unmanned commercial airliners

[Alfador_VII]

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.

That auto-park problem was human error ironically. If you weren't in the seat to accidentally interfere with the controls it would have worked just fine Currently for legal reasons auto-park still needs someone to control the gas, brakes, and gears (at least D and R), but there's no technical reason why it couldn't do it completely unaided.

The same is actually true of aircraft only more so. For most routine flights, the pilots are only in control for take off and landing, the rest is the auto-pilot. And commercial aircraft can and do take off and land completely automatically at times also.

I'd still like to keep at least one crew member for now, because there's always a chance of some failure in the system, either in the programming or maintenance. Like there was a plane in the UK recently where both engines caught fire just after take off due to service hatches not being properly secured, and ripping off damaging the fuel lines. Several people messed up there :/

 

[The Funslinger]

However, I would never want to board a flight without a human who is trained and capable of taking the controls in case the autopilot should fail or an event outside the autopilot's parameters should arise.

Yeah, and if we're going to pay someone who can take control to board the flight who's just gonna end up getting paid to sit on his ass the majority of the time, why make it automated at all?

I feel like this is just one of those things that just because we can remove the human component doesn't mean we should.

Edit: And as a rule of thumb, I'm very against unnecessarily putting things into autonomous control because it's a job remover. And yeah, the argument is that we still need people to remotely control or to maintain those autonomous programs, but then everything's still a skeleton operation and a huge plethora of jobs get blanketed by engineer/mechanic/technician and remote operator.

And I don't think everyone wants to be doing those jobs.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I would first try it for shipping reasons and other non-passenger uses for planes, and if the numbers turn out good, then they could try using this automated system.

I would be a bit wary of letting an auto pilot have control over my flight, but if it works well enough that would be cool. I would suggest keeping one pilot in the cockpit, to take control in case something goes wrong.

 

[Henrik Knudsen]

I would first try it for shipping reasons and other non-passenger uses for planes, and if the numbers turn out good, then they could try using this automated system.

I would be a bit wary of letting an auto pilot have control over my flight, but if it works well enough that would be cool. I would suggest keeping one pilot in the cockpit, to take control in case something goes wrong.

The pilot in question wouldn't know what to do if something went wrong. He would lack flight hours aka. experience.

The really nasty crash by Air France in South America a couple of years back was said to could have been avoided, if pilots spent more time flying than looking at autopilots.
They simply lacked experience on what to do when something went wrong and the machines failed.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I would first try it for shipping reasons and other non-passenger uses for planes, and if the numbers turn out good, then they could try using this automated system.

I would be a bit wary of letting an auto pilot have control over my flight, but if it works well enough that would be cool. I would suggest keeping one pilot in the cockpit, to take control in case something goes wrong.

The pilot in question wouldn't know what to do if something went wrong. He would lack flight hours aka. experience.

The really nasty crash by Air France in South America a couple of years back was said to could have been avoided, if pilots spent more time flying than looking at autopilots.
They simply lacked experience on what to do when something went wrong and the machines failed.

Well that makes me rethink my opinion, I suppose it would be best to use this system just for shipping and other non-passenger plane purposes. I would want to make sure that real pilots had as much experience as possible to calmly stabilize the plane if something goes wrong. The automated system could still be put in place, but it would be best for there to be two competent pilots in the cockpit.

 

[wulf3n]

An interesting tidbit about handing control over to the robot overloads one piece at a time is what to do we do with all the pilots that get fired because we now have a machine that can do their job for no money?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

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.

I don't have it in me to really explain a third time, but this site [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/7844042/Why-planes-crash-air-accident-statistics-and-banned-airlines.html?image=3] and this site [http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm] have stats you can see. Up until 2009, from those confirmed accidents, 50% were due to pilot error. Without a pilot, using modern autopilot and technology like GPS and computers to take off, fly and land the plane those accidents would've been avoided as those errors wouldn't have happened. To preempt what I think you'll say next, yes those planes may have crashed for another reason but the facts are that they did not.

 

[josemlopes]

GUYS, Hear me out

Planes cant take off and land by themselfs, and there is a reason why pilots need so much training to do what they do. This isnt Ace Combat, guys, and by the way plane crashes arent about "the pilot made a mistake" but about "multiple minor mistakes occured even before the plane took off and they led to a crash where the pilot had little control over the situation", thats the first thing they teach you in maintenance.

My dad works in maintenace so while I may be wrong about the take off and land by themselfs thing I am damn right about the rest (primarly the "pilot error" thing).

 

[shootthebandit]

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?

i hate to tell you but a lot of aircraft including most military and most airbus are already fly by wire meaning all the pilot inputs are sent to a computer then the computer moves the actuator. So even with a pilot if the computer says no your still fucked. They tend to have 4 FCCs (flight control computers) each with 4 separate lanes of data and a hard wire between them and they constantly check each other. So you are right the chance probably is one in a gazillion of all four failing or Your looking at a total power failure which means all engines and APU (aux power unit) and if that happens theres no much mr pilot can do anyway

 

[Jadak]

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.

What you're saying is completely true, for almost any other situation. In a plane, they do not need to make good decisions, they do not need to cooperate. Such things would certainly be beneficial for the safety of their fellow passengers and crew, but in the end how they feel makes no difference to whether or not the thing smashes into the ground or not.

The only real requirement needed on that front is that the plane be secure enough that a bunch of panicking people can't take it down, build the passenger cabin like a prison.

 

[Lilani]

What you're saying is completely true, for almost any other situation. In a plane, they do not need to make good decisions, they do not need to cooperate. Such things would certainly be beneficial for the safety of their fellow passengers and crew, but in the end how they feel makes no difference to whether or not the thing smashes into the ground or not.

The only real requirement needed on that front is that the plane be secure enough that a bunch of panicking people can't take it down, build the passenger cabin like a prison.

Most airplane crashes don't involve the plane falling out of the sky, you know. It's stuff like blown tires or landing gear failures, or hiccups during takeoff or landing. Most people who evacuate a plane do it onto a tarmac. Most survive, but depending on what happens it often requires emergency evacuation of the plane. And believe it or not, getting a few hundred people to go down a half dozen slides requires coordination, organization, and most importantly calm. Going down an inflatable slide doesn't sound bad, until you've got somebody who is convinced there's a fuel leak and is shoving other people down a slide that starts a good 20 or 30 feet off the ground. If somebody tumbles off the edge or if they don't wait for the people at the bottom to clear away, it can quickly turn nasty.

Ever seen that video of that giant escalator that broke down, and people started piling up at the bottom and getting crushed by everyone else who was still coming down? You do not want a plane evacuation to happen that way. But it could if the people are allowed to panic and behave like animals. Which, by the way, is exactly what happens when people get whipped into a panic. It becomes every man for himself, no matter how much safer everyone would be if people just waited their turn.

 

[Jadak]

Most airplane crashes don't involve the plane falling out of the sky, you know. It's stuff like blown tires or landing gear failures, or hiccups during takeoff or landing. Most people who evacuate a plane do it onto a tarmac. Most survive, but depending on what happens it often requires emergency evacuation of the plane. And believe it or not, getting a few hundred people to go down a half dozen slides requires coordination, organization, and most importantly calm. Going down an inflatable slide doesn't sound bad, until you've got somebody who is convinced there's a fuel leak and is shoving other people down a slide that starts a good 20 or 30 feet off the ground. If somebody tumbles off the edge or if they don't wait for the people at the bottom to clear away, it can quickly turn nasty.

Ever seen that video of that giant escalator that broke down, and people started piling up at the bottom and getting crushed by everyone else who was still coming down? You do not want a plane evacuation to happen that way. But it could if the people are allowed to panic and behave like animals. Which, by the way, is exactly what happens when people get whipped into a panic. It becomes every man for himself, no matter how much safer everyone would be if people just waited their turn.

And that sounds like the sort of problems perfectly suited for someone who's main specialty is not flying planes. I've not tried to argue in favor of completely unmanned aircraft, presumably there would still be flight attendants and the like regardless of how it flies, any of which could be adequately trained in crowed control, and likely already are. I will agree that problem situations on the ground could benefit from a calm professional to directs things, but at such a time that person also happening to be the one who was flying the plane is largely irrelevant.

 

[Lilani]

And that sounds like the sort of problems perfectly suited for someone who's main specialty is not flying planes. I've not tried to argue in favor of completely unmanned aircraft, presumably there would still be flight attendants and the like regardless of how it flies, any of which could be adequately trained in crowed control, and likely already are. I will agree that problem situations on the ground could benefit from a calm professional to directs things, but at such a time that person also happening to be the one who was flying the plane is largely irrelevant.

People are funny when it comes to being reassured. They don't like being reassured by somebody they don't respect, and they won't be reassured unless they are certain the person knows what they're talking about. You are right in that the planes would still employ flight attendants, however flight attendants aren't pilots or mechanics. To put it bluntly: nobody respects flight attendants. They're pretty, they provide good service and cold drinks, but nobody respects them, especially when it comes to the mechanical goings-on of the plane. Any information they give when the passengers start demanding information will just be relayed from the control tower. They won't have much authority because all of their authority is coming from a person who knows way more than they do who is sitting comfortably in a chair very far away from danger.

It could work in some situations, but if they have to remain on the tarmac or in the plane for extended periods of time, people are just used to the idea of having the captain to refer to for guidance and authority. It's basically a trope now, it's what people expect when they get on a plane. And though a person in a control tower can provide the same kind of information, people don't like hearing "everything is going to be fine" from somebody who can't even physically see the plane and is well out of harm's way. It's like talking to an answering machine when you want to hear the real thing.

 

[Tanakh]

I don't have it in me to really explain a third time, but this site [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/picturegalleries/7844042/Why-planes-crash-air-accident-statistics-and-banned-airlines.html?image=3] and this site [http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm] have stats you can see. Up until 2009, from those confirmed accidents, 50% were due to pilot error. Without a pilot, using modern autopilot and technology like GPS and computers to take off, fly and land the plane those accidents would've been avoided as those errors wouldn't have happened. To preempt what I think you'll say next, yes those planes may have crashed for another reason but the facts are that they did not.

Mhee, the average human will take the riskier established option as long as it fits his preconceived ideas. I for one am bothered that we don't have more development in autopilots for cars and planes due the population failing to read stats and graphs.

 

[My name is Fiction]

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.

No one records prevented incident because a pilot was there. Moral is a factor in safty as well although not considered one.
There was a case of a crash that before disaster the pilots were complaining about their low wages.
Its comparable to fastfood.