Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Technical
Boeing studies pilotless planes... >

Boeing studies pilotless planes...

Search
Notices
Technical Technical aspects of flying

Boeing studies pilotless planes...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-08-2017, 08:40 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
TheFly's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Seat 0B
Posts: 2,300
Default Boeing studies pilotless planes...

Boeing studies pilotless planes as it ponders next jetliner | Reuters

"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.
TheFly is offline  
Old 06-09-2017, 10:41 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
yeahbutstill's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Right Seat - Low Wing
Posts: 229
Default

Originally Posted by TheFly View Post
Boeing studies pilotless planes as it ponders next jetliner | Reuters

"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.
yeahbutstill is offline  
Old 06-17-2017, 12:14 PM
  #3  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
Default

Originally Posted by yeahbutstill View Post
Thats until some 16 year old in his mom's basement is able to hack into their systems and take control of the aircraft.
Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
CrimsonEclipse is offline  
Old 06-17-2017, 02:12 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 463
Default

Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse View Post
Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
Oh Man I totally forgot, Airbuses are unmanned! Discussion over, you win! Pilotless airplanes next decade and UBI for everyone to follow.
C130driver is offline  
Old 06-17-2017, 02:17 PM
  #5  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse View Post
Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
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.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 06-17-2017, 06:07 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Default

Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse View Post
Just like they hack into the Airbus flight control system.
No need for that any more; they just hack your implanted chip.

Don't think you have one? Then it's working perfectly.
tomgoodman is offline  
Old 06-17-2017, 07:08 PM
  #7  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
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.
CrimsonEclipse is offline  
Old 06-18-2017, 04:00 AM
  #8  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse View Post
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.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 06-18-2017, 07:31 AM
  #9  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Default

Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse View Post
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.


Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse View Post
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.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-19-2017, 06:14 AM
  #10  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 461
Default

"Pilotless planes is unpossible! Because eveeel Haxx0rs!"

So, they forgot to encrypt it?

"EVEEL HAXX0RS!!!!!
CrimsonEclipse is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BMEP100
United
109
01-19-2016 02:41 PM
SkyHigh
Major
109
04-12-2006 09:00 AM
Was That For Us?
Major
0
10-20-2005 09:55 PM
Sir James
Major
1
10-09-2005 06:08 PM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
0
09-14-2005 10:35 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices