Is Fred Smith (FDX) that ignorant?

MikeD said:
HAL is coming........

What a change in work rules that would be :D
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on your shop's retirement/attrition projection for FY2010! According to those in MN, no new slots this year (just like you said)!
 
FDX probably spends some research dollars in this area, but he clearly doesn't know a lot about it as that's a lot of stupid stuff said in a small space. While not only lacking a clear idea of how a 777 works, he also lacks an understanding of the engineering process and how much money and time it takes to move ideas from the research / concept arena to operational production.
 
If Fred sat on the jumpseat for a whole 80 hour month he'd realize the system as a whole is a long, long, long time away from being able to handle unmanned airplanes. I think he knows that but I wonder why he is so serious about transitioning to something that has absolutely no chance of happening in the time that he has left to live! I mean, I'm young, and I don't even think it'll happen until I'm at retirement age.
 
From the tone of the article I gather the guy is speaking informally as an emeritus would, sort of rambling but with visionary thoughts as he reflects internally on how fast technology has advanced. From the tone of this thread I gather a lot of you are reacting on an emotional level.

Certainly I would not say he is ignorant.

Nick, you say you're young. How young, I don't know but I'll tell you this. Tech is leaping ahead ever faster. When I was in my 20s I remember silicon wafers the size of waffles. >30 yrs ago. Tech develops at an exponential rate. Given that, I think you can expect to see it in your lifetime what Fred is talking about. Heck, there is no reason why it couldn't be all wireless even. Not even a pilot on the ground in a Lazy Boy.
 
Realms09 said:
FDX probably spends some research dollars in this area, but he clearly doesn't know a lot about it as that's a lot of stupid stuff said in a small space. While not only lacking a clear idea of how a 777 works, he also lacks an understanding of the engineering process and how much money and time it takes to move ideas from the research / concept arena to operational production.
Click to expand...
In light of his accomplishments and long success, you say he lacks an understanding? Wow o wow!

An important factor here is not to confine vision to within the paradigm of today. Nothing would advance if that were the case. Vision, AKA forward thinking, by it's very nature, creates the environment conducive to the desired advancement.
 
RICHARD5 said:
From the tone of the article I gather the guy is speaking informally as an emeritus would, sort of rambling but with visionary thoughts as he reflects internally on how fast technology has advanced. From the tone of this thread I gather a lot of you are reacting on an emotional level.

Certainly I would not say he is ignorant.

Nick, you say you're young. How young, I don't know but I'll tell you this. Tech is leaping ahead ever faster. When I was in my 20s I remember silicon wafers the size of waffles. >30 yrs ago. Tech develops at an exponential rate. Given that, I think you can expect to see it in your lifetime what Fred is talking about. Heck, there is no reason why it couldn't be all wireless even. Not even a pilot on the ground in a Lazy Boy.
Click to expand...

and if the signal is lost? intercepted?
 
Realms09 said:
FDX probably spends some research dollars in this area, but he clearly doesn't know a lot about it as that's a lot of stupid stuff said in a small space. While not only lacking a clear idea of how a 777 works, he also lacks an understanding of the engineering process and how much money and time it takes to move ideas from the research / concept arena to operational production.
Click to expand...

You foolishly underestimate him. As for technology, like others have said, it moves along faster than you think. We are not that far from this and when that happens, you can be sure things will be changing fast!

Remember that the only reason we have much of our technology was that someone like Fred mused about it....
 
That's the day aviation completely loses its soul. But it's all about the $$$ to these types. :whatever:
 
RICHARD5 said:
C'mon, we're not designing a system here. Anyway, redundancy is one answer.
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks that UAVs are just over the horizon for operating for commerce in the US needs to take a look at the military's accident rate for UAVs.

What kind of redundancy are you thinking of? The military has UAVs that are designed with several layers of redundancy, and they STILL lose UAVs for lost signal (or any one of a number of other problems related to not having a human in the aircraft) all the time.

It's not that big of a deal when a UAV is $1-5 mil a pop, but with a $100+ mil aircraft like Fred's thinking of, it is a BIG deal. And that's just with an "unmanned" aircraft, where there actually are pilots making decisions about how to operate the aircraft. Fred wants them to be robots!

Smith's perspective is that humans in the cockpit make the airways more dangerous, not less.
Click to expand...

This is the part that is the most interesting, in my opinion. I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of a pilot currently. Fred is perfectly happy to point out that pilots do about "20 seconds" of work. Yeah, that's true, so long as everything goes exactly as planned. The REAL reason to have a pilot on board is to handle decisionmaking when things don't go exactly as planned.

To be sure, most accidents are caused by pilot error. BUT, if you consider all the mechanical and avionics malfunctions that happen on a daily basis that don't turn into accidents because of human intervention, this number would be significantly lower.
 
After watching the AP chase a glideslope like a drunken instrument student and the FMS try to send us the wrong direction (two different airplanes, same day), I'm gonna say we need a lot more advancement in the tech before we can take people out of the flight deck.
 
kellwolf said:
I'm gonna say we need a lot more advancement in the tech before we can take people out of the flight deck.
Click to expand...

Along with the "technological singularity" article, I think it's inevitable that at some point humans will be out of the flight deck.

The real question is, WHEN will that be?

I happen to think that your point, and my point made above, indicate that it may be several decades (or longer?) before that happens.
 
Hacker15e said:
Along with the "technological singularity" article, I think it's inevitable that at some point humans will be out of the flight deck.

The real question is, WHEN will that be?

I happen to think that your point, and my point made above, indicate that it may be several decades (or longer?) before that happens.
Click to expand...

That article would also indicate that surgeons have a limited lifespan as well. I don't think a computer's decision making will hold up in court in the most extreme of circumstances.


That being said, when it comes down to it, being out of the cockpit certainly doesn't equate to unemployment. I think that there will be plenty of opportunities to manage these devices, all requiring thorough aeronautical knowledge and experience.
 
I can't resist, UAV testing:

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/12/Plane-Crash-635495.html

This is very old, maybe as much as 10 years ago now I remember first seeing it on discovery when I was early in college. Had to use this video because the commentary is brilliant, be sure you have your sound on. Great flare this UAV has though, picture perfect...

As for the rest of the OP, I would bet the technology already exists in some super top secret military operations. I would also bet it will be a long time till it enters commercial aviation for reasons hacker covered. Until computers reach the stage of AI and can truly learn on their own the idea of commercial UAV is ludicrous, for freight or passenger carriage.

One thing I found funny is the thought that UAV would have a far greater cargo capacity. Must be some really fat pilots. As is the UAV will have all the equipment on board for the monitoring, all they need to do is hook up a control stick for the pilot (a joystick, 2 pounds) and a few monitors for them to see whats going on. At best all of that equipment can't be much more than a few hundred pounds, less than a percent of the useful load.

IMO he should be putting his money into engines that run on energy other than gas. I vote nuclear propulsion systems, he talks about that and I will start listening. Saving 250,000 pounds + in fuel load for cargo versus saving maybe 1000, not to mention fuel burn costs sounds much more feasible to me. Still crazy, and likely a long way off, but at least logical not to mention a gold mine if he won the race.
 
shdw said:
I vote nuclear propulsion systems, he talks about that and I will start listening. Saving 250,000 pounds + in fuel load for cargo versus saving maybe 1000, not to mention fuel burn costs sounds much more feasible to me. Still crazy, and likely a long way off, but at least logical not to mention a gold mine if he won the race.
Click to expand...

That was tried in the 50s, and never got off the ground (or the drawing board) because of the ridiculous weight of the powerplant.

Plus, think of the contamination area when one crashed.
 
Here's my thing though. I think that when that day comes... UAV will only be used for a very select few flights. Mostly oceanic routes. I mean for one with all the airplanes being purchased now not many companies are going to just throw that money away and buy new UAVs. Plus I am going to take a guess and say it will take more than just the two pilots required for a normal plane to monitor and track one UAV. Also most companies like 135 outfits and charter and corporate don't have the money or infrastructure that is probaly going to be required to use UAVs never less buy the new aircraft. So there will be pilots flying airplanes for a living for as long as I am alive as I see it.
 
seagull said:
You foolishly underestimate him. As for technology, like others have said, it moves along faster than you think. We are not that far from this and when that happens, you can be sure things will be changing fast!

Remember that the only reason we have much of our technology was that someone like Fred mused about it....
Click to expand...

My point is that technology moves along slower than places like Wired think. I did not mean to suggest Fred Smith is not a man of accomplishment and business acumen, only that he does not appear to be an engineer or be familiar enough with engineering. That may very well be Wired's fault. I think Wired has done the man a disservice in this portrayal, as the image projected is that blended wing bodies and unmanned vehicles of that scale are all ready to go if the FAA would flip the switch ("Because the FAA rules are not in place, nobody's built that perfect blended wing UAV for FedEx yet"). Vision is important and his vision is good. But there are visionaries and then there are the people who make the technology happen. To be taken seriously it is important to not lose sight of the second half, which places like Wired and Popular Mechanics all too often do (and through their portrayals, the people they interview). These technologies will come to pass - I know people who work on these things. It will just take years and billions, because that's the engineering reality. That's just my opinion as an engineer actively involved in aerospace research, trying to turn new technologies into actuality (I'm in the musing business). I will give Mr. Smith the benefit of the doubt, but Wired - shame on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top