Un-manned Airliners.

[Luka]

Saw an excellent speach on unmanned technologies last night, talking about the amount of robots now used in the military and how we are still in its infancy (We called the car a horseless carriage becaue we didn't yet have a name for it - Hence Unmanned aircraft) - It was stated that NO major aircraft manufacturers are now working on manned military aircraft, ONLY unmanned aircraft. Now, i understand the MILITARY'S need for unmanned aircraft (zero deaths and subsequent political fall-out) - But a thought, IF the military can take-off fly, attack, evade and then fly back to base - Is this technology being thought of in civilian aircraft? Do we have a date or prototype even for our first?
Their aren't too many arguemnts against it anymore - The biggest being public perception...Something that could be swayed either way.
I'm freaking some people out here i know...

[MCM]

I'd have thought passenger image is a pretty big one, and not easily swayed.

There is no point making an aircraft that no airline would buy.

Lets also think about the advantages - what are they?

1 - No pilot. Except you would need a 'pilot' on the ground no? How many military aircraft do their own thing with no ground based operator?

2 - Um?

In the overall operation of aircraft, pilots are a relatively small cost. So which aircraft manufacturer is going to have the guts to go for it?

The military want to do away with the pilot so they can do things that are otherwise unavailable - longer flights, higher G's that would cripple a pilot, and dangerous operations that may jeapodise a pilot's safety. Nothing to do with his salary.

None of these things apply to civilian ops.

Unfortunately the airline industry does so much to make it sound like it is totally safe with minimal required pilot input that they do not publish the number of times pilot intervention is required, even in the most advanced aircraft. I will not be getting on a pilotless aircraft in the near future.

[porter guy]

if a plane was unmanned, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having an airliner? I mean, no people?

In all seriousness though, what would happen in the event the plane ran out of fuel? There would be zero control

[Luka]

if a plane was unmanned, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having an airliner? I mean, no people?

In all seriousness though, what would happen in the event the plane ran out of fuel? There would be zero control

- Teehee! What would the pilots do if they were there and it ran out of fuel?
I suppose we are talking two different kinds of unmanned aircraft - one that is still being controled from the ground and a totally autonomous aircraft. Yes public perception is the Killer - and i agree that salary saving would be a small overall saving.
Some advantages?
Lets see:
Terrorists cannot put a gun to the head of anyone....
Terrorists cannot take control of the aircraft...
Two ways to look at it: I pilot may do better in an emergency IF he is not on the plane, not actually rocketing toward the ground, can take it calmly and think...treat it like a computer game. OR it could be argued that a pilot on the spot can "feel" the aircraft, what its doing and have a intuitive idea about what to do. ( i would argue - from a base of ignorance - that "feeling" the plane to any great extent is long gone, and the pilot's senses may be fooled.)
Take-Offs and landings wouild be all by the numbers with the computer/s reacting to any "shifts" in conditions instanteously.

[guamainiac]

"The History of Amazon Airways" by Hugo Furst

[MCM]

Terrorists cannot put a gun to the head of anyone....
Terrorists cannot take control of the aircraft...
Two ways to look at it: I pilot may do better in an emergency IF he is not on the plane, not actually rocketing toward the ground, can take it calmly and think...treat it like a computer game. OR it could be argued that a pilot on the spot can "feel" the aircraft, what its doing and have a intuitive idea about what to do. ( i would argue - from a base of ignorance - that "feeling" the plane to any great extent is long gone, and the pilot's senses may be fooled.)
Take-Offs and landings wouild be all by the numbers with the computer/s reacting to any "shifts" in conditions instanteously.

They can put a gun to the head of the operator.
They can take "control" remotely - a far more concerning proposition to me.
Takeoffs and landings by the numbers hey - I'm glad you have that much faith in automatic systems.

Once again - the public has NO idea just what the threats to automated systems are, nor that your friendly pilot does FAR more to ensure safety in a given flight than they let on.

Pilots are our own worst enemy in this regard - we have an interest in making sure people think they are safe - and we talk up our technology - but how many times do pilots talk about the times the automation subtlely fails, and he takes over to do the job better? Or changes modes?

The aircraft need a "pilot", be it on the ground or in the air. It will be more expensive to put the systems in place to have a pilot on the ground. So why do it?

[AA 1818]

I do not believe that we will make a drastic change to "unmanned cockpits", but rather much more subtle moves, eventually garnering public support. In reality, we have been doing that throught the history of flight, using other components (and especially within the past two to three decades), to automate flight controls much more so than ever before.

A question to many of the pilots here - generationally speaking, how do you differ from your forefathers and other pilots. Are the DC-10s and 707s of the past comparable to the 787s and A350s of tomorrow? How much has computers changed how and when we operate?

That said, I believe that we could, logically, move closer and closer to a 'pilot' taking much more of a computer overseer, perhaps eventually eliminating the need for two persons in a cockpit at any one time (save for special situtations). Welcome to the automated world, and one where costs are always the most pressing matter.

Initially this would be fabuluously difficult to impliment.
Unions would perhaps bring the industry to it's knees first.
Then there would be 'public outcry'.
Then the airlines would simply find more and more subtle ways of introducing the infrastructure.
Eventually, we would get lower costs at the airline, but the road is not likely to be easy.

Keep in mind though, it's a logical step in the direction that we have been headed in for quite some time now...

[SYDCBRWOD]

Who says you need a pilot in the loop at all? With current technology it is possible to have an aircraft taxi, takeoff, fly to a destination land and taxi to a gate (without the need to have a bloke with paddles on the ground guiding the aircraft). All of that is technically possible now. ATC instructions can be integrated (obviously probably not by voice). Anti collision technology is sufficiently advanced that it does everything BUT push the control column. The computer would certainly never forget to deply slats on takeoff, or forget to lower the gear on landing. BUT what would the computer have done on QF-32? Kinda difficult to program for every single type of failure.

The real question is would people both in the air and on the ground be happy with a fully computer controlled aircraft? I'm guessing the answer at this stage is an emphatic 'no'. However, there are now subway systems run in a driverless mode and passengers trust them. Cars with radar cruise controls that keep distance from the car in front are becoming more prevalent and trusted. And in all likelihood a computer would not have pranged that Colgan Q400, or been suffering sleep inrtia resulting in landing their 737 too far down the runway with the subsequent firey death. Given these issues - people may be persuaded more quickly than you think.

[Bryan]

All is fine and dandy until the data link to the "Ground Pilot" is lost and you lose from 150 to 800 souls. Not having a pilot in the aircraft with up to 800 souls on board is not acceptable. In the event of a major problem, I want someone on board that can take control, and get that bird on the ground.

The military can get away with it because failure results in loss of airframe only. When you have up to 800 people in the airframe, risk is not worth the reward.

Now cargo is a totally different story. I could see Cargo going that route. A single ground based pilot could be in control of a dozen aircraft. Now that is some cost reduction, or job loss, depending on which side of the isle you are on.

[SYDCBRWOD]

All is fine and dandy until the data link to the "Ground Pilot" is lost and you lose from 150 to 800 souls. Not having a pilot in the aircraft with up to 800 souls on board is not acceptable. In the event of a major problem, I want someone on board that can take control, and get that bird on the ground.

The military can get away with it because failure results in loss of airframe only. When you have up to 800 people in the airframe, risk is not worth the reward.

Now cargo is a totally different story. I could see Cargo going that route. A single ground based pilot could be in control of a dozen aircraft. Now that is some cost reduction, or job loss, depending on which side of the isle you are on.

What data link? Who says someone needs to be at the controls? Military drones have been flying autonomous missions since the 1960's. The flight is programmed in on the ground before departure, the onboard computers execute the program. Obviously the 'gates' in the program would be ATC instructions.

[Bryan]

What data link? Who says someone needs to be at the controls? Military drones have been flying autonomous missions since the 1960's. The flight is programmed in on the ground before departure, the onboard computers execute the program. Obviously the 'gates' in the program would be ATC instructions.

link in the case of remote controlled ... unmanned completely, leave it to a computer alone, I can not see that happening in the next 50 years.

The best machine that we have today that flies like that is the SST, it has got to have the BEST programming that humans have created, and that programming is insanely expensive with a crazy team that is responsible for it. Military, Airbus, Boeing, they are a long way from having a system that is anywhere near that of the SST, and that only carries 7 soles, and a pilot that has his hands on the controls though much of the critical phases of flight.

old but good article on the SST programming

Until the aircraft is produced like that, I am not riding on one that is being run by software alone.

[Luka]

They can put a gun to the head of the operator.
They can take "control" remotely - a far more concerning proposition to me.
Takeoffs and landings by the numbers hey - I'm glad you have that much faith in automatic systems.

Once again - the public has NO idea just what the threats to automated systems are, nor that your friendly pilot does FAR more to ensure safety in a given flight than they let on.

Pilots are our own worst enemy in this regard - we have an interest in making sure people think they are safe - and we talk up our technology - but how many times do pilots talk about the times the automation subtlely fails, and he takes over to do the job better? Or changes modes?

The aircraft need a "pilot", be it on the ground or in the air. It will be more expensive to put the systems in place to have a pilot on the ground. So why do it?

****************************************************
- They can put a gun to the head of the operator. - Not in a military base they can't. And even in a civilian environment, it would be vaulted like a bank...Not a problem.

As for remotely taking control...not an issue if the aircraft is autonomous and if we ARE talking remote, the signals would be sent via an encryption through a "closed" satelite link...Not impenitrable but FAR more difficult and expensive than people think. Having back-up frequencies also helps with security....But lets just say these aircraft would be autonomous. Autonomy is an evolving beast and airlines DO NOT spend R&D dollars on the best that is available, only what will do the job. The autonomy involved would be at least a whole generation ahead of whats seen inside an aircraft today...We're talking true artificial intelligence here...with redundancies. It WILL be FAR superior to a human, sorry.
And i can tell you i WILL have far more confidence in these systems for take-offs and landings, especially when it comes to sensor input and reaction time....critical at these times. Its you who are judging future techs against your OLD model. And people think that what a pilot can do in a cockpit, an operator somehow can't do at a console...whats a pilot going to do? Press a few buttons, take back control? All that can be done at a desk. He can even pipe over a calming message just like the real pilots do. So, in case i'm wrong, what CAN a pilot do that an operator couldn't?
It wouldn't be more expensive...it would massively reduce costs over time. The initial outlay for anything is expensive, but once its built we're only talking operating costs...far less than REAL pilots.
i would expect a backlash from pilots on this, but your arguments are weak mate, your going to have to do MUCH better.

[SYDCBRWOD]

link in the case of remote controlled ... unmanned completely, leave it to a computer alone, I can not see that happening in the next 50 years.

Newsflash pal, a modern jetliner can do 95% of that right now. A modern autopilot is far from a device that just keeps an airliner on a certain heading and altitude. Arguably the most difficult part of flying an aircraft is landing it - autoland systems have been in commercial aircraft since 1965. The US navy has experimented with autoland systems on the most challenging landing parameters in the world - trapping aboard an aircraft carrier. Current investigations are in aerial refueling from one UAV to another.

UAV's such as the Global Hawk have been operation completely autonomously for over a decade:

Once mission parameters are programmed into Global Hawk, the air vehicle can

autonomously taxi, take off, fly, remain on station capturing imagery, return, and land.

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/ghrq4a/assets/HALE_Factsheet.pdf

[VANGHELL]

short joke! and a question!

I have been studying for the last 6 months at the aviation academy in my country, and needless to say, I have come across quite nice and cheerful aviator jokes in my time spent here.

One of them goes like this:
An airliner is cruising nice and dandy over the North Atlantic at FL 350, and the captain comes with the latest updates on the intercom:
"-Ladies and Gentlemen, we are cruising over the Atlantic Ocean at FL350! It's a nice calm day for flying, and we would like to announce you that you are the passengers of the first un-manned flight. Me, your captain, would like to show you, if you would be kind enough to look out the left hand side of the airplane, that I am waving to you from the ship down there. Please, do not be frightened, as this technology has been tested and prooven lots of times before. I would like to assure you that this technology will never fail,faail, faaaaiiiiillllll, faaaaaaiiiiiilllllll...... llllll.... llllll...."

And the question would be: I have heard from one of our aeronautical navigation teachers that AirFrance has done something symilar, with a flight to Tokio.... or something, in which the crew performed some experimental autopilot takeoff?????, cruise and landing, and the announced the pax as they landed, that they were the pax of the first fully automated flight, with the least of human input, and that they were sued. Now I searched the web for some time but have found nothing. I know take-offs can be done only manually up to a minimum of 50 ft. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Bryan]

Newsflash pal, a modern jetliner can do 95% of that right now. A modern autopilot is far from a device that just keeps an airliner on a certain heading and altitude. Arguably the most difficult part of flying an aircraft is landing it - autoland systems have been in commercial aircraft since 1965. The US navy has experimented with autoland systems on the most challenging landing parameters in the world - trapping aboard an aircraft carrier. Current investigations are in aerial refueling from one UAV to another.

UAV's such as the Global Hawk have been operation completely autonomously for over a decade:

Once mission parameters are programmed into Global Hawk, the air vehicle can

autonomously taxi, take off, fly, remain on station capturing imagery, return, and land.

http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/pr..._Factsheet.pdf

It is not the ability to do it, it is error and bug free code ... every possible scenario, all possible failures, the code has an answer that does not end up in crash. That is what NASA has nearly achieved with SST, getting to 95% may seem like enough, but those last 5% are critical when the crap hits the fan. Do you trust your life on code written by Airbus? what took down air france 408? A single data point entry error leading to a cascade of issues... plane down.

I wonder if it is even achievable with today's or near off tech.