Planes without pilots - NYT

A300Capt said:
Freighters will be first to go pilotless. UPS and FedEx would love to have the technology right now and get rid of us. The saving grace and stumbling block for passenger carriers will be flight attendants. I don't think they want to be spending their career in a speeding metal tube with no one in the pointy end and who will take care of the pax? Just my opinion.

The pax will need someone to cater to them on long haul flights and help them in case of an emergency so they won't be replaced any time soon. So, hug your flt attendant!

Fortunately, my career will be in my rear view mirror when Global Hawks start flying packages!
Click to expand...

Again, the problem here is the assumption that remote piloting is somehow less expensive than human pilots. After all, the whole purpose of replacing pilots with robots is to save money and increase productivity, right? Unfortunately, it is a seriously incorrect belief. The folks that think this haven't ever actually looked at the real aggregate costs of operating these things beyond line of sight.

The BLOS connection (satellite time) alone for a single day's sortie in the aircraft I'm currently working on costs more than a regional pilot's annual salary. That cost doesn't even touch all the other infrastructure and maintenance costs, and given the technology buying, caring, and feeding that technology is not at all an inexpensive prospect.

Maybe someday RPA technology and the satellite bandwidth on which to run it will be cheaper than a pilot, but it sure as heck isn't anywhere close today.
 
Hacker15e said:
Again, the problem here is the assumption that remote piloting is somehow less expensive than human pilots. After all, the whole purpose of replacing pilots with robots is to save money and increase productivity, right? Unfortunately, it is a seriously incorrect belief. The folks that think this haven't ever actually looked at the real aggregate costs of operating these things beyond line of sight.

The BLOS connection (satellite time) alone for a single day's sortie in the aircraft I'm currently working on costs more than a regional pilot's annual salary. That cost doesn't even touch all the other infrastructure and maintenance costs, and given the technology buying, caring, and feeding that technology is not at all an inexpensive prospect.

Maybe someday RPA technology and the satellite bandwidth on which to run it will be cheaper than a pilot, but it sure as heck isn't anywhere close today.
Click to expand...

If memory serves Elon Musk and google are looking to put up a constellation of satellites that will give a worldwide internet connection to those who can't get it at 3g and eventually even 4g speeds. BLOS is a challenge but it will be overcome a lot more rapidly than most think I reckon.
 
Hacker15e said:
Again, the problem here is the assumption that remote piloting is somehow less expensive than human pilots. After all, the whole purpose of replacing pilots with robots is to save money and increase productivity, right? Unfortunately, it is a seriously incorrect belief. The folks that think this haven't ever actually looked at the real aggregate costs of operating these things beyond line of sight.

The BLOS connection (satellite time) alone for a single day's sortie in the aircraft I'm currently working on costs more than a regional pilot's annual salary. That cost doesn't even touch all the other infrastructure and maintenance costs, and given the technology buying, caring, and feeding that technology is not at all an inexpensive prospect.

Maybe someday RPA technology and the satellite bandwidth on which to run it will be cheaper than a pilot, but it sure as heck isn't anywhere close today.
Click to expand...

Why would it need a constant connection? In remote areas why would it need more than today's cpdlc?
 
ppragman said:
BLOS is a challenge but it will be overcome a lot more rapidly than most think I reckon.
Click to expand...

That falls into a category that none of us can predict, as technological advancement occurs at an unknown pace until it has actually occurred.

It is obvious that all of these concepts will eventually be technologically and economically feasible, but the argument that it is viable for a business to use now, next year, or even in the next dozen years is DOA given current technology/infrastructure and the recent historical rate of advancement and reduction in cost.

Think about how long EFBs have been possible (lightweight tablet computers have been available since the late 1990s), but it is only once the costs were less than the status quo (and including the weight/fuel savings, etc) that anyone actually pushed the idea enough to seek FAA approval in order to adopt it.

There are lots of great technologies out there, but until they are cheaper than the status quo or can allow other cost reductions or boosts to revenue, smart businesses aren't going to adopt them.

The world's reliance on fossil fuels is going to evaporate, too, as soon as it is cheaper per unit to use another energy source.
 
gne in prog said:
Why would it need a constant connection? In remote areas why would it need more than today's cpdlc?
Click to expand...

In order to know when it was safe to be offline, whomever designed that process would have to know the unknowable.

The whole point of having pilots in the front end of the airplane is to handle when things don't go according to plan. Current FMSs can move the airplane reliably through the NAS without much input at all...but as soon as something changes, that's when you need a brain. Nobody can predict when that will happen.

In order for some remote monitoring/piloting scheme to work, it would have to constantly be connected.
 
Last edited:
wheelsup said:
To be frank I guarantee a computer would do a better job operating the airplane than we could in almost all circumstances. I have seen CA's abort for cautions well above 80 knots (in real life). I've seen CA's in the sim not abort for engine fire warnings well below V1.

A computer needs almost zero reaction time and can make the programmed decision almost instantly, and without error.

That being said how much programming and logic is needed? A couple years after the Hudson incident we were rolling down runway 04 in LGA and along comes this large flock of geese right over time the runway, flying low. We were right around V1 at that time and I elected to continue, but not rotate. We stayed on the ground until we had to rotate as the birds past right above us.

Could a computer make that decision? Of course it could. But it would A) need to be able to see these things, and understand what they are, and B) have that flowchart in its database.

How many times have things like the above happened on a day to day basis? Quite a few across the system.
Click to expand...

Without error eh? On a Windows computer I've hit the open Microsoft Flight Simulator button and instead of doing the instantaneous pre programed command, I got the blue screen of death.

Sorry folks, pilotless airliners are not happening anytime soon.
 
People can say and write whatever they want in an article. Does anybody read Popular Mechanics anymore? I've read it since I was in 6th grade. How much of the stuff that this magazine SWORE was the next best thing? How much has become reality? Virtually none.

We can't get 2 people in any Govt agency to agree on ANYTHING, let alone a massive revamping of the global aviation infrastructure. The day the UN runs the planet, then let's talk about remotely operated aircraft cris-crossing the planet.

Just gonna leave this here. 1991, folks. It was predicted that in 1999 there would be thousands of these carplanes "busting gridlock" that by 2010 would make freeways impassable. Poof. Never got more than 40 feet off of the ground for longer than 3 minutes with $25 million thrown at it. $25 million in 1990 dollars.

tumblr_n97vrxHVql1tcuhpfo4_500.jpg
 
Last edited:
Trip7 said:
Autopilot and VNAV can't even make altitude restrictions on speed yet folks think pilotless planes will happen. Ha!
Click to expand...

Yeah, but in all fairness, 99% of the time those mistakes are the fault of the idiot programming it. If I had a nickel for every time some captain said "damned VNAV doesn't work" after he failed to load the winds aloft...
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
You know what, I'd sign on for driver-less cars. At least a machine can be programmed to NOT be aggressive douchebags..... which is about 85% of the NYC/NJ area drivers.
Click to expand...
My point was driverless cars are still fantasy, and they are only driven in 2 dimensions. Add in everything that can go wrong in an airplane, and a 3rd dimension, and you are talking a long way from implementation in reality, much less with people trusting it in a high speed aluminum tube.

I agree once it becomes reality, it will be nice, but it's a long way away.
 
mshunter said:
Oh now that's laughable. Dodging thunder storms in the summer, dealing with ice in the winter is less dynamic than pulling off to the side of the road?
Click to expand...
Lots of deer jumping out in front of you at FL350? What about snow/(black)ice/gravel? Then there's other drivers, who have almost no training at all, and if we're honest there are virtually no rules in driving compared to flying. Certainly not many people care to consistently follow.

Think about it. Would you rather drive 100 miles in a blizzard or fly through the same storm? We both know which is safer. For me, flying is a lot easier in the worst weather than driving in moderately crappy weather.
 
Driverless cars are far from "fantasy." Several models already exist and have completed long-range trips without human intervention. Hell, I believe Audi is planning on selling a car to the public next year that will drive itself on the highway. We're less than five years away from mass produced self-driving cars.

None of that says anything about pilotless aircraft through. Contrary to the ridiculous comment someone made earlier in this thread, flying is infinitely more dynamic than driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top