Future of Aviation

[Murmur 3,941]

Non-zero, but definitely smaller. There's been a consistent trend towards greater safety in aviation as we've let the pilots do less and less.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

 

True, but this does not mean that with current technology, pilotless aircrafts would be more safe than piloted one. Probably in the not too distant future we'll get there though.

[taneb 2]

True, flight crew errors are the majority of accident causes, but on the contrary, flight crew skill and critical thinking are what landed the U.S airways flight safely in the Hudson. Could a machine pull that off? How well is automated flight on a failed engine, or in the case of a bird strike two failed engines? Has there ever been an autoland on road or on water? A computer would have to be dead on precise to handle that kind of situation appropriately, not accounting for bad weather or crosswind etc.

[KevinAu 441]

Those are questions for computers that are probably forty years off. The next step change is merely to single pilot. Basically a uav that includes a cockpit for a pilot just in case, and a ground team. So your Hudson scenario should be covered quite adequately. I am pretty sure computers forty years hence will be quite powerful enough to handle all sorts of abnormals by themselves when it comes time to make the next step change from single pilot.

[taneb 2]

Eh well I guess single pilot flying is better than none, but is that the plane flying by itself and a pilot standing off to the side just in case? That would indicate that by then planes would be capable of doing fully automated flight under perfect conditions without any failures? I still think that the pilot should have at least some input as to what the plane does IMO.

 

And what is the future of GA or corporate flying? Will those be fully automated as well, or does it only apply to the airline industry? The reason I ask is because airline isn't the only way a person could fly a plane, maybe someone wants to go for a cruise in their Cessna 172 just for fun? That way, I could still go fly for enjoyment, because when the wright brothers created flying in 1903, I'm pretty sure it was because they wanted to see a birds eye view of the world, not for a machine to enjoy it for them. As for accomplishing a certain task, I can understand that, but those are just my thoughts on it. It's still a little while before that even happens anyway.

[Luke 782]

True, flight crew errors are the majority of accident causes, but on the contrary, flight crew skill and critical thinking are what landed the U.S airways flight safely in the Hudson. Could a machine pull that off? How well is automated flight on a failed engine, or in the case of a bird strike two failed engines? Has there ever been an autoland on road or on water? A computer would have to be dead on precise to handle that kind of situation appropriately, not accounting for bad weather or crosswind etc.

 

This is the same thinking that makes people worry more about flying on the plane rather than the drive to the airport. We worry about the highly rare, highly publicized accidents rather than the daily stuff which is far more likely to kill us.

 

How many cases have we run into like this in the last ten years, versus cases where pilots made errors and destroyed the plane? And don't forget - I venture a significant majority of pilots might not have ended up as well as Sully did. Even so, if we turn a very rare case from 50% survivability to zero and in return avoid ten times as many accidents due to pilot error, that's a tradeoff I would make in a heart beat.

 

Wouldn't you?

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[KevinAu 441]

I would think that it should lean towards the aircraft being autonomous from takeoff to landing with the pilot only to intervene if something is abnormal. And that is all pretty much what technology is capable of today as it stands. Even handling an engine failure on takeoff is well within the capability of today's autopilots. If there is anything in flight designed to require pilot intervention each flight, then you are not fully taking advantage of the technology and its safety benefits. There is no point in having any autonomy at that point. That plane should be a train on rails once it rolls down the runway. That plane should be completely autonomous because you only have one pilot. And that pilot is there only because we still don't completely trust the automation.

 

There is one aspect that I think they will still find useful to have a human aboard. Weather avoidance. That is one task of flying that still does not lend itself well to automation or remote decision making. If weather is tactically avoided through automation, then there will be some waste from wider deviations as the programming will have to be pretty conservative. If it is going to be handled tactically, by a human on the ground, then there is going to be an increase in ground manpower required to oversee all the flights on a typical summer day. It may actually take a forty year advance in computing power for an aircraft to handle tactical weather avoidance autonomously as well as a human can. That is one thing I will give humans over the computer.

[taneb 2]

Well, yes and no. It's like I hear many people when they say, "I'd feel safer in a plane that has fly-by-wire than in a plane with traditional hydraulics." There's two types of accidents-an accident, or a flat our fatal crash or fatal accident. From 2006 to 2009, the U.S went without a single fatal disaster until that Colgan air q400 ruined it.

 

You see the thing is, how many problems are computers solving as opposed to the ones that they are creating? While Uav might reduce the amount of accidents, the accidents it would have are far more likely to be fatal rather than small misdemeanors.

 

Luke, like you said, it's a trade off. It all just depends on which end of the bargain you prefer. I assume that one of these days we'll probably have electronic flight attendants and robotic gate agents, technically we really don't need them either. Let's face it, no matter which job or career you choose, there is probably a machine that can do it ten times more productively, airline pilots just happen to be the ones for replacement at this point in time. I guess that's just automation for you.

[Murmur 3,941]

It may also be noteworthy the fact that UAVs still have a MUCH higher loss rate compared to other aicrafts, including manned military aircrafts. So much for the current safety of a completely unmanned aircraft.

[KevinAu 441]

I think it would be a more accurate comparison if you differentiate between Global Hawks and all the rest like the Predators. The kind of technology, automation, and control that go into the Global Hawk would be the kind that would be applicable to transfer to the civilian sector. The predators are treated as 'throw away' assets, in as much as a $4M remote control plane is by the Pentagon. The requirements to fly it, the automation it has, and the procedures and controls they use with those are pretty low. So looking at the Predator losses as an indication to how uav tech gets applied to civilian planes may be misleading.

[taneb 2]

Yeah, true. Safety record may vary depending on the aircraft. But still, I wish they would keep pilots in the cockpit. I don't see why any pilot of today's world would even want something like that, unless they just flat out hate their job or just don't really care. But I guess that's the future of today's world, according to nasa at least. But as for now, it is the way it is. Seems like a pretty controversial subject as I've said before.

 

Anyways, thanks for all the great input though, it's a lot of interesting info. Now I'm just bored with the subject, it's not worth worrying or arguing about. We'll just have to see when that time gets there. Once again, thanks everybody. You can keep posting if you want, I'll keep reading them. And thanks KevinAu, who's been following this topic since the very beginning. Moral of the story, just enjoy flying the way it is in the here and now.

 

Edit-By the way Kevin, not to be rude, just out of curiosity, are you still an airline pilot? Thanks

[taneb 2]

Case closed everybody. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and support. Sorry about the mixed opinions, I hope no ones feelings were hurt, just interested on your input. Anyways see ya later ;-)

[KevinAu 441]

Yes, I am. Flying E190s.

[mgh 89]

...robotic gate agents,...

 

EasyJet already has them at Gatwick, even for checking in bags.

[taneb 2]

Man, you are lucky. Those are one of my favorite planes, the E190. I currently have yet to get the E170/E190 from feelthere, but I have their E175/195 set mainly because I was fond of the new 175, and a lot of the airlines use it (one of the planes I would like to fly).

 

And I was being sarcastic about the robotic gate agents, I didn't think they would actually exist at Gatwick. But hey, proves my point right? We're all up for replacement these days.

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Automation taken takes over no need for humans, birds, c-172, muscle cars to drive. Just shut up and be happy everything done for you!