, and an autopilot FCP/FMS for inflight emergencies.


The airplanes can "fly" themselves, that's not the issue. The issues are WX, irregular ops, and backing up ATC (they make mistakes too). Human judgement and flexibility can't be duplicated just yet...and nobody is even close yet, you can build an idiot-savant machine to play chess, or analyze vast amounts of data, but thye can't make machines that can be creative and exercise prudence at the same time.

Plus the systems integration issues...it has to be designed, integrated, and certified and there is no roadmap for any of that yet. Regulatory inertia and risk-aversion will cause more delays than technology readiness.

C130driver
06-20-2017, 08:07 PM
We are on the cusp of a big movement in tech, things are going to happen rapidly.

You and many others sound like experts on what is to come. Do you know something we don't know? Man it seems like a lot of you hate being a pilot so much you WANT this to happen. Newsflash, it's not happening in your lifetime! Sorry you'll have to go back to being paid to fly airplanes and travel the world, the horror. Sincerely: common sense.

C130driver
06-20-2017, 08:09 PM
The technology absolutely exists, and is mature, the problem is it doesn't integrate with the current ATC system at all. If you update the ATC system, you can dump one pilot. The second pilot is there to cross verify the flying pilot, you can move that function to the on board machine learning CPU, coupled to a ground based monitor. Aircraft will eventually go direct to every destination, and space themselves. In an environment like that, hand flying would be strictly prohibited. It wouldn't surprise me if they remove the yolk and rudder pedals in the Boeing 797. The pilot will have a tiller for the ground, and an autopilot FCP/FMS for inflight emergencies.

Does the technology exist to prevent Joe solo pilot from taking the controls and crashing into the ground (Germanwings, arguably Malaysia Air)?? Until it does, single pilot won't happen, at least for pax.

Mesabah
06-21-2017, 10:23 AM
Once again you all are missing the point, machine learning automation makes flying as easy as driving a car. The human element is NOT removed. In this environment, there is no reason to pay a pilot over $50K.


Second of all C130, why didn't the captain of the GermanWings flight stop the FO?

rickair7777
06-21-2017, 10:29 AM
Second of all C130, why didn't the captain of the GermanWings flight stop the FO?

Because the airline allowed the FO occupy the flight deck alone and to lock the CA out. Not all airlines allow that (IMO none should).

Mesabah
06-21-2017, 11:30 AM
Because the airline allowed the FO occupy the flight deck alone and to lock the CA out. Not all airlines allow that (IMO none should).
Yeah, that must be the reason.

CrimsonEclipse
06-21-2017, 06:47 PM
We are on the cusp of a big movement in tech, things are going to happen rapidly.

Pearls before swine.

Invest appropriately.

For instance, the people who shorted Tesla lost 5 billion dollars because electric cars will NEVER HAPPEN.

Money where your mouth is I guess.

360nki
06-26-2017, 08:41 PM
CrimsonEclipse

Is you job background one in tech/engineering?

TheFly
06-26-2017, 08:55 PM
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/technical/103937-boeing-invests-ai-company.html

esa17
06-27-2017, 12:31 AM
I love these threads. All the unmanned experts that got their Intel out of the terminator movies come out of the woodwork.

We, absolutely, will see single pilot 121 operations within 25 years.

CrimsonEclipse
06-27-2017, 12:38 AM
CrimsonEclipse

Is you job background one in tech/engineering?

Yep! Avionics, signals, etc.

BoilerUP
06-27-2017, 12:50 AM
We, absolutely, will see single pilot 121 operations within 25 years.


You'll see single-pilot heavy military transports and Part 91-operated business jets WELL before you see single-piloted transport aircraft operating under 121...and after decades of single-pilot FAR 23 light jets, there still aren't any single-pilot certified FAR 25 bizjets.


25 years is an eternity in this business so we'll see...but I'll not yet be 60 in two and a half decades and I'm not concerned it.

esa17
06-27-2017, 03:41 AM
You'll see single-pilot heavy military transports and Part 91-operated business jets WELL before you see single-piloted transport aircraft operating under 121...and after decades of single-pilot FAR 23 light jets, there still aren't any single-pilot certified FAR 25 bizjets.


25 years is an eternity in this business so we'll see...but I'll not yet be 60 in two and a half decades and I'm not concerned it.
I suspect the frieght ops will be the first place they show up, on the civilian side.

As much as people say: "I'll never trust a computer with my life." They're just spouting off, that psychological leap has already been made. Autopilots in cars was pretty much the final thing that needed to happen before the public is ready to board and single pilot, data-linked aircraft. As soon as the accountants and insurance agents can justify it you'll see it start to happen.

Mesabah
06-27-2017, 01:38 PM
Honestly, I don't see self driving cars as happening in our lifetimes. There are simply too many variables that have to be processed, and decided upon too quickly, in an uncontrolled environment, for it to be viable. People want to get drunk, and then have their car drive them home, and that isn't going to happen.

A self flying aircraft however, is enormously simplistic to make. I even have my own that I built last year, you just program in waypoints, and it flies itself. You don't remove the pilot from the equation, and self flying aircraft will generate a series of optimized routes, and the human technician decides which one the aircraft flies. The reason we can't do this now, is because the ATC system requires cross verification of instructions, that a computer simply can't do. Furthermore, the ground based navigation systems are too unreliable to use as a reference, this is simply replaced with on board navigation based on doppler shift lidar. All of this can be retrofitted.

The reason I say we will see single pilot soon is because the aircraft are already made, and currently in service, they just need FAA certification to remove one pilot.

C130driver
06-27-2017, 07:56 PM
Honestly, I don't see self driving cars as happening in our lifetimes. There are simply too many variables that have to be processed, and decided upon too quickly, in an uncontrolled environment, for it to be viable. People want to get drunk, and then have their car drive them home, and that isn't going to happen.

A self flying aircraft however, is enormously simplistic to make. I even have my own that I built last year, you just program in waypoints, and it flies itself. You don't remove the pilot from the equation, and self flying aircraft will generate a series of optimized routes, and the human technician decides which one the aircraft flies. The reason we can't do this now, is because the ATC system requires cross verification of instructions, that a computer simply can't do. Furthermore, the ground based navigation systems are too unreliable to use as a reference, this is simply replaced with on board navigation based on doppler shift lidar. All of this can be retrofitted.

The reason I say we will see single pilot soon is because the aircraft are already made, and currently in service, they just need FAA certification to remove one pilot.

Yes it's that simple.....newsflash, it's not. Your forgetting one thing in your simplistic calculus: emergencies, decision making, judgement, you know the things we are paid for. If you are still paying pilots to sit remotely and fly them you are not garnering nearly enough cost savings to offset the initial investments and risks. RPAs in the Air Force are a ****show in point to point but they are allowed because they do a good job blowing up bad guys and no one blinks an eye when an Air Force jet let alone RPA gets lost or crashes. When an "autonomous airliner" crashes, especially with people aboard? You get the picture.

Mesabah
06-27-2017, 10:27 PM
Yes it's that simple.....newsflash, it's not. Your forgetting one thing in your simplistic calculus: emergencies, decision making, judgement, you know the things we are paid for. If you are still paying pilots to sit remotely and fly them you are not garnering nearly enough cost savings to offset the initial investments and risks. RPAs in the Air Force are a ****show in point to point but they are allowed because they do a good job blowing up bad guys and no one blinks an eye when an Air Force jet let alone RPA gets lost or crashes. When an "autonomous airliner" crashes, especially with people aboard? You get the picture.
Remote piloted vehicles have nothing to do with single pilot technology. You need to think of it as a current Airbus with an autopilot that can visually acquire flight data.

esa17
06-28-2017, 06:02 AM
Yes it's that simple.....newsflash, it's not. Your forgetting one thing in your simplistic calculus: emergencies, decision making, judgement, you know the things we are paid for. If you are still paying pilots to sit remotely and fly them you are not garnering nearly enough cost savings to offset the initial investments and risks. RPAs in the Air Force are a ****show in point to point but they are allowed because they do a good job blowing up bad guys and no one blinks an eye when an Air Force jet let alone RPA gets lost or crashes. When an "autonomous airliner" crashes, especially with people aboard? You get the picture.

The vast majority of unmanned aircraft issues are caused by the same thing that causes manned pilot issues: pilot error. The tech is already in place and proven. Flying off on their own is a very insignificant number of losses. Lets be frank about one more thing: Military operations, by in large, involve a larger element of risk than civilian operations. Of course you're going to have a higher loss rate when your margin for error is smaller.

The only time I've ever had an issue with an unmanned aircraft getting too close to a manned asset was because some cowboy Kiowa driver decided he was cleared into my airspace when he wasn't. It happened a crap ton, that's not the fault of a computer.

But having said all that you're a bit off in the weeds. No one, certainly not me, is saying that there will be unmanned 121 operations in our life time. You'll simply have a pilot backed up by a GCS so that the human on board can flex to all the variables you mentioned. Instead of having a spiky haired back pack carrying punk sitting next to the PIC you'll have a dispatcher on the ground backing up half a dozen or so flights. When things go sideways they'll be able to step in and assist or take over if required.

Bandwidth is the single limiting factor right now due to the high cost of SATCOM data-links. That's going to change with the proliferation of private space flights combined with the much lower usage requirements of civilian assets. An airliner doesn't have the need to transmit high-value high-resolution imagery or SIGINT telemetry back to the home base. All they really require is a cockpit webcam and basic telemetry data.

C130driver
06-28-2017, 06:59 PM
"The vast majority of unmanned aircraft issues are caused by the same thing that causes manned pilot issues: pilot error. "

Source? And if true, what is preventing the same errors by an extremely fatigued single pilot or GCS controller vulnerable to the same issues as RPA operators from making the same mistake? There is zero arguement to enhancing safety. Commercial aviation is as safe as it could ever be.

Economic arguement carries SOME weight, cut your FOs down to the minimum required to man the GCSs and voila, profits right? Well not so fast. The airlines are pulling in record profits right now. Why would they risk their financial backbone on a questionably safe idea, not to mention the liabilities and risks that come with this? Have any airlines actually expressed interest in this? Every next gen airliner being built is supposed to be manned. If all that aligns perfectly, then you have to factor public acceptance. All it takes is for one incident and this cook'd up idea is gone (rightfully so.)

Maybe in a generation or so it will be accepted, but I'm not seeing the grand stimulant or incentive for this to happen in the next 50 years and if it does, a lot of variables (economic, social, ATC infrastructure) need to align. It won't happen until without a doubt a GCS operator can land the aircraft in marginal weather during an emergency with an incapacitated pilot; or can override a germanwings type incident.

esa17
06-29-2017, 05:07 AM
"The vast majority of unmanned aircraft issues are caused by the same thing that causes manned pilot issues: pilot error. "

Source? And if true, what is preventing the same errors by an extremely fatigued single pilot or GCS controller vulnerable to the same issues as RPA operators from making the same mistake? There is zero arguement to enhancing safety. Commercial aviation is as safe as it could ever be.

Economic arguement carries SOME weight, cut your FOs down to the minimum required to man the GCSs and voila, profits right? Well not so fast. The airlines are pulling in record profits right now. Why would they risk their financial backbone on a questionably safe idea, not to mention the liabilities and risks that come with this? Have any airlines actually expressed interest in this? Every next gen airliner being built is supposed to be manned. If all that aligns perfectly, then you have to factor public acceptance. All it takes is for one incident and this cook'd up idea is gone (rightfully so.)

Maybe in a generation or so it will be accepted, but I'm not seeing the grand stimulant or incentive for this to happen in the next 50 years and if it does, a lot of variables (economic, social, ATC infrastructure) need to align. It won't happen until without a doubt a GCS operator can land the aircraft in marginal weather during an emergency with an incapacitated pilot; or can override a germanwings type incident.

Source? It's my job and I've seen a lot of people crater good aircraft because they do dumb things. Read any number of accident reports and they start the same way as when a manned pilot burns one in: "The pilot in commands failure to..." Case in point is the armed Reaper that went down in 13 because the mission crew tried to take back over from the landing crew and didn't follow the checklist...shutting down the engine.

Global Hawks land every day, as do Preds, Reapers, Heron TCs and any number of massive unmanned aircraft.

Hell Aerosonde flies into a net and ScanEagle flies into a rope in crappy weather.

Landing from a GCS isn't in doubt, especially given the ludicrous technologies that can be purchased off the shelf as a redundant backup. (RAPS landings and whatnot)

The technology exists and that's not really even debatable at this point.

CrimsonEclipse
06-29-2017, 06:47 AM
Against: "Unmanned airplanes crash all the time!!"

For: "usually caused by pilot error"

Against: "WHARGARBL!!!"

C130driver
06-29-2017, 09:41 AM
Against: "Unmanned airplanes crash all the time!!"

For: "usually caused by pilot error"

Against: "WHARGARBL!!!"

You: whargarble x 2

Neither of you responded to the claim that if unmanned airplanes crash all the time due to pilot error or not, then why would anyone with half a molecule of a brain think it's feasible or a good idea to have unmanned/single pilot/remotely operated commercial airliners with passengers on board? They would have the same vulnerabilities as military drones would they not?

Mesabah
06-29-2017, 12:24 PM
You: whargarble x 2

Neither of you responded to the claim that if unmanned airplanes crash all the time due to pilot error or not, then why would anyone with half a molecule of a brain think it's feasible or a good idea to have unmanned/single pilot/remotely operated commercial airliners with passengers on board? They would have the same vulnerabilities as military drones would they not?
That's a moot point, they aren't remotely piloted aircraft, the pilot sits up front. The level of automation is such that a pilot can be trained in a week.

C130driver
06-29-2017, 04:06 PM
That's a moot point, they aren't remotely piloted aircraft, the pilot sits up front. The level of automation is such that a pilot can be trained in a week.

Oh that simple? A week? Why aren't these fielded and bought today then?

Right now the redundancy for the captain having a heart attack is a trained copilot in the other seat. Under your pipe dream, which shockingly many pilots on here seem to support and god knows why - the redundancy would be a ground controller subject to the same vulnerabilities as RPAs today. Why would you think that is acceptable or even feasible for passenger aircraft?

Mesabah
06-29-2017, 04:58 PM
Oh that simple? A week? Why aren't these fielded and bought today then?

Right now the redundancy for the captain having a heart attack is a trained copilot in the other seat. Under your pipe dream, which shockingly many pilots on here seem to support and god knows why - the redundancy would be a ground controller subject to the same vulnerabilities as RPAs today. Why would you think that is acceptable or even feasible for passenger aircraft?
Not true, the redundancy is not an RPA. Get that out of your head. If the aircraft senses the pilot is incapacitated, it lands automatically at the nearest suitable airport, no remote controls required.



I once thought like you did, since doppler shift LIDAR, the future eyes of aircraft, were the size of a semi truck. I once thought it would be physically impossible to get the size of those systems down to make it viable for aviation. However, last year MIT shrunk it down to this:

http://i68.tinypic.com/2e5758g.png
This tech was originally created so engineers could select optimal placement of Windmill generators.