Automation, Remote Control, & the F.O.

[GoldnEagle]

[ QUOTE ]

So the idea about the automated remote ground station is plausible, but I would think to get an equivalent level of safety, you would have to have one rated "virtual FO" for every aircraft, which would kind of defeat the purpose of automating the plane more.

[/ QUOTE ]

And imagine what would happen after a terrorist group figures out how to "hack" into the plane's systems remotely and override the pilots input or computer's control! I just can't see remotely flying airliners as a possibility anywhere in the near future because of all the security issues that go along with it.

 

[Skinnah]

very good point!

 

[C650CPT]

The Cockpit of the future will consist of one pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to bite the pilot's hand if he tries to touch anything.

 

[tonyw]

I don't think they'll ever get rid of the FO. Why? For the very reason that people think he's expendable. Redundancy. What happens if you've got only one pilot and he has a heart attack, or gets sick or something like that? Sure, it's not likely to happen. But if it does, then what?

 

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't people realize it was the human brain which invented the computer. Point is the brain is the more complex and intellegent of the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless it's HAL.

 

[Visceral]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think they'll ever get rid of the FO. Why? For the very reason that people think he's expendable. Redundancy. What happens if you've got only one pilot and he has a heart attack, or gets sick or something like that? Sure, it's not likely to happen. But if it does, then what?

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't see the special on tv? The pilot in the sim watched as the airplane landed itself and even taxied straight down the centerline. Is the argument that one-pilot ops can't be done or shouldn't be done? Automation is what has decreased the accident rate in aviation. Pilots are still the weakest link. 121 is better than 91 not because there are two pilots, but because the equipment is usually much better. Everyone gets so defensive when it comes to a profession they are so financially involved with getting more automated. I'm sure back when there were no inertial systems or GPS', there was no thought of ever having a navigator-less airplane on regularly scheduled, long overwater flights full of passengers. I think the loss of one pilot would occur in cargo aircraft first, and once the technology got capable enough, transition into other areas. Sure the cost might be high initially, but like other technological advancements (GPS), it would fall as time passed. One of the Cessna business jets is certified for 1 pilot ops and it carries a few people. To say something will never happen...that's just being old-fashioned.

 

[tonyw]

Fine. So let's say the single pilot there gets sick and can't fly the plane. And then the computer system fails.

All I can say is that all the passengers are in a world of hurt.

Unlikely? Sure. But then, it's unlikely that a plane will crash and an emergency evacuation will be required, but the FAA says you need cabin crew. It's unlikely that your engine will fail, but engine out procedures are on your checkride.

Removing the first officer reduces safety. Now if something goes wrong, you've only got one person to fly the plane, one person to troubleshoot the problem and solve it, and so on.

 

[shooter13]

I think it will happen eventually, although I don't want it too. I don't think it will be any time too soon however. I don't think the public trusts computers enough yet.

 

[GregCollins2]

There was an article in The Economist last December 19th about pilotless airplanes. The military has already demonstrated that one pilot on the ground can safely fly three airplanes at once. UPS and FEDEX have been funding a lot of research and development in the area also. According to the article, statistics prove that most airplane accidents are due to human error in the cockpit. The article went on to say that the savings for the operators would be substantial but that it will probably take several years of safe cargo ops before the general public would accept the idea. The argument was also made that a pilot on the ground could take over full control of the airplane in the event of terrorist action.
Not good news for pilots. The article is available at www.Economist.com, do a search with the word "pilotless" and the article will come right up.

 

[derg]

I think the only people that are advocating pilotless aircraft are forecasters and engineers.

I really don't think people realize just how often the FMS freezes, the autopilot does something unexpected or a decision is made that only a professional pilot can like weather avoidance, escaping turbulence or talking to uneasy passengers during inclement weather.

 

[Sprint100]

My opinion agrees with you, Doug, up until the point about FMS. Forecasters are seeing pilotless cockpits because they are also taking into account the forecasting of better technology. Today's technology will not be in the cockpit so things won't freeze up, etc.
Better technology will be needed for a pilotless cockpit and most agree that technology is improving at significant rates. I bet the idea of flying period was worthy of some torment before the Wright Brothers. To me the only thing that would stop a pilotless cockpit is the responsibility factor.
Once the technology is here heavy lobbying can get pilots out of the cockpit and on the same token heavy lobbying can keep them in.

 

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
Today's technology will not be in the cockpit so things won't freeze up, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing to remember is that humans make the software, and no matter how cool the technology gets, humans make mistakes in the software. Look at Windows and all its problems, for example.

And you can't hit control alt delete when the computer that's flying the plane freezes up.

 

[derg]

Oh yeah, even an MD-90 requires a "re boot" on occasion!

 

[shooter13]

The issue will end up being decided by consumers. No matter what the FAA allows, there will be sone people who will not want to fly on an airplane with no pilots aboard.

 

[Sprint100]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, even an MD-90 requires a "re boot" on occasion!

[/ QUOTE ]


That is hilarious Doug

 

[derg]

Seriously.

Sometimes when we have weird electric problems, the mechanics have us shut down everything, including the battery switch, have it sit for five minutes, and then repower the aircraft.

Just ask the Scarebus guys!

 

[Athena]

The MD-90 doesn't run a windows operating system by chance