unmanned commercial airliners

[Thaluikhain]

Theres a popular thread at the moment about the use of drones and UAVs. So i thought what are your opinions of UAVs in the commercial world.

As an aircraft mechanic im in favour of this
1) pilots wages are expensive and probably one of an airliners largest expendatures
2) aircraft can be turned around a lot quicker
3) the majority of incidents are caused by pilot error
4) auto pilots/collision avoidance systems are incredibly advanced these days

Whats you opinion on this. As i maintain aircraft i would feel incredibly safe but i know some of you would still prefer a human pilot and if you are a pilot you probably dont like this idea

Weeeellll. Most UAV's aren't unpiloted unpiloted, the pilot just is somewhere else, they aren't truly robotic.

Nobody is going to be game to have totally autonomous UAVS for some time, and the moment something goes wrong they'll all be grounded.

 

[DugMachine]

I've never flown but I can safely say I would never board a plane that runs on auto-pilot. Pilots make mistakes from time to time but I would rather have a human piloting than a machine that could possibly malfunction or not be able to deal with issues that might arise while in the air because they were not programmed to do so.

 

[Xan Krieger]

I don't fly but if I did I'd want a human at the controls, I don't trust AI enough to put my life in it's hands. Besides if we're going down I'd rather hear "Smoke'em if you got'em" instead of "Error 404, altitude not found"

 

[Pinkamena]

I would be Ok with it, but I don't think we're quite ready to let software control the lives of hundreds of people. The program would have to be absolutely 100% perfect, as a glitch would be fatal.

 

[MorphingDragon]

4) auto pilots/collision avoidance systems are incredibly advanced these days

Again debatable, the systems are theoretically sound but errors still pop up.

The logic that goes into modern Autopilots is horribly old, even getting to the point where people who know the programming languages used by many core systems are in demand because no one else can read the code correctly.

It is possible to make a modern piloting system mathematically verified using formal methods but the cost would be so high just to make sure the spec is 100% correct that no one wants to do it. Then Quantumn Physics rears its lovely head with the possibility that bits wont flip in a register because fuck you. NASA is in a similar situation, they use ancient hardware or software in many situations because they know it can withstand the special demands of air/spacecraft.

 

[teqrevisited]

I wouldn't be comfortable at all in an unmanned aircraft. I'm by no means afraid of flying, but you don't just go however many thousands of feet up into the air without anyone that knows what to do if the thing goes wrong, and I doubt that the tried & tested IT solution would work (Have you tried turning it off and on again?).

 

[Smeatza]

I though commercial airliners were mostly automated anyway, with the pilots there just in case.
Am I mistaken? I was under the impression that in normal airliner circumstances the pilots only directly control the plan during take off and landing.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

4) auto pilots/collision avoidance systems are incredibly advanced these days

Again debatable, the systems are theoretically sound but errors still pop up.

The logic that goes into modern Autopilots is horribly old, even getting to the point where people who know the programming languages used by many core systems are in demand because no one else can read the code correctly.

It is possible to make a modern piloting system mathematically verified using formal methods but the cost would be so high just to make sure the spec is 100% correct that no one wants to do it. Then Quantumn Physics rears its lovely head with the possibility that bits wont flip in a register because fuck you. NASA is in a similar situation, they use ancient hardware or software in many situations because they know it can withstand the special demands of air/spacecraft.

I wasn't inferring the software was up to scratch but the hardware.

I was actually referring to Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, where the auto-throttle decreased thrust due to a faulty altimeter.

But, yes the software is an issue as well.

 

[shootthebandit]

autopilots in modern complex aircraft are three-axis and generally divide a flight into taxi, takeoff, ascent, cruise (level flight), descent, approach, and landing phases. Autopilots exist that automate all of these flight phases except the taxiing. An autopilot-controlled landing on a runway and controlling the aircraft on rollout (i.e. keeping it on the centre of the runway) is known as a CAT IIIb landing or Autoland, available on many major airports' runways today, especially at airports subject to adverse weather phenomena such as fog. Landing, rollout, and taxi control to the aircraft parking position is known as CAT IIIc. This is not used to date, but may be used in the future. An autopilot is often an integral component of a Flight Management System.

I happen to know that on the trails for this system the problem was it was TOO accurate. It hit the same point on the runway every time and they needed to resurface

Like it says here currently the only POF (phase of flight) these systems cant handle is taxiing but i think hongkong airport is pretty close to installing an auto-taxi system. Also like it says here the autoland is safer than a pilot when it comes to land in fog and other adverse condtions

 

[MorphingDragon]

autopilots in modern complex aircraft are three-axis and generally divide a flight into taxi, takeoff, ascent, cruise (level flight), descent, approach, and landing phases. Autopilots exist that automate all of these flight phases except the taxiing. An autopilot-controlled landing on a runway and controlling the aircraft on rollout (i.e. keeping it on the centre of the runway) is known as a CAT IIIb landing or Autoland, available on many major airports' runways today, especially at airports subject to adverse weather phenomena such as fog. Landing, rollout, and taxi control to the aircraft parking position is known as CAT IIIc. This is not used to date, but may be used in the future. An autopilot is often an integral component of a Flight Management System.

I happen to know that on the trails for this system the problem was it was TOO accurate. It hit the same point on the runway every time and they needed to resurface

That's actually quite impressive given how imprecise flying actually is.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Not needing a pilot is an interesting one. Jeremy Clarkson talked about in a Top Gear episode (last year I think).

- We know that the majority of plane accidents are due to pilot error
- We know that planes can take off, land and fly themselves

But even though statistically we know we'd be safer without the pilot, who would want to board a plane without one?

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

No. I dont want this at all. I still want a human pilot available in case something happens. They say well what about pilot error? What about tech errors? Now thats not to say a human is better, but if the tech dies, i would rather have a pilot their to attempt to land the plane than, you know, crash into the ground. Its like parachuting....do you want one parachute or two? I would rather have a back up that i dont need, than dont have it and need it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Not needing a pilot is an interesting one. Jeremy Clarkson talked about in a Top Gear episode (last year I think).

- We know that the majority of plane accidents are due to pilot error
- We know that planes can take off, land and fly themselves

But even though statistically we know we'd be safer without the pilot, who would want to board a plane without one?

Well, the majority of accidents might be due to pilots, but all planes still use them. That's not to say that unpiloted planes are safer, though it doesn't mean they aren't either.

 

[Total LOLige]

No fucking way. Computers often glitch and frankly I don't want to be on a plane where one might even if the odds are 1/1 gazillion. I suppose you could have a pilot there just in case but what if the AI says "I caan't let you do that" and nose dives. Or am I missing the point, is it controlled remotely?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

That's not to say that unpiloted planes are safer, though it doesn't mean they aren't either.

Actually, that's precisely what it means. Statistically we know that the majority of airplane accidents are caused by pilot error. Thus removing the pilot from the equation would have eliminated those accidents, that's the point Statistically, we are more likely to have an accident with a human pilot than without one. But it's a strange case that despite statistical evidence, I can't imagine many people opting to fly without a human pilot.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually, that's precisely what it means. Statistically we know that the majority of airplane accidents are caused by pilot error. Thus removing the pilot from the equation would have eliminated those accidents, that's the point Statistically, we are more likely to have an accident with a human pilot than without one. But it's a strange case that despite statistical evidence, I can't imagine many people opting to fly without a human pilot.

Er, no, that is not necessarily true, it depends on the reliability of what you replace the pilot with. Most accidents might be due to pilots, but this is in no small part due to all planes using them.

 

[lacktheknack]

Nope.

You can't fool me, bro.

I took several classes in artificial intelligence. Any given AI, no matter how advanced it is, is a ticking time bomb just WAITING to make a little mistake that it can spin wildly out of control.

I can deal with my auto-parallel-parking gizmo accidentally popping the wheel because the wheel accidentally hooked on clothing, and side-swiping the car beside me (true story), but I DON'T accept the possibility of something like that happening when I'm going 600 km/h through the air.

 

[Jadak]

I know pretty much everything is very automated, but I still feel like there are certain situations I wouldn't want to trust to a computer. Like when that Sullenberger guy put the plane down in the water after hitting that flock of birds? He wasn't just commended for his quick thinking and the choice he made. The people on the plane praised him for being so calm and frank with them. In an emergency situation, the last thing you need is panic, and the presence of a physical person there to tell you what's going on and what's going to happen makes all the difference to people. It may not actually make them safer, but when things start to go wrong people like knowing there's somebody very near who's on the case.

You're looking at the one side of this that doesn't matter. How the people on the plane will feel? If those people die, then it's the rest of people that will be upset, and likely be condemning the machine. But, if those people live, then at the end of the day the merits of having an actual person present don't mean fuck all, as those people are going to be too damn relieved they didn't go up in a fiery ball of death for anyone to care about the panic a few minutes earlier.

OT: Maybe not right away, but after unmanned commercial flights have been running for a year or so, I'm all for it.

 

[Lilani]

You're looking at the one side of this that doesn't matter. How the people on the plane will feel? If those people die, then it's the rest of people that will be upset, and likely be condemning the machine. But, if those people live, then at the end of the day the merits of having an actual person present don't mean fuck all, as those people are going to be too damn relieved they didn't go up in a fiery ball of death for anyone to care about the panic a few minutes earlier.

OT: Maybe not right away, but after unmanned commercial flights have been running for a year or so, I'm all for it.

In an emergency situation, how people feel is a huge thing that matters. If the people aren't calm, then evacuations are made exponentially more difficult and everyone is more unsafe because panicked people don't make rational decisions. It's not just about the panicked people dying, it's about the panicked people making the situation impossible to approach and making decisions that endanger everyone further.

 

[TehCookie]

You still need a human to make human decisions when unplanned things happen. I wouldn't mind a airplane 99% controlled by a computer, but there should be a human on standby just in case.