Unmanned Cargo Planes may be coming soon
11-11-2011, 09:35 PM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
You'll see unmanned cargo in short order.
You'l see single pilot monitors in pax flights before long.
It'll likely be a flight attendant/pilot position.
Laugh all you want. I'll look forward to see this thread resurrected in 10 years to see the results.
You'l see single pilot monitors in pax flights before long.
It'll likely be a flight attendant/pilot position.
Laugh all you want. I'll look forward to see this thread resurrected in 10 years to see the results.
11-12-2011, 05:03 AM
#22
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,405
Loooong sigh...here we go again...
I'm just copy/pasting one of many previous posts on this subject...
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
11-12-2011, 06:05 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Putting them back in their place!!!
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'm just copy/pasting one of many previous posts on this subject...
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
My point is, technology can change things real quick. The economy will change, and your no's and can't's can easily become yes's and will do's
11-12-2011, 06:19 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Putting them back in their place!!!
Posts: 158
Maybe the Chinese will do it first RickAir7777, you keep complaining about the lack of money and Infrastructure for it. They have a surplus of cash and their building highways like there's no tomorrow. Maybe they can go crazy with building "the neccessary infrastructure" to support such an endeavour.
No one ever said America has to be the first to utilized and support Unmanned cargo and passenger planes. I wouldn't be surprised if it were to be the Chinese or Japan and Signapore on a small scale. You know, those countries that don't have deficits choking them to death???
No one ever said America has to be the first to utilized and support Unmanned cargo and passenger planes. I wouldn't be surprised if it were to be the Chinese or Japan and Signapore on a small scale. You know, those countries that don't have deficits choking them to death???
11-12-2011, 06:34 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by hurricanechaser
Your comparing apples to oranges. UAV's fly in war zones last time I check, airliners fly in peaceful areas. Do you really think the pilots controlling the UAV's care about overstressing the aircraft or anything safety related, or completing the mission they we're set forth to do and using them as expendable means of conducting war???
I think the pilots flying them don't really care how they fly the UAV's, thus increasing the accident rate. There are many factors why the accident rate is high. And the fact that they are flown in war zones does not help the numbers.
Just trying to keep it in perspective.
I think the pilots flying them don't really care how they fly the UAV's, thus increasing the accident rate. There are many factors why the accident rate is high. And the fact that they are flown in war zones does not help the numbers.
Just trying to keep it in perspective.
Someday it will happen, and someday we will live on the moon as well. I wouldn't waste anytime worrying about it today.
11-12-2011, 08:26 AM
#26
Moderator
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B757/767
Posts: 13,088
Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse
You'll see unmanned cargo in short order.
You'l see single pilot monitors in pax flights before long.
It'll likely be a flight attendant/pilot position.
Laugh all you want. I'll look forward to see this thread resurrected in 40 years to see the results.
You'l see single pilot monitors in pax flights before long.
It'll likely be a flight attendant/pilot position.
Laugh all you want. I'll look forward to see this thread resurrected in 40 years to see the results.
11-12-2011, 09:52 AM
#27
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,405
Originally Posted by hurricanechaser
Maybe the Chinese will do it first RickAir7777, you keep complaining about the lack of money and Infrastructure for it. They have a surplus of cash and their building highways like there's no tomorrow. Maybe they can go crazy with building "the neccessary infrastructure" to support such an endeavour.
No one ever said America has to be the first to utilized and support Unmanned cargo and passenger planes. I wouldn't be surprised if it were to be the Chinese or Japan and Signapore on a small scale. You know, those countries that don't have deficits choking them to death???
No one ever said America has to be the first to utilized and support Unmanned cargo and passenger planes. I wouldn't be surprised if it were to be the Chinese or Japan and Signapore on a small scale. You know, those countries that don't have deficits choking them to death???
But since the heavy-weight aircraft mfgs are still Boeing and Airbus, you will need enough momentum in the project to convince them to make the investment.
The real problem to this is NOT technical feasibility, that's pretty easy. The big problem is the up-front cost of necessary infrastructure and aircraft R&D. No single segment of government or industry has the responsibility or resources to pay for it all. Somebody has to go first, and ASSume that other segments will follow suit. The governemnt is not going first because there is no benefit to spending a trillion or so dollars to clean-slate the NAS so that a few airlines (a small part of the economy) can save a few bucks on pilots.
The mfgs aren't going to spend tens of billions in R&D to build something which cannot legally fly and is not supported by the technical infrastructure of the NAS.
The airlines are perennially broke and can't see beyond their noses (next quarters earnings report) so THEY sure as hell won't be sponsoring this program.
It's a class chicken vs. egg situation.
And even the technical solution will not anywhere near as easy as the non-engineer might think. You have regulatory, political, security, reliability, Mx, and public perception issues.
Could it be done in ten years? Sure.
We could also land a permanent colonization party on mars in ten years if we really needed to. But you don't see that happening either.
11-12-2011, 08:39 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'm just copy/pasting one of many previous posts on this subject...
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
Last edited by johnso29; 11-16-2011 at 05:15 AM.
11-13-2011, 01:31 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Putting them back in their place!!!
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I'm just copy/pasting one of many previous posts on this subject...
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
There are many, many obstacles to unmanned passenger planes and you have to be a systems engineer(or similar), and an experienced commercial pilot, and have a firm grasp of regulatory issues to fully understand this issue.
Can it be done? yes, absolutely. It could be done today.
But can it be done with an equivalent level of safety, reliability, convenience and at an economical cost? Not a chance in hell with current technology.
The USAF is in trouble because it has lost over 1/3 of it's predators to non-combat accidents...this is a fleet which barely existed ten years ago. Predators are useful because they provide CHEAP endurance...this means many shortcuts in redundancy and reliability. It gets the job done, but you sure as hell wouldn't want to ride on one...especially if it's controlled via SATCOM.
The DoD has no plans or interest in using UAV's to carry personnel, even combat troops.
Starting at the lowest level and working up...
- Artificial intelligence systems are far inferior to the human mind, and there are no indications that this will change soon.
- Since a computer cannot adapt to unforeseen circumstances like a human, unmanned aircraft would need to be far more redundant, reliable and automated than they are today....$$$$$$$$$$$$. You would also need a see-and-avoid system, unless you are willing to ban all manned aircraft. Anyone who has actually used TCAS knows that it is very unreliable and could never be relied on as the primary means of collision avoidance.
- Mx would have to be done in a nasa-style clean-room by guys in white suits $$$$$$$
- Ground handling and taxi must be automated. This affects not only the airplane, but the airport, ground personnel and systems, and ATC.
- Airports would need extra-redundant approach systems since a visual approach would not be an option.
- The national and global airspace and ATC systems would have to be totally re-engineered. Now we are getting into the political realm...$$$$$$$$$$$
Even if the cost of the airplane can be justified by firing the pilots, who is going to pay for the required infrastructure and regulatory changes?
The government? Not likely...why spends tens of billions just to put a few tens of thousands of pilots out of work.
The airlines? They can't see as far as the tips of their noses, and execs of near-bankrupt companies are not going to spend huge sums on a project which will not achieve payoffs until after they are long retired (or more likely dead).
Boeing and Airbus? Not going to invest huge sums in a product which the airlines can't afford and which cannot legally fly in the national/global airspace system.
Don't forget public perception...many, many folks simply would not fly on such an aircraft.
It's a chicken/egg scenario...you need to spends huge sums on technology, huge sums on infrastructure, and alter public perception. Any one of these tasks would very difficult to justify before the others are completed.
My guess? Not this century. I will start to worry when trucks, cars, and ships are automated. So far we have automated elevators and some small trains...long ways to go before we get to airplanes. People are still used as vehicle operators because we are cheaper than ultra-reliable, near-foolproof systems. Human pilots can make up for a lot of engineering shortcomings.
Originally Posted by awkwardnipples
The Navy has the X-47b landing on aircraft carriers now. The F35/F22 aircraft are the last combat aircraft that will be designed to use a human operator. It will spread to all areas of aviation. It's just a matter of time.
Last edited by johnso29; 11-16-2011 at 05:17 AM.
11-13-2011, 01:44 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Putting them back in their place!!!
Posts: 158
X-47B UCAS First Cruise Flight - YouTube
Ultimate Weapons- X-47B - YouTube
The UCAV will be designed to land on an Aircraft carrier. I think they will be able to make ones that can land on 7,000 foot runways as well. Last video talks about it landing with equal precision regardless of the condtions.
For the argument about UAV's having a high accident rate. Who gives two ****s about UAV's they were the first test bed and they are expendable. All the best technology is going into the UCAS.
As far as airspace and Regulatory issues are concerned the link below describes the use of UAV's by CBP agents in Texas patrolling the borders. They're already flying in our airspace and Mexico's.
Feds use more unmanned aircraft to secure border - Yahoo! News
Ultimate Weapons- X-47B - YouTube
The UCAV will be designed to land on an Aircraft carrier. I think they will be able to make ones that can land on 7,000 foot runways as well. Last video talks about it landing with equal precision regardless of the condtions.
For the argument about UAV's having a high accident rate. Who gives two ****s about UAV's they were the first test bed and they are expendable. All the best technology is going into the UCAS.
As far as airspace and Regulatory issues are concerned the link below describes the use of UAV's by CBP agents in Texas patrolling the borders. They're already flying in our airspace and Mexico's.
Feds use more unmanned aircraft to secure border - Yahoo! News
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
