Will computers replace pilots?
- Thread starter seagull
- Start date
tcco94
Future GTA VI Pilot
Yeah, let's talk about it in 2 months when the next article gets posted about how pilots are expendable.
Spoiler alert: EVERYONE is expendable. Will every single job in the world be replaced by robots and computers? Hell, if an argument is to replace error made by pilots, why don't they replace our government with computers? They'd do a lot better with a computer making decisions....or even better yet, the big banks? Maybe the computers won't break the law or crash the entire world economy because of our greedy and corrupt system....and we NEED computerized aircraft because the last American 121 fatal accident was almost 8 years ago? Alright....
Soku39
Well-Known Member
I personally do not believe the will to automate absolutely everything is rational. That said there are lots of powerful corporations and lots of very intelligent people in California working very hard to make this a reality. I don't really get it, but it's our reality.
tcco94
Future GTA VI Pilot
And I think there's a lot of other stuff that needs to be on the table before it becomes a reality. Just because technology progressed so fast in the beginning doesn't mean it's automatically going to progress that way again. Look at the decline of technology growth comparing to 20 years ago. That argument many people claim is invalid.
My opinion is...you can't jump from Pop Warner to the Super Bowl. If a computer replaces me in the cockpit...that's great. When that happens, I will assume over half the world has lost their jobs also from automation. It's the reality we live in right? Humans are our own worst enemy? I mean we are trying to replace ourselves....
Certainly the will to automate everything isn't logical but neither is a metal tube with 300 lives electronically flown....IMO. With the increases in automation comes more threat. Even some of the most advanced and secure networks can be hacked easily now a days. I just view it as more threats, that are not threats today. I mean of course I'm sure some aircraft and operations will be practical but even then....who knows. I'm more interested in how the FAA is going to get rid of 100LL fuel, rather than a computer stealing my seat. Can we even get the Next Gen up and running successfully too?
Soku39
Well-Known Member
Ah, and by automate everything I mean from as low as the grocery store checkout cashier on up to the stock market (ie the non fiction book flashboys). I do agree that it is insane that people do not understand how amazing of an accomplishment that there have been no fatalities in part 121 flying since Buffalo, I personally find it utterly amazing. I really don't get the will to replace every human action with technology, and I never will, but again it's the world I live in.
tcco94
Future GTA VI Pilot
I do agree even though we know it's not logical, kids are out there...learning ideas to make technology bigger than it needs to be. I like the automation in aviation, especially to help with situational awareness, just don't understand the constant argument for complete automation. I thought by now people would step away from aviation with the complete automation we already have...
esa17
Well-Known Member
Derp Derp Derp...Got it.
I see the career largely intact for the next 20 years barring some major event horizon. If there are a rash of people flying planes into things like buildings or mountains the public won't start clamoring for ground based safety systems.
In all seriousness the major airlines won't be impacted nearly as much as the small freight forwarders. They will be the proof of concept for the technology.
Objectivity requires that an author start with the evidence and end with the conclusion. Starting with your conclusion and selecting the arguments that best support that conclusion is dishonest.
I challenge you to find me an incident caused by one single event. Accidents are always a combination of errors, always. Remove any one of those events and the accident doesn't happen...Always. No qualifiers needed like (looking at modern aircraft) I'm not incorrect, I'm the opposite of incorrect.
Engineers need people like me that understand the system as a whole and how it functions in real life. What appears on the CAD screen is often times much different than what appears when real airplanes meet real sky. I've certainly seen what happens when real airplanes meet real earth because someone sitting in a cubicle thought they new better than those of us who don't exist solely in the realm of the theoretical. I'll take my first hand knowledge over your second hand theory any day.
There are so many moving parts to this that can't be articulated, anticipated, or understood until you're there. Flying the chase plane, flying the aircraft or flying the calculator won't give you the full picture. You certainly can't get the full picture by reading an article written by someone with zero understanding of any of it.
What I can tell you for certain is that I've been on the crew with some of the best people in the world who do this. I've seen it and done it and I firmly believe that in my lifetime I will see safe, cheap, and reliable single pilot operations using transport category aircraft. The FO will be the dispatcher on the ground providing supplemental control as needed.
There will still be a pilot flying but should he or she drop dead a ground based ATOL will bring the bird home.
Think about how many times you get on an elevator, an escalator, a subway train or a public transit train. Just because it's on a track doesn't make you immune to slamming into another set of cars at 60MPH should the computer disregard a command to not proceed. Ever ridden a roller coaster as you pointed out? If you have then you're just a solenoid or two away from becoming a pink paste yet you board anyway.
The psychological leap to trust your life to a computer is made many times daily, the medium doesn't matter.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
I'm unfamiliar with your work, what is it that you do?
Also I see it as zero pilots or two pilots, how is 1 pilot safer than zero?
esa17
Well-Known Member
If you were familiar with my work then that would mean I had really eff'd up.
I have never once, not a single time, said a single pilot would be safer. A single pilot will be just as safe and cheaper. The evolution is the same as when the navigator was deleted, and then the flight engineer was deleted. The Dark Harbinger didn't show up when technology replaced their jobs and it won't here.
One of the pilots will be replaced by a datalink from a ground control station (dispatch) that has the ability to fully command and control all functions of the aircraft through all phases of flight. The pilot flying will have override capability so that in the event of a link-loss or any sort of corruption safety of flight isn't jeopardized.
For the people that think the datalinks are vulnerable to hacking...Stop. On the more robust systems you could stand next to the GDTs with a spectrum analyzer with the correct frequency and not be able to find it.
What should the first sentence and the first paragraph be for a position paper or scholarly article?
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
lol.
esa17
Well-Known Member
A good start might be a factual statement...like the second sentence. Of course everyone knows that there are no exceptions to 6th grade grammar meaning only the first two sentences can be declarative.
Last edited:
Soku39
Well-Known Member
I guess I don't get the joke, is it DARPA or something?
So will the single pilot still taxi? Will they just push one button and 3 minutes later the plane is configured and ready for takeoff? You mention the cockpit overriding the ground, will the ground be able to override the cockpit? Will data ever become cheap enough and secure enough?
You don't think a research paper or an argumentative essay should begin with a thesis statement?
And I have no idea what your second sentence means.
esa17
Well-Known Member
Both taxi situations are probable. Checklists are still run by a human commanding and verifying the aircraft configuration. It doesn't just happen like a transformer.
As far as ground overriding the cockpit...that's a sticky one. I'm really not sure how that will flesh out. I'm sure a security protocol will be developed to prevent another 9/11 or a German Wings incident.
Data is actually the easy part. Right now unmanned aircraft require a ton of bandwidth because of all the sensor data (optical & sigint) that is beamed back. Since normal day to day flight operations don't require anything but a lipstick cam and telemetry the data requirements will drop exponentially.
The privatization of space will further reduce the cost of data. When these companies figure out they can launch their own equipment into space for relatively low cost the reduction in data cost will be virtually instantaneous. We have had the technology to launch satellites into orbit from aircraft since the 80s and private companies are quickly catching up to those military capabilities.
Research papers have a thesis statement because they are based on research. This is a biased article based upon speculation and conjecture.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
Why would you bother having a human configure a plane. I mean we're talking about the planes creating spacing for themselves and ATC becoming passive, why would you want to depend on a human to load the GPS approach correctly? It defeats the whole purpose, yes?
Last edited:
wheelsup
Well-Known Member
No kidding.
When the W/B gets uploaded it'll configure itself. Everything will be uplinked and the aircraft will run through its BITE test and be good to go. Zero input errors.
esa17
Well-Known Member
In that example you're assuming that is done in the same manner as a manned aircraft, it's not.
Routes are pre-loaded after power-up. You're also assuming the aircraft will "make decisions" like who is next in line for takeoff or landing. Maintaining 2000' spacing is easy to program into the initial code, but any sort of dynamic decision making will require a meatbag for years to come.
Supplementing ATCs ability to flow control is a long way from making them passive. But, you know this already.
Soku39
Well-Known Member
I was actually not assuming that. I'm working under the assumption that "approaches" will be a thing of the past. That the plane will essentially operate itself and while obviously you would not dispatch into a hurricane, a foggy day on the East Coast would no longer bring the entire system to it's knees because the computer doesn't need to "see". Will that person have the tools and information to tell the "pilot" that they don't like something they're doing?
I am assuming the plane will make a lot of "decisions" as you are taking away the other Mark 1 brain to verify that the proper decision is being made.
Would the "pilot" verify the routes? Take the plane off? Land the plane? Obviously as "pilot's" skills deteriorate even further there will be more Airbus style protection and laws, but Would the plane be able to say "I don't like what the pilot is doing, I'm taking over"? Essentially what would the "pilot" be actually be responsible for? Measure G and deviate itself around weather or out of turbulence?
Does the ground station look like a Global Hawk trailer with joysticks that collect dust in the rare case that the pilot becomes incapacitated. What qualifications would this more than a dispatcher, less than a pilot individual need? Will there be a means to directly talk to this person via a virtual intercom?
Last edited:
esa17
Well-Known Member
Before we get off in the weeds further here is what I envision: The pilot on board the aircraft will be responsible for taxi, takeoff, and landing under most normal circumstances. The ground based systems are merely for route planning and act as the FO. There is no need to trade legs with a computer for the sake of its ego or training. Communications can be handled via any standard radio (V/H/UHF), via a chat type system as we employed in military airspace, an ACARS system, or a SATCOM link. That's not really any different than most SOPs today. Moving on...
The most capable system I've seen only uses the joystick for taxi. Everything else is done with a trackball. The runways are mapped using a DGPS system which even in the event of GPS degradation can still compensate and land within 1.5m of the mapped touchdown point. Using the trackball every conceivable aircraft operation was accomplished. Once a certain set of parameters are met then the takeoff option could be selected. From that point the aircraft would conduct several system checks and either continue or abort. Landing is the same way. Should all the checklist items not be accomplished the aircraft will not allow itself to enter landing mode unless a three step emergency override process took place.
If you want to use a fully functioning ATOL system you can and easily operate in zero-zero conditions. You're 100% correct about the aircraft not needing to see the runway so long as GPS continuity is maintained. It's completely safe and proven technology.
The "decisions" are made on the ground prior to takeoff for all phases of flight with the exception of the final approach. The final approach is loaded prior to initiating the landing sequence. All routes, including the lost-comms, are loaded prior to departure. Routes for unmanned aircraft are specifically approved by the controlling agency and ATC has copies of what they are. While that lends itself to stability it does not remain practical for all flight operations. This is why a pilot is needed on board to make decisions and on an as needed basis (WX deviations, smooth ride). To reiterate, the pilot is the PIC and not the computer.
The most capable system I've seen only uses the joystick for taxi. Everything else is done with a trackball. The runways are mapped using a DGPS system which even in the event of GPS degradation can still compensate and land within 1.5m of the mapped touchdown point. Using the trackball every conceivable aircraft operation was accomplished. Once a certain set of parameters are met then the takeoff option could be selected. From that point the aircraft would conduct several system checks and either continue or abort. Landing is the same way. Should all the checklist items not be accomplished the aircraft will not allow itself to enter landing mode unless a three step emergency override process took place.
If you want to use a fully functioning ATOL system you can and easily operate in zero-zero conditions. You're 100% correct about the aircraft not needing to see the runway so long as GPS continuity is maintained. It's completely safe and proven technology.
The "decisions" are made on the ground prior to takeoff for all phases of flight with the exception of the final approach. The final approach is loaded prior to initiating the landing sequence. All routes, including the lost-comms, are loaded prior to departure. Routes for unmanned aircraft are specifically approved by the controlling agency and ATC has copies of what they are. While that lends itself to stability it does not remain practical for all flight operations. This is why a pilot is needed on board to make decisions and on an as needed basis (WX deviations, smooth ride). To reiterate, the pilot is the PIC and not the computer.