The Great Drone Debate

[KevinAu 441]

Ok, so tell me this: How does a pilotless plane land on visual approach? Or 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?

 

Going over to the trains running without drivers... wonder what happens if a segment of track had damage or disappeared?

I'm not sure what you're thinking the issue is. The pilot on board can simply fly whatever visual approach like any would today. If the pilot was incapacitated, then the drone ground team can fly the visual as well using video. UAVs today fly visual approaches as a matter of course. Some of the fields they operate from are pretty austere. A visual approach for a vfr capable drone like the predator is not difficult. For a waypoint flown drone like the global hawk, the simple answer is you wouldn't. The vehicle would just land using ILS or GPS approaches all the time.

 

If surprise traffic materializes visually, again the pilot on board can take action or if he is incapacitated, the ground team can react from what they see visually as well.

[KevinAu 441]

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??

Ok guy, I get it, you don't like the idea.

 

However, the technology on hand today is advanced enough to eliminate one pilot. Whether there is a pilot on board or not, things like bird strikes are mostly unavoidable. I've had plenty of them. It makes no difference whether I was on board looking out the window or watching on a monitor. There wasn't a thing I could do to keep from hitting all the birds that I have ever hit. And those that I missed, I didn't do a thing that caused me to miss them either. They're just too small to see until it is too late.

 

I'm not sure what part of drone technology eliminating ONE pilot you do not understand, but if one pilot was eliminated from a crew of two, that would mean there is still one pilot on board (2-1=1). So there would still be one pilot on board to taxi the airplane and react to deer running across the taxiways of O'Hare.

 

The number one cause of accidents is pilot error, not fatigue.

 

Again the ground pilot is only monitoring the progress and assisting the pilot on board as required. He can be free to get up and go get coffee from the machine in the breakroom without the plane spinning out of control.

[thibodba57 462]

The number one cause of accidents is pilot error, not fatigue.

Pilot error due to fatigue.  Trust me as a pilot that works 50-60hr work weeks with 5 hours of sleep a night.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what part of drone technology eliminating ONE pilot you do not understand, but if one pilot was eliminated from a crew of two, that would mean there is still one pilot on board (2-1=1). So there would still be one pilot on board to taxi the airplane and react to deer running across the taxiways of O'Hare.

 

Kinda rude to do remedial math for someone just because you don't agree with their opinion.  But I digress.  If said "1" pilot has to initiate a go around in the flare of a high performance aircraft having the extra pilot on board would be preferential.  Here's a true to life story just for you.  I was flying into PANC at the end of one of my days.  Vis was down to 3/4 and 200 indefinite.  I just got the nose gear on the ground when out in the mist I saw a pair of dim beacon lights crossing 7L right to left.  I called for max power and a go around up into IMC.  Juggling the aircraft by myself and getting our missed instructions (ATC at PANC rarely utilize the published missed procedures) would have been a bit taxing.  I'm not saying I couldn't have done it.  What I'm saying is that its better to have one person FLYING the airplane while the other guys is monitoring and talking.  Its simply smart to have that person in the airplane que'd up as much as you are about the situation you were just in than on the ground looking at a monitor.  Worse as you stated earlier

 

The person on the ground can monitor several aircraft at once and assist or backup the pilot of an aircraft when necessary. 

.  I'll pass on anyone trying to help me monitoring multiple aircraft.  It will never work out.  They would never have the situational awareness (SA) a person responsible for people LIVES should have.  Ok so lets say we revert that a bit and say the person on the ground is responsible for one aircraft.  If you do that then why on earth are they sitting on the ground instead of with the other pilot?  There's no sensible reason, the other seat in the cockpit will be empty, might as well have someone occupy it.

[KevinAu 441]

Fatigue can contribute to pilot error, but I do not believe it has been cited as the actual cause for any accident. I would like to find an accident where the primary cause is fatigue. But if fatigue is such a problem, why not eliminate it as a threat by eliminating the pilot? Machines do not suffer from fatigue and a ground team monitoring a flight can be rotated out instead of being forced to stay strapped into a chair for 15 hours. In fact, such a system of pilot, automation, and ground monitoring seems to work pretty well for sending people into the most hostile of all environments, space. Why wouldn't it increase safety for air travel?

 

Unfortunately, I did have to resort to bluntness since it seemed like the other poster was more intent on speaking past me than actually trying to understand what I was saying and responding to that.

 

Again, I believe the paradigm shift you are missing is that this not about a single person flying an airacraft, it is about a plane that can handle everything by itself but being monitored by a pilot on board and a pilot/team on the ground.

 

And again as well, you wouldn't need a one for one replacement pilot on the ground. You'd have a person on the ground that is monitoring several flights who only has to give high attention to one when necessary. That will be where the economic advantage of implementing drone technology comes from.

[japascoe 98]

Here's a list of accidents (not all aviation related) where the NTSB cited fatigue as a contributing factor: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-1.html. Aviation accidents are typically a chain of things going wrong so arbitrarily declaring one of those things as a 'primary cause' doesn't really do you much good if you´re trying to improve safety.

 

Spaceflight is not really a good comparison. Space has far less to crash into (yes space junk is a problem, but it is tracked and follows known orbits or is unavoidable in any case), manoeuvres are planned anywhere from days to years in advance and you have a team of several dozen people just to monitor one spacecraft. Also, if you measure per departure, the safety record of manned spaceflight is pretty abysmal compared to aviation.

 

 

 

Again, I believe the paradigm shift you are missing is that this not about a single person flying an airacraft, it is about a plane that can handle everything by itself but being monitored by a pilot on board and a pilot/team on the ground.

 

In that case wouldn't you be better off just having a maintenance / ops team on speed dial on the sat phone, like they have now, rather than a remote back-up pilot? Assuming that I'm understanding your concept correctly, which is that the plane is essentially autonomous, and the on-board pilot also only fulfils the role of Pilot Monitoring?

 

On a side-note, bluntness can often be perceived as rudeness, which in my experience does not usually motivate people to try and understand your point if they are talking past it.

[january 19]

If "automation" can react better/faster to a looming crisis than can a human, then I'd prefer to be aboard that automated vehicle-  whether plane or train.

Waiting for a human to take CORRECT emergency action while his/her brain figures out what that appropriate action should be- leaves me a bit nervous !

I also prefer sprinkler systems which go on automatically !

january

[KevinAu 441]

Here's a list of accidents (not all aviation related) where the NTSB cited fatigue as a contributing factor: http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl-1.html. Aviation accidents are typically a chain of things going wrong so arbitrarily declaring one of those things as a 'primary cause' doesn't really do you much good if you´re trying to improve safety.

 

Spaceflight is not really a good comparison. Space has far less to crash into (yes space junk is a problem, but it is tracked and follows known orbits or is unavoidable in any case), manoeuvres are planned anywhere from days to years in advance and you have a team of several dozen people just to monitor one spacecraft. Also, if you measure per departure, the safety record of manned spaceflight is pretty abysmal compared to aviation.

 

 

In that case wouldn't you be better off just having a maintenance / ops team on speed dial on the sat phone, like they have now, rather than a remote back-up pilot? Assuming that I'm understanding your concept correctly, which is that the plane is essentially autonomous, and the on-board pilot also only fulfils the role of Pilot Monitoring?

 

On a side-note, bluntness can often be perceived as rudeness, which in my experience does not usually motivate people to try and understand your point if they are talking past it.

Right, fatigue is a contributory factor to many chains of events. You cannot arbitrarily declare it the 'number one cause'.

 

Spaceflight's safety record is pretty abysmal which I believe is an indication of just how dangerous it is. And if this structure of pilot, automation and ground control is what it takes to make spaceflight even this abysmally safe, wouldn't it be downright disastrous if we approached it with less structure and discipline? And if this is the approach required for something as dangerous as spaceflight, wouldn't it only add to the safety of commercial aviation? I do not follow your reasoning for how it is not a good comparison.

 

Yes, the concept I am presenting is basically a global hawk with a pilot on board and the capability for ground intervention. Yes, the pilot on board would be primarily to monitor, if you will, but can certainly play the part of flying pilot if required or wishes. System operations on the ground will also monitor, assist, and control as necessary. All that is well within the capabilities of current uav and atc technology and structure.

 

On a side note, though bluntness may not always work to communicate a point, it does not mean that it cannot work. And if over the course of several exchanges, it is established that normal polite discourse is ineffective at communicating, then a change may be appropriate.

[ViperPilot 81]

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:

 

Sounds like The Fifth Element! 

 

Personally, I don't think airline pilots will be replaced by automation; the folks in the Legal Dep't. wouldn't let it happen, and the passengers wouldn't go for it either.

 

Of course, I think drones have their uses; for example, during the recent flooding in Colorado a couple of months ago, they would have been useful to recon the affected areas, considering it took a couple of days due to Wx for air assets to start flying.

 

I did give thought of driving the 70 miles to Deer Trail to get a Drone Hunting license, though... just to have it on the wall!

 

[january 19]

To a considerable extent, airplanes are already remotely controlled vehicles- via the network of ATC controllers. Altitude, heading, speed, variance permissions and procedural commands are already the prerogative of a chain of "pilots on the ground" ie ATC controllers. 

Airborne pilots disregard ATC commands at their peril unless they have real & overriding reasons which they are prepared to defend later.. 

january

 

[KevinAu 441]

To a considerable extent, airplanes are already remotely controlled vehicles- via the network of ATC controllers. Altitude, heading, speed, variance permissions and procedural commands are already the prerogative of a chain of "pilots on the ground" ie ATC controllers.

Airborne pilots disregard ATC commands at their peril unless they have real & overriding reasons which they are prepared to defend later..

january

Which is why being an airline pilot flying one of the newer designs, this transition to drone type control does not seem like a big leap to me. Systemwise, there are hardly any switches we have to touch during the course of a flight. Everything is computer controlled to the point that if they wanted to, it can all be completely automated and controlled from the ground. Even circuit breakers are electronically managed by the fms. Routing and flight direction can easily be managed from the ground as well. The only reason you need a pilot on board with current technology is to taxi. That's it. Eliminating the pilots will eliminate the majority of current safety issues by reducing the chance of human error.

[Holdit 551]

 

 

The only reason you need a pilot on board with current technology is to taxi

 

I can just imagine the pilot taxiing the aircraft to the runway...and then getting out...

 

 

Heh, heh.

[japascoe 98]

Right, fatigue is a contributory factor to many chains of events. You cannot arbitrarily declare it the 'number one cause'.

 

Spaceflight's safety record is pretty abysmal which I believe is an indication of just how dangerous it is. And if this structure of pilot, automation and ground control is what it takes to make spaceflight even this abysmally safe, wouldn't it be downright disastrous if we approached it with less structure and discipline? And if this is the approach required for something as dangerous as spaceflight, wouldn't it only add to the safety of commercial aviation? I do not follow your reasoning for how it is not a good comparison.

 

Spacecraft manoeuvres are pre-planned and programmed days to years in advance. Spacecraft perform a number of relatively short engine burns and just coast in between, whereas aircraft have to be controlled in real time. The way spacecraft are controlled is not directly applicable to aircraft.

 

That aside having the same ratio of controllers per flight would be ridiculously expensive.

[SolRayz 392]

 

 

I'd still take a pilot with a ton of military flight hours at the helm in lieu of an unseen mainframe on the ground, or a combination of the mainframe and a drone pilot on the ground, all day every day.

 

Can't argue with that. Nothing really more to say about this...

[KevinAu 441]

Spacecraft manoeuvres are pre-planned and programmed days to years in advance. Spacecraft perform a number of relatively short engine burns and just coast in between, whereas aircraft have to be controlled in real time. The way spacecraft are controlled is not directly applicable to aircraft.

 

That aside having the same ratio of controllers per flight would be ridiculously expensive.

Of course you wouldn't have 30 controllers for a flight. Like I said before, you'd have one person watching over four or five flights like a dispatcher would. And he wouldn't have to do anything most of the time. Flying an airliner is not that different than a spacecraft coasting through space. Even just flying domestically, I can go for a significant period of time without having to touch anything or say anything except to change frequencies. With the datalink transponders we already have, ATC can datalink their instructions, like course changes, altitude changes, approach clearances, etc. directly to the fms and autopilot, once they decide to ok that and make the software updates. Again, that kind of capability is already in use with global hawks.

 

We can go on and on back and forth about these details, but when you say something like 'have to be controlled in real time', that says to me that there is something conceptually or fundamentally about flying that you don't understand or have misconceptions about. Of course everything is 'real time', there is nothing about removing the FO that means that the aircraft cannot be controlled in 'real time'. I'm just befuddled at what you are not seeing.

[japascoe 98]

Of course you wouldn't have 30 controllers for a flight. Like I said before, you'd have one person watching over four or five flights like a dispatcher would. And he wouldn't have to do anything most of the time. Flying an airliner is not that different than a spacecraft coasting through space. Even just flying domestically, I can go for a significant period of time without having to touch anything or say anything except to change frequencies. With the datalink transponders we already have, ATC can datalink their instructions, like course changes, altitude changes, approach clearances, etc. directly to the fms and autopilot, once they decide to ok that and make the software updates. Again, that kind of capability is already in use with global hawks.

 

We can go on and on back and forth about these details, but when you say something like 'have to be controlled in real time', that says to me that there is something conceptually or fundamentally about flying that you don't understand or have misconceptions about. Of course everything is 'real time', there is nothing about removing the FO that means that the aircraft cannot be controlled in 'real time'. I'm just befuddled at what you are not seeing.

I was merely responding to your claim that because a certain control system worked well for spacecraft, it would also work well for aircraft, and pointing out that that is not necesarily true because of the differences in the environment spacecraft and aircraft operate in. Aircraft in cruise have to compensate for much larger disturbances than spacecraft. While you could fly the Apollo mission just fine 60 years ago, there's no way you could have autonomously flown an airliner with that kind of technology.

 

I agree with you that with modern day technology the system you're proposing would work. By having a pilot on board you're overcoming one of the biggest hurdles, which is the lack of sense and avoid on UAVs.