Unmanned Airliners

Planes will become pilotless as soon as other processes have become so. Currently, systematic assembly lines are still closely monitored by people. These things are bolted to the ground and perform the same task over and over, but they still need human oversight. Key word being oversight as the function of a human is becoming less, nonetheless, it will be decades for a fully automated process to occur.

Nuclear reactors, cars, lumber mills, paper mills and many other processes still can't do a damn thing without a person controlling it. Airliners IMO can be placed in this same category; humans will be necessary for decades to come.
 
what?

we dont have pilots flying airliners anymore.

we have glorified bus drivers on mcdonalds wages.


































half :sarcasm:
 
meritflyer said:
I agree.

The air is unpredictable and requires a brain to solve issues as they come at you, not a computer chip.
Click to expand...

its only "unpredictable" with today's computing power.

if you have a sufficiently powerful computer, you can "predict" (or more accurately, make precise calculations about millions of variables with certainty extending into future scenarios) just about anything.
 
meritflyer said:
There are fully automated LR trains.
Click to expand...
And yet there are still trains with operators up front. Maybe I should have said "until we no longer need humans to drive trains...."

I guess my point is, the technology is there for trains, but for whatever reason there are still jobs available for train drivers. I think we can all agree that it will take airliners much, much, much, longer to get to the point of full automation, and if they are not yet there for trains, its certainly not in the near future for planes.
 
meritflyer said:
I agree.

The air is unpredictable and requires a brain to solve issues as they come at you, not a computer chip.
Click to expand...

"The air" is actually completely predictable. It's not that complex at all, which is why flying is so safe.

As an example, the next generation of onboard weather radars are going to be automated to an extent that pilots will have almost nothing to do with operating them. Currently radars require a lot of technique and interpretation. As a result pilots make mistakes with them. Solution: idiot proof them, just like they are doing with almost every other aspect of aviation.

For 30+ years I've watched them steadily and inexorably take the brain-work out of flying. Most safety issues come down to "too much judgment required" and the solution is always to take the need for judgment out of it, ie idiot proof it. Of course aviation is not the only place this goes on, it applies to all human endeavors. But it really shows up in aviation.

Now the way we usually take judgment out of aviation is to set up guidelines and procedures that leave little or no decision making required. It's the same process for automating something. One area that continues to be a problem is humans aren't really equipped to monitor everything at once. So when a failure occurs and the lights start flashing some of them will pertain to the problem and others will be incidental. These are the kinds of things computers handle exceedingly well. So here's betting that the 787 will tell the pilots what the abnormal is and which checklist will be executed as soon as they push "accept". Of course if it's really critical the airplane will handle it and then tell the pilot what it did. That way the pilot can't screw-up and decide not to push "accept".

And BTW if you really think the air is unpredictable and requires lots of brains to deal with, it just means you need to study a little more until that area seems simple to you. You really can't make good decisions if you think weather is very mysterious and complex.
 
What will make flying idiot proof is computer systems. That is the only way it will be done. Quite frankly, this will allow airplanes to be idiot proof, but then an entirely knew error arrises, bugs. Computer systems are ran by software which is composed of millions of lines of codes. So the pilot will be replaced in essence by these lines of codes. It is damn near impossible to make theses lines of codes completely error free. The entire software design industry has a hard enough time designing flawless computer systems that are anywhere near what was intended. For this reason, pilots will be in the front of airplanes for longer than I'll be around.
 
It is damn near impossible to make theses lines of codes completely error free.
Click to expand...

No matter what program flies the airliner, as you mentioned, it can not be flawless. When a problem comes about, the computer will try to assimilate a corrective solution with a set of circumstances being encountered.

The issue with the programs is that they are programmed for what "may" go wrong in the design phase and not what "will" go wrong in the real world of flying. If the aircraft encounters a problem for which the software isnt designed to deal with, it'll search its line codes for a set of corrective actions which may not be the appropriate solution and cause the problem to be worse.

There are also traffic flow issues in the air and on the ground which must be dealt with by a pilot. If those were to be completely eliminated, there would need to be a whole new airport system.

Also, consider the unpredictable weather, mx, and pax issues that must be dealt with by a cognitive process. If the aircraft can utilize some form of AI to deal with such situation, then maybe.

More things to consider are satellite links that are supposed to fly these by remote. What happens when weather, terrorism, or mx bring down such a link. Then what?

The bottom line is and always will be that automation doesnt always work. Computers crash and systems break. This is why I dont think pilots will ever (yes, I said ever) be off the deck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top