The Great Drone Debate

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

 

 

The same question was asked about getting rid of the flight engineer. And the navigator before that.

 

The difference is the Navigator or Flight Engineers weren't in a position of mentoring into the Captains Chair. The first officer is in a position where he is working his way up into the Captains Chair.

 

You could put a first officer on the ground supporting multiple aircraft and eventually have him work his way onto the aircraft but even that would create a lot of controversy. The human side is we like to work together and no better way for that then to have your partner with you on the flight deck, this is how you build relationships.

 

A lot of these initiatives are taking the human factors out of the job, which you bet will lead to mental health issues from job stress due to a lack of contact with working with others. It is uncharted territory that in theory looks good, but in reality may lead to a very unhealthy work environment.

[KevinAu 441]

Of course the poor pilot left up in the cockpit will miss the warmth and companionship of a loyal first officer. However, warmth and companionship are not factors to the bottom line on an excel spreadsheet as far as the accountants are concerned. Eliminating half the pilot headcount is and likely very compelling.

[jime59 58]

I just had an idea for Airport 2015 !  Remember those "disaster" movies years ago ?   

The original Airport (1970) was a classic. The following sequels were nowhere near as good as the original, some almost campy, like in The Concord Airport 79 with an SST rolling away from a missile.

 

Who would you have flying in the drone full of passengers ?  

 

Who would be the "Pilot" sitting in front of a screen on the ground ?

 

There has to be attendants, (on board) of course.  Who(m) ?

 

Drama, or Comedy ?

 

Who would be your Director ?

 

The possibilities are endless.

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

Of course the poor pilot left up in the cockpit will miss the warmth and companionship of a loyal first officer. However, warmth and companionship are not factors to the bottom line on an excel spreadsheet as far as the accountants are concerned. Eliminating half the pilot headcount is and likely very compelling.

 

 

I find this unfortunate but do recognize the challenges as we move forward...

 

Reality is we live in a world where the population is growing exponentially, we also have emerging economies and markets where the rate of growth far out ways are ability to train people into those jobs.

 

Perfect example is Lion Air, an airline in a region that is growing so fast they can't train or recruit people fast enough to fill that demand (they have 542 aircraft on order right now), so it would be easy to find a solution to automate those operations if the issue of Pilot Training could not be met.

[KevinAu 441]

I would rather think that the rapid increases in world population should be an argument against advancing technology and automation. After all, if technology and automation did everything for us, what would the ever increasing number of people on Earth do for a living if there is nothing that needs to be done?

 

Anyways, whatever current shortages of necessary skilled labor in any of the newly developing countries there are, can be met with imported labor. That is why there are so many American and European pilots working in Asian and Middle Eastern airlines.

[japascoe 98]

This topic sorta comes up in most of the ground schools I go through at work.  Not so much as drone but as Fly-By-Wire and FMC use.  Honestly speaking, most accidents are cause by pilot error. I think the number is close to 75%.  I have no problems admitting it.  Us pilots are human we make mistakes.  That being said.  A computer is just that a computer.  It knows "1's and 0's".  And there are only so many "1's and 0's" that you can program into the computer.  Programmers aren't going to think of everything and therefore the computer won't be able to respond to everything.  A perfect example is UAL232 in Sioux City.  A triple failure of hydraulics was deemed IMPOSSIBLE.

 

The beautiful thing about the human mind is its ability to learn.  And it learns FAST.  So until they come out with self learning computers I don't foresee the UAV take over anytime soon.  

Just my 2 cents.

 

Devil's advocate time:

Is it better to have 2 crashes because the pilots made a mistake or 1 crash because the computer couldn't adapt / the programmer didn't forsee this event?

 

Obviously we can't make computers that will never crash, but the real question is: can we make computers that crash less often than human pilots?

 

Self-learning computer algorithms are thing by the way, though we are still far off from the day where they'll be good enough to adapt to emergency situations in real time.

[scott967 62]

Speaking of drones, what about that U.S. Navy ship that somehow managed to shoot itself with a drone last week? How embarrassing! :Whistle:

 

 

Well I think USS Chancellorsville was going through a "C-SQT" (sea squat) to test/validate Aegis baseline 9.  In these sorts of tests you have drone targets (BQM-74s) fly profiles of threat missiles against the ship/combat system to evaluate the detect-to-engage sequence.  So it isn't a matter of "shooting itself" as you put it.  We had a similar case back in the 80s when the USS Antrim was hit by a BQM, in this case during testing of CIWS.  I can't remember now what safety changes were done as a result of the Antrim hit.

 

As far as autonomous flight, we've had plenty of Tomahawks flying around for years.  Of course they don't have to land, so we don't know if the software/hardware is as good as your average Asiana pilot.  But we have seen with UCLASS that you can trap on a CV deck, so I don't think handling a civvie/USAF 10,000ft + runway is that incredible a problem.  The real problem is drones don't get Air Medals.

 

scott s.

.

[HiFlyer 9,358]

I would think that even a drone being remote controlled would suffer the same sorts of situational awareness problems we do sitting in front of our monitors. Lack of ability to "Feel" the plane and the forces acting on it, lags in responsiveness, Accidental or intentional computer issues..........

 

Did I mention you wouldn't catch me on one?

 

Anymore than you would catch me on a fully automated train.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/17/could-bart-automate-train-drivers/

 

Too many companies wanting to sell fancy gizmos they can require their employees (public relations) to take rides on while the bosses get chauffeured.  :lol:

[Robert McDonald 167]

Well, this is highly interesting and well thought out - great comments one and all!  No doubt the airlines would love to reduce crew, eliminate toilets, and have us all fly standing up the entire time, much like sardines.  People actually said they WOULD fly without a restroom onboard, and some even said they would fly in a "crouch" position in return for a lower fare!  Really??

 

Arguments can be made for both sides of the drone question, but the reality is, I don't see human beings placing their lives in the hands of robots or ground pilots, or all-computer flight deck.  Yes, they were able to eliminate the engineer and the navigator.  Yes, they likely COULD set up total ground control.  But even if they try to dump the first officers, I don't see the public going for that.  What if the one and only pilot had the fish?  Or a heart attack?

 

Possibly 50 years from now, we will have transporter beams, I think that technology will eventually be developed.  Smart guys are sitting in a room right now talking about quarks and quantum mechanics, and "black hole" theories.  How far are we from disintegrating an object, transporting it via a 'worm hole' in space, and then reassembling it at the other end?  No, it won't happen today, but it may happen down the road.  Now, doing that with a living organism as opposed to "freight" (objects) is a bit more problematical.

 

Until that time, I don't see the cockpit crew dwindling.  As far as the huge demand for pilots... I am sure there are plenty of souls willing to drive the bus.  They may not all speak English as their first language, but believe me, there are the bodies out there!

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

The future will be Anesthetic Airlines, where they put you to sleep, stuff you in a box, stack you in a fully automated aircraft with robot loaders and on the other end you wake up in the arrivals area.

 

The perfect airline with no customers to deal with  :lol:

[KevinAu 441]

Arguments can be made for both sides of the drone question, but the reality is, I don't see human beings placing their lives in the hands of robots or ground pilots, or all-computer flight deck. Yes, they were able to eliminate the engineer and the navigator. Yes, they likely COULD set up total ground control. But even if they try to dump the first officers, I don't see the public going for that. What if the one and only pilot had the fish? Or a heart attack?

 

!

If the pilot ate the fish, it really wouldn't much of a problem as he is only there to back up the automation. Plane would fly and land just fine with the automation and ground link.

 

Teletransport and wormhole travel probably are a lot further off than airlines getting rid of FOs. Besides, you wouldn't be you after the teletransport, despite what you see in star trek.

[japascoe 98]

I would think that even a drone being remote controlled would suffer the same sorts of situational awareness problems we do sitting in front of our monitors. Lack of ability to "Feel" the plane and the forces acting on it, lags in responsiveness, Accidental or intentional computer issues..........

 

Did I mention you wouldn't catch me on one?

 

Anymore than you would catch me on a fully automated train.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/17/could-bart-automate-train-drivers/

 

Too many companies wanting to sell fancy gizmos they can require their employees (public relations) to take rides on while the bosses get chauffeured. :lol:

Don't get on Paris metro line 1 or the London Docklands Light Rail then. I've been on both and it seems many people don't share your sentiment (not to invalidate what you said, you're more than welcome to hold that opinion).

[HiFlyer 9,358]

Don't get on Paris metro line 1 or the London Docklands Light Rail then. I've been on both and it seems many people don't share your sentiment (not to invalidate what you said, you're more than welcome to hold that opinion).

 

Not quite the complete story, though.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20985642

 

This is Ligne 1 in Paris and it runs east to west and serves tourist stops like Louvre-Rivoli and Champs Elysees.

 

It is now nearly fully automated, bar four trains, and what has happened in a city where the unions are strong is a real eye opener.

 

The operators RATP upgraded the line with full negotiation with the unions from as far back as 2003 when the idea first germinated. The pay-off for the unions was drivers were redeployed onto another line and were promoted.

 

There were no redundancies.

 

The system means trains can run every 85 seconds and the number of travellers is now 75,0000 a day. RATP thinks it could reach 90,0000.

RATP says says it can react very quickly now to surges in passenger numbers and it can run with no drivers in times of industrial unrest. It costs 1bn euros to develop.

 

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said in early 2012 he wanted to see anautomated system in London to rival "Asian economies".

 

Wide tunnels

 

If London is serious about more automation and perhaps no drivers at all - and the Mayor has said that - then this is the kind of model that would be under consideration.

 

London Underground (LU) has watched Paris with interest.

 

LU's current policy as it stands is more automation with staff on board(perhaps not in the cabs) but it concedes some lines, not deep level lines like Waterloo & City, could be suited to staff-less trains.

 

It is at the start of a journey Paris began a decade ago and is gauging reaction carefully.

 

However, there are differences and obstacles to bear in mind.

 

Ligne 1 is not a deep line, the tunnels are well lit and they are very wide. There are also large numbers of security staff around on platforms and the stations are very close together.

 

RATP believes staff can be at any stranded train within five minutes.

 

Parisians I spoke to seemed pretty happy with automation although some did say they preferred having drivers. More automation is likely in the future.

 

Then there are the unions.

 

The transport union National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) will not support moving drivers from the cab into the carriage.

It says safety is crucial and drivers need to be in the cabs and it says it will strike over the issue.

 

Memories of the 7 July London bombings and the Kings Cross fire are, of course, still raw and many would baulk at unmanned trains in the capital.

But there could be storms brewing on the distant horizon and it won't just be left to the engineers to replicate Paris.

 

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

I have been paying attention to driverless trains in subways for a while now. Reality is you can run trains every 90 seconds apart without drivers. Cheapest way to increase capacity without building additional lines or infrastructure is to run the trains closer together. Many subways were built over 50 years ago now and are now over capacity.

[Robert McDonald 167]

If the pilot ate the fish, it really wouldn't much of a problem as he is only there to back up the automation. Plane would fly and land just fine with the automation and ground link.

 

Teletransport and wormhole travel probably are a lot further off than airlines getting rid of FOs. Besides, you wouldn't be you after the teletransport, despite what you see in star trek.

 

 

Ok, so tell me this:  How does a pilotless plane land on visual approach?  What if the ILS beam is turned off/fails and the weather is inclement?  Ground shear?  What happens when a small private plane materializes in the fog that didn't show up on the TCAS for whatever reason? And that small plane is flying head-on course into the airliner?  

 

I laughed about I wouldn't be me... that's the truth, no? 

 

At least trains run on tracks.  Airplanes have unlimited directional paths... and those paths may include other objects that aren't "supposed" to be there.  Birds, Deer (on the runways), other planes (in the air or in the wrong place on the ground).  I submit that the guy on the ground who is watching over things simply can't react in every possible scenario - and you need the First Officer.  NUMBER ONE cause of aircraft accidents:  Pilot FATIGUE.

 

What if the guy on the ground dozes off?  Who's watching HIM??