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

Unmanned planes dont belong in commercial aviation!

 

The Airbus engineeers would disagree


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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.