Sign in to follow this  
w6kd

The new direction?

Recommended Posts

Go here and check out: Your New Pilot: H.A.L.http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avfl...ull.html#194034The new direction? I have a friend of a friend who has flown captain of 747's for years who is asking for a demotion to dc9's-he is tired of the company rule flying the whole trip on autopilot from practically liftoff to touchdown-wants to get back to the fun/interest of some hand flying.Is this the future. Will future msfs's just have us observing the flight and not having any input?Wonder what the public will think....http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I definatly would not like to fly on a pilotless plane, what if somthing fails and who would be there to give you the reasuring talk before push back?There is so much to go wrong here that the design is unlikly to ever take off (pun intended). Plus its just another example of jobs being cut. When out Christmas shopping today instead of queing i went to the "self checkout" area where you actually scan the goods and then give the machine your money, but thats another person's job taken over by a robot.There should be a rule in aviation that everything is as fool proof as possible, this just isn't, still, i suppose the pilots could be demoted to 'technitions' and supervise HAL.Dave

Share this post


Link to post

Until a computer can make a go around decision as well as a human, it won't happen. There are still to many human factors in aviation. A computer would never know when to request vectors around luminous looking front, nor would it know how to read light gun signals if the electronics fail.

Share this post


Link to post

I think a pilotless aircraft would have a pilot, just one sitting on the ground rather than in the air. But really that is beside the point.Without a pilot in the aeroplane in the air:* What would be the last line of defence should Operations want to make a potentially unsafe but economically sound decision regarding the flight.* Seems a bit strange to have no pilot of cabin crew serving drinks!* If there is cabin crew, will one of them be technically sufficient and trained to take over? If so then they are a pilot who serves drinks and you would still need a cockpit anyway??* Without cabin crew who will stop passengers getting up to no good. Unless they are sedated and/or tied down there will be fights and god knows what...can you imagine!!!Never mind the technology, it isn't going to happen. Something else will come along either negating the need to fly or totally sidestep the problems they are trying to address.

Share this post


Link to post

"nor would it know how to read light gun signals if the electronics fail."What is this light gun signal? More info please :)

Share this post


Link to post

Light gun signals are green and red signals that are used at towered airports to give taxi, takeoff and landing aircraft that are NORDO.

Share this post


Link to post

Before we see pilotless, we'll need to see one-pilot + HAL flight decks. And you can believe they're working on it. Nobody thought a transport aircraft without a flight engineer was a serious possibility not too far back.It's already a hot topic of debate as to whether the last fighter pilot has already been born...UAVs are not limited by a human occupant...don't need heavy life support gear, aren't limited by human physiological factors such as G-forces, temperatures, beer-bong hangovers etc. With today's technology, you can have a human in the loop without the human in the aircraft. That's not a theory...the Global Hawk is doing things today that required manned aircraft just five years ago.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

Current UAVs do simple tasks really. They are also still crashing a lot! But they aren't piloted. They are manned by a ground based pilot so the HAL link isn't present. I would imagine that AI or a ground based pilot is a long way away from being able to conduct a dogfight or any kind of effective air defence role.I could understand a single pilot airliner (as opposed to an air taxi), but not in the context of long haul and not without cabin crew.Imagine a crewless airliner, the pax would have to be sedated and/or clamped to their seats so that they don't get up to no good!!The final problem with crewless aircraft is the that the last line of defence to prevent a safety decisions becoming economic ones is removed.

Share this post


Link to post

>Current UAVs do simple tasks really. Absolutely wrong. Unless you consider tracking a suspect ground target moving at vastly disparate speeds through mountainous terrain...at night..."simple.">But they aren't piloted. They are manned by a>ground based pilot so the HAL link isn't present. There's a tremendous amount of automation onboard and in the ground station that controls it. HAL is indeed present.>I would>imagine that AI or a ground based pilot is a long way away>from being able to conduct a dogfight or any kind of effective>air defence role.Not much dogfighting to do when the UAV takes a BVR shot with an AIM-120 and kills the inbound.>I could understand a single pilot airliner (as opposed to an>air taxi), but not in the context of long haul and not without>cabin crew.Makes perfect sense to me. In the old days you had two pilots and an engineer on a long-haul flight...one or two of which might be found napping in the crew bunk at any given time. Now you have one pilot in the seat, one in the back sleeping, and at least two layers of redundant automation keeping the guy in the seat in a state of utter boredom.Add a couple layers of advanced automation and I can foresee a single pilot napping while a quadruple-redundant automatic system does the work.>Imagine a crewless airliner, the pax would have to be sedated>and/or clamped to their seats so that they don't get up to no>good!!With today's technology, perhaps. But the reality is that a machine can be built which is far less likely to err (and hence safer) than the human pilots that have been biffing perfectly functional pax-laden airplanes into mountainsides since the first aircraft started flying. Which is more likely to get you killed today...a mechanical malfunction, or pilot error? It's pilot error by a wide margin.>The final problem with crewless aircraft is the that the last>line of defence to prevent a safety decisions becoming>economic ones is removed.Even a casual observer of the US tort system can tell you that safety decisions are economic decisions. And I've seen enough bonehead decisions made by human pilots with get-there-itis to tell you that safety can just as easily be compromised by a pilot with an agenda and a God Complex as by an ops manager.CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

I would be reluctant to fly on any airplane which is fully operated by somthing that is not completely aware of its own mortality.

Share this post


Link to post

It's going to happen sooner or later... It's not a matter of 'if' but really more a question of how soon...As was mentioned the PFE has been made redundant... the navigator, well, he left ages ago, and I fully expect to see the FO by and large gone in my lifetime.Just look at the new RNP stuff coming out that's going to replace almost everything, it's amazing, but it really just adds up to one more nail in the coffin for the flight crew...Edit: This isn't good news for FS2Crew, hahaha -Bryan

Share this post


Link to post

Well quadruple redundant systems already exist. But recently Airbus has been asked to finally sort out an electrics glitch that left a few with little more standby instruments on a number of occasions, despite the tauted redundancy.The notion that most accidents are due to human error brings bias into the stats. What you don't mention are the relatively significant number of aircraft where disaster was averted because there was a crew on board to mitigate the affects of technical problems. Humans are the best there is at dealing with incomplete information and previously unknown scenarios.The problem with thinking that the pilot is the problem is that by removing the pilot you think you have solved the problem, but you haven't. You've just moved the readily identifiable problem further up the operational, manufacturing and design stage. Humans will still be feeding errors in to the chain at various points, but without human science and creativity there wouldn't be the new technology in the first place, it is a bit of a Catch 22.I'm not so cynical about safety/economic decisions as you. These days, with the advent of CRM and the empowered F/O, very sound decisions are being made. Problem is most problems are nipped in the bud so bias is an issue again. The accident is often the result of a chain of events where one early, seemingly innocuous, bad decision resulted in disaster. Quite often that decision was made on the ground and that could possibly a valid scenario with or without pilots, just that without there is no final line of defence.I refer you to that often quoted parable between a doctor and pilot. The doctor asks how it is that aviation has managed to create an effective safety culture. The pilot replies that "doctor messes up, patient dies. Pilot messes up, pilot dies".FWIW, I think pilotless aircraft are going to be a technological reality. But much much more will need to change culturally and the way that aviation as whole operates from the root up before it can be a practical reality. Basically, the automation technology is the least of their problems.Having wrote all that, so long as I get my TinMouse updates. YOU DA MAN. I'll agree to anything :D

Share this post


Link to post

>The notion that most accidents are due to human error brings>bias into the stats. What you don't mention are the relatively>significant number of aircraft where disaster was averted>because there was a crew on board to mitigate the affects of>technical problems. Humans are the best there is at dealing>with incomplete information and previously unknown scenarios.But it works both ways...how many times has disaster been averted beause there was a warning system on board to mitigate the effects of task saturation, lack of situational awareness etc. We don't put gear warning horns, GPWS, altitude alert tones etc into jets for any reason except to mitigate the risks of having a human in the left seat.>The problem with thinking that the pilot is the problem is>that by removing the pilot you think you have solved the>problem, but you haven't. You've just moved the readily>identifiable problem further up the operational, manufacturing>and design stage. Humans will still be feeding errors in to>the chain at various points, but without human science and>creativity there wouldn't be the new technology in the first>place, it is a bit of a Catch 22.Sure, that's true. And it's already true today. When I move the throttle lever on a Gulfstream V, I'm only making a request with an electrical transducer...what the FADEC does with that request is a joint decision between me and the engineers at BMW-Rolls Royce. If the FADEC software has a bug in it, I can't just revert to mechanical control of the engine. Same goes for the pilot in any FBW aircraft...without the control computers working he's a passenger.>I'm not so cynical about safety/economic decisions as you.>These days, with the advent of CRM and the empowered F/O, very>sound decisions are being made. Problem is most problems are>nipped in the bud so bias is an issue again. The accident is>often the result of a chain of events where one early,>seemingly innocuous, bad decision resulted in disaster. Quite>often that decision was made on the ground and that could>possibly a valid scenario with or without pilots, just that>without there is no final line of defence.But also masked is the significant number of pilot errors which are made and either through luck have no damaging effect, or the mistake is flagged by an aircraft system. Most mechanical malfunctions...and most pilot errors as well, never result in an incident. But those incidents that do manage to occur are overwhelming due to pilot error, and one can't just reason away the reality that this reflects--that human factors cause many more accidents than mechanical ones.>I refer you to that often quoted parable between a doctor and>pilot. The doctor asks how it is that aviation has managed to>create an effective safety culture. The pilot replies that>"doctor messes up, patient dies. Pilot messes up, pilot>dies".Unfortunately it's not deterministic. "Pilot does it right...pilot walks away." "Doctor does it right...patient may die anyway." Managing an unstable biological organism isn't the same as managing aircraft systems...no gauges, few procedures, many unknown unseen variables, and certainly no periodic maintenance requirements...>FWIW, I think pilotless aircraft are going to be a>technological reality. But much much more will need to change>culturally and the way that aviation as whole operates from>the root up before it can be a practical reality. Agreed...which well summarizes the point I was trying to make originally!>Having wrote all that, so long as I get my TinMouse updates.>YOU DA MAN. I'll agree to anything :D;-)CheersBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this