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."

Comments

What about the pilot jobs?

[Thinkit4]

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.

Re:What about the pilot jobs?

[Loadmaster]

One thing that will keep these from replacing a human is emergency procedures. Even with redundant systems something could go wrong that this computer can't fix.

Also, at least for the time being, most people wouldn't trust a computer to fly them anywhere. It's true that autopilot can do a lot, but most people don't think of it because they know there's a human being at the controls.

Landing was tough

[4of12]

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.

Re:Landing was tough

[Bitsy Boffin]

Interesting. I don't keep up with this technology, but years ago the landing was the diciest part of flying a plane ...

Not really, taking off is the 'diciest' due to the fact that should you lose an/the engine at that point you are going to lose a heap of airspeed instantly due to being in a climb configuration (high angle of attack, lots of drag) compound that with the fact that you are pushing the engine(s) hardest at takeoff, often only having just warmed them up....

Landing a plane requires slightly more skill and but its not that hard most people could do it survivably after practicing maybe 20 or 30 times, and if you lose an/the engine during landing then it's much less a problem.

Virtual Terrorist?

[richie2000]

How long until a virtual terrorist hijacks the uplink and "lands" this automated plane in a building?

Re:Virtual Terrorist?

[seanthenerd]

Exactly. While automation in itself is a good idea, one must remember that a computer has no inherent moral standards: if someone (with sufficient "authority") tells it that it IS supposed to land in a building, it won't argue. DARPA's automated cars/tanks would have the same problem. Aside from incapacitating jamming, DoS, etc., couldn't some script kiddies in "generic enemy country" take over one of these? A soldier who is told to do something blatantly against his country would probably refuse, or at least ask for confirmation. A robot, on the other hand, would still think it was doing the right thing.

Re:Virtual Terrorist?

[Inominate]

What good is the pilot taking over if you have lost an important part of the aircraft? One accident which comes to mind happened not long after 9/11. An airbus(I believe) was taking off with a strong crosswind, misjudged his sideslip, stomped the rudder, and took off the vertical stabilizer because the rudder movement put too much force on it. It only takes a single extreme momentary control input to bring down an airliner.

The system doesnt have to be hooked up to the internet, since the communication is done via radio. Any equipment required to do so is irrelevent, as there are people with the resources to aquire identical equipment. (Especially if such a system is ever commonplace)

Ok, so you're using encryption. What happens when someone with access is offered a significant sum of money to release the keys?

No, taking over an airliner using such a system is certainly nontrivial. However, compared to the difficulty of actually hijacking, or getting a bomb onto said airliner, it's quite easy.

Re:Is this really big news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Once I had a lay over, so I spent the night at one of those off-airport hotels where aircrews rest overnight.

I went down to the bar expecting the SAS bikini team to be there, only to find a lone senior pilot. Anyhow, there was nothing else to do around there, so we chatted over a beer while watching the game. Among the things he said were: "9 out of 10 landings are by autopilot. The tenth one has to be manual according to the book so we don't forget how to land manually.... You know how sometimes the landing is quite bumpy? that's the manual one."

Re:Remote control of air planes

[Muad'Dave]

I heard that autopilot-controlled ILS landings were routine for cargo carriers, but the FAA doesn't allow it when passengers are aboard. UPS and FedEx can do zero by zero landings (no visibility at all) if the controllers allow it.

aircraft noise is the driving factor

[nri]

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

Re:Remote control of air planes

[DNS-and-BIND]

No, just a typical journalist.

Nothing wrong with drawing conclusions before you write the article. It's done by all professional reporters.