Will computers replace pilots?

Sorry about my last message, poorly written/ediited on an iphone...

From my understanding Global Hawk "pilots" do use track ball/point and click for navigation. So it's interesting that the Air Force is fielding the most robust system out there. So with all that said what's to stop another Germanwings in the single man cockpit. The obvious answer is the ground station can take over, but would I as a pilot be comfortable "flying" something that I ultimately didn't control? Probably not.

Well time will tell, I'm sure it will happen, just not sure of the timeline.
 
Last edited:
That's why I think the GCS takeover is the most sticky part of this whole thing.

I liken the GCS taking over to the override capabilities on the Airbus systems. It won't ever be a failsafe system because humans can always develop a work around. Personally I can think of two ways to block a GCS takeover for both of my unmanned systems but posting them online just seems like bad juju.
 
esa17 said:
Objectivity requires that an author start with the evidence and end with the conclusion. Starting with your conclusion and selecting the arguments that best support that conclusion is dishonest.
Click to expand...

Inane, you are wrong but no point debating the issue with you. The article was a position paper and based on current research. It is you that has started with a position that you have only supported with anecdotal evidence.

esa17 said:
I challenge you to find me an incident caused by one single event. Accidents are always a combination of errors, always. Remove any one of those events and the accident doesn't happen...Always. No qualifiers needed like (looking at modern aircraft) I'm not incorrect, I'm the opposite of incorrect.
Click to expand...

Belies a complete misunderstanding of how accidents happen. Accidents are ONLY a combination of "errors" when viewed in hindsight. Suggest you read and learn about resilience engineering. The fact that you do not realize you are incorrect is fundamental to every aspect of this debate.

esa17 said:
Engineers need people like me that understand the system as a whole and how it functions in real life. What appears on the CAD screen is often times much different than what appears when real airplanes meet real sky. I've certainly seen what happens when real airplanes meet real earth because someone sitting in a cubicle thought they new better than those of us who don't exist solely in the realm of the theoretical. I'll take my first hand knowledge over your second hand theory any day.
Click to expand...

Again, I'll take the word of leading flight control system engineers that are actually designing these things for major defense contractors, the engineering fellows themselves.

esa17 said:
There are so many moving parts to this that can't be articulated, anticipated, or understood until you're there. Flying the chase plane, flying the aircraft or flying the calculator won't give you the full picture. You certainly can't get the full picture by reading an article written by someone with zero understanding of any of it.
Click to expand...

A lot of assumptions there, again, mostly wrong. I would argue that there are aspects that are moving parts that are not understood even when you ARE there, but just as some pilots think that accidents cannot happen to them, there are those that think they understand every aspect....

esa17 said:
What I can tell you for certain is that I've been on the crew with some of the best people in the world who do this. I've seen it and done it and I firmly believe that in my lifetime I will see safe, cheap, and reliable single pilot operations using transport category aircraft. The FO will be the dispatcher on the ground providing supplemental control as needed.
Click to expand...

A lot of people believe things absent evidence, does not make them true. In your imagined future you would still need a Capt and an F/O, where is the savings coming from that justifies this?
 
Last edited:
A few things...

1) why is all this money being spent to get rid of pilots. I think id rather go without a few FAs :)
2)who is going to call for catering when we need Ice at the gate??
3.) How do UAVs make decisions based on deicing, WX deviations that aren't depicted on radar, etc
 
esa17 said:
If you were familiar with my work then that would mean I had really eff'd up.

I have never once, not a single time, said a single pilot would be safer. A single pilot will be just as safe and cheaper. The evolution is the same as when the navigator was deleted, and then the flight engineer was deleted. The Dark Harbinger didn't show up when technology replaced their jobs and it won't here.

One of the pilots will be replaced by a datalink from a ground control station (dispatch) that has the ability to fully command and control all functions of the aircraft through all phases of flight. The pilot flying will have override capability so that in the event of a link-loss or any sort of corruption safety of flight isn't jeopardized.

For the people that think the datalinks are vulnerable to hacking...Stop. On the more robust systems you could stand next to the GDTs with a spectrum analyzer with the correct frequency and not be able to find it.
Click to expand...

I don't think your flight engineer reduction analogy is applicable. Just like engines crossing the Atlantic, you won't see single engine airliners crossing the pond because ...'look, they went from 4 engines to 3, then 3 to 2, and so it follows that it will be easy to reduce another one and they will go to one engine.' 2-1 is not the same as 3-1.

Also, DC-9s were designed when? The 50s? And no Flight Engineer. So the idea 'people thought Flight Engineers were absolutely integral and look what technology did!' doesn't hold.

And the authors last point is very plausible. Don't some predict the Singularity happening in the next few decades? If so all this is moot.
 
Last edited:
Kingairer said:
A few things...

1) why is all this money being spent to get rid of pilots. I think id rather go without a few FAs :)
2)who is going to call for catering when we need Ice at the gate??
3.) How do UAVs make decisions based on deicing, WX deviations that aren't depicted on radar, etc
Click to expand...
I addressed the "decisions" several times.

And @seagull I get it, you're unable or unwilling to adjust your paradigm. Enjoy being wrong if it makes you feel better.
 
esa17 said:
I addressed the "decisions" several times.

And @seagull I get it, you're unable or unwilling to adjust your paradigm. Enjoy being wrong if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

Funny, but I think I know the issue here. You are making judgments based on the narrow set of technical issues which you understand but you have not moved (yet, perhaps you will with experience and age) to the broader system thinking that shows the flaws in your reasoning. I suggest reading some of the recent research into those issues that also impact the thinking of some of the leaders in AI and system theoretic process analysis.
 
texas_pilot said:
Trucks operations are proven successful operations by Daimler-Benz ( see Las Vegas trials) sadly I see expansion into other fields, elimination of pilot error,..
Click to expand...
Watching those trucks do what they were built to do is symphonic.

seagull said:
Funny, but I think I know the issue here. You are making judgments based on the narrow set of technical issues which you understand but you have not moved (yet, perhaps you will with experience and age) to the broader system thinking that shows the flaws in your reasoning. I suggest reading some of the recent research into those issues that also impact the thinking of some of the leaders in AI and system theoretic process analysis.
Click to expand...

So, to clarify: You're an expert because you read something and know someone who knows a guy. I'm not an expert because I've only gone out and done it in the worst conditions possible..

Gotcha.
 
esa17 said:
Watching those trucks do what they were built to do is symphonic.



So, to clarify: You're an expert because you read something and know someone who knows a guy. I'm not an expert because I've only gone out and done it in the worst conditions possible..

Gotcha.
Click to expand...

No, I know because I personally have worked on these issues and not just as an end-user.
 
texas_pilot said:
Trucks operations are proven successful operations by Daimler-Benz ( see Las Vegas trials) sadly I see expansion into other fields, elimination of pilot error,..
Click to expand...

Misguided as "pilot error" is only a symptom of the cause of accidents based on not understanding system theory.
 
seagull said:
No, I know because I personally have worked on these issues and not just as an end-user.
Click to expand...
Well I hope you get enough exposure over time to understand the ins-and-outs of unmanned aircraft. It's fascinating technology once you gain an actual understanding of it.

Best of luck.
 
esa17 said:
Well I hope you get enough exposure over time to understand the ins-and-outs of unmanned aircraft. It's fascinating technology once you gain an actual understanding of it.

Best of luck.
Click to expand...

I agree it is fascinating technology and of great many applications. I know quite a bit about it and do, literally, do regular work with control systems engineers who design these and so have had a lot of exposure to what it can do, and its limitations given present computer technology. Unfortunately the push for it in passenger operations is a consequence of two flawed assumptions, first that it will reduce cost, and as you have outlined, that is limited at best, and the second is for safety but that latter is under the mistaken concept that accidents are the result of human error.
 
seagull said:
I agree it is fascinating technology and of great many applications. I know quite a bit about it and do, literally, do regular work with control systems engineers who design these and so have had a lot of exposure to what it can do, and its limitations given present computer technology. Unfortunately the push for it in passenger operations is a consequence of two flawed assumptions, first that it will reduce cost, and as you have outlined, that is limited at best, and the second is for safety but that latter is under the mistaken concept that accidents are the result of human error.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of accidents are the result of human error.
 
ppragman said:
The vast majority of accidents are the result of human error.
Click to expand...
Next time I'm in a 135 ride and CRM comes up I'll just the examiner that some dude on the internet disagrees with everything we've been told. He's "got a guy" so he knows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top