Future of Commercial Aviation?

Tangodelta29

Well-Known Member
Hey everyone, still kind of a newb here.

I was thinking about what types of major changes would happen to commercial aviation in the near and distant future. Obviously the planes will keep getting better, more efficient, faster, and cooler. But what about the other things? Can you see any MAJOR changes to the industry, and if so what is it?

I hate to even think about it, but pilotless aircraft flying around maybe? Maybe a the new fuel source to replace oil? No matter how far or how close you think the change is, let us know what you think and why. Should be interesting to see what the common vision is.

Thanks
 

cmsuav8r

Well-Known Member
I think business structure is going to be more of a change than technology. For businesses to survive they are going to have to adapt to the changing economy.
 

Sprint100

Well-Known Member
More technical and efficient planes will be designed, but with all the beaurocracy that goes on most will stay on the drawing board. I see pilotless aircraft in the future but I'd be very surprised to see it in my lifetime and I'm 34 years old.
 

scramjet

Well-Known Member
Domestic commercial aviation will largely die and be replaced with ultra efficient, high speed trains. Commercial aviation will be relegated to trans-oceanic travel. Instead of becoming speedier, commercial aviation will become slower as more efficient propulsion technologies are introduced.
 

Jpax

Well-Known Member
I don't think we will ever see pilotless aircraft. Sure, statistics show that if you're going to crash, it's likely because your pilot fudged up. It comes down to the human vs robot race. The masses won't trust an aircraft without pilots up front. I wouldn't, even if it was proven to be 100% safe over 100 years. I like the comfort of knowing there are two human souls up front in control that can think rationally (and sometimes not...) rather than a machine that does exactly what it is told, be it fly a route perfectly, or fly into a mountainside in CAVU due to a miscalculation by the guys on the ground. The human pilot can one up the machine in that last instance.

It's kind of like the saying "if ATC screws up, the pilot dies. If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies." Same thing with pilotless aircraft, minus no chance for a pilot to correct something screwed up by the guys in a stationary concrete building anchored safely to terra firma.
 

Clearblue

Well-Known Member
I don't think we will ever see pilotless aircraft. Sure, statistics show that if you're going to crash, it's likely because your pilot fudged up. It comes down to the human vs robot race. The masses won't trust an aircraft without pilots up front. I wouldn't, even if it was proven to be 100% safe over 100 years. I like the comfort of knowing there are two human souls up front in control that can think rationally (and sometimes not...) rather than a machine that does exactly what it is told, be it fly a route perfectly, or fly into a mountainside in CAVU due to a miscalculation by the guys on the ground. The human pilot can one up the machine in that last instance.

It's kind of like the saying "if ATC screws up, the pilot dies. If the pilot screws up, the pilot dies." Same thing with pilotless aircraft, minus no chance for a pilot to correct something screwed up by the guys in a stationary concrete building anchored safely to terra firma.
Listen, nothing personal but you have no idea what you're talking about.
 

Realms09

Well-Known Member
Regarding the automated aircraft and other technological advances you can expect in your lifetime:

There's a big difference between science and engineering. The fundamental science to do many amazing things in a variety of fields is well established. Harnessing that science and converting it into something that works at a worthwhile cost is whole different matter. That's engineering, and it's a huge challenge that is not necessarily as technological as it is organizational. For example, check out the struggles aircraft manufacturers have had with their "cutting edge" aircraft such as the 787 and the A380. We do the best we can, but it's generally not as fast as Popular Mechanics makes it out to be.
 

Clearblue

Well-Known Member
because saying "nothing personal but" means your are about to say something personal.
:rolleyes:
Well yea.... I mean isn't that the point of the statement? At least as far as my knowledge, the phrase means whatever follows it is strongly worded enough that it the person could perceive it as an attack or insult on themselves. Rather than a firm opposition to their argument. Though thinking about it I could have put it differently.
 

scramjet

Well-Known Member
Well yea.... I mean isn't that the point of the statement? At least as far as my knowledge, the phrase means whatever follows it is strongly worded enough that it the person could perceive it as an attack or insult on themselves. Rather than a firm opposition to their argument. Though thinking about it I could have put it differently.
Yeah, but you don't support the argument that "he doesn't know what he's talking about" with logical reasoning. Instead, you make a vague reference.
 

CoffeeIcePapers

Well-Hung Member
Domestic commercial aviation will largely die and be replaced with ultra efficient, high speed trains. Commercial aviation will be relegated to trans-oceanic travel. Instead of becoming speedier, commercial aviation will become slower as more efficient propulsion technologies are introduced.
I doubt that. Too much cost to implement a system like that.
 

KVNC

Florida Man
I hate to even think about it, but pilotless aircraft flying around maybe?
Thanks
Ha, I'd like to see the day that system is implemented. I don't think anyone would be willing to get on the aircraft. People have problems with not being in control as it is, I can't imagine how they would feel with no humans up front.
 

SpiceWeasel

Tre Kronor
The argument that having a pilot-less aircraft removes the human factor element is patently false. Who builds airplanes? Who inspects them? Who codes the systems that would potentially give the airplane enough logic to get itself from Gate A1 in STL to Gate E37 in ATL?

Answer: Humans

This is what happens when programmers screw up:

Life-critical systems
Software flaws in life-critical systems can be disastrous. Race conditions were among the flaws in the Therac-25 radiation therapy machine, which led to the death of three patients and injuries to several more. Another example is the Energy Management System provided by GE Energy and used by Ohio-based FirstEnergy Corp. (among other power facilities). A race condition existed in the alarm subsystem; when three sagging power lines were tripped simultaneously, the condition prevented alerts from being raised to the monitoring technicians, delaying their awareness of the problem. This software flaw eventually led to the North American Blackout of 2003[1]. GE Energy later developed a software patch to correct the previously undiscovered error.
This is only one programming flaw, a race-condition. Simply put a race condition is when two different parts of a program or two programs try to modify one piece of data at the same time, leading to a false result... it could very well make a simple math problem of 1+1 = to 3
 
Top