The first time that a "drone cargo plane" crashes on someones head, that will end that program, because that same people who would travel IN a drone, won't want to be overflown by a 600,000lb drone.[/QUOTE]

I think you ment to say the same people who won't travel in drones, won't want to be overflown by a 6000,000 drone.

CMA: I definetly dig your avatar......................

 

What matters is not that they DONT WANT to be overflown by a 600,000lb drone but that the company who operates it wont want to pay the punitive damages hopefully awarded to the plaintiff. Who says trial lawyers are so bad. Of course the polititcians (republican mostly) might limit the punitive damages with specific legislation, if given enough money, ahh I mean with enough camapaign contributions.

 

While I can see John Edwards practicing his chops, perhaps channeling the auto-pilot. Please explain why the liability should be different if a manned vs unmanned aircraft smacks your house; assuming both aircraft are similarly certified by appropriate FAA/ICAO regs.

 

Because they can't say the accident was pilot error.

I doubt this will ever become the norm. Like a previous poster said, all terrorists have to do is get a few good hackers and then every single airplane can be taken over. If a 19-year old kid can hack into the Pentagon, then these planes will obviously be at risk for a hacker to take-over.

I would like to see how computers deal with in-flight emergencies, you can only predict so much, and since it is a computer program it has a strict set of guidelines that it will follow. The Pilot is in the airplane for when things go wrong, sure its easy to fly when things go right, but when the **** hits the fan is when you need someone who knows what they are doing, and a computer program does not "know" what was not programmed into it. There are tons of examples of things that went wrong, that had a computer been at the controls everyone would of most likely died.

 

Don't ya think we ought to try this with boats and trucks first? .........Naaaagh!

 

Very true, in addition to cultural hurdles, the technological hurdles are ENORMOUS, and pilots don't cost enough to make it worth doing a "manhattan project" to create an automated air transport system. All of these things would have to be adapated and seemlessly integrated:

- Aircraft systems
- Nav systems
- Regulatory infrastructure
- Ground systems
- ATC systems

Military UAV's have a (non-combat) safe return rate of something like 98%...that's six or seven orders of magnitude below current transport safetly levels. Any engineer knows that fixing the first 99% of the bugs is the easy part...it gets exponentially harder after that.

Also the national security aspect is colossal...you would have to ensure that automated airliners could not be jammed or hacked. Otherwise you just handed the opposition 5,000 massive, pre-launched, cruise missiles all just waiting for targeting data!

You might see some cargo applications in remote areas or for military purposes, but I think my job security is good for at least another 100 years.

 

I would bet on 50 years. It will happen, first in the military and than adapted for civilians.

That 98% UAV statistic, care to show me a graph plotting accidents per year since 1990. Bet it looks someting like this \. Show me another graph comparing accident rate of 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation UAVs.

No liability due to no pilots, bah. Someone rated will sign off on the flight and be responsible.

You guys are living in a dream world. Times change get over it.

 

It will start in the military

I'm sure the newer ones are much better, but they do not operate in the "the system", they operate in holes carved out of the system. MASSIVE integration still required.

My airplane spontaneously kicks off it's autopilot about twice a month...I wonder what it would cost to fix THAT with 100% certainty

I'm not saying it COULDN'T be done, it could be done in 5 years if enough resources were committed, but you could also automate passenger trains and the interstate high-way systems...it just doesn't make economic sense to do so yet.

Transportation automation...
Elevators: Done! (one dimension down...)
Trains: Barely getting started
Over-the-road vehicles: Some technical concepts have been demonstrated, but nothing serious.
Ocean-going vessels: Can run unattended on auto-pilot (Exxon Valdez)
Airplanes: I think we have a long ways to go yet...

 

I think you ment to say the same people who won't travel in drones, won't want to be overflown by a 6000,000 drone.
[/QUOTE]

Oooops. You are correct. I meant WOULD NOT.

Proofreading is a lost art on the internet.

 

I doubt CARGO UAV's will be in the military first. Look at the age of USAF aircraft vs the private sector. In the non-combat area the USAF doesn't get rid of aircraft until the wings come off (KC135s, C-141's, B-52's). The current C-5/17/130 fleet will be around until all of us are retired.

For most tactical airlift, we're not always landing at bases that have a huge infrastructure to recieve us. Are we going to do assualt landings with a couple hundred dudes in back but no one upfront? Who's going to supervise the loading/unloading of the a/c at a fwd or deployed location? Who's going to take care of all the admin of getting an airplane in and out of a forward location?

I don't see us buiding an airplane that has a loadmaster and a crew chief but no pilot.

The military is big into UAV's in combat situations because:
a. There's a performance benefit in removing the pilot in very small aircraft
b. There's a risk benefit in not losing pilots in hi threat situations. Who cares if a UAV crashes? The pilot doesn't end up as a POW or worse on Television.

Current UAV's don't do anything that manned aircraft don't do better (except maybe loiter). And they also don't necessarily do it cheaper. But they're literally disposable and that's what currently makes them attractive.

None of the above attributes makes a UAV cargo a/c look good to the military in my opinion.