The Great Drone Debate

[Holdit 551]

That unsinkability claim was promotional puffery. (O' Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way!)

The Engineers and Naval Architects who designed Titanic certainly knew that she would sink if her hull integrity was breached sufficiently. 

Perfection is often claimed but never achieved!!!

january

 

My point exactly.

 

 

 

 

promotional puffery

 

 

Excellent expression. I might have to plagiarise it... :smile:

[january 19]

I don't see why a remote pilot, with real time video feed and full control, shouldn't be able to deadstick an airplane either.

 

Agreed. However the "real time video feed" needs to provide a near 180º view without zooming or panning. (Zooming destroys depth perception- panning is an optical trick to make up for narrow FoV.)

You need exceptionally good vision to pull off what Capt. Sullenburger accomplished.

 

In the sim world, that means a minimum of 3 fixed (2D) views synched together to appear as a single wide view.  

I would expect "real world view feed" would require at least two synched cams to produce an unzoomed & undistorted, 180º panorama. 

 

The need to use panning or zooming for a wide view as is done in simming,  would very likely be unacceptable for a R/W remote pilot.

january

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

It is called Peripheral Vision......and split second reactions based on what you see, feel and hear by being there. The best technology in the world can never replace that.

 

When the computers fail someone has to be there to take over. 

[japascoe 98]

Perhaps a thought to refine this debate-

 

Could Capt. Sullenberger have landed his airplane so spectacularly on the Hudson River without a First Officer assisting ??? 

Or in the case of total automation and NO flight crew aboard, could a remote pilot on the ground, have achieved a similar outcome?

january

 

Would a computer forget to run the standard unreliable airspeed checklist and stall the plane?

Would a computer roll over the plane because it changed the rudder trim instead of unlocking the cockpit door?

Would a computer continue a landing despite not meeting the stabilised approach criteria?

 

Off course there are occasions where a computer piloted plane will crash where a human wouldn't. The important question is: how often will that occur, compared to occasions where a human crashes where a computer wouldn't?

 

It is called Peripheral Vision......and split second reactions based on what you see, feel and hear by being there. The best technology in the world can never replace that.

 

When the computers fail someone has to be there to take over. 

 

We accept it that there's no one to take over when the two people in the front fail, why don't we accept it when it's not two people but two computers instead? Not saying I disagree necessarily, but I do find it fascinating that we as a society have this double standard.

[mgh 89]

Would a computer...

An addition to your list

 

Would a computer have landed an aircraft at the wrong airport?

 

https://secure.prepar3d.com/solo/products/LicenseAgreement.aspx?ProdOptionID=1050

[Robert McDonald 167]

Everyone has an opinion on this issue- and it's refreshing to hear from both sides of the aisle. As a systems engineer and programmer, let me tell you the truth about computers:

 

They're wonderful.  They're great.  They save time, money and lives.

Until they break.  And every last one of them WILL break.  It's a law of physics.  We're not even talking about hackers (or worse) getting involved in the brave new world of ground-controlled aircraft.

 

So the words "Fail Safe" are no more true in a single-pilot system than in the current implementation.  Our present system has worked well for so long, we now assume that "less (pilots) is more (efficient)".  (The single-pilot clean sheet proposal)

It is until it isn't.  Then people die.

 

Argument is that under present system, dual pilots cause crashes.  Greater automation is proposed as a solution.  Of course, we have NO STATISTICS to back up that assertion.  It's simply a way to cut costs.  Period.  Marketing types will say it's better, safer, yada yada.  Less is more!  It worked for paper products like tissues and toilet paper, it should work just as well in another industry!

 

And you can't prove how many fatalities were PREVENTED by having that second pair of eyes in the cockpit.  Only the crashes are tallied.  A lot of the close calls never are.  The failures during flight that the pilots worked out, one doing the flying, the other guy trying solutions.  I prefer to have the experts onboard.  Not playing Super Nintendo from company headquarters.

 

I'm just sayin'

[KevinAu 441]

It's simply a way to cut costs. Period.

 

I'm just sayin'

Exactly. And that's exactly why we march inexorably towards it. You finally get it. If technology can allow them to make the argument that it will be as safe, if not safer, for less cost, then it will happen. Why not? Just as you can't stop water flowing downhill, you can't stop people from seeking ways to pay less.

 

Just sayin'

[Robert McDonald 167]

Exactly. And that's exactly why we march inexorably towards it. You finally get it. If technology can allow them to make the argument that it will be as safe, if not safer, for less cost, then it will happen. Why not? Just as you can't stop water flowing downhill, you can't stop people from seeking ways to pay less.

 

Just sayin'

 

I understand the 'logic' in what you say.  I also think only time will tell if less really is more...  yes, it costs less with no FO.  But is it safer? or even "as safe".  I submit that there is no way to prove it, because you cannot prove a negative.  You can't prove that more near-misses (as an example) are avoided, or other disasters-in-the-making that the cockpit crew overcame, are reduced with fewer people in the cockpit.  Of course management doesn't care.  They only care about co$t$.

[KevinAu 441]

I understand the 'logic' in what you say. I also think only time will tell if less really is more... yes, it costs less with no FO. But is it safer? or even "as safe". I submit that there is no way to prove it, because you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that more near-misses (as an example) are avoided, or other disasters-in-the-making that the cockpit crew overcame, are reduced with fewer people in the cockpit. Of course management doesn't care. They only care about co$t$.

I submit that the manufacturers, airlines and regulatory agencies will collaborate to develop a test regime to satisfy their notions of adequate safety. And that is nothing new. How do you think we get to 90 minute, 180 minute, 240 minute, etc. Etops? How does anybody know whether being over the ocean out of range of land 4 hours is as safe as 3 hours? You develop a test program with performance and reliability targets that are measureable and if the test article hits those targets, then they will declare it safe.

 

Yes they do care about co$t$ quite a bit. And until the consumer stops caring about co$t$, so will the companies.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

Exactly. And that's exactly why we march inexorably towards it. You finally get it. If technology can allow them to make the argument that it will be as safe, if not safer, for less cost, then it will happen. Why not? Just as you can't stop water flowing downhill, you can't stop people from seeking ways to pay less.

Just sayin'

I'm gonna bet that you won't pay less, or at least not for long. Lots of tech marvels have come along, promising to cost less..... But then greed kicks in, and eventually it costs exactly the same or more, with the extra being pocketed, and the promise forgotton.

[KevinAu 441]

I'm gonna bet that you won't pay less, or at least not for long. Lots of tech marvels have come along, promising to cost less..... But then greed kicks in, and eventually it costs exactly the same or more, with the extra being pocketed, and the promise forgotton.

I'm sure you're right, in which case the airline will just make more profits. Another benefit of lowering costs.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

I'm sure you're right, in which case the airline will just make more profits. Another benefit of lowering costs.

Then whats the benefit to me, that I feel less safe at the same cost? Whats my incentive to go along quietly?

 

Cause I'll say right now, if there is a non-drone alternative, that's where I will go. The big companies and their lobbyists and congress-critters (who should wear jumpsuits like racing teams emblazoned with the names of the corporations sponsoring them) will have to find a way to force all companies to automate.....

 

And then I will take a boat or drive, or take a train.......... (And no, it will be a cold day before they automate Amtrak)

[KevinAu 441]

Then whats the benefit to me, that I feel less safe at the same cost? Whats my incentive to go along quietly?

 

Cause I'll say right now, if there is a non-drone alternative, that's where I will go. The big companies and their lobbyists and congress-critters (who should wear jumpsuits like racing teams emblazoned with the names of the corporations sponsoring them) will have to find a way to force all companies to automate.....

 

And then I will take a boat or drive, or take a train.......... (And no, it will be a cold day before they automate Amtrak)

Who ever said it had to benefit YOU? You are not the one purchasing the plane. If whoever it is that has a reason to buy airliners believes that the plane can help them compete or profit, then they can choose to buy it or not. If you are a consumer of air travel, then it is up to you to decide whether the product and price being offered by the airline is better or not than the next offering. If you're a stock investor, then it is up to you to decide whether the business decisions being made by that airline makes their stock a buy or sell. Nobody is forcing any airline to automate. This is their choice to do if they decide the numbers make sense. And you certainly don't have to gi along, you can always walk.

[HiFlyer 9,361]

Ahhhhh but they also have to do marketing research. And if that shows people would rather "walk" then how do they get a profit on all those nicely automated half-empty planes because people are flocking to their non-automated competitors?

And yes, it does have to benefit me and others as customers, because otherwise, we take ourselves and our money elsewhere.

These things are very open to public perception, and I don't have all that much doubt who would be chosen by most if the choice was between Chesley Sullenberger, or Hal 9000

(And I suspect that's pretty close to how the issue would be framed)

 

There is already the beginning of some push-back against pervasive automation: http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2013/11/automation-addiction-risks-eroding-pilot-skills/

 

We just aren't there yet.

[KevinAu 441]

Ahhhhh but they also have to do marketing research. And if that shows people would rather "walk" then how do they get a profit on all those nicely automated half-empty planes because people are flocking to their non-automated competitors?

 

And yes, it does have to benefit me and others as customers, because otherwise, we take ourselves and our money elsewhere.

 

These things are very open to public perception, and I don't have all that much doubt who would be chosen by most if the choice was between Chesley Sullenberger, or Hal 9000

 

(And I suspect that's pretty close to how the issue would be framed)

And of course they will. And they will have to decide the essential questions of whether the general public will accept and whether they can convince their pilots to accept. Obviously your opinion is highly negative, but do remember that this is a flightsim forum, so opinions here on aviation topics may not reflect that of the general population. Of course the benefit to customers would be lower prices if the airline chooses to leverage the reduced crew into a competitive advantage. Of course you have already said that they won't. Ok, I accept that, so if they've reduced costs without reducing prices, then the benefit passes to the bottom line, benefitting shareholders. Public perception is often fleeting, forgetful and malleable. People today live with much more automation in every aspect of their lives, so I am not so sure the reaction would be as visceral as those from airplane enthusiasts. But I have no doubt you will lead the pr campaign against this using cartoon images of Hal9000.

There is already the beginning of some push-back against pervasive automation: http://www.airtrafficmanagement.net/2013/11/automation-addiction-risks-eroding-pilot-skills/

 

We just aren't there yet.

Hmmm, I don't see anything in there about reducing the automation technology in aircraft. Can you point it out for me? I must be missing it.