Aviations future
 

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

Unmanned planes dont belong in commercial aviation!

The Airbus engineeers would disagree :D


TP

If pilots get replaced by computers it would practically decimate the flight training industry. I tell you one thing though it would be a boon for airlines like Ryanair that value making a buck more than safety and value.

Speaking of Ryanair, their skinflinty ways are going to get them into deep dodo one of these days... hopefully when that happens it won't cost innocent lives.

In college, my university did a lot of research in regards to UAV's. And I have one foolproof prediction to make.

No commercial aircraft will fly without a pilot for at least the next 100 years. Period. Computers can't deal with emergency situations. Passengers will not feel safe. This will not happen in our lifetime.

The trend with computers is to make flying more automated, and reduce the workload of the pilots. In the past, we have seen computers replace the flight engineer position. Three pilots down to two. But pilots will not suddenly disappear from the cockpit. I think that if automation gets real good, you may be able to see a single pilot in charge of a commercial aircraft. But the day a computer is the pilot in command of an airliner carrying 300 passengers will not come in the next 100 years. It will not be allowed by the flying public.

As for UAV development, they are a real benefit in military combat. But I see no benefit for UAV's in the civilian world. For those AOPA members, you know that AOPA has been fighting with the FAA over TFR's around the Mexico border because of UAV operations. Why a TFR? Because UAV's currently have no way of seeing and avoiding VFR or IFR air traffic. Why these UAV's are even being used in US airspace is beyond me. It is cheaper to get a Cessna-182 and pay a pilot to fly the route, rather than pay the operating costs of the UAV's. Plus a pilot in a 182 would be a lot safer and more convenient for other general aviation traffic. UAV's should be restricted to military combat. Reconaissence, and possibly aerial bombing.
Other than that, they do not have a practical use.

Take it from someone who works in the computer and technology field now.....

Artificial Intelligence is right around the corner.

It is not that far away. It may take 50 years to convince the public to get on an airplane. But they will be sold on it one day. Trust me on that.

Hey not to worry before we go the pilotless airline route.... the cockpit will morph into a single pilot, dog and cat operation. You all know the rest.:D

Ai
 

Seems to me that a natural progression is to have a ground controlled plane with two boobs sitting up front to maintain ares and to serve as emergency back up. While en route they could help out the FA's. Perhaps they will be called operations techs instead of pilots.

SKyHigh

Strap in and close your eyes
 

Hope these "Boobs" can land because not every landing is in little to no x-wind without gusts. Maybe Captain "Artificial Intelligence" will know just when to remove rudder and aileron when the wind shifts coming over the trees.:eek:

I agree, people will not get on a completly automatic aircraft, and have you ever dialed 411 and have a computor ask "what city and state" that part goes ok because there are only 52 states and a couple hundred city`s, but then comes "what listing" lol maybe about 2 % of the time it understands and does`nt, go "stand by for an operator", can you imagine it trying to decipher "in 6 minutes change to piarco center on 123.7" and maybe the clock has stopped lol.

Who needs pilots?
 

Especially when they have just ridden a "completely automatic" train between concourses and seen how frequently they malfunction. :eek:

The next money-saving idea will be to "dual-qual" flight attendants as standby pilots. If they go 90 days without a landing, three bounces in the simulator would be required, since safety must not be compromised. :rolleyes:

It's not just the AI that's needed, we have sufficient processor capacity and appropriate algorithms today...it's integrating all of the moving parts on the aircraft, ATC, ground with an appropriate level of reliability. Military UAVs have a 96-98% safe return rate, not counting combat losses. That's 5 or 6 orders of magnitude worse than US airlines...any engineer knows that fixing the first 80% of reliability issues is easy, the next 19% is challenging, but when you start moving decimal points it get's exponentially more difficult...

The US military is pretty good at massive systems integration, and they have NO plans to put human pax on aircraft without on-board pilots. They have stated this in fact, just so nobody wastes R&D money in that direction.

We have automated elevators, but not ships, trains, or or over-the-road vehicles...I think we need to master 1 and 2 dimensions before we move to three...

Additionally, you have security issues...any un-piloted pax aircrfat would need a ground over-ride capability...and this could be jammed or even hacked. We are not likely to turn our entire airline industry into a vast, ready-made array of 350,000#, 500 knot guided missiles just waiting for the first clown who can hack into the command & control system...

It will be well over 100 years.

Just over 100 years ago, we couldn't even fly ANYTHING.

Now we're doing trips in half a day that ships did in months.

I think it'll be right around 100 years, or less, until it's commonplace to board an airliner with no PIC on board. Definitely more than 50 years though.

Artificial Intelligence
 

Big planes already are capable of landing themselves in big crosswinds with 1980's technology. I think a computer can handle it.

SkyHigh

Today
 

By Lindbergh's standards we already have an automated plane and standby pilots. In the near future I think there will be people sitting in the chairs up front but I don't think they will be in command. Even now modern airliners are ATC directed, dispatcher planned and MX control monitored. All we need now is to eliminate the middle man.

SkyHigh

There is no way any passengers would ever buy a ticket on a pilotless airline. They are scared enough as it is with two pilots up front. Can you imagine the panic when the first moderate turbulance hits, who's gonna take care of business? Someone in a control room who doesn't even feel it?
No, the cockpit of the future will consist of 1 pilot and a ferocious dog.
The pilot will be there to monitor the computers, and the dog will bite the pilot in case he touches anything.

BULL SH!!!!!!!!!T :eek: :eek: :p

Sorry
 

I am sure that you DC-10 guys have to work a bit. Enjoy it while it lasts.



SkyHigh

Sky why are u such a di ck?

Because he is. It's his nature. You see, SkyLOW is very bitter because some people on this forum have succeeded at what he wanted to do. He didn't make it. He's bitter about it. And he loves to say "I told you so". He jumps on anything negative to make his point. "I failed. I want you to feel the same disappointment and bitterness that I feel. I revel in it. I love to see people suffer. Just like I did"

But enough about our resident downer.

Actually, no. On the MD-11 the crosswind limitations for autoland is 15K. And for a CAT III approach it's only 10K. But the demonstrated crosswind limitation is 31K. And that requires a real, live pilot person. And I'd be willing to bet you that the limitations aren't much different for the common pax carrying airplane.

I added an insulting remark at the end of this but reconsidered and took it out. I don't particularly like to see other people miserable and bitter. Even if they keep trying to prove that they are.

He's actually an MD-11 guy. And believe me, he will enjoy it. And for the long term. He and I were LUCKY enough to be hired by the right company. Notice I said LUCKY, Low. I harbor no elusions that I'm smarter than the average bear, pilot person. I was just fortunate to be in the right place at the right time with the right qualifications. dckozak and I simply made the right decisions when presented with the opportunities.

Ranger
 

I wish I could have made it with you.

SkyHigh

Why? So you could put up with "gone all the time, the low wages, lack of control over ones life and the absence of creativity that the job offered"?

Yea !!
 

Yea, and all the money of course !!

SkyHigh

Man, do I love a mirror
 

Now hang on partner. You may have been lucky, I was hired due to my outstanding good looks! :rolleyes: :eek: :D