Pilotless aircraft and UAVs
10-29-2013 | 03:36 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
From: retired
Actually the dog will be a guy on the ground monitoring up to X number of flights.
10-30-2013 | 07:17 AM
#13
Runs with scissors
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,847
Likes: 0
From: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Fred has nothing to lose by saying this. He's most likely wrong, and even then this sort of talk might scare his pilots into concessions.
The FAA has been ordered by congress to "open up" the skies to UAS. But the devil is in the details and if the FAA requires adequate safety and see-avoid capability then the costs could be extreme.
The problem with UAS isn't can we do it...of course we can. The question is does it make economic sense? Two pilots provide redundancy for a LOT of system malfunctions just because they are smart and adaptable...computers are still not "smart" as we know it and have little adaptability beyond what logical chains of events their programmers thought of.
It would hard for a computer to do what Al Haines did. It would be really hard for a computer to do what Sully did. In both cases it would have to knowingly accept a crash while trying to minimize the damage.
That A380 that grenaded and engine out of Singapore? It took the pilots HOURS to run all the checklists associated with the hundreds of EICAS messages they got. It would very, very hard to write a computer program that could sort out a mess like that. Not because the computer is slow, but because the (non-pilot) guy who wrote the software wouldn't be able to script that all in advance.
There are some advanced artificial intelligence concepts out there, but they're not ready for prime time. The problem there is that the adaptability desired in AI also means unpredictability...literally a certification nightmare as far as aviation goes.
And ultimately while management loves talking about unmanned airliners, they'll be terrified the day one actually shows up on their ramp. Why? Because then they won't have anybody to blame...the ultimate responsibility for safety will default to management and the company. If something needs to be MELed they'll have to convene a committee of lawyers, MBA's, and accountants to approve it!
Unmanned airliners would have a low dispatch reliability unless an ENORMOUS amount of money were spent on improving systems reliability and/or redundancy.
At some point pilots are just cheaper...
The FAA has been ordered by congress to "open up" the skies to UAS. But the devil is in the details and if the FAA requires adequate safety and see-avoid capability then the costs could be extreme.
The problem with UAS isn't can we do it...of course we can. The question is does it make economic sense? Two pilots provide redundancy for a LOT of system malfunctions just because they are smart and adaptable...computers are still not "smart" as we know it and have little adaptability beyond what logical chains of events their programmers thought of.
It would hard for a computer to do what Al Haines did. It would be really hard for a computer to do what Sully did. In both cases it would have to knowingly accept a crash while trying to minimize the damage.
That A380 that grenaded and engine out of Singapore? It took the pilots HOURS to run all the checklists associated with the hundreds of EICAS messages they got. It would very, very hard to write a computer program that could sort out a mess like that. Not because the computer is slow, but because the (non-pilot) guy who wrote the software wouldn't be able to script that all in advance.
There are some advanced artificial intelligence concepts out there, but they're not ready for prime time. The problem there is that the adaptability desired in AI also means unpredictability...literally a certification nightmare as far as aviation goes.
And ultimately while management loves talking about unmanned airliners, they'll be terrified the day one actually shows up on their ramp. Why? Because then they won't have anybody to blame...the ultimate responsibility for safety will default to management and the company. If something needs to be MELed they'll have to convene a committee of lawyers, MBA's, and accountants to approve it!
Unmanned airliners would have a low dispatch reliability unless an ENORMOUS amount of money were spent on improving systems reliability and/or redundancy.At some point pilots are just cheaper...
Pilot pay/benefits has fallen so much since deregulation, as a percentage of total operational costs there would not be much of a savings in ticket price to the pax.
Fuel/mx/taxes are so much higher a percentage of total operating costs, the ticket price on an unmanned aircraft would be very close to a manned one, difference of maybe 10%, might be less than that when you factor in the costs of all the hardware/software/drone operators/computer programmers, etc. needed to run a pilotless operation 24-7. Hell, it will probably cost MORE to run unmanned flights, certainly when you start comparing it with RJ Pilot wages.
And as correctly pointed out above, who would the company have to blame when things went wrong? No pilots, no pilot error, that will put the blame on Management, and that will have an impact on Management's Bonuses, when -they- have to be held accountable for every accident.
10-30-2013 | 08:45 AM
#14
Self Employed.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,120
Likes: 0
From: Corporate Pilot
Automation is coming
We all can agree that pilot-less passenger carrying flights are not going to happen any time soon, however it still will effect the lives of pilots.
Automation advances reduce the need for skilled pilots. I believe that in the near future passenger carrying planes will be ground controlled with two extremely low paid human monitors up front (much as it is now) that will never fly with the automation off and will be asked to serve drinks en-route and unload bags at the destination.
Hand flying will become an emergency procedure practiced only in the simulator or during initial training. So long as pilots keep getting cheaper they will have a place in the flight deck.
Skyhigh
Automation advances reduce the need for skilled pilots. I believe that in the near future passenger carrying planes will be ground controlled with two extremely low paid human monitors up front (much as it is now) that will never fly with the automation off and will be asked to serve drinks en-route and unload bags at the destination.
Hand flying will become an emergency procedure practiced only in the simulator or during initial training. So long as pilots keep getting cheaper they will have a place in the flight deck.
Skyhigh
10-30-2013 | 09:42 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,172
Likes: 97
From: Volleyball Player
Kind of like selling tickets for regional routes with 1000hr pilots previously served by big legacy airlines with 20,000hr+ pilots? Tickets don't really have to be much cheaper, but that aside, everyone is being quite dramatic. We'll see a slow shift, just like we are with cars that have become increasingly automated. It's not like one day we go from a 3-speed manual with drum brakes to a self-driving bmw with 8spd auto gearbox, everything happens in little incriments, self parking, cruise control slowing/acceleration, ability to stay in the lane in cruise, self arresting, and so on. At some point, it meets the definition of "fully automated" and the ability to screw stuff up starts dissapearing (but it manifests in new ways that were not previously thought of). Such is the same with airliners. As I've said, it'll be one person and maybe a FA-type up front, airplane will fly itself, but fully rated person is avail and a "button pusher" that can do some things in a pinch. Possibly some command center will have the ability to "take" the airplane. Then it'll be one person in the cockpit that can fly, just as a backup to the multiple systems. Then a FA...then finally a totally automated airliner with redundant systems and the ability to think logically, it may still have the ability to have someone "sit" up front, but eventually it will get there and we'll have completely automated airliners. This may be way in the future, past our lifetime, but it's the gradual movement that will get it there, not some breakthrough in the next 5 years. Say what you want about the russians, but they sent a space shuttle into orbit and had it land unmanned. That technology may not have been ready for air-transport, but it was also more than 30 years ago, amazing by any standards. Automated high speed trains may prove even better, I don't know, but we'll see a lot more before we see less. There are few problems we don't try to solve with technology and human performance keeps making the case over and over for it.
10-31-2013 | 07:40 AM
#16
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,186
Likes: 807
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Using today's technology or anything reasonably useable in the near future an unmanned flight would cost a LOT more than a manned flight. The additional redundancy and certification requirements would see to that. If no people are on board, it can be done for less cost but you still have to consider collision avoidance and avoid crashing large UAVs into schools, apartment blocks, etc.
Look at spaceflight...manned vs. unmanned spacecraft, they are living and breathing this issue. Man-rated = $$$$$$$$
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
