Slashdot Mirror
Virtual Pilot Lands Qantas Jet
An anonymous reader writes "Australian airline Qantas has successfully tested an automated landing where both the pilot and the control tower didn't talk to each other. The plane was being piloted by a "Virtual Pilot" located in the control tower."
...a Quantas flight carrying 357 passengers and crew plummeted to its destruction for unknown reasons.
Sydney air traffic control reports picking up garbled radio traffic fragments, but is still trying to decode the meaning of "D00D! U G0T PWNT!!!"
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
We really have to think of alternate economic systems the more stories like this come up. An automated car doesn't really displace jobs--but this really could.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Flight QF10, carrying 400 passengers, went from 39,000ft to a standing stop on the tarmac without the pilots or tower talking.
Isn't the point of testing to determine if the system works before you start using it in critical real world applications?
What if the virtual-pilot system malfunctioned and the pilots were unable to gain control before the plane crashed and killed everyone. Mass criticism would ensue for using 400 passengers as genie pigs.
http://almostsmart.com
Airplanes have been able to land on auto pilot for years using the Instrument Landing System (ILS)!!
:-)
This is more about remote control of an air plane than automated landing. According to the article, digital commands were uploaded to the 747.
With all this technology already in place, it is certainly possible to develop systems to enable commercial air planes take off on auto-pilot too. But that will require huge costs in new infrastructure to be installed at airports similar to the ILS for landing. Real-time software testing costs will also be enormous. Maybe FedEx mighe be interested in funding this
I know the mil. has had auto landing and take off tech for years according to popular science. I know com. airlines have autopilot on most big planes. I just figured that it there was more of a political reason than a tech. reason why pilots haven't been entirely automated. I'd rather have a trained human "flying" my aircraft, but it may be faster/safer/cheaper to have a computer do it. The big reason that I've heard that we will always need pilots is if anything happened midair the pilot could either fix it fly around it recongizing that the incoming data from his instruments couldn't possibly be true.
Actually, I've always wanted an autopilot for my car. I'd feel alot safer if there was a dependable/safe/cheap autopilot for cars. Most car accidents are caused by human error. I'd love to prevent human error from my car.
Airplanes have been able to land on auto pilot for years using the Instrument Landing System (ILS)!!
Interesting. I don't keep up with this technology, but years ago the landing was the diciest part of flying a plane which couldn't be automated, where cruising and take-offs could be automated.
Even now, when I'm on a commercial flight, I always implicitly rate my pilot based on the landing, how much of a bump, whether we hop, etc. Just like I rate Chinese restaurants based on their Hot & Sour Soup.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
How long until a virtual terrorist hijacks the uplink and "lands" this automated plane in a building?
Money for nothing, pix for free
Physics access error appears on the screen. Will the plane suddenly stop in mid-air, like in a bugs bunny cartoon? Or will they have to phone up Bill Gates and have him re-write the laws of physics?
Still Rampant, Wowbagger
...and took over the controls, would this be considered a "Virtual Hijacking"?
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
That's one milestone down. Now the airline can move forward with plans for training koala bears to fly the planes.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Look at it this way. The pilots will be happy because they won't have those annoying "fly the plane" tasks interfering with their drinking schedule.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
If you consider genie pigs
Oh Genie! Grant me now my 3 wishes:
1. Bacon
2. Pork
3. More pork
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The system is more of a replacement for two humans talking on a radio to keep two computers (the ATC system and the FMS) updated with the same information. It's not remote control; it's not piloting at all. The autopilots in these planes can already do everything that was described. This just saves the PNF (pilot not flying) from doing some typing.
The goal is not to replace pilots, but to allow air traffic controllers to make better use of their time. From improved ATC efficiency, they expect also expect to gain things like reduced "circling" time, better (more direct) flight plans, and reduced fuel usage.
Imagine a 9/11 style aeroplane hijacking scenario, wouldn't it be cool for the tower to take over the steering and landing of the aeroplane to get it down safely by remote control regardless of what its pilot is either forced to or intends to do?
I'm suspecting this could be the prime motive out of testing this technology right now.
Coming soon: virtual passengers to save the airline industry.
currently there is heated debate here in sydney about aircraft noise, particularly now since we are not getting a second airport. Planes are flying low over suburban areas for long distances requiring throttles to be well above idle. This system is supossed to allow planes to glide in from higher altitudes with throttles on idle. Saving fuel AND reducing noise.
Hope it works well, but i wish I could find out which flights they are testing it on - so I can change my flight to another one
if
"service code #432565, call Boeing"
Followed by Boing, Boing, boing.....
People seem to be misunderstanding what they've done. They've replaced all that radio voice chatter between the pilot and the tower. Autopilot complete with landing has been reality for years. What Qantas has done is replace the human conversation. They maybe have automated the decision making tasks. I don't understand why they chose the term "Virtual Pilot" for the machine in the tower, it confuses the issue.
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
So, the air traffic controller gets to send instructions in a text form straight up to the airliner in a format acceptable for the FMS to use. The autopilot is slaved to the FMS and so I guess the air traffic controller is telling the aircraft where to go.
My question is why anyone thinks this is a good thing? What happens here that saves fuel?
It may come as a surprise to most of you, but air traffic controllers know shockingly little about what performance to expect from the aircraft they "control". They know even less about the weather those aircraft fly in. Their radars aren't designed to show weather. They're designed to show little bits of metal in the clouds.
Air traffic controllers don't often have a feel for ice formation aloft. They don't know what the cloud formations look like ahead, so they can't know in advance if they're likely to send you in to severe turbulence. Terrain is not often mapped on their scopes, and sometimes they make mistakes. Thats why TCAS and GPWS are found in nearly all the large airliners and why the Capstone project with ADS-B has been such a big success in Alaska.
I'm not belittling air traffic controllers. They have some incredibly complex staging and sequencing work to do to bring large fleets of airliners in to an airport in a timely fashion, while allowing for transitory traffic through the vicinity. They do this job amazingly well with very few problems. But the reasons I just cited are honest and valid situations where ordinary pilots routinely refuse the traffic instructions given to them by the center and terminal controllers.
Finally, I don't suppose most of you know what it's like to be IFR in the goo, receive a hand-off to the next sector and then play 20 questions with the new air traffic controller because s/he has no idea who you are, where you came from, or where you're trying to get to. Even as good as these folks in ATC are, they screw up just like the pilots do.
Pilots have a reason for being just as Air Traffic Controllers. I don't understand why mixing the two professions in to one saves anyone anything.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
If there's a crash, the emergency crews have to be able to find it.
Many years ago a Transport Canada guy told me that although Pearson Airport (Toronto) had ILS systems that would permit completely blind landings, they weren't going to permit it for the above cited reason.
Koalas are NOT BEARS, Dammit!!
They are marsupials, like possums and kangaroos.