| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/12/2006 05:12:13 PM · #1 |
Looks like pilots will soon be extinct!
The photo included in the article was taken by a buddy of mine. Yes, I remind him all the time he has the coolest job!
And for the techies, this is not flown by remote control. That would be too easy. It is told what to do and it figures it out and goes and does it. Fully autonomous.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 05:19:02 PM · #2 |
This is possible today with all aircraft, yes, even commercial flights. The technology is there for an aircraft to taxi, take-off, fly to and land at it's destination without a pilot.
Many of the functions that used to be handled by a pilot can, and many times are, handled by an onboard computer (heard of autopilot?).
As an air traffic controller in my previous life, we debated many times about when total automation for commercial flights would come about, if ever. The biggest obstacle to overcome seems to be the public's reluctance to accept a flight for which there is not a human in control. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 05:27:24 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
The biggest obstacle to overcome seems to be the public's reluctance to accept a flight for which there is not a human in control. |
So true, but very illogical. Hollywood has made a ton of movies showing all the negative things that will happen if we let computers take over. I don't buy it. Computers have made it possible for certain types of aircraft to fly at all. Humans have a much slower reaction time and are prone to make more mistakes. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 05:34:48 PM · #4 |
Reminds me of a joke (I'm a private pilot, so I'm on pilot lists, so I get many of these). This was from a supposed list of "squawks," or complaints to maintenance, and the reply (autoland is a function that's in use today on airliners where the plane lands all by itself):
Squawk: autoland resulted in a rough landing
Maintenance response: plane not equipped with autoland
Having a person monitoring automated systems makes sense to me. One of the best tips I've read is that you should always know all possible ways of turning the autopilot off as quickly as possible. Things can and do go wrong with automation; it can be the best solution if it's working correctly, but ...
To err is human, but to really foul things up, you need a computer. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 05:57:07 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
autoland is a function that's in use today on airliners where the plane lands all by itself |
I was in the jumpseat (in the cockpit, behind the pilots) on a flight to Salt Lake City. We were given holding instructions because the airport was socked in due to a snowstorm. The captain informed the controllers that the plane was equipped for, and the crew qualified for a Category III approach. This meant that the plane was capable of landing itself (regardless of visibility) and the crew was trained for this type of landing (not all planes are so equipped, nor all crews trained to this degree).
And it did!!!
It was obviously a very tense operation for the flight crew, especially when the computer counted down the altitude. "100 feet...50 feet...20...10..." and only just before we hit (softly) the runway we saw the runway lights! During the whole approach, and especially the last 100 feet of altitude, the Captain and First Officer had their hands positioned within inches of the column and the throttles. It was tense, but with numerous turns and corrections, the plane landed itself nicely from miles away without any assistance.
This was back in 1998. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 08:41:20 PM · #6 |
This thing is much more then anything ever in a commercial plane. Boeing has had the mentioned technology on commercial planes for a long time.
From the press release:
"Previous autonomous demonstrations with this aircraft have included target identification, precision re-supply, communication relay and weapons firings."
"The Unmanned Little Bird offers potential operators a low-cost, multi-purpose aircraft that will provide manned or unmanned options in combat, making it a versatile and easily deployable asset on future battlefields,"
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 08:54:54 PM · #7 |
Automation has been around a long time, especially on the Southern California
freeways but it really isn't a problem, because there is so much room for mistakes:
It's amazing how many cars have a person in the driver's seat, reading a paper, applying make-up, eating breakfast, tending to the kids in the back seat or lest I forget, bent over trying to pick up CD's, cell phones or their coffee that they didn't read the warning label on that the contents were hot....
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 09:29:17 PM · #8 |
| The Soviet Union decades ago had full ground control of their military aircraft, including fighters and interceptor. We also ventured into it a little in the '60. A total failure in every respect. Our military then went with two seat fighters, very effective in checking six, emergencies and verifing targets. When the Korea war pilots (single seat fighter pilots) go in control of the higher level of decision making we went back to single seat and then even single engine fighters. An example is the politically motivated lawn dark called the F-16. A very inadequate, short range, light payload fighter that was totally ineffective in the Gulf War. Unmanned aircraft work ok when we own the air and there are minimal ground defenses. The only successful way to fight a real war or safely transport passengers is piloted aircraft. Industry such as Boeing and Lockheed are developing aircraft for both options, why not at $50 million an dup for a single jet fighter heck sell sell sell. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 09:32:06 PM · #9 |
One of the reasons technology developement is directed in one way over others is to automate the vocations where humans are paid the highest salaries. I'm waiting for the day when they have a robot that can chase down a slicing fly ball and then throw a strike to second base. Do you suppose they will be able to find robots who will pay to sit in the stands and watch?
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 09:33:39 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
One of the reasons technology developement is directed in one way over others is to automate the vocations where humans are paid the highest salaries. I'm waiting for the day when they have a robot that can chase down a slicing fly ball and then throw a strike to second base. Do you suppose they will be able to find robots who will pay to sit in the stands and watch? |
Exactly, it's all in how much money you can make not on what is really the best
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 09:57:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Originally posted by coolhar:
One of the reasons technology developement is directed in one way over others is to automate the vocations where humans are paid the highest salaries. |
Exactly, it's all in how much money you can make not on what is really the best |
Sometimes...but not always. In the instance that I described about landing the plane in zero visibility, no person could have landed that plane in that snowstorm. |
|
|
|
07/12/2006 10:04:50 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by yakatme:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Originally posted by coolhar:
One of the reasons technology developement is directed in one way over others is to automate the vocations where humans are paid the highest salaries. |
Exactly, it's all in how much money you can make not on what is really the best |
Sometimes...but not always. In the instance that I described about landing the plane in zero visibility, no person could have landed that plane in that snowstorm. |
Been there ... done it and solid ice on the runway. Two aircraft spun out at the end trying to taxi off. Hill AFB Utah with F-4 Phantom II fighters. Nope very unsafe and stupid to give total and complete control to a computer. For safety a pilot needs to be there for final decision. In Iraq where we have complete air superiority and minimal ground defences the unmanned survelliance and attack drones can work, this is not a normal situation though. On landing an aircraft there is a definate advantage for air traffic control radar, ILS, GPS etc etc systems to aid as well as on board computer guidance systems, but stupid to believe it is the best idea. It does make for good news though.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2006 10:15:05 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by yakatme:
The biggest obstacle to overcome seems to be the public's reluctance to accept a flight for which there is not a human in control. |
So true, but very illogical. Hollywood has made a ton of movies showing all the negative things that will happen if we let computers take over. I don't buy it. Computers have made it possible for certain types of aircraft to fly at all. Humans have a much slower reaction time and are prone to make more mistakes. |
I hope the computer NEVER crashes and NEVER has an error. I mean seriously, none of mine ever have. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/13/2006 12:30:10 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Unmanned aircraft work ok when we own the air and there are minimal ground defenses. The only successful way to fight a real war or safely transport passengers is piloted aircraft. |
I think you are grossly underassuming the intended capabilities of this aircraft and the unmanned/autonomous capabilities under development.
I do agree with you on the F16 though!
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 12:45:01 PM · #15 |
As far as commercial flight I don't think pilots will every be replaced. The main reason is if there were a crash they could not blame it on "pilot error". Meaning the airlines themselves would have to take the blame causing passengers to be uneasy about flying on an unpiloted aircraft.
With all the government agency's including the NTSB you would be surprised at the crashes that was blamed on the pilot when in fact it was not his or he fault.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2006 05:19:21 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Unmanned aircraft work ok when we own the air and there are minimal ground defenses. The only successful way to fight a real war or safely transport passengers is piloted aircraft. |
I think you are grossly underassuming the intended capabilities of this aircraft and the unmanned/autonomous capabilities under development.
I do agree with you on the F16 though! |
Well I guess as a retired senior officer with extensive USAF F-4 Phantom time, time in the F-5, T-38, T-37, T-43, F-111 and extensive work in aircraft simulator development and validation as well as headquarters intelligence background, with lots of insight into capabilities in the last three wars maybe, I miss-understood the capabilities of many of our new developments. Again unmanned aircraft either for recon or weapons deployments only work in a limited or no-threat invironment. It still takes someone on the ground with data links to command them and authorize weapons deployment. Yes many are computer programmed, especially if they have a fixed known target. Without a man in the loop they are mostly stupid but very expensive flying machines. Yes indeed unmanned aircraft have a great deal of capability but limited authority to accomplish a mission without data linked commands. Even manned aircraft like the f-15, F-16, Stealth etc etc are computer controlled. When a bomb is dropped the pilots now just need to put the pipper on the target and the computer determines by aircraft performance and ballistics of the weapon when to release the bombs. Heck we've had air-to-air missiles that can shoot down another aircraft from over 100 miles and with little or no input by a man or pilot for 20 years. Many of our aircraft are designed to be inherently unstable because that improves it's performance and turn capabilities, without computers they are most difficult to fly and in some cases impossible. I've had friends die in aircraft accidents where it was blamed on pilot error when everyone knew it was a maintenance error or malfunction. How do you courts marshal a machine, much easier politically to do it to a pilot. The day we have fully automated no pilot aircraft is a day we really don't want to see. Oh by the way, most commercial and cargo pilots in the world either sleep or read a newspaper for the entire flight now. The do very little other take-off and landing or they are there in case of an emergency. Don't believe for a minute that the pilot is diligently searching the sky for other aircraft or possible dangers.
Oh and yes I've shot down unmanned F-106 fighters in air combat that were completely controlled by data links. Hell yes they can fly like a bat out of hell, no human limitations such as G forces to effect a man.
Message edited by author 2006-07-13 17:21:37. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/05/2025 11:26:15 PM EDT.
