When will the public accept full automation

Checkout_my_Six said:
No worries.....this will be a slow transition.

As technology inserts itself into the cockpit there will be a progression. A progression of more automation.....and eventually adding more data link capabilities that allow information to flow to the ground and back. This information will be in the form of data packets that will perform various functions. Eventually those functions will update the flight data computer.....change way points.....etc....then, control the complete flight profile.....from take-off to landing.

It will happen....but, it will seem like a slow progression. It will lead to the loss of a cockpit crew member....kinda like no one thought possible to operate without a navigator.....then the flight engineer left.....next up is the FO. :D

For now.....we have bandwidth issues. Once that's solved.....it's gonna begin.:D
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it, and when it's time to phase out the last pilot, it will also happen gradually. Airlines will start by introducing a few routes with full automation at cheaper fares and then gradually add more as it becomes more accepted.

I envision a system where a person at a control center is responsible for monitoring severe flights at a time. This person could step in and take control of the aircrafts if need be. As such, the aircraft under his/her watch would have to be separated by when their critical phases of flight (Takeoffs/Landings) would occur so attention could be focused on that particular aircraft if their was a problem.
 
Last edited:
We all know we can make a machine do all most any thing we want it to do by computer controls. We also know autopilots will fly the aircraft once airborne, but what about on the ground? How do we get a computer to back the aircraft out of the terminal around other aircraft and out to the runway. Do we tow it? or do we simply have the pilot jump out prior to take off?
 
I'm wondering how good a fully automated airliner would be at selecting a forced landing site. In the Rockies. :hairraise:
 
I can readily visualize an automated airliner full of passengers pushing back from a gate at City A, and a few hours later taxiing safely into a gate at City B, under carefully controlled conditions. But maybe I'm just short-sighted enough that I cannot visualize that happening 28,500 times a day in the real world. In our lifetime, anyway.

Once upon a time we thought that we needed universal Mach 3 airline travel, and all that was keeping us from it was refining the technology and spending more money. We had no idea what supersonic airline travel was up against.

I haven't yet seen the automation technology that can fully replicate a pilot's senses. "I don't like the way this looks/sounds/feels/smells ... " Will the machine tell Center, "Y'know the ride's kinda crummy here at 350 ... can you give us higher?"
 
Will fully automated airliners make air traffic controllers obsolete? Or will that function have to be automated too? And what are the implications for general aviation?

One thing I know is that historically, predictions of the future course of technology have been very hit-or-miss. Moore's Law has worked out well, but many other predictions haven't.
 
this will be sold as a safety enhancement.....and it'll only happen if there's a safety benefit.
 
does anyone understand the expense of certifying and operating the Global Hawk?
 
Dav8or said:
What would a "smart" crew have done? When I did instrument training, they taught me to test a questionable reading on an instrument by cross checking with other instruments that get their data from other inputs. Can a computer not be instructed to do the same, or just you can't imagine that possibility?

And you're obviously not an engineer. You sound more like a corporate numbers cruncher. An engineer is tasked with , or identifies a problem and then creates a solution. They don't just give you 85 reason's not to even try. If it were up to you, the "systems engineer", the powered airplane as we know it, would never have flown.

It's true that this anomaly is exceedingly rare, but if the people demand it, the people will get it. 9/11 ring any bells here??

I find it hard to believe you call yourself an engineer. A truly half baked attitude it would seem. Seriously, open your mind and take on challenges. I guess it's the difference between middle management and the history books. That's OK. Everybody needs a job and an income, I get it.
Click to expand...

Let's just say you're a bit off base.

My record is making systems that actually work after a number of other people have screwed it up, generally due to excessive complexity for the problem at hand.

The problem here has never even been adequately verbalized. Only "solutions."

Truly half baked. You cannot solve a problem you can describe only in vague terms.
 
FlyingTiger said:
F-16s are being flown pilotless:

http://www.ibtimes.com/watch-us-air-force-f-16-fly-without-pilot-video-1409956
Click to expand...
one thing to note....a remote pilot and a UAS are similar but different.

Most AirForce configurations are "remote" pilot....meaning there is someone on the ground in a cockpit operating the aircraft with similar inputs like they would in the air....but on the ground in a remote cockpit.

Where modern UAS are operated on the ground in a ground control station with several monitors, keyboard, track ball......and no stick and rudder controls.
 
The Naval Missile Center At NAS Point Mugu was launching drone targets down range prior to me getting there in 1969. remote control is no new thing.
 
txflyer said:
That's cool, but rotor dude pointed out don't feed the troll and I watched and waited and here we are eight pages later and the OP hasn't been back since... don't you find that a tad bit strange?

I'll ask you to be honest too. Have you ever started a thread and never looked at it again?

I could care less, automation is a hot topic obviously. I was just pointing out the queerness of starting a thread and then vanishing. I hope the dude isn't dead or worse ... :dunno:.
Click to expand...
:popcorn:
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm wondering how good a fully automated airliner would be at selecting a forced landing site. In the Rockies. :hairraise:
Click to expand...

Actually I consider this aspect the (relatively) easy part.
All you need is to find a set of relatively flat stretches (if you look hard enough they exist almost everywhere) that will at least allow the aircraft (and contents) to survive, even if the damage won't buff right out.
One way to achieve it is to designate sections of roads in various places that can act as emergency strips. Police can be automatically notified to help with traffic, if need be.
Bear in mind that typical airliners have a pretty good glide ratio (double the typical GA if not more) and from 30,000+ will have a long time (and a huge range) before touchdown (even over mountains).
At lower altitudes, after takeoff and before landing, emergency landing sites could be pre-programmed in a mandatory "contingency plan" prepared before each departure, which will consider winds, traffic conditions, etc.
Perhaps not perfect -- nothing ever is -- but if properly executed the automatic forced landing could have equal or better survival rate (and collateral damage on the ground) compared to what we have today.
That being said, I still believe that fully automated (i.e. pilotless) passenger airliners are many decades away, due to unexpected system failures and other unusual events (outside the box events and needed solutions), where (properly trained) humans should surpass machines. Ideally you can have both, of course, the human (both airborne and on the ground) as overall manager, and the machine to handle more mundane tasks.
 
keep in mind....there is still a human "operator" to handle emergency procedures. :D

ELEC_OneSystem_UGCS_Interior_lg.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
The Naval Missile Center At NAS Point Mugu was launching drone targets down range prior to me getting there in 1969. remote control is no new thing.
Click to expand...

well, considering that those drones were intended to be destroyed, I'm not sure I want to be a passenger relying on that (disposable) technology to get me safely to my destination... if you know what I mean.
 
Dr. O said:
It will start with cargo flying the oceans (not over populations).
The planes will be semi automated much like the drone missions in the mideast today. A 'pilot' somewhere in the world monitoring the progress and taking over if something beyond the automation parameters occurs. This will be sooner rather than later.

Now passenger flights - gonna be awhile before that happens.
Click to expand...
I agree that if this was going to happen, it'd happen with cargo first.

Here's the issue, with that, though. Everybody says that it'll happen for transoceanic flights, to coast cities so as not to overfly populated areas.

The whole reason cargo companies like large, long-distance airliners is that they don't have to stop at a coast city. The reason that FedEx loves their new 777Fs is that they can fly freight from Shanghai to Memphis non-stop. That extends cutoff times in China and allows for quicker delivery of packages. If they are forced to fly their unmanned airplane to coastal cities only, now you're talking about flying Shanghai to Anchorage, stop, transload freight to a "manned" airplane to continue the journey to Memphis. This negates the benefit of having those long-range airplanes.

FlyingTiger said:
I think you nailed it, and when it's time to phase out the last pilot, it will also happen gradually. Airlines will start by introducing a few routes with full automation at cheaper fares and then gradually add more as it becomes more accepted.

I envision a system where a person at a control center is responsible for monitoring severe flights at a time. This person could step in and take control of the aircrafts if need be. As such, the aircraft under his/her watch would have to be separated by when their critical phases of flight (Takeoffs/Landings) would occur so attention could be focused on that particular aircraft if their was a problem.
Click to expand...

Gradually is what, in my opinion, makes this scenario unattractive. Is Boeing going to invest the time and money to create a whole new airliner that is single pilot capable if they are only going to sell a handful so the FAA/JAA can certify them on few routes? Especially knowing that these airplanes would have a short shelf-life with the supposed advent of the pilotless aircraft soon after the single-pilot aircraft.

Just like in the other thread, I'll tell you that I'm not very smart on Artificial Intelligence or control systems advances. What I do know is that the airlines won't do anything unless they think they will be able to make money. And I think that the cost of aircraft and infrastructure upgrades needed on a global scale will dwarf the cost savings for a very little (or no) safety improvements.
 
Slug...before you go there, ask yourself one question....."How was the Engineer's seat removed?" ....and "Who asked for that?"
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Slug...before you go there, ask yourself one question....."How was the Engineer's seat removed?" ....and "Who asked for that?"
Click to expand...
I understand, I was a FE for a while. I think it's a tremendous leap from automating the (relatively) simple task of the FE to the prospect of completely autonomous (or even single pilot) airline flight.

Even with the removal of the flight engineer, the systems controllers still have a hard time with that task and every once in a while require human intervention to set things back right.

But like I said, I don't know what's out there as far as advances in technology that are waiting in the wings. Just what we have now, even in the most advanced airliners, is not even close to what we would need to remove one pilot, let alone both, from the mix.
 
If this is a troll, the guy is using great bait.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
keep in mind....there is still a human "operator" to handle emergency procedures. :D

ELEC_OneSystem_UGCS_Interior_lg.jpg
Click to expand...

I thought "full automation" meant no pilot, not a standby pilot.

And no one has answered the question of how a standby pilot would maintain enough proficiency to be able to handle an emergency. Wasn't it recently decided that airline pilots need to do MORE hand flying, for just that reason?
 
Sluggo63 said:
I understand, I was a FE for a while. I think it's a tremendous leap from automating the (relatively) simple task of the FE to the prospect of completely autonomous (or even single pilot) airline flight.

Even with the removal of the flight engineer, the systems controllers still have a hard time with that task and every once in a while require human intervention to set things back right.

But like I said, I don't know what's out there as far as advances in technology that are waiting in the wings. Just what we have now, even in the most advanced airliners, is not even close to what we would need to remove one pilot, let alone both, from the mix.
Click to expand...
Seems like human intervention is the cause of most aircraft crashes.
 
Very true. Last time I checked, airliners tend to run into mountains due to pilot error (and suicide), not from a forced landing.

I realize this is a touchy subject for some, but full automation will happen, it's just a matter of when. 50 years from now, the same system that lead to this automation will pave the way for flying cars (personal drones?) since there is no way the general public could handle it on their own.
 
Last edited:
tell ya what... since way more fatalities are caused by drivers, let's automate cars first. Very very very few car accidents are caused by mechanical problems. The accidents are caused by the drivers. Let's take the bad drivers out of the loop and have automated cars.

Of course, some municipalities wouldn't like the loss of traffic fine revenue.
 
brien23 said:
Seems like human intervention is the cause of most aircraft crashes.
Click to expand...

FlyingTiger said:
Very true. Last time I checked, airliners tend to run into mountains due to pilot error (and suicide), not from a forced landing.
Click to expand...
And I say that this is mostly because the news doesn't report on a forest that isn't on fire.

You never hear about the countless times a day that the human element saves an airliner from its automation failures. That plane lands normally with a write up. You're only focusing on the times the human element fails spectacularly, but not on when the human element fixes the automation. And I'm not talking Sully or Al Haynes saving the day type stuff. Just routine everyday "why is it turning right?" or "why did the autopilot disconnect on its own?" type stuff. Those automation failures happen on a much more regular basis.

My thought is people are trying to create a very complex and expensive solution for a problem that really doesn't exist.
 
mkosmo said:
The systems guy in me doesn't like the idea of any external manipulation of the input loop... Any external influence increases the attack surface.
Click to expand...

The software geek in me refuses complete automation. Software's designed and built by humans. Humans make mistakes. I don't trust most critical software. I want a person up front that can control the airplane. Not remote.

Example - I moved $$$ from TIAA-CREF to a brokerage. Even with very specific written instructions, the brokerage software screwed up the transfer by putting some of the funds into a different account. Why? Because back at the requirements stage, no one considered the conditions I requested.

No lives were at stake. Now consider a situation in flight that wasn't anticipated. Remote access is down. I want someone up front that can solve the problem. Or at least try to solve the problem.
 
FlyingTiger said:
I realize this is a touchy subject for some, but full automation will happen, it's just a matter of when. 50 years from now, the same system that lead to this automation will pave the way for flying cars (personal drones?) since there is no way the general public could handle it on their own.
Click to expand...

There are many good reasons to remove flight crews from combat and surveillance aircraft, very few for passenger aircraft.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
No worries.....this will be a slow transition.

As technology inserts itself into the cockpit there will be a progression. A progression of more automation.....and eventually adding more data link capabilities that allow information to flow to the ground and back. This information will be in the form of data packets that will perform various functions. Eventually those functions will update the flight data computer.....change way points.....etc....then, control the complete flight profile.....from take-off to landing.

It will happen....but, it will seem like a slow progression. It will lead to the loss of a cockpit crew member....kinda like no one thought possible to operate without a navigator.....then the flight engineer left.....next up is the FO. :D

For now.....we have bandwidth issues. Once that's solved.....it's gonna begin.:D
Click to expand...
Oh no.....say it ain't so. :D

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/pilot-cockpit-someday-robot-42873691
 
You can dumb down the pilot as much as you like with automation, but I don't think human nature will buy a fully automatic airliner for the same reason we have completely superfluous operators on automated mass transit trains.
 
flyingron said:
You can dumb down the pilot as much as you like with automation, but I don't think human nature will buy a fully automatic airliner for the same reason we have completely superfluous operators on automated mass transit trains.
Click to expand...
Ya but it ain't the automation that's the problem. :D

IIRC each of those recent accidents are calling for "more" automation not less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top