Pilot-less Airplanes

[^dub^]

Agreed. I can think of a few scenarios where you need the pilot in flight deck element.
Let's say you have a rapidly growing thunderstorm and the conditions are changing rapidly. A guy sitting in a cubicle manning the a/c will not be able to accurately judge these conditions and might make a poor decision based on limited info. As pilots we can accurately assess the situation on the spot to make safe decisions. On numerous occasions the weather has changed rapidly on me requiring instant educated decision making. No way somebody can do that from a desk no matter how experienced he is. The sounds from the aircraft entering moderate icing conditions or turbulence can only be experienced from inside the aircraft. If my spidey senses are tingling, it alerts me to potential problems. I'm also trained extensively on handling the aircraft with system failures or anomalies.
Another scenario (and one that truly scares me) is an uncontrollable fire over the ocean. You basically have 9 minutes to get a fire under control before you are in trouble. Should the necessity to perhaps ditch the airplane in the ocean before the airplane becomes uncontrollable arise, is the guy sitting at a cubicle manning the a/c able to accurately make a proper decision that controls the fate of over 200 people. No way. You need experienced pilots on board to make the best decisions based on the present conditions. I cringe at the thought of being a passenger in this situation with no pilots on board.
I could run hundreds of scenarios of why I don't think pilots will ever be pushed out of the flight deck.
Unmanned drones and fighter planes yes. Commercial airliners carrying hundreds of people. No way. There are just too many factors requiring our presence.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Excellent stuff Rusty. I was thinking along those same lines about how the recent Las Vegas BA 777 scenario would have played out with no pilots.

To give this debate/discussion a more human emotional element, I honestly want no part of a cold world that takes humans so completely out of the loop. Not just with airplanes, but other things that could be more easily or cheaply accomplished with computers or technology. I imagine robot waitresses and waiters could be accomplished rather easily pretty soon, but do I want to go to my favorite diner for breakfast and order from a robot? No. I go there for simple eggs and avocado, and they know this, and they know me and treat me like family. Could train engineers be replaced? Probably even easier than pilots, but that's a damn good job that humans should have.

Thanks for all the great responses everyone! Keep them coming!

 

[Martsy]

Understand that most do and I appreciate that. All I compared to was statement of "pilot's fate sealed with passengers fate" and while some may see that as a safe thing, suicide by pilot is a very real occurrence. Just saying there are two sides to the fate argument.

I'm glad most pilots care about their job, their passengers and have families (like you and others that are pilots and post here) and loved ones they want to return to, but reality is there is risk involved. I didn't say all are like that, but if you follow the news stuff happens... just like stuff could happen with automation.

Just saying there's risk whether it's automated or there's a human up front.

I'm fine with the risk of either because I enjoy the convenience flying provides.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Just to be clear, I think when we're talking pilotless, there's still a pilot, just not on in the plane. So your point really only strengthens mine. Yes there are nut jobs out there, but there are certainly more out there willing to do bad things to people where they're not in any danger, than those will to succumb to the same fate.

 

[TheDoctor]

I am in the definitely not camp on this one. I just wouldn't feel comfortable being 30,000+ feet up in the sky with no human able to intervene if something were to go wrong

Am I right in thinking that a lot of the flights now are computer controlled anyway (including landings)? But at least there is a human there monitoring and able to take over the instant they see something going wrong. I wouldn't trust that an operator sat in an office somewhere would have the same ability as they are not able to 'feel' the aircraft

 

[Rusty Dave]

I am in the definitely not camp on this one. I just wouldn't feel comfortable being 30,000+ feet up in the sky with no human able to intervene if something were to go wrong

Am I right in thinking that a lot of the flights now are computer controlled anyway (including landings)? But at least there is a human there monitoring and able to take over the instant they see something going wrong. I wouldn't trust that an operator sat in an office somewhere would have the same ability as they are not able to 'feel' the aircraft

Most of the flight is automated however 99% of the landings are done by the pilot. If the visibility is less than 1/4 mile down to 1/8 mile, we will get the airplane to land but the airport has to have the proper ILS CAT 2 or 3 system installed.

Also, when I say most of the flight is automated, we are still programming our FMS systems throughout the flight and guiding the autopilot through numerous systems in the aircraft. We are always monitoring the airplane in every phase if flight to ensure its doing exactly what we need it to do.

We are becoming more of "managers" in the way that we manage the automation, we manage the crew and we manage the various situations. Of course when the automation takes a unexpected vacation we can still hand fly the aircraft in any situation. I actually take the airplane off autopilot often and hand fly to keep my skills sharp.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Girardcorp]

Most of the flight is automated however 99% of the landings are done by the pilot. If the visibility is less than 1/4 mile down to 1/8 mile, we will get the airplane to land but the airport has to have the proper ILS CAT 2 or 3 system installed.

Also, when I say most of the flight is automated, we are still programming our FMS systems throughout the flight and guiding the autopilot through numerous systems in the aircraft. We are always monitoring the airplane in every phase if flight to ensure its doing exactly what we need it to do.

We are becoming more of "managers" in the way that we manage the automation, we manage the crew and we manage the various situations. Of course when the automation takes a unexpected vacation we can still hand fly the aircraft in any situation. I actually take the airplane off autopilot often and hand fly to keep my skills sharp.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hey Rusty, i know a bit off topic, but probably germane to the overall discussion, what are your thoughts on this idea that most pilots these days couldn't control an airplane at altitude if the FMS and autopilot crapped out. I read an article awhile back that said pilots are really only getting trained at takeoffs and landings, and the 'in flight' portion is really getting neglected. Hog wash? Some truth to accuracy? Because of the automation, the 'skills' needed to control a plane on the fly are not being constantly worked on. I'm guessing in flight emergencies are a large part of sim refresher training.

 

[Rusty Dave]

Hey Rusty, i know a bit off topic, but probably germane to the overall discussion, what are your thoughts on this idea that most pilots these days couldn't control an airplane at altitude if the FMS and autopilot crapped out. I read an article awhile back that said pilots are really only getting trained at takeoffs and landings, and the 'in flight' portion is really getting neglected. Hog wash? Some truth to accuracy? Because of the automation, the 'skills' needed to control a plane on the fly are not being constantly worked on. I'm guessing in flight emergencies are a large part of sim refresher training.

That's a good question. We do high altitude stall training in the sim so we do get some training in that portion of flight. Honestly, most of the automation errors that get crews in trouble come in the landing portion of the flight. You really have to understand the automation and what to expect from it otherwise when you rely on it and it fails, the airplane can quickly get in an undesired state quickly. Look at the Asiana accident in SFO recently. The guys were always used to doing ILS approaches and that day due to airport maintenance, visual approaches were required. A visual approach is the toughest thing to do because we never do them. The Asiana flight basically let their airspeed bleed off without realizing it and ended up landing short of the runway. It was strictly a failure to monitor the systems properly and recover to a desired aircraft state.

It basically boils down to experience and training. 90% of the airlines go above and beyond to properly train and maintain a high level of expertise with their pilots.

 

[mpeterson]

Agreed. I can think of a few scenarios where you need the pilot in flight deck element.
Let's say you have a rapidly growing thunderstorm and the conditions are changing rapidly. A guy sitting in a cubicle manning the a/c will not be able to accurately judge these conditions and might make a poor decision based on limited info. As pilots we can accurately assess the situation on the spot to make safe decisions. On numerous occasions the weather has changed rapidly on me requiring instant educated decision making. No way somebody can do that from a desk no matter how experienced he is. The sounds from the aircraft entering moderate icing conditions or turbulence can only be experienced from inside the aircraft. If my spidey senses are tingling, it alerts me to potential problems. I'm also trained extensively on handling the aircraft with system failures or anomalies.
Another scenario (and one that truly scares me) is an uncontrollable fire over the ocean. You basically have 9 minutes to get a fire under control before you are in trouble. Should the necessity to perhaps ditch the airplane in the ocean before the airplane becomes uncontrollable arise, is the guy sitting at a cubicle manning the a/c able to accurately make a proper decision that controls the fate of over 200 people. No way. You need experienced pilots on board to make the best decisions based on the present conditions. I cringe at the thought of being a passenger in this situation with no pilots on board.
I could run hundreds of scenarios of why I don't think pilots will ever be pushed out of the flight deck.
Unmanned drones and fighter planes yes. Commercial airliners carrying hundreds of people. No way. There are just too many factors requiring our presence.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, that's my main thought on this. Especially with a long haul flight, you guys can run into conditions that change completely from what you expected going in, and you need to sense those changes as quickly as possible. One of those cases where while a lot of stuff can be done via computer, when you need the human, you REALLY need the human.

 

[Girardcorp]

That's a good question. We do high altitude stall training in the sim so we do get some training in that portion of flight. Honestly, most of the automation errors that get crews in trouble come in the landing portion of the flight. You really have to understand the automation and what to expect from it otherwise when you rely on it and it fails, the airplane can quickly get in an undesired state quickly. Look at the Asiana accident in SFO recently. The guys were always used to doing ILS approaches and that day due to airport maintenance, visual approaches were required. A visual approach is the toughest thing to do because we never do them. The Asiana flight basically let their airspeed bleed off without realizing it and ended up landing short of the runway. It was strictly a failure to monitor the systems properly and recover to a desired aircraft state.

It basically boils down to experience and training. 90% of the airlines go above and beyond to properly train and maintain a high level of expertise with their pilots.

That's a great example... I could also probably say that just because the airplane is flying an ILS approach, even to CAT III standards, you could get wind sheer or something of the like, and neither a computer, nor the pilot would be able to necessary correct, but at least the pilot would be able to be prepared via warnings etc... Good info above.

 

[SHIFTY]

Just like I predicted, (its a drone helicopter not an airplane, but close) it'll be here sooner than we think, but is this good or bad? Like I said in a previous post that Tesla says soon we won't be allowed to drive our own cars by 2025 as we aren't quick enough (compared to computers), I think this will be the same eventually;
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ces-2016-ehang-184-pilotless-autonomous-passenger-drone-a6800596.html

 

[Rusty Dave]

Just like I predicted, (its a drone helicopter not an airplane, but close) it'll be here sooner than we think, but is this good or bad? Like I said in a previous post that Tesla says soon we won't be allowed to drive our own cars by 2025 as we aren't quick enough (compared to computers), I think this will be the same eventually;
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ces-2016-ehang-184-pilotless-autonomous-passenger-drone-a6800596.html

Read my earlier posts. Can't see it happening. Perhaps our roles would evolve to reflect the advances in tech but you still need people up there making decisions. IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Flying Wedge]

Agreed. I can think of a few scenarios where you need the pilot in flight deck element.
Let's say you have a rapidly growing thunderstorm and the conditions are changing rapidly. A guy sitting in a cubicle manning the a/c will not be able to accurately judge these conditions and might make a poor decision based on limited info. As pilots we can accurately assess the situation on the spot to make safe decisions. On numerous occasions the weather has changed rapidly on me requiring instant educated decision making. No way somebody can do that from a desk no matter how experienced he is. The sounds from the aircraft entering moderate icing conditions or turbulence can only be experienced from inside the aircraft. If my spidey senses are tingling, it alerts me to potential problems. I'm also trained extensively on handling the aircraft with system failures or anomalies.
Another scenario (and one that truly scares me) is an uncontrollable fire over the ocean. You basically have 9 minutes to get a fire under control before you are in trouble. Should the necessity to perhaps ditch the airplane in the ocean before the airplane becomes uncontrollable arise, is the guy sitting at a cubicle manning the a/c able to accurately make a proper decision that controls the fate of over 200 people. No way. You need experienced pilots on board to make the best decisions based on the present conditions. I cringe at the thought of being a passenger in this situation with no pilots on board.
I could run hundreds of scenarios of why I don't think pilots will ever be pushed out of the flight deck.
Unmanned drones and fighter planes yes. Commercial airliners carrying hundreds of people. No way. There are just too many factors requiring our presence.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A Freaking Men. The American public would have to be dogs on Pilot less flight that won't be easy. At least in the kinda numbers it takes for an Airline to stay in business.

I think in our life time we will more likely see fedex and ups go Pilot less. Then maybe after decades of that proving itself airlines may follow.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[Flying Wedge]

Hey Rusty, i know a bit off topic, but probably germane to the overall discussion, what are your thoughts on this idea that most pilots these days couldn't control an airplane at altitude if the FMS and autopilot crapped out. I read an article awhile back that said pilots are really only getting trained at takeoffs and landings, and the 'in flight' portion is really getting neglected. Hog wash? Some truth to accuracy? Because of the automation, the 'skills' needed to control a plane on the fly are not being constantly worked on. I'm guessing in flight emergencies are a large part of sim refresher training.

I hand fly the first 10 minutes of almost every flight. I will always have fly every visual approach as well. It is only the hard core IFR approaches that I leave the autopilot on. Usually once or twice a year. I will hand fly a shorter flight. Usually an hour or so. You have to be on your game and pay attention but it can be done.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

 

[SHIFTY]

I would say 90% of all scientific discoveries and inventions have happened in our lifetimes. As 90% of the scientists who have ever lived are alive today. I think we cannot even fathom what life will be like even 10 years from now.
I could be wrong, but imo there is no way a humans thought process will be able to compete with a computers 10-20 years from now. We will just be too slow and as humans make a lot of mistakes.
I think if humans are still involved in the flight process in the future it will be because of public opinion, not safety.
I hope I'm wrong, but don't think so. Time will tell I guess.


Sent from my S6 edge

 

[afwcardinal]

Absolutely agree with you here. I don't see an empty cockpit in our lifetime. I personally believe that the public will not feel safe with a pilotless aircraft. I know I wouldn't. IMO you still need an inboard pilot for the occasional incident that requires a pilot to be on board, in charge, and flying by the seat of his pants with the skills he had acquired with years of flying.
Could you imagine the Hawaiian air flight that lost its upper fuse skin actually making it safely to an airfield. The pilot, by his skill, knowledge, and feel for the aircraft brought that one in safely.
Sorry, but a computer or a done pilot would not have gotten that aircraft back.
There are other incidents that could be used as examples of the same. Human pilots NEED to be on passenger aircraft.

Read my earlier posts. Can't see it happening. Perhaps our roles would evolve to reflect the advances in tech but you still need people up there making decisions. IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[wadesworld]

I'd answer, but my computer crashed...

 

[gizmo3putt]

I used to maintain autopilot/ils systems etc. I know the systems can handle it but I'd feel more comfortable with a pilot in the cockpit even if he is only molesting his Wilson C200 6i.

 

[garethw]

Absolutely agree with you here. I don't see an empty cockpit in our lifetime. I personally believe that the public will not feel safe with a pilotless aircraft. I know I wouldn't. IMO you still need an inboard pilot for the occasional incident that requires a pilot to be on board, in charge, and flying by the seat of his pants with the skills he had acquired with years of flying.
Could you imagine the Hawaiian air flight that lost its upper fuse skin actually making it safely to an airfield. The pilot, by his skill, knowledge, and feel for the aircraft brought that one in safely.
Sorry, but a computer or a done pilot would not have gotten that aircraft back.
There are other incidents that could be used as examples of the same. Human pilots NEED to be on passenger aircraft.

Every Human Factors in Aviation course I have done, that has always been used as a example. Its also the reason I never unstrap when flying.

 

[afwcardinal]

Every Human Factors in Aviation course I have done, that has always been used as a example. Its also the reason I never unstrap when flying.

I know what you mean. Plenty of times Human Factors are the problem. And I too keep that belt on when not up and about in the aircraft. Turbulence can happen at almost anytime.

 

[Girardcorp]

I used to maintain autopilot/ils systems etc. I know the systems can handle it but I'd feel more comfortable with a pilot in the cockpit even if he is only molesting his Wilson C200 6i.

Yea I'd feel better with that pilot flying too. Upside is maybe we got a round of golf in after landing the plane.

No thank you on not having a pilot on board. Too many variables


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rusty Dave]

I used to maintain autopilot/ils systems etc. I know the systems can handle it but I'd feel more comfortable with a pilot in the cockpit even if he is only molesting his Wilson C200 6i.

Uno Jim,
If you're ever on one of my flights I would have told the flight attendants to make sure you have free drinks but instead I'll just let you take care of my C200 for the flight

 

[Den60]

Just like I predicted, (its a drone helicopter not an airplane, but close) it'll be here sooner than we think, but is this good or bad? Like I said in a previous post that Tesla says soon we won't be allowed to drive our own cars by 2025 as we aren't quick enough (compared to computers), I think this will be the same eventually;
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/ces-2016-ehang-184-pilotless-autonomous-passenger-drone-a6800596.html

You sure don't want to be in a hurry to deplane from that aircraft.

 

[afwcardinal]

I just watched part of this video, will watch the rest this evening. That is actually really cool. Not sure about the drone type flying, but a piloted vehicle of this type would be awesome.
Maybe this is what UPS is looking at in the future, for their delivery system.

 

[Drumdog]

I would not ever get on one without a human to back up the computers.

 

[Rusty Dave]

Good article here. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/

 

[Girardcorp]

Good article here. http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/

Good info. I just assumed autoland was used more frequently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk