Unpiloted Passenger Jet Tests

spacepingu writes "The UK military recently tested a remote-controlled passenger jet over south-west England. Although the pilot was sitting in the back of the aging BAC 1-11, he controlled it entirely using the 'UAV Command and Control Interface (UAVCCI)'. This also allowed him to operate several virtual UAVs in a simulated attack scenario. The ultimate goal is for a fighter pilot to control a swarm of attack UAVs alongside his own plane. Next March, a Tornado fighter pilot will use the UAVCCI to fly the unpiloted BAC1-11 as well as several simulated UAVs, all from the cockpit of his own jet."

Comments

Stargate

[Joe The Dragon]

They took this idea form Stargate sg1.

Re:Stargate

[Anonymous Coward]

Subscribers are invited to take a drink from the Firehose

This is an example of slashdot homo-eroticism.

Re:Stargate

['nother poster]

Never watched UHF, or whatever that horrid movie was back in the early '90s I assume.

Re:Stargate

[ppc_digger]

>>They took this idea form Stargate sg1.
>Never watched UHF, or whatever that horrid movie was back in the early '90s I assume.
I believe the grandparent meant the Stargate SG-1 episode "Exodus", where SG-1 sent a few dozen unmanned Goa'uld death-gliders to lure Apophis away from Vorash.

Re:Stargate

[CowardWithAName]

You skipped a level in the thread.

>>>They took this idea form Stargate sg1.

was replied to by:

>>Subscribers are invited to take a drink from the Firehose
>>
>>This is an example of slashdot homo-eroticism.

(I'm not sure why this poster chose to reply here, as I don't think it belongs in the thread, but I could be wrong.).

The next reply:

>Never watched UHF, or whatever that horrid movie was back in the early '90s I assume.

was in answer to the "Firehose" post, since it was apparently a reference to the Weird Al Yankovic film entitled "UHF" (in 1989, FWIW) where Stanley Spadowski (played by Michael Richards) has a children's TV show where the grand prize is to "drink" from a firehose on full blast.

somebody call orson scott card

[witte]

Ender's game = prior art ? :)

Re:somebody call orson scott card

[ansak]

Aww... you beat me to it!

just remember, the enemy's gate is down...ank

Re:somebody call orson scott card

[Anonymous Coward]

But actually, they weren't technically unmanned, were they?

A Pilot and His Dog

[Shadow Wrought]

The cockpit of the future will have a button to fly the airplane, the pilot, and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog and the dog is there to bite the pilot in case he reaches for the button.

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[o_miljac]

No, it will be a pilot and a pig. The pig will operate the electronics. The pilot's task will be to feed the pig and keep the fingers off the controls. Both genetically modified ....

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

I like it. Remote control airliners!

What could possbibly go wrong?

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[flyweight_of_fury]

Well, I guess by then dog truly will be my co-pilot...

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[megaditto]

I like it. Remote control airliners! What could possbibly go wrong?

Will the pilots still get their 72 virgins upon completion?

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[erpbridge]

Yes.

Please specify male or female, and age range. Default is Male, 73-85.

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[orgelspieler]

makes me think of the Far Side cartoon where there's a switch next to the call attendant button that says "WINGS STAY ON/WINGS FALL OFF" or something like that.

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[MindStalker]

You don't get it do you? Effectively the plane will be computer controlled, but to meet regulations there will be a pilot and a manual override button. The pilot should NEVER override the computer, and there will be a dog there to make sure that happens.

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[davidsyes]

Gives a whole new meaning to "Dog Fight"

And, if the canopy is damaged in flight, or the pilot falls asleep and the dog does too, nobody will be in control. Then things will be, in English parlance, really "cocked up". No sky-high cock fights?

But, even if there is a ground controller, and the signals are jammed, things will be REALLY cocked up...

Maybe the dog should be a "Cocker Spaniel", fully equipped with a Snoopy outfit AND 9mm sidearm. (Maybe DARPA can join in and develop or put out bids for a special paw adapter for Special Co-Pilot Sidearm Project...)

And, the US version can come with udders on the rudders, so the side-swarm can suckle from time to time. But, in that case, they ought to just use a B-52, and drop the litter from the bomb bay... But, if the B-54, err, B-52 RCS is too inefficient, then it'll get shot down, and that plane would be, in English parlance, "tits up" (if the udders are LOWER than the rudders...).

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

was any of that supposed to be funny

Re:A Pilot and His Dog

[davidsyes]

FUNNY is in the EAR of the beHEARer...

Ultimate R/C

[smellsofbikes]

I've often joked about people who make huge radio-control aircraft just getting in and flying them, but somehow I didn't expect they'd put guns on them. Silly me.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[glesga_kiss]

Of course they put guns on them. Adding explosive chemicals is a sure way to get funding!

Personally, I think this is one of the more disturbing elements of the 21st century. The only thing that stops us western powers invading the next oil-rich country is the fact that body-bags equals votes for your opposition. If you can fight a war where no people* die, then fighting war just became politically cheaper.

*People as in the "there are only 3000 deaths in Iraq" form of the word. You know, the racist "our enemies are sub-human" and we aren't counting bodies meme.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[smellsofbikes]

War becomes cheaper, but the law of unintended consequences suggests that if group A has no chance of fighting group B in a formal war (because they don't have killer death robots) group A will instead use non-formal war, aka terrorism.

So, yeah, I entirely agree with you. It's a really bad idea, but I don't think it's avoidable.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[pilgrim23]

I recall a Nova PBS program about a pilotless plane. It shows a jetliner plowing into a forest but then a computer was flying it...
Honestly though. a jet pilot, in the fur-ball of combat, not only flying HIS craft but controlling pilotless drones alongside? That is crazy!. Combat already uses 110% of the pilot's concentration, adding an aditional plane(s) to his work load will tip him to overload. The enmey need not worry; the pilot will probably run into his own..

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Aglassis]

Personally, I think this is one of the more disturbing elements of the 21st century. The only thing that stops us western powers invading the next oil-rich country is the fact that body-bags equals votes for your opposition. If you can fight a war where no people* die, then fighting war just became politically cheaper."War is a continuation of politics by other means."--Carl von Clausewitz

You act as if this is something new. We haven't exorcised all of the demons from the past, the least of all wars of conquest. A history of the Mexican War and the Spanish American War is much more useful in understanding the Iraq War's motivations that the Vietnam War. Both the Mexican War and the Spanish American War were optional wars spurned on by the U.S. drawing a line and looking for the means to make it look like the enemy started it (the Mexican attack north of the Rio Grande River and the sinking of the USS Maine respectively). The results from the Mexican War and the Spanish American War greatly increased US territory and power. While the Iraq War isn't for territory, it certainly is for power.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[TubeSteak]

If you can fight a war where no people* die, then fighting war just became politically cheaper.

*People as in the "there are only 3000 deaths in Iraq" form of the word.

From Starship Troopers: There are a dozen different ways of delivering destruction in impersonal wholesale, via ships or missiles of one sort or another, catastrophes so widespread, so unselective that the war is over because that nation or planet has ceased to exist. What we do is entirely different. We make war as personal as a punch in the nose. We can be selective, applying precisely the required amount of pressure at the specified point at a designated time. We've never been told to go down and kill or capture all left-handed redheads in a particular area, but if they tell us to, we can. We will.

Because of the Iraq war, the Army has suddenly discovered the effectiveness of Special Forces units, because those units make war as personal as a punch in the nose.

Show me a remote controlled machine that can "go down and kill or capture all left-handed redheads in a particular area" and I'll be impressed. Until then, you need infantry & Special Forces.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Fred_A]

Show me a remote controlled machine that can "go down and kill or capture all left-handed redheads in a particular area" and I'll be impressed.

One with a colour camera ?

Re:Ultimate R/C

[PFI_Optix]

We'll have a casualty-free war about the same time we get our flying cars and paperless society. They're pipe dreams of the wannabe visionaries who have lost touch with reality.

Re:Ultimate R/C

['nother poster]

Their assumption is that you have total air superiority and the drones are simply platforms to transport ground attack weapons to their targets. Sort of like, "Hey drones, follow me. You, drone 1 destroy that bridge. Drone 2, destroy that railway section. You other three drone follow me to the next set of targets." My example is a bit over the top, but the basic idea is there. They will use the UAVCCI hardware to have the drone follow him, and then the pilot will controll them to attack the targets, then he uses his planes weapons last, and then flies home with the drone to be rearmed. Maybe he is his own Air-to-Air cover with the drones being the ground attack. He doesn't have to fight several drone while fighting his own plane, he just covers them as if he were escorting ground attack craft. Basically it's a way for a single pilot to deliver several plane loads of munitions.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[drinkypoo]

On the other hand, if the other aircraft were mostly slaved to the pilot's aircraft and would faithfully follow him around and participate automatically, but he has the option to control them when he has time, could be very very useful (and has been the subject of countless up-scrolling and side-scrolling shooter games. Gotta get the bit! Or the option for you Konami fans.)

Re:Ultimate R/C

[glesga_kiss]

You act as if this is something new. We haven't exorcised all of the demons from the past, the least of all wars of conquest. A history of the Mexican War and the Spanish American War is much more useful in understanding the Iraq War's motivations that the Vietnam War. Both the Mexican War and the Spanish American War were optional wars spurned on by the U.S. drawing a line and looking for the means to make it look like the enemy started it

I mostly agree, WW2 Pacific was essentially the same "line drawn in the sand", regarding the naval blockade. With Iraq, the CIA were instructed to look for the "smoking gun" pointing to Iraq. Not "find out who did 9-11", but "find any evidence of Iraqi involvement"

What is new however is the fact that wars could now be fought without losing a single one of your own countrymen.

The results from the Mexican War and the Spanish American War greatly increased US territory and power. While the Iraq War isn't for territory, it certainly is for power.

Iraq is partly for territory; it's a beach-head to the middle east that also allows the US to withdraw from Saudi. Ironically that was Osama's primary goal, so if anything "the terrorists have already won". The PNAC website is quite clear on their beach-head goals ("foothold" is the word they use IIRC).

Re:Ultimate R/C

[e2d2]

Only computing can relieve the 110% workload you talk about. If the pilot can remove some of his attention from keeping the craft airborne and concentrate instead on fighting this will be an advantage. I doubt many pilots would rather concentrate on airspeed, angle of attack, wingload, applied power AND fight all at the same time. More likely they'd rather put the aircraft into a position to kill the opponent using any means necessary using as much concentration as possible.

Besides, today's fighter planes wouldnt even fly without computing, this is just an evolution of the same idea. Eventually they will remove the human weakness all together inside the craft. Of course then the human weakness will be in the software, you can't entirely remove human mistakes, just try to remove them within reason.

Being a pilot myself and also a person interested in UAVs I feel conflicted. I realize that computing can remove a lot of danger, but I like the hands on feel of flying a small airplane. It's my little boat in the sky.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Aglassis]

What is new however is the fact that wars could now be fought without losing a single one of your own countrymen.

It is certainly interesting. The Iraq War is probably the closest major war to that idea that the US has ever been engaged. Only the Revolutionary War had less deaths. Even the Mexican American War had about 5 times the number of casualties. Considering the population growth of the US, it makes these numbers all the more striking.

Of course once you look at the number of enemy dead and civilian dead, we realize that the only thing that has changed is that the casualties have been shifted. If the American people didn't have a conscience about the opposition dead, the US would be completely unrestrained with the most powerful war machine the world has ever seen. Thank God that apathy that we had during the past several wars has faded. Many people around the world have said that the US is the greatest threat to world peace. They say this not because of the Iraq War (which is a trivial war in the big picture of the world), but because it showed that the war machine that was built up for 50 years and with trillions of dollars of investment could be unleashed at a moments notice if the wrong people were in charge. If the Iraq War would have gone smoothly (not the initial war, but the subsequent occupation), I think that the US would now be involved in a war in Syria, Iran, or North Korea.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Fastolfe]

RTFA. The software/drones are semi-autonomous. The pilot only needs to direct them at a high level. Yes, they will require some of his attention, but he's not scrambling to manage 5 different sets of flight controls. The whole point of the exercise was to see if it would work.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Elbowgeek]

What would be great is if we fought wars entirely with robot machinery which doesn't affect the ordinary citizen. Do it over military test ranges like a big ol' war game and the best killer robots win, kinda like that TV show with the robot wars in it. Then one day you wake up and the newspapers are written in Swahili.

Note to Americans: when you start noticing that your local newspaper is written in proper English and MacDonalds has started full tea service at around five o'clock you'll know that the Brits have finally retaken the New World for their own...

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Personally, I think this is one of the more disturbing elements of the 21st century. The only thing that stops us western powers invading the next oil-rich country is the fact that body-bags equals votes for your opposition. If you can fight a war where no people* die, then fighting war just became politically cheaper.

This has always been the case for the US. Their plan is, and always has been, to let the Europeans and others throw human waves against each other -- the US will have the best-trained, best-equipped soldiers. Body-bag-wise, this current war is still a magnitude and a half below Vietnam, and that's largely because of screw ups in the aftermath, not the "main combat operations" phase.

And look what a relatively small number of bodies has cost, vote-wise. Your observation is quite correct.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> What is new however is the fact that wars could now be fought without losing a single one of your own countrymen.

Baron Munchausen: What's this?

Vulcan: Oh, this is a prototype. Ah, it's a intercontinental radar-sneaky multi-warheaded nuclear missile.

Baron Munchausen: Ah... what does it do?

Vulcan: Do? Kills the enemy.

Baron Munchausen: All the enemy?

Vulcan: Aye, all of them. All their wives and all their children and all their sheep and all their cattle and their cats and dogs, all of them. All of them, gone for good.

Sally: That's horrible!

Vulcan: Well, you see the advantage is you don't have to see one single one of them die. You just sit comfortably thousands of miles away from the battlefield and simply press the button.

Berthold: Well, where's the fun in that?

Vulcan: Oh, we cater to *all* sorts here. You'd be surprised.

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Nethead]

Fred:

Nice home. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&oe=ISO-8 859-1&q=N48+53'06+E02+19'15&z=17&ll=48.885,2.32083 3&spn=0.004649,0.011169&t=h&om=1

Here's mine:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=6016+missi on+beach+rd,+tulalip,+wa&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=48.050605 ,-122.271884&spn=0.004726,0.011169&t=h&om=1

Re:Ultimate R/C

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall a Nova PBS program about a pilotless plane. It shows a jetliner plowing into a forest but then a computer was flying it...

You are talking about this incident. Unfortunately the narration is misleading - this was actually not a pilotless plane, instead it was the first major accident involving a fly-by-wire airplane. This is the root of the confusion. It is said that the engines did not respond to the pilot increasing the throttle, which would indicate a fault in the fly-by-wire system. See Wikipedia for Air France Flight 296 for more.

Sounds complicated...

[Non-CleverNickName]

I wonder if any of these pilots can rub their stomach and pat their head at the same time too.

Re:Sounds complicated...

[smurfsurf]

Hmm? Don't get it. Is that suppose to be complicated?

Re:Sounds complicated...

[Non-CleverNickName]

Well piloting a fighter jet is enough to handle. But to pilot your own fighter jet while remotely piloting one or multiple aircraft flying with you would probably be substantially more difficult. Especially so if they're in close proximity with you, and you have to keep them from running into your aircraft, or even into each other.

Re:Sounds complicated...

[Digicrat]

Theoretically, the pilot wouldn't have to worry about the UAVs he's flying with. If the system works properly, all of the UAVs should automatically move in precise formation (think Blue Angel's) with each other and the pilots aircraft. He's probably not directly controlling the UAVs, but leading them - with the UAVs instantly responding to his precise moves.

The pilot is still controlling just one aircraft, but several UAVs are following him in tight formation, automatically following his lead.

The real problem would be, in the heat of the battle, having the pilot worry about his UAV escort getting hit and/or malfunctioning, and being aware that his next actions must direct his plane, and the others in his formation, so as not to fly into the damaged drone that might now be out of control.

Re:Sounds complicated...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of another use for this. Have 5 planes flying in formation. 4 of those planes are UAVs; the fifth is being flown normally, and has four stations from which other pilots are controlling the UAVs. That fifth plane can try to stay out of combat, leaving the four unmanned planes to fight [and potentially use more extreme maneuvers than they would be able to if they had a pilot, higher G-force turns, for instance.] If one of the UAVs is destroyed, sure you've lost a plane but you haven't lost the pilot. The plane can be replaced more easily by the factory than the pilot can be replaced by training someone new for however long fighter pilot training school lasts. If a missile heads for the "control plane", one of the UAVs can interpose itself.

Re:Sounds complicated...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the helicopter pilots :)

I think i've heard this before...

[EzraSj]

His last name didn't happen to be Wiggin, did it?

Re:I think i've heard this before...

[idonthack]

Ender (and his subordinates) were commanding people flying the spacecraft, and not directly controlling them. This is more like the aliens he was fighting.

Re:I think i've heard this before...

[Ironsides]

Nah. In Enders Game, there were actually people piloting the ships. Ender just didn't realize it. This is more similar to the Mobile Doll system in Gundam Wing combined with the Psycommu System from the AC Universe.

Hijacker hackers

[arniebuteft]

So, in the future, someone can hack your passenger flight and take control of it remotely? Hope they stock clean underwear along with the barf bags on these flights.

Re:Hijacker hackers

[plopez]

don't worry, Microsoft will make sure it is the most secure pilotless aircraft control software *ever*.

Re:Hijacker hackers

[LiquidCoooled]

Absolutely not.
They want a company well respected in the auditing and security aspects of controlled government computing.

Diebold have already put in a tender.

Re:Hijacker hackers

[Ingolfke]

of course if Linux was used the pilot only fly to places she liked and if the passangers complained she'd tell them to RTFM and fly the plane themselves.

he he... debt is slavery.

Re:Hijacker hackers

[Esteanil]

The blue screen of death would be the lovely close-up view of the sea you get before the crash :>

Unpiloted?

[Duhavid]

I hope they are also unpassengered.

Secret partner

[Anonymous Coward]

What the article doesn't mention is that Ryanair are underwriting their research in their bid to make pilots available as bingo callers on their short-haul flights...

The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Control Group]

Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.

*Does anyone have a link to that study where people were asked to press a button to "electrocute" other people, and how many were willing to do it as long as they were told by an authority figure it was ok? Were there also results regarding whether or not the subject could see the person being "electrocuted?"

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[AslanTheMentat]

Here ya go:
Milgram Experiment
YA article...

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Speare]

Does anyone have a link to that study where people were asked to press a button to "electrocute" other people, and how many were willing to do it as long as they were told by an authority figure it was ok? Were there also results regarding whether or not the subject could see the person being "electrocuted?"

No, but that's one of the best episodes of the original Twilight Zone... guy going around door-to-door, with a mysterious box and a dilemma: will you, miss, push the button, with the understanding that someone you don't know will die? She struggles through the idea until she gives in to her curiosity. Nothing appears to happen. Then he packs it up, and assures her that he's off to see someone else, someone who doesn't know her.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[slashjames]

It's actually easier to crash/hijack a plane that's flown through radio controls than one flown by a pilot. If it's radio controlled, you just have to build a bigger transmitter and aim it at the plane (from a safe distance). At least with a pilot flying it they have to force their way into the cockpit. After September 11, no passengers on the plane will allow the latter to happen.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Anonymous Coward]

Not directly, but googling for "milgram experiment" should be a good start.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[UbuntuDupe]

Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.

I don't think so.

While the *people on board* are powerless to give in to a hijackers, all the hijackers would have to do instead is radio some ATC station and tell *them* they'll start killing passengers unless the real pilot redirects the plane. Now, you could of course, go for broke by acting like you're not receiving their transmissions so as to fool him into thinking you can't comply, but I doubt anyone would actually try that trick.

(Semi-related comment: I don't like the test. It seems a fair one would have to have the pilot *not be on the plane* so that he can't take physical cues. Certainly, have a backup pilot just in case, but to really know if it's effective, the pilot has to be off.)

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Control Group]

That's an excellent point...and I hadn't thought of it.

I imagine you could design the control protocol such that it would be arbitrarily difficult for an unauthorized person to fly the plane, but I can't think of an obvious way to prevent someone from preventing you from flying it.

Here's hoping somone mods you up for this.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[b0s0z0ku]

Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder.

You mean easier, since the ground control transmitter can be overpowered if you know the appropriate frequencies and encryption codes? No need to even be on board the plane to turn it into a missile.

-b.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Eternauta3k]

Of course there will be no security mechanisms of any kind, neither will it be controlled by satellite (LEO for low-lag?).

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Control Group]

But my point was that it's easier to make cold decisions when you're not faced with the immediacy of people being threatened. Human nature means it's harder to say "those are acceptable losses" when you can see the people you're writing off; it's much easier to say "those are acceptable losses" when you're talking about people you can't see, don't know, and will never meet.

Regardless, as another poster replied to me, while it might be harder from a personal interaction standpoint to hijack a remote-control plane, it's easier from a technical standpoint, so it really doesn't matter.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Anonymous Coward]

The Milgram Experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Richard_at_work]

Uh, easy way to avoid that - encrypted, frequency hopping control transmissions. We have moved on considerably since the days of basic wide range analogue radio where having a more powerful transmitter won.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Lostconfused]

Wasn't it some guy offered a suitcase full of cash if he pushed the button? And he and the wife were in a moral dilemma? Or it could be some other show like outer limits or something, haha.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.

Maybe in-flight hijacking would become less effective, however instead large-scale, co-ordinated hijackings would become a matter of storming the building and taking control of potentially dozens of planes at once. Of course those buildings would be high security. But then think how many times "high security" buildings have been breached in recent years. Airports, nuclear power plants, government buildings (here in the UK at least) have all been exposed multiple times by various people or groups.

There's also the possibility of remote hijacking by someone managing to hack the system, whether through breaking the system or buying their way in.

None of this is meant as a case against remotely piloted planes, I don't think it's necessarily a more dangerous situation than we have currently. I'm just trying to point out that this doesn't actually remove any weaknesses, it merely moves them elsewhere. As long as we have planes there'll be someone or something flying them, and that will always be a target.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Peter La Casse]

While the *people on board* are powerless to give in to a hijackers, all the hijackers would have to do instead is radio some ATC station and tell *them* they'll start killing passengers unless the real pilot redirects the plane.

They could take it a step farther than that: the hijackers could kidnap people from a bus, or standing in line at McDonald's, or some other place without security at all, and then call up ATC and tell them to land the plane in Beirut or whatever.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[kabocox]

Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.

I read your idea. The first thing that popped into my mind is having an airport command station with 20-30 pilots flying planes. Why try to hi-jack a plane as a weapon when it would be much better to break into the right plane command center and instantly have control of 20-30 planes?

Um, I don't really trust humans piloting any type of vehicle: lawn mowers, cars, trucks, boats, jet skis, buses, trains or planes. Let's the sad truth: there are idiots that show up drunk, stoned, or sleepy for work in every industry. Do you want some one that may be a little high, a little drunk, or sleepy driving you around anywhere?

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Thraxen]

I don't think it would actually be easier. I think taking control of a plane by physical force would be easier than acquiring all the equipment actually necessary to fly a R/C plane and then defeating any encryption and safety measures built in. Also, keep in mind that you would only have the length of the flight (at most) to defeat the safety measures because I would assume, if the designed properly, any encryption used would be changed with each flight and possibly changed multiple times while in flight.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Anonymous Coward]

If a plane is controlled electronically (either locally, or remotely), that could make it easier to hijack.

Changing the control mechanism could introduce a different attack vector.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Vellmont]

Does anyone have a link to that study where people were asked to press a button to "electrocute" other people, and how many were willing to do it as long as they were told by an authority figure it was ok?

I saw that experiment conducted on youtube. Turns out the cops will push the button at least 5 times.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[vertinox]

While the *people on board* are powerless to give in to a hijackers, all the hijackers would have to do instead is radio some ATC station and tell *them* they'll start killing passengers unless the real pilot redirects the plane.

At which point the ATC station apologizes that they aren't authorized to negotiate with terrorists and tell them they will contact the people that do. At which point, they notify Homeland security who in turn orders an F22 already in flight to prepare its air to air missiles for launch.

At which point the ATC station notifies the Airlines in question so they can start notifying the next of kin on the seating list.

Seriously... Considering the state of airfares these days, it is more likely if a terrorist did take over a plane they would order its immediate destruction.

If at all, the remote control would save lives, because they can override the pilots and have the aircraft land and hopefully get a Swat or Anti-terrorist group to storm the plane rather than their option of shooting it out of the sky.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Radon360]

You are correct. The couple would receive a briefcase of some large sum of money (something like $20,000, IIRC) if, and only if, they pushed the button on the box. So, the moral dilemma was whether or not they would sacrifice the life of someone they don't know in a convenient and totally "hidden-from-view" fashion for personal monetary gain, or, would they forego the reward let someone they don't know live. The demonic twist is at the end, where the box is reclaimed by its issuer, and the couple is informed that it will be rewired for its next user. One of the mysterious things about the box, is that it doesn't contain anything connected to the button.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Hillgiant]

I imagine you could design the control protocol such that it would be arbitrarily difficult for an unauthorized person to fly the plane,

But some terrorists are not interested in flying the plane. They want to crash it.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[DerekLyons]

It's actually easier to crash/hijack a plane that's flown through radio controls than one flown by a pilot. If it's radio controlled, you just have to build a bigger transmitter and aim it at the plane (from a safe distance).

No, building a bigger transmitter won't do it. (I.E. as usual, the people who do things for a living have, unsurprisingly, actually thought about these issues - they actually do know more than the average Slashdot poster.)
 
It's easy to put an encoding scheme in place that has to be broken as well. It's easy to put 'bounds checking' code in place to prevent the A/C from doing something stupid. (I.E. commanding it dive uncontrolled or do something to render it unstable like turning too sharply.) It's eay to program the plane to enter a 'safe mode' when jammed or confused... etc... etc...
 
On top of this - all of these methods, and more, are well known and proven in actual use. (On both UAV's and satellites.)

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[caluml]

Pilot: dd /dev/joystick | gpg -s | /dev/transmitter
Plane: dd /dev/receiver | gpg > /dev/aileron

Or similar would put paid to someone trying to hijack the signal. Doesn't stop the swamping of the signal though.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this means by hijacking the control booth you can take control of every plane all at once.

The egg to basket ratio is idiotic.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[TubeSteak]

Encryption doesn't matter & unless you're hopping over a wide range of frequencies, it doesn't take much hardware to pump out enough energy to overpower someone's signal.

A station wagon full of tube amplifiers will more than likely win any battle of the frequencies.

Anyways, there's really no point. Planes are more than capable of taking off, flying, and landing themselves on auto-pilot. Pilots are kept in the loop mostly for that 1% of situations that might happen and because someone has to be Captain aka 'the final authority'.

Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio

[iNetRunner]

Nice memories about that series, The Twilight Zone.. Also The Outer Limits was one of the best series ever in television. Is it too hard to come up with stuff like that anymore? Sci-fi isn't mainstream enough I guess, so things like Firefly just doesn't fly. :(

What would Spock think?

[boxlight]

Machine over man, Spock?
It was impressive.
It might even be practical.
Practical, Captain?
Perhaps ...
but not desirable.
Computers make excellent and efficient servants,
but I have no wish to serve under them.
Captain ...
the starship also runs on loyalty ...
to one man,
and nothing can replace it or him.

Re:What would Spock think?

[timelorde]

Spock would know to change the prefix codes ...

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/

Call me old-fashioned...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

But I want my pilot to go down in flames with me.

Re:Call me old-fashioned...

[SnarfQuest]

I'd prefer to die quietly, in my sleep, like my grandfather; not screaming and yelling, like the passangers in the car with him.

The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

I want my pilots to take the same risks I take while flying in their plane.

I want those risks to be as low as possible. We should put these drone navigation/steering controls into planes with pilots. Let the pilots steer for 15 minutes an hour, to keep them engaged. Let them analyze the air traffic data, with visual confirmations, for their airspace, shared with each other and on the ground. Keep all the telemetry streamed to the global network in realtime, instead of trapped in mysterious black boxes on the endangered planes. Put their bodies on the line, and their minds to work on keeping everyone safe.

We can use these automations and networks to completely revolutionize air safety. From accidents, collisions, hijackings, onboard sickness and other other incidents. Don't just put pilots out of work: make the investments in the crew return many times more, with more effective use of their skills and motivations.

"The Bravery of Being Out of Range" by Roger Waters

You have a natural tendency
To squeeze off a shot
You're good fun at parties
You wear the right masks
You're old but you still
Like a laugh in the locker room
You can't abide change
You're at home an the range
You opened your suitcase
Behind the old workings
To show off the magnum
You deafened the canyon
A comfort a friend
Only upstaged in the end
By the Uzi machine gun
Does the recoil remind you
Remind you of sex
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
I looked over Jordan and what did I see
Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris
I swam in your pools
And lay under your palm trees
I looked in the eyes of the Indian
Who lay on the Federal Building steps
And through the range finder over the hill
I saw the frontline boys popping their pills
Sick of the mess they find
On their desert stage
And the bravery of being out of range
Yeah the question is vexed
Old man what the hell you gonna kill next
Old timer who you gonna kill next
Hey bartender over here
Two more shots
And two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound
The war has started on the ground
Just love those laser guided bombs
They're really great
For righting wrongs
You hit the target
And win the game
From bars 3,000 miles away
3,000 miles away
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim
With the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train
With the bravery of being out of range
We gained terrain
With the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game
With the bravery of being out of range

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Anonymous Coward]

I want those risks to be as low as possible. We should put these drone navigation/steering controls into planes with pilots. Let the pilots steer for 15 minutes an hour, to keep them engaged. Let them analyze the air traffic data, with visual confirmations, for their airspace, shared with each other and on the ground. Keep all the telemetry streamed to the global network in realtime, instead of trapped in mysterious black boxes on the endangered planes. Put their bodies on the line, and their minds to work on keeping everyone safe.

Errm...isn't this what happens now ?
All the pilots do is take off and land...and maybe a few course corrections en-route. But, basically, you are in the hands of a computer for the whole flight.

As for streaming the data....it has a higher probability of being transmitted to the black box, on board the plane (without being intercepted) than it is to a ground station somewhere in the world. If the ground station loses power, where do the transmissions go? If the plane loses power, the black box still has power to receive the data.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[b0s0z0ku]

We should put these drone navigation/steering controls into planes with pilots. Let the pilots steer for 15 minutes an hour, to keep them engaged. Let them analyze the air traffic data, with visual confirmations, for their airspace, shared with each other and on the ground. Keep all the telemetry streamed to the global network in realtime, instead of trapped in mysterious black boxes on the endangered planes. Put their bodies on the line, and their minds to work on keeping everyone safe.

Larger planes are already very automated, except for takeoff and landing (and some takeoffs/landings can also be almost completely automated). Believe it or not, most commercial flights are already 95% done on autopilot.

-b.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[gregoryb]

I'm fairly certain TFA isn't talking about using this on commercial aircraft. They're testing controlling a swarm of UAVs for military purposes, they're just using an old passenger jet as the test bed. Cheaper to maintain than using a fighter jet for your test bed, plus you have more room to mount test equipment.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is well that war is so terrible -- otherwise we should grow too fond of it." -- Robert E. Lee, 1862

All the military technology I've seen developed in the past 20 years has gone to making war less terrible. In the (first) Gulf War, it was statistically safer for an American soldier to be on the front lines than back home. That's frightening: the terror of war is what prevented us from engaging in it. Now that war is something you can play like a video game, we might be tempted to use it more often ... wait, you say we have?

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

There's no reason to get rid of the black boxes. And the streamed telemetry can be fully redundant, especially with the sky full of satellites and other planes.

Pilots control the plane through turbulence, and probably course corrections - for the fun of it, mostly. I'm proposing that they spend their time engaged in air traffic control, which scales up the AT controller population exactly when there are more planes to control. Distributed around the world, in a network.

Really, your arguments are like complaining that if we hook our computers into an "Internet", then we'll lost the familiar reliability of our hard drives and current human operators.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

Oh, I believe it. I just want more, without the less.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[petermgreen]

Believe it or not, most commercial flights are already 95% done on autopilot

hardly surprising, big sky,small planes, large clearances between planes giving plenty of ability to move out of the way and noone trying to shoot you down. All you have to do is keep the plane stable, follow waypoints and move out of the way if anything else comes too close.

takeoff and landing is somewhat trickier (its done a lot because it can land safely in thick fog, thus reducing diverts) and i belive requires special ground equipment. I doubt the emergency divert airports in the mid atlantic have the equipment for automatic landings.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

That's why I am talking about an even better system. Why should all my tax money get spent on invading countries and spying on my fellow Americans? I want it spent on real security, for everyone. Not the simcurity they've been faking for years, while making us less safe, especially in the air.

A system like this, once evolved, could solve the biggest problem with flying cars, safe navigation. Which I'm not waiting for anyone else to tell me how to do, especially in the government.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

The hundreds of thousands of dead/wounded/terrorized people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Israel and NYC know that all this aerospace tech is making war more terrible for the people against whom it's perpetrated. It's less terrible to a video nation like the "flyover states". Your "Compassionate Conservatives " at work.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, I believe that was exactly the point.

Nobody is claiming that modern wars are a field day for the losers.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

Is it required of Anonymous Cowards that you think that I can reply only in disagreement, rather than agreeing and amplifying the point?

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[dinther]

Quite right! When I was an F/O on a 737 flying around in Indonesia we had the odd scare (Technical ones) and believe me. Pilots are not brave outstanding commanders who save their passengers lives. Were strapped in the front of the aeroplane so we arrive at the crash site first. It is that motivation alone that makes them do checklists and go to the limit in order to save their own ass.

I never once though about passengers while being thrown around in a vicious thunderstorm and I doubt any good pilot actually has time for that.

Take the pilot out of the aircraft but leave him to fly it remotely is so incredibly stupid that I fail to find words for it. But leaving the pilot out all together is a good idea. There is the odd case where the pilot saved the day by finding a unconventional solution but those cases are rare. In most cases "Pilot error" is the cause of the crash.

They do need better software though. The 737-400 I flew had wonderful automated control systems but I recall occasions where I enjoyed my in-flight meal at cruise only to look up and see the horizon at a 30 degree angle while the autopilot was happily flying towards the ground. Another case (Damn I was eating again) the auto throttle though it prudent to move to idle power while cruising at 31.000 feet and no TOD (Top of Decent) was still hundreds of miles away.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks for the professional insider validation of my approach to these scenarios.

I think the stuff you're talking about is even more reason to put pilots together in a virtual "room" by telepresence network. To watch over each others' shoulders. Redundant crews and controllers, each depending on each other. That would make the whole world a lot smaller, and put experienced pros immediately on top of any emergent situation. Also good for mitigating the risks of training new crew. The new system could provide so much safety and redundancy that piloting would become more competitive, while opening the flight deck to lots more amateurs.

And opening the way to extending the system to independent, even individual, pilots. Without sacrificing safety or increasing costs. Flying cars!

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[dinther]

This is never going to happen. In order to achieve this they would have to create autonomous control systems anyway as a fallback. These day's ATC already started to transmit instructions directly to the FMC (Flight Management Computer) in data format instead of voice. Onboard traffic avoidance systems that can communicate with other aircraft augment this. To be honest. Automated flight is here already.

10 years ago, we typically would hand fly the aircraft on take off right up to about 1000 feet and then flick on the automatic pilot and not turn it off until established on final for landing at 1000 feet. Total hand flying might be 6 - 7 minutes per flight. The autoland system consistently would do a better job landing (Yes my landings are shocking pun intended) although flying finals in hot afternoon tropical weather worked better when handflying because pilots would allow for a greater flightpath tolerance.

Anyway, I get sidetracked. The notion of a guy holding a joystick in some ground based control room flying a real aircraft is not realistic at all. That person giving more abstract instructions to the aircraft yes that is possible but that is already happening. As someone said earlier. It would be a small step to forcibly disconnect the pilot from the controls but you'd have to deal with their unions first as the outcry would be greater than the installation of the old cockpit voice recorders.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

I'm not talking about remote people with joysticks or other realtime UIs. I'm talking about remote people doing the air traffic control planning, the way they do now, but distributed in the air and on the ground, instead of purely locally. And flight crews just looking over each others' shoulders.

I'm talking about automated systems monitored by real people, with real people on the planes having the final say over the control of their planes, going manual if necessary.

And live streamed telemetry, including A/V, supplementing the black boxes.

Redundancy and openness. Safety.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies!

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[LWATCDR]

funny but to me most of those casualties seem to be coming from bombs on buses, trucks and cars...
The tech that killed the people in NYC was a civilian air liner.
I guess you wouldn't want facts to get into the way of the point you are trying to make.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

Facts? You don't know anything about facts.

If you don't know how many megatons of bombs the US has dumped on Iraq and Afghanistan from the air, you're not paying attention, you're insane, or you're just a liar. People like you are to blame for these remote control wars, because you refuse to believe what is being done in your name.

You do know that the US has been at war in Iraq for the past several years, right?

Why would I bother discussing anything in more detail when you're obviously full of shit, and would never listen to anything sensible, or offer anything?

The stupid crap people will say on these websites when they're safely out of range of reality, and the real people they're blathering at.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[LWATCDR]

I never mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq by name.
However you mentioned NYC, Israel, and Palestinian.
Most of those deaths where caused by terrorists using car bombs, suicide bombs, and civilian airliners.

Again why should you let facts get in the way of of your point. And if you don't like the facts simply insult the people that that point them out to you.
You are just like the other extreme. You feel that your truth justifies every action you must take convice people of you just and rightous cause. Truth and good manners are the first casualties.
It was the same with all extremists.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[Doc Ruby]

No, you're cherrypicking facts, hiding the subjects to which you're referring, to find ways to justify your own extreme positions.

Your typical repressed denial projection is evident when you now criticize my manners, after you insulted me, excluding yourself from the privilege of being treated with full respect.

I have represented no extreme positions whatsoever. Unless saying that modern warfare has removed killers from the immediate scene, reducing their inhibition for cruelty and mayhem, is "extreme". In the real world, that is moderation.

You are an extremist. I don't want to hear another sick product of your twisted mind. You're welcome to respond with whatever further empty chatter you use to rationalize projecting your appetite for war. Don't expect me to care.

Re:The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[LWATCDR]

What extreme view have I expressed?
I have not stated how I feel about the war in Iraq one way or the other.

Again you rant, yell, and call names.

You took a story about technology and decided to use it as a platform to rant on your political views. You insulted and classified people that live in what you call fly over states. You classify any that do not agree with you fools and if any one dares say a word that you do not agree with is a fool.
You used NYC, Palestine, and Israel in your posts. I simply pointed out that most of most of the deaths in Palestine and Israel didn't not come from air attacks. None of the deaths in NYC where the result of military aircraft.

Again anyone that doesn't see your brilliance must be a fool and totally against you.

Read your own posts.

At no time in this thread did I state if the war in Iraq or Afghanistan was justified at all. I also didn't say that it was not. I simply pointed out your use of spin.

I don't like this...

[PenguinBoyDave]

No way in hell I'll get on one of these unless there is a pilot there to take control if something goes wrong. As a business traveler with over a million miles in the sky, I like knowing that there are humans in the front hearing and feeling everything that is going on.

Re:I don't like this...

[oldwindways]

People are going to be understandably resistant to unmanned passenger flights. That being said, if this type of technology is cheap enough and has an acceptable degree of proven safety, companies like UPS and FedEx will not wait long to convert all their cargo flight. Pilots are an expensive resource, and with the unions, I doubt passenger airlines will wait long to jump on the bandwagon.

Re:I don't like this...

[b0s0z0ku]

No way in hell I'll get on one of these unless there is a pilot there to take control if something goes wrong. As a business traveler with over a million miles in the sky, I like knowing that there are humans in the front hearing and feeling everything that is going on.

Computers can sometimes route around trouble. But only trouble that they're designed for and that can be forseen by their human designers.

Case in point, United Flight 232. In 1989, over Iowa, a United DC-10's rear engine failed catastrophically, sending debris into all of the hydraulic systems. Such a failure wasn't ever forseen by the aircraft's designers, nor was it considered survivable. Yet the pilots brought the plane down to a controlled crash and I think half of the passengers survived due to the flight engineer steering the plane with the throttles alone (actually, the pilots dictated to the engineer what they needed done by moving their [inoperative] control yokes). An amazing case of human cooperation saving quite a few lives.

-b.

Re:I don't like this...

[Abcd1234]

Yet the pilots brought the plane down to a controlled crash and I think half of the passengers survived due to the flight engineer steering the plane with the throttles alone (actually, the pilots dictated to the engineer what they needed done by moving their [inoperative] control yokes). An amazing case of human cooperation saving quite a few lives.

Especially since I don't believe any pilot has repeated the feat in simulation.

Re:I don't like this...

[profplump]

I don't mean to troll, but I'm honestly confused. Is there some technical basis for your aversion to computer-controlled flight? I know lots of people feel the way you do, but I honestly cannot figure out why.

With the possible exception of some Star Trek-like scenario where the crew comes up with a solution that has never been tried before -- I don't know about you, but that sort of scenario seems incredibly unlikely to me -- I don't see what you think a human pilot would do better than a computer, and I can name several areas where computers readily beat humans.

And it's not like computer-controlled flight would be something new. Except for situations where precise positioning is required we already let the computer fly most of the time, at least on planes equipped to do so. And I don't just mean stable flight -- on properly equipped aircraft the auto pilot turns *on* when bad things happen, to help the pilot regain control, and to mitigate the risk of pilot error or incapacitation.

So what am I missing here? What makes computer-controlled flight such a bad idea?

Re:I don't like this...

[PenguinBoyDave]

Not a troll at all. I don't know how much you fly or if you're a pilot, but let me try to clarify. And I think you raise a fair question.

A big part of flying is being able to feel and hear what is going on with the aircraft. Engine noises, turbulence, etc. are all things that a human needs to hear, and only years of experience can tell something doesn't sound or feel right. It is impossible to replicate exactly what is taking place in the air on the ground. While an airplane can fly right through most turbulent situations, I don't want to ride through it just because the plane can take it.

Let me give you another example. A few years ago I was on a flight where we started to leak hydraulic fluid. Three of us noticed the fluid on the window and pointed it out to the flight attendant. She got the Captain to look at it who later said that the leak had not yet registered on their instruments. Because a human was able to see, diagnose and respond to the problem, we were able to be diverted to an airfield where we got on a different plane.

I'm not against a computer flying it, as long as there are qualified warm bodies onboard ready to take over or make adjustments when necessary.

Good question though.

Re:I don't like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet the pilots brought the plane down to a controlled crash and I think half of the passengers survived due to the flight engineer steering the plane with the throttles alone (actually, the pilots dictated to the engineer what they needed done by moving their [inoperative] control yokes). An amazing case of human cooperation saving quite a few lives.

Especially since I don't believe any pilot has repeated the feat in simulation.

The first major accident where control was lost but the pilots were able to keep the airplane in air was Japan Airlines Flight 123 in 1985. Almost all passengers died when the plane eventually crashed, though. Pilots these days practice uncontrolled flying in simulators based on that exact incident, and that's why the incident mentioned by OP (United Airlines Flight 232) didn't result in the loss of all passengers, only half of them. But not only has it been repeated in simulation - although chances for success are pretty damn random - it has also been repeated in real life: DHL Flight on 22 November, 2003 was the first jet airliner to land safely without any hydraulics.

For a list of all similar incidents, see here.

Re:I don't like this...

[profplump]

That make sense. I was thinking that your objection was to the technical/mechanical side of things (i.e. direct control of avaition systems) vs. the administrative/decision-making side of things (i.e. control of where and how the plane flies, but not necessarily to the "flaps to 1/2" level of detail). Thanks for the clarification.

Re:I don't like this...

[PenguinBoyDave]

No problem. Thanks for calling for clarification. Actually, I prefer a computer flying in foggy, cloudy weather. Somethings, a computer is better for hands-down. I don't know a pilot that doesn't like to use the auto-pilot and computer-aided landing system in zero-visibility conditions.

Bad Idea, Period

[mirio]

The idea of unmanned commercial flights is just ridiculous. No one knows more about what's going on in an airplane than a pilot sitting in the passenger's seat. No amount of sensors or cameras is going to let someone remotely know what's going on.

Most flights today are pretty much done by just button pushing. Most FMS in aircraft enable the pilots to just enter the flight and the airplane basically flies itself. If you get an amended clearance from ATC, you just change the flight plan and let it fly the airplane. The FMS can usually take the airplane to just a couple hundred feet off the ground. Still, I want those two folks in the front.

I've always thought it was silly that ATC gets a clearance on a computer and reads it over the radio to a pilot who enters it into his/her computer. Creating a system to allow flight plans to be electronically sent to the aircraft's computers would be a whole lot more practical.

And as for fighter aircraft controlling UAV's...well...the fighter cockpit is already one of the most demanding, high stress environments in the world. If the UAV's were completely autonomous and the pilot could simply instruct the UAV to cover his ass, then OK, that would make sense and might actually lower the stress level of the pilot. Still, the pilot would need to worry about the UAVs' fuel, their position (so as not to mid-air with them), etc.

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[Gospodin]

No one knows more about what's going on in an airplane than a pilot sitting in the passenger's seat.

What about a pilot sitting in the pilot's seat?

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[Lostconfused]

Correct me if i am wrong here since i never flown a plane before. But don't pilots rely mainly on the equipment on the plane for their altitude, direction, inclination and a whole other things about where and how the place is going. Human sense aren't really useful for figuring out where the hell you are going in the middle of featureless piece of sky. Hell human sense can even be screwed up and cause the pilot to screw up and and probably make a fatal mistake if he relies on them rather then on what his equipment or training is telling him to do. So maybe, he is better of sitting on the ground in a flight sim styled set up and controlling the plane from afar. Although considering on the reaction time needed for current air combat, the slight delay in transmission and data processing might give advantage to the pilot in the actual seat, although this is purely speculative. Oh and another thing, wouldn't the UAVs in the squadron follow some algorithm, which potentially can be cracked and make it easier for AA defense to bring them down

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

> No amount of sensors or cameras is going to let someone remotely know what's going on.

Why wouldn't it? With more sensors the sensor-gaps reduce.

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always thought it was silly that ATC gets a clearance on a computer and reads it over the radio to a pilot who enters it into his/her computer. Creating a system to allow flight plans to be electronically sent to the aircraft's computers would be a whole lot more practical.

This capability exists on the 777, the 747-400, the 757, and the 767. It's probably there on Airbus aircraft but I'd rather staple my tongue
to Paris Hilton's dog and listen to Lindsey Lohan sing than waste brain cells on learning about the capabilities of Airbus aircraft...

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

What if this isn't aimed at letting pilots in fighter aircraft control wingmen - they are testing it on commercial planes, which militarily would translate to a stripped down (and therefore cheaper) prototype for AWACS and other air control aircraft. Think of a 6 man extra crew, each controlling say 4-6 UAV interceptor role aircraft - enough automation that they can be left to vector in on their own, but when actually engaged can be remote controlled from the AWACS. (I'm thinking something where you have a radial grid and each remote pilot controls one aircraft every 60 degrees or so so that his planes don't all arrive on target at the same time). This would give them a potentially longer range operating envelope than using surface based controllers due to LoS - the reason AWACS exist to start with is at least partially to boost radar range over the horizon. This could be great for Aircraft carrier defense tasked interceptors.

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[mirio]

Oh if only Slashdot would let users edit posts. :-)

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[YrWrstNtmr]

Correct me if i am wrong here since i never flown a plane before. But don't pilots rely mainly on the equipment on the plane for their altitude, direction, inclination and a whole other things about where and how the place is going.

On an aircraft, there is usually a large, clear thing near the front. The pilot sits behind this. If the instruments stop working for whatever reason, he can look out the window.

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[newt0311]

* From a person who has flown a plane before

The first things that polits are taught is how to control the plane without relying on the controls too much. I would need flight instruments for precision adjustments (ie. turn to 010 N or reduce airspeed to 90 knots etc...) but I can tell is the instruments start going haywire. For example, if the airspeed indicater suddenly drops to zero, I know that its an instrument error. I can also land and takeoff without instruments (though there is no way I would try to do this if I had an option not to). Given that redundancy and case by case programming may go a long way towards solving such a problem, there is no way a pre-programmed computer can deal with all those scenarios. this applies even more strongly to airline pilots who have to have atleast 1000 ~ 1500 hours of flight time.

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. We will always need human pilots... I'm one myself, so I know what happens up front.

No automation will ever be perfect... at some point, an unexpected situation will require a human.

In a glass cockpit airliner, I have been in situations where all the automation failed me and I had to revert to basic stick and rudder. No matter how advanced, this possibility will always exist.
For example, I once had a computer in the avionics bay physically detach from its harness right after V1 (takeoff decision speed). Though we didn't know why at the time, this caused simultaneous failures in multiple unrelated systems. We kept our wits about us and landed the aircraft safely.
Keep in mind the passengers never even knew the extent of the problem. There is no sense in scaring them unnecessarily. Aside from that we had a "technical issue" and were returning to the departure airport, then had no idea.
This could have happened to you.

Still want to take out the pilots?

Re:Bad Idea, Period

[mirio]

I'm a CFII and A&P, but unfortunately my severe color-blindness makes an ATP ticket useless for me. My AME tells me that I'm the most color-blind person she has ever tested in 30 years of practice. I only get the first Ishihara card correct -- and it's just to demonstrate that you know how the test is supposed to work.

One of the most remarkable stories in modern aviation is the Gimli Glider incident. What happens when a 767 runs out of fuel and you must land on a former military base full of drag racers?

That example alone is enough to warrant pilots sitting the front seat. Those pilots did something remarkable that day. Yes, one could argue that the screwed up the fuel calculations so they were at fault...but still...flesh and blood -- not machines saved those peoples' lives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

We got ourselves a convoy...

[tlhIngan]

This is actually a tiny bit different from current UAV/UCAVs. In those, you have someone on the ground controlling a plane in the air, while here, they're talking about a pilot flying not only his own jet, but several others as well. It's a bit easier to secure a short range link than a long-range one, especially when your "wingmen" will stay in relative tight formation. (I suppose it's a current compromise between the fighter jock who wants to pull G's vs. sitting in an office chair.)

It's a nice transition I suppose. UAV/UCAVs are the future since that little bit of meat impacts a huge performance penalty on an aircraft (lowered maneuverability, increased weight, decreased payload/fuel, etc due to G-limits and support equipment).

On the other hand, it might make kamikaze style "bombings" more fun - you and your UAV wingment all auger in together...

WTF???

[Anonymous Coward]

... tested a remote-controlled passenger jet ...

... a simulated attack scenario. ...


Someone planning on sending Super 80's into battle?

Automated Automobiles

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I believe that can be great technology, I'd rather see more of an automated automobile, much like on Minority Report. Then perhaps traffic may flow more reasonably in highly congested areas.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[b0s0z0ku]

Although I believe that can be great technology, I'd rather see more of an automated automobile, much like on Minority Report.

Actually much harder of a problem. Automobiles are seperated from other traffic by feet or even inches. Aircraft normally fly hundreds of feet apart (more for passenger planes). Furthermore, autos only have two degrees of freedom in which to move - aircraft can move in 3-D. You also don't usually have small children, deer, and other such things jumping out in front of planes. Part of the problem of designing a good car control system is moral. Assuming a child jumps out in front of the car, do we (a) hit the child, (b) swerve and hit a brick wall, possibly killing the occupants of the car (c) swerve the other way and t-bone another car, possibly killing its occupants. (Sort of like the railway switch problem presented in college ethics classes.[1])

-b.

[1]- there's a train running down a track on the collision course with another train. It's about to run into the last switch before collision becomes inevitable. There's a single person sleeping on the other track served by the switch. Do you (a) do nothing or (b) throw the switch, killing the sleeping guy/playing child/family in car but saving the passengers on the trains.

-b.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[the_wishbone]

Actually, IIRC, I think the cars in Minority Report seemed to only be automated on the highway. Didn't our favorite Scientologist drive it away from the factory and to his ex-wife's house? This is still a good idea and one which has already been tested, somewhere in California IIRC (without lane changes, though). A child has no business playing on a six-lane highway with cars moving at 80MPH anyway, just as a child has no business playing around on an airport runway.

As for the train switch problem, I remember a concept in one of my philosophy classes, although I don't remember what it's called, that stated something to the effect of the best choice being one which harms the fewest/benefits the most people. So, if you know there are more people on that train and your train than there are people who will be killed on the other track, it's a better choice to go ahead and throw the switch. I, for one, would kill a sleeping guy/playing child/family in a car to save two passenger trains from colliding and killing/injuring even MORE people...but that's just me.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[smoker2]

Assuming a child jumps out in front of the car, do we (a) hit the child, (b) swerve and hit a brick wall, possibly killing the occupants of the car (c) swerve the other way and t-bone another car, possibly killing its occupants.

Or (d) brake instantly.
If you are that close to hitting the child, then swerving won't help them, and directly causes (b) and/or (c). Absolutely the most definite way to lose control of a vehicle is to change direction at speed under braking.
The best way would be to use a radar system on the front of the car to deploy an air bag, which deflates at the same time as the car is braking. So even if you do make contact, the impact speed is kept as low as possible.

The best way of all IMHO, is to completely separate vehicles and pedestrians, thereby avoiding the issue entirely.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[b0s0z0ku]

The best way of all IMHO, is to completely separate vehicles and pedestrians, thereby avoiding the issue entirely.

Unlikely to work as long as you have people parking where they live and unwilling to walk out of town just to pick up their cars.

Or (d) brake instantly.

That falls under "hit the child," since even at 30 mph you're not going to be able to stop if something jumps out 10 feet ahead of you.

-b.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[petermgreen]

there's a train running down a track on the collision course with another train. It's about to run into the last switch before collision becomes inevitable. There's a single person sleeping on the other track served by the switch. Do you (a) do nothing or (b) throw the switch, killing the sleeping guy/playing child/family in car but saving the passengers on the trains.
Assuming a fatal collision can't be stopped any other way you should throw the points and kill the person/people on the track.

presumablly the more difficult judgement calls come when you don't know if the trains can stop in time or not or when the trains involved are frieght trains with only a few people on board.

but yes theese cramped "can't get out of the way of everything and can't stop in time either" situations generally require human judgement to identify what is what (a computer can easilly tell something is in the way, its much harder to tell how many people would die in a collision with it) and make a descision that aims to kill/maim as few people as possible.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[b0s0z0ku]

Assuming a fatal collision can't be stopped any other way you should throw the points and kill the person/people on the track.

But what if both trains happened to be empty but you didn't know it? Maybe the motorman jumped from train 1 and train 2 was a runaway train? (Neither has passengers) :D

Is it better to kill by overt action because of the *possiblity* of saving lives?

-b.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[Anonymous Coward]

In the sci-fi realm, I wonder why I've seen so few predictions of use of the vertical dimension for accident avoidance. Only KITT from Knight Rider comes to mind. A cheap and feasible mechanism for making a car jump could utilize a telescoping pole(s) mounted along the vehicle length with explosive charges above the front (to force it into the road) and inside (to explosively telescope the pole(s) and a strong brace at the center of vehicle gravity. Combine this with a reliable imminent collision detector, communicatons with other vehicle's computer to arbitrate who jumps, and computer deployable rear chute to maintain direction and slow the vehicle down before it hits the road again and some imminent collisions could be jumped. Of course, there is probably a large chance of injury or death on landing, but that is better than a near certain chance of death in an imminent collision.

Re:Automated Automobiles

[fontkick]

(d) brake instantly

Those would be very good brakes. I'm imagining an audible warning for any passengers in the car along the lines of "Prepare.... for LUDICROUS STOP!"

Makes you wonder they used that for 911...

[gd23ka]

... ... might as well say it while it is still legal.

Re:Makes you wonder they used that for 911...

[krell]

Why, no. Elvis was flying the jets.

Re:Makes you wonder they used that for 911...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on! Everyone knows that GW flew all four jets in person.

R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[Kadin2048]

but somehow I didn't expect they'd put guns on them. Silly me.

Obviously you hang out with a different kind of R/C geeks than I do.

I've seen a lot of planes that are built with an extra servo for use as a bomb release (also good for clicking the shutter of a camera). And I know some guys that tried to put CO2-powered BB cannons on R/C aircraft, but they ended up just being too hard to use and too heavy to be practical. The gas systems required limit them to rather large aircraft and helis, the vibration causes them to jam a lot, and the obvious safety issues keep you from flying them in most places. Plus unless you have full-auto guns (they do exist) you can't do a whole lot with them, even in ground attack or against targets.

However, they're pretty cool when mounted on balsa-wood ships...

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[smellsofbikes]

Well, to be honest, I tried to build an R/C with a full-auto bb gun in it. It did not work at all. So my friends and I went to doing ship-to-ship battles. Too bad: it would've been great to do real dogfighting. (Or, as I dreamed in my nefarious moments, be a sky pirate and fly the plane into an R/C park, shooting down other planes, and then make my escape.)

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[Ariven]

I always wondered if it would work to put rockets on them. Bottle rockets for example.. or take small engines for model rockets and put fins and a cone (or a blasting cap, etc) on the front and launch them by remote spark...

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[WhiplashII]

We used to have RC glider dogfights - no weapons, just ram the other guy out of the sky without killing yourself. Good times!

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[silas_moeckel]

Yes it does. Normal model rocket engine ignitors work well for the model rocket engines and bottle rockets (they do not fly very straight use them in salvo's)

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[whimmel]

I think igniting the bottle rockets are the hard part. I was thinking of using a glow plug, one per tube, and use a microcontroller to turn on the glowplug to fire. I have a R/C truck for testing and a couple gross of rockets. Just need some time...

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[smellsofbikes]

tell ya from personal experience: bad idea with R/C's that use highly flammable covering material.

By the way, should you want to make a rocket engine fly more or less straight sans fins (like, say, it's in a barrel as a launcher) you can carefully, carefully drill a tangential hole through the casing about 1/3 of the way up from the nozzle, to make it spin. If it launches straight it'll stay straight once that begins venting.

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

['nother poster]

Decent test monofiliment with a weight on the end tied to a plate attached to some of the structural members of the fuselage. Clip them in the wings or across the fuselage. I saw something akin to this done 30 years ago with planes made from balsa and glue impregnated tissue paper.

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[smellsofbikes]

That's awesome. That's the coolest thing I've read in a while. Next time I fly gliders with someone else...

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[peragrin]

It's actually illegal to to launch rockets that way.(I looked it up a while ago). Launching of the rocket itself is easy, as all it takes is 4 aa's, a rocket motor igniter, and a remote controlled relay setup.

The hard part as another poster said is that model airplanes aren't fire resistant. Though they do have film Aluminum, though I don't know how well that owuld work. If you got a field I can fly in and a two grand down payment i will get started though. yes it would be that expensive to setup initially.

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[WhiplashII]

If you have a club that you fly with, get together and make a bunch of foam core wings + bodies. Cover them in packing tape, put in the (cheap!) radios. Get them flying, and try to wack each other down. Last one flying wins.

In our contest, any repairs you could make with duct tape were allowed. We flew on a ridge, using the updraft of wind blowing up the mountain - more fun than legally allowed!

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy solution, AEG airsoft, just strip out the parts and make a custom housing in your aircraft. fairly light weight, heaviest component is the battery for power, can be very light weight and you can make have a full auto fire capability for dogfights.

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[stunt_penguin]

The lovechild of an automatic shotgun and an R/C 'copter : Be and, indeed, hold!

This, I think, might more than even the odds during duck hunting season; "Oho!fly away, will ya? c'mere!"


The scary thing is, what if someone mounted a bigass cube of C4 on a suitably endowed R/C plane or 'copter and flew it at a presidential motorcade. The controller could be way outside the normal protection cordon, and could steer with a video feed from the vehicle. That is, if he could manage to get a radio signal in and out.... I'd assume that the Secret Service use every type of radio jamming and monitoring device they can get their hands on around a motorcade like that.

That, and I'm sure at least one person in the protection has a shottie on their person and has been clay pigeon shooting before.

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[myth24601]

Well, to be honest, I tried to build an R/C with a full-auto bb gun in it. It did not work at all. So my friends and I went to doing ship-to-ship battles. Too bad: it would've been great to do real dogfighting. (Or, as I dreamed in my nefarious moments, be a sky pirate and fly the plane into an R/C park, shooting down other planes, and then make my escape.)

I always thought a good R/C prank would be to go to one of those RC sailboat get togethers with an RC Sub and and RC Sailboat. Rig the sailboat to blow up with some kind of minor explosive then plant it in the middle of the other RC sailboats. Next you cruise through with your RC sub (don't let anyone know whos it is) to get attention then dive. A short time later blow your sailboat and yell "OMG, the sub is fireing torpetoes!!" and watch the RC Sailboats scatter.

Re:R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler.

[smellsofbikes]

I had a friend who, for his senior design project in physics, made a sound-seeking torpedo. It was great fun against ducks. (it didn't blow up.) It also worked well against powered RC boats, but wasn't sensitive enough to hear a sailboat. But it sure was fun watching that thing home in on something and watching the something desperately try to evade it. Easier for the ducks, since they can fly.

Not to be facetious or anything

[3.5 stripes]

But how do you control multiple vehicles moving at supersonic speeds in 3 dimensional space? I realize that most fighter pilots have things like g-forces to deal with, but even without that, there's a lot to think about in terms of movement, relation of your plane to target/other planes/other incidental objects..

Just seems like some serious overload to me.

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[Eternauta3k]

But how do you control multiple vehicles moving at supersonic speeds in 3 dimensional space? I realize that most fighter pilots have things like g-forces to deal with, but even without that, there's a lot to think about in terms of movement, relation of your plane to target/other planes/other incidental objects..

I supose heavy AI, and you just give them a strategy or task to perform.

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[krell]

"But how do you control multiple vehicles moving at supersonic speeds in 3 dimensional space?"

You shut off the navigation system, close your eyes, and let your feelings guide you. Or you tank up on Arrakis spice before flying.

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[3.5 stripes]

I had requested limited facetiousness :)

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[3.5 stripes]

Yeah, I guess.. doesn't really make them pilots anymore though. Flight commander or something else might be more appropriate.

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[hauntingthunder]

Thats being activly worked on

There is some reaserch going on using gumstix (tiny pc's running linux) to control flocks of flying things (small helicopters in this case)

Grid swarms

they are also trying to do this with larger outdoor RC planes "just need to find a safe place to do this" is there comment :-)

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my first thought as well.
From what I understand, sensory overload and maintaining situational awareness are among the biggest problems faced by fighter pilots. Now you want them to fly not only his plane, but several others in close proximity???

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[a.c.walker]

Uninformed conjecture: I would imagine the drones operate on parameters set by the pilot relative to the command craft. Without instruction, the drones fly in a formation. The pilot just indicates actions that deviate from that formation. A great benefit would be coordinated weapons control. Software can figure out some triangles with radar information and targets would be hit from multiple directions simultaneously.

Re:Not to be facetious or anything

[bronney]

Wing Commander

To be fair

[Anonymous Coward]

Although [a] pilot was sitting in the back ...

To be fair he had been drinking before getting aboard. You know: "Simulation under real life circumstances" and all.

Airport 20xx

[__aaclcg7560]

If the pilot plane get shot down, does all the other wing planes crash too? Or does the wing planes go into auto pilot mode to cruise along until someone can override, shoot down or let them run out of fuel? What if the plane doesn't want to give up control by disabling the self-destruct? Inquiring minds want to know...

FTA

[zero1101]

This makes each of the UAVs semi-autonomous: they fly straight and level on their own and can be given simple orders using a point-and-click interface on what Williams calls "a simple, flat, moving map".

and later...

The remote pilot has pushbutton commands for each UAV, telling it to loiter, undertake a search pattern, or attack a target," Williams explains.

If this is the kind of game we're playing, we have NO chance against the Koreans.

Poll: was that the best Starcraft joke I could have chosen? What other jokes could I have used?

Might be usable commercially as a back up system

[StressGuy]

In other words, the pilot-in-command in on the aircraft and in full control. However, should he and the flight crew become dis-abled (say, due to hijacking), ground control can take over the aircraft. This can either be based upon the pilot signaling ground control, or ground control noticing that the aircraft has deviated significantly from it's flight plan (and say, heading straight for a building).

Not to take over for the pilot, but I can see it's potential as a safety.

WTC???

[Nimey]

Yes, he was just here. Tall gentleman, wearing US-issue camouflage, intense gaze, bearded, looked Middle-Eastern.

Re:WTC???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he was just here. Tall gentleman, wearing US-issue camouflage, intense gaze, bearded, looked Middle-Eastern.


Ummm... that guy uses disposable pilots. Much cheaper than remote control.

What you all don't realise...

[J Mack Daddy]

...is that passenger jets have been unmanned for years now. You board the plan, you glance left and maybe you see the pilot sitting up there. That's to make you feel comfortable. He's just a lowely paid actor and he gets off the plane before it takes off. Maybe you hear the captain make the odd announcement during the flight, that's just a recording. Happy flying...

Re:What you all don't realise...

[petermgreen]

do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

Re:What you all don't realise...

[businessnerd]

WHOOOOOOSSSHH!!!!!

Wow talk about not getting the joke. But the grand parent isn't really that crazy. While there is a pilot in the cockpit, he's not necessarily flying the plain. Two years ago while embarking on a spring break trip to the Bahamas, we ran into the pilot for our flight while waiting to board at the gate. Just for kicks, we asked for a tour of the cockpit. Turns out, he doesn't need to touch a thing during the entire flight if he doesn't want to and normally doesn't touch a whole lot. The plan has it's flight plan programmed in and all controls are "by-wire." The plane can take-off and land all by itself and the pilot only does it manually during extreme conditions where pilot insticts and feel might better cope. We asked if he would be manually flying at all that day. He said he was probably going to take off just because he felt like it.

Re:What you all don't realise...

[SuiteSisterMary]

He's exaggerating a bit, but yes, the pilot doesn't actually fly the plane; hasn't for years. Autopilot, and I think autotakeoff and autolanding.

Re:What you all don't realise...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not entirely correct. No pilot lets the aircraft take off on its own - they just engage the autopilot shortly after takeoff. Also, as far as landing goes, autoland is used for "extreme conditions", not the other way around. Extreme conditions being CAT III ILS landings. Probably most flights you have ever been on in your life consist of the pilot landing the aicraft, with the autopilot flying the approach. And yes, before you ask, I am a commercial pilot.

NASA

[8ball629]

Did this a while back to test jet fuel in a crash scenario I believe.

Ah, I see!

[Bromskloss]

So, that's the goal for a fighter pilot! I always wondered.

Not surprised...

[Spedge]

Personally, I'm not surprised. With budgets as they are in the UK, it seems sensible for them to look at UAVs for military purposes. Along with the fact that compared to many other countries we have very few citizens, this is away to militarily re-dress the balance. Personally I find the whole area massively interesting.

Great

[drpimp]

Although this does seem interesting, the first thought that crossed my mind was .... "Great now some Jihadi is going to have the ability to fly and crash a jet without having to be a martyr", of course this won't happen today or tomorrow, but if it can be done it's possible it could happen, especially when these loonies are set in their dilutional mental states.

"pushbutton commands for each UAV..."

[Anonymous Coward]

"The remote pilot has pushbutton commands for each UAV, telling it to loiter, undertake a search pattern, or attack a target," Williams explains.

I hope he is able select more than 12 units at a time. And does he get any SCVs?

Thanks for letting us know.

[krell]

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog on an airplane.

Imagine this...

[StressGuy]

what if all of these drones are robotic and networked together? A common, collective AI drives the entire "swarm" as if they were a single unit. A few get shot down, no big deal, the remaining "network" of drones simply adapts and keeps fighting.

In other words, a single adaptive AI controlling multiple networked drones. That would be a difficult force to stop.

Pity they don't still have BattleBots...I'd love to see someone try that.

Re:Imagine this...

[__aaclcg7560]

If Microsoft gets the contract, a blue screen, virus infection or service pack should take out the AI. :P

Re:Imagine this...

[AmberBlackCat]

If Microsoft gets the contract, a blue screen, virus infection or service pack should take out the AI. :P

And if Red Hat gets it, there will be a Beowulf cluster of these.

Trans-Oceanic Cargo.

[Kadin2048]

Unpiloted passenger aircraft are certainly a bad idea, but I could see a place for it. Think about cargo aircraft, particularly ones on trans-oceanic routes. You could build whole fleets of very inexpensive cargo carriers, because you wouldn't have to have a flight deck or windows, or run all of the control lines up to the front of the plane (all those miles of wiring); the computer "flying" the plane doesn't even all have to be in one spot, it could be in semi-independent pieces throughout the airframe. That means the only limitations to the design are technical and aerodynamic.

Such a plane could fly low and slow to save fuel, because it wouldn't have to worry about pilots or passengers getting tired. And if the plane started to deviate course and fly towards a populated area, you'd shoot it down or self-destruct it up while it's still somewhere safe, just like a Range Safety Officer does for satellite/rocket launches.

The lower cost of these flights could bring air cargo to parts of the world where it's currently not economically feasible (basically anyplace outside the First World or its major manufacturing centers), or bring goods that currently aren't economical to ship by air. Anything that lowers the cost of transportation can have wide-ranging effects.

I think there's a definite market for self-piloted aircraft for cargo duty, on long-haul flights over unpopulated areas.

Re:Trans-Oceanic Cargo.

[b0s0z0ku]

Such a plane could fly low and slow to save fuel, because it wouldn't have to worry about pilots or passengers getting tired.

Sort of like an Ekranoplan? Cool idea - you can get a lot of lifting capacity with less fuel usage. The only problem is more vulnerability to weather effects than current high-level jets, but I could still see a use in situations that aren't extremely time sensitive - if the weather's bad today, they'll simply fly tomorrow or route around trouble spots. Still probably faster than a 6-day ocean crossing by cargo ship.

-b.

Re:Trans-Oceanic Cargo.

[AceyMan]

Kadin2048 said: Such a plane could fly low and slow to save fuel

Apparently you know nothing about the efficiencies of flight.

The ideal efficient flight profile is a parabola. Unfortunately, that would mean the aircraft is constantly changing altitude, so it would make air traffic nightmarish. The flight plans that aircraft file and fly today are a reasonable approximation to the 'ideal flight plan.' Basically, climb at Vclimb (most efficient power/drag speed) to the max altitude for the given weight and then 'coast' (descend) to the endpoint. Note that the max altitude is weight dependent, therefore transport jets often "step climb" where possible; once they get lighter from fuel burn, they climb again to a higher, more efficient, altitude.

If you'd like to learn how an airplane *actually* works, here's your URL -> http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/intro.html

Re:Trans-Oceanic Cargo.

[davids-world.com]

Such a plane could fly low and slow to save fuel,

Sorry, that's a contradiction.

because it wouldn't have to worry about pilots or passengers getting tired.

What? That's certainly not the reason why jets cruise at high altitudes, and I don't know what passengers getting tired has to do with it anyways.

Not insightful. Mod parent down.

Unpiloted planes can be problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope it goes better than this:

http://www.funnyearth.com/html/videos/a320.php

Starring Otto as himself

[Rob T Firefly]

This'll work so long as there's a stewardess to keep the automatic pilot "inflated."

Flight of the Old Dog

[liak12345]

There is a book series by Dale Brown (not Dan Brown) involving modified B-52s rigged to carry UAVs. Always neat to see fiction meet reality.

Re:Flight of the Old Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been so long since I read that, and that book is old anyway. He had a lot of ideas, or, at least, knew a lot of the inside people that knew about the ideas when they were way ahead of their time.

Re:Flight of the Old Dog

[Anonymous Coward]

"Air Battle Force": Bombers doing missions with the entire crew sitting in California. Including a "flock" of UAVs that are carried in, and launched from, rotary launchers in the bomb bay. Also carrying autonomous cruise missles that each have three bomb bays carrying smaller autonomous payloads: cameras, communications or bomblets. UAVs, and cruise missles, can be recovered by the bomber for reloading, refueling and relaunching. See, also, the Dreamland series.

Ever time I re-read the series, I can't help but think of the possibilities for communications during disasters .. or even just for commercial communication purposes ... sort of like those "zepplins". As long as they aren't made of lead, they could go a long way toward avoiding "communication breakdowns", wot?

This is just liek pizza! order one, get a bunch!

[loftwyr]

So, let me see...

If someone shoots one plane down, they get credit for shooting down 6 or more? Wow! What a great way to ensure victory!

Call me narrow-minded but when a pilot gets busy when things are going wrong, he's not going to have a lot of time to control anything but what he's sitting in, right?

No Pilot is Better

[bill_mcgonigle]

Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder.

It's even easier than that - have an "Emergency Land" button. At the first whiff of trouble, the pilot, behind his hardened door, presses a button that completely removes human input from the process. The flight computers land at the nearest suitable airfield, and there's no giant missile problem.

If the Navy can land a plane on a moving aircraft carrier in high winds automatically, I think a 737 should be able to find its way down to O'Hare just fine.

Heck, most non-terrorism airplane crashes these days are caused by pilot error - especially when they ignore the automated warning systems. Might just want to skip the pilot entirely, or have him around in case the nav computers all blow. Then again, with fly-by-wire airplanes becoming so prevalant, if the computers go you're in for a hard fall anyway.

Re:No Pilot is Better

[Joe The Dragon]

Even with auto land the airport still needs to free up a runway for the plane.

Typically crappy slashdot title

[zero_offset]

Unpiloted isn't the same as remotely-piloted.

I blame television.

TSA PILOTS????

[Anonymous Coward]

No remotely piloted aircraft could be completely safe with private sector remote pilots. We need to mandate government remote pilots from the TSA. You know just like the 911 operators.

Thank you for flying city airlines..

[Anonymous Coward]

We know you have a choice in airlines, and it looks like you chose the wrong one.

Didn't Stealth teach them anything?!?!

[Serapth]

Oh wait... nobody watched Stealth. Carry on.

Hello, this is your pilot speaking

[houghi]

I want to welcome you to the first ever Atantic flight without an actual pilot. Please do not be allarmed. We have taken every precaution to make this experience the smoothest and the safest in the history of aviation.

There will be absolutely nothing that can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong at can go wrong ...

Although Cool

[ObiWanStevobi]

The ultimate goal is to have the pilot control an array of fighters in addition to the commercial craft?

Besides all the possible problems of a plane flying that has no human on board to control it should a sensor or system fail, they can't even spring for multiple pilots controlling the RC aircraft? Hmmm... I didn't know that pilots not having enough responsibility and technical difficulty was the problem that needed to be solved.

Although the idea of an RC aircraft is good (at least for a backup, IMO), Their goal here is seriously flawed.

Still paddling the old knew

[SpeedBump0619]

Well, we have the simulator, now we just need the aliens and and a six year old prodigy.

Ever hear of single point of failure?

[0x537461746943]

So you just have to take out the main airplane and all the rest go down with it.

Re:Ever hear of single point of failure?

[SwabTheDeck]

Yeah, this is a tactical nightmare for military applications, I'd think. The end of the article explains how the UAVs are much more expendable than a pilot or an expensive fighter yet. However, in a combat situation, if the enemy knows that the pilot of the fighter is the one in control, they're going to make him the primary target and do everything they possibly can to take him out first. It's a nice idea that they don't want to risk the pilots' lives, but in doing it this way, they draw all of the enemy's focus on trying to bring the piloted fighter, NOT the UAVs, down. I'd rather be in a squad of several other manned fighters so that I'd at least have some chance of the enemy picking one of them first.

Evening news spin...

[jpellino]

... is such that if this thing had augured-in the headlines would still read "Jetliner Crashes. No Survivors."

Swarm?

[not-enough-info]

'Toss carriers 4tw!

I for one.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new unpiloted passenger jet overlords

Passenger?

[chill]

What the hell does a PASSENGER jet have to have a swarm of attack UAVs for?

Oh, wait. The original article had NOTHING TO DO with PASSENGER jets. This is military technology folks, not something you're going to see on the next Boeing or Airbus being flown out of Heathrow.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard!!!

[Asrynachs]

I always had some comfort knowing that if I was in a plane crash the pilot would be killed along with everybody else. I imagine it would make a good point of conversation with the other screaming passengers. J'know I could turn to the guy next to me and say 'Well at least the pilot is dieing with us' but then he'd say 'Yeah, but think about it this way. He's probably got insurance, his family will get a big payoff for his incompetance while we're all totally frigging screwed here' Then I'd probably think for a minute and say 'Well okay, how bout this. Let's storm the cockpit and force the pilot into a parachute and throw him off the plane so he'll survive to get fired' then the guy would say 'well that wouldn't really work either, he'll just claim he went out to get help. He'll be hailed as a hero, and he'll probably recieve some great reward for that'. Then I'd probably say 'Okay, what if.. WE took the parachutes, escaped the crashing plane and survived so we could tell everybody that the pilot was incompetant?' Then he'd say 'Once again, that wouldn't work. Historically speaking airplane crash survivors are the most hated out of all accident survivors. If we don't get flogged just on the virtue of our survival we'll probably be thrown in jail for trying to slander the pilot'. Then I'd say 'You know it's times like this I wish airplanes were remote controlled. If the pilot was back at the airport and we all died he'd get fired, and his life might be ruined because of that' Then he'd say 'Yes, that does seem like it would be some small comfort'

Seems to me more like an exercise in stupidity

[Moraelin]

At the risk of going off-topic, the Milgram Experiment seems to me more like an exercise in "let's assume that people are terminally stupid and gullible, and base a whole experiment and its conclusion on that unproven assumption."

What's wrong with it?

- When the range of "punishments" is as stupidly large as 450V, which is _far_ into the lethal range, few people would assume this to be anything but a bulshitting experiment. Everyone knows that 110V can be deadly, and 220V usually _is_ deadly, by simple virtue of having a wall socket in their home. If anyone told me that I'm participating in some bullshit game where, basically, if I'm pressing a button someone dies (whether shot in the head, or zapped with 450V), I'd just have to assume that they're plain old bullshitting me, because otherwise they've just told everyone that they're doing something illegal in that lab.

- There's also the issue of whether the volunteers were first given a form to sign that says, basically, "I'm ok with being zapped by 450V, a probably lethal voltage." It works against the experiment both ways. If you weren't, you'd find it extremely hard to believe that the other guy, who _also_ never signed that (remember, it's supposed to be a random choice) could be subjected to it without risking some nasty legal consequences.

(And if they did sign that, congrats, you've just found some people who are crazy enough to sign a death-wish for $4.50. Do you actually expect those to be representative for the rest of the population? Plus you just told them then that the other guy is ok with it too, so in which way is it comparable to doing the same to a non-consentual victim in a concentration camp? Because that was the supposed point of the experiment.)

- When you're raised and live in a western country, you'll also know that depriving someone of freedom is a criminal offense. You can't just hold someone hostage against their will, or not without some serious legal consequences. So the assumption is that the other guy is probably either free to abort the experiment at any time they wish, or all these people in lab coats are all cheerfully doing something highly illegal without even trying to hide it. Or he's an actor.

- People have this thing called empathy. Or so I'm told. So unless all the test subjects were Asperger's Syndrome sufferers, the question is also how good were all the actors involved in this. Remember that they're trying to convince you that they're doing something highly illegal in broad daylight, and in the middle of a university, and with everyone's knowledge. They damn better be _outstanding_ actors there. (And somewhat supporting that idea, the test subjects obedience dropped a _lot_ when they weren't face to face with the actor telling them what to do.)

Basically, if anything, this experiment just proves the limits of suspension of disbelief. If the premise is so unbelievably over the top, then people just won't believe it. They'll (correctly) assume that it's a bogus game where noone is actually hurt, and humour you just long enough to get their $4.50.

Basically any conclusions based on such an experiment are completely irrelevant if the test subjects didn't actually believe it was real. Think if you were asked to steer a starship into a black hole for such an experiment. Any "look at the harm people can do while obeying orders" conclusions are only valid if you actually believed you're actually steering a real starship, loaded with real people. If you actually thought "wth, this is just a computer game", then we've only discovered that you can play a space sim. Nothing more.

It's also a prime example of how bogus someone's "research" can get when their "research" is tainted by having a personal agenda to prove.

Even if we swallow the whole "surrendering responsibility" idea (as opposed to just being so unbelievable that the test subjects simply didn't take it seriously.)... there are still massive differences bewtween (A) doing this for an hour in a controlled exper

Re:Seems to me more like an exercise in stupidity

[DarkSarin]

I think you misunderstood a few things about the Milgram studies:

First: informed consent was not what we know today. At that point, you essentially signed a form that said "I agree to participate", and that was it. Deception was key to the whole thing, and people thought they were in a learning study, not an authority study.

Second: the labels did not have actual voltages, but rather "pain-levels" or "danger-levels".

Third: individuals were debriefed (largely because of how disturbing this was) and asked about the deception. Most indicated that they had no idea that they were not really shocking someone. The whole experiment hinges on this, and they went to great lengths that it was believable.

Fourth, the whole idea was that the "actor" was telling them to comply with the experiment. The idea is that if you are continually told to do something by an authority you will be more likely to do it.

Finally, we cannot replicate the study. It is considered unethical in the way it treated people, and so no ethics board will approve it. Thus we cannot redo it with better experiments, better controls, etc.

Oh well--you probably do not care.

Re:Seems to me more like an exercise in stupidity

[dinther]

Until this date I never knew the name of this experiment. As a kid in 1975 I underwent this test with a slight variation at a primary school for god sakes! It actually pisses me off thinking about it now and I would sure have a word with my son's principal if he were ever subjected to this crap.

The experiment I was involved with (I was the "teacher") they made use of a big box with a spring loaded arm with boxing glove (honest). They demonstrated the box by letting me press button 1 (Weakest punch) after with the glove extended with force. For the rest the same scenario. But I got to choose the strength of the punch between 1 and 10. Oh yeah, they also told me that the "learner" might get pissed off when the punches would get too hard and might want a "word" with me.

Needless to say that as a little kid I stayed with force 1 and sometimes 2 throughout the experiment but who is the sadist here? I think it is the idiots that subject kids to this kind of treatment.

Re:Seems to me more like an exercise in stupidity

[Moraelin]

First of all, if I didn't care, I wouldn't have answered. Second, no offense, but before posting all that, it may be advisable that you actually RTFM. Or at least Milgram's own synopsis of the experiment.

First: informed consent was not what we know today. At that point, you essentially signed a form that said "I agree to participate", and that was it. Deception was key to the whole thing, and people thought they were in a learning study, not an authority study.

We're talking the 60's, not the middle ages. They still had laws against murder, manslaughter, holding someone hostage against their will, etc. It was just as stupid to believe back then that it's just normal in a university experiment to tie someone down and zap them to death, as it is nowadays.

Second: the labels did not have actual voltages, but rather "pain-levels" or "danger-levels".

According to Milgram's own synopsis I've linked to: "The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "Slight shock" to "Danger: Severe Shock"."

Third: individuals were debriefed (largely because of how disturbing this was) and asked about the deception. Most indicated that they had no idea that they were not really shocking someone. The whole experiment hinges on this, and they went to great lengths that it was believable.

Actually, the debriefing is one of the most debatable aspects of it all. Participants were _not_ debriefed up to modern standards. And according to the exit interviews, most people seemed to not even really understand what they've done. Yes, a few went on some rant about how they had some enlightening revelation about themselves in the process, and those were cherry-picked and repeated all over the place. But most people were not even sure what they've really been involved in. So, please.

In this whole farce, people were at the very least, if not completely disbelieving, at least in a state of confusion and bordering on shock. Even if we accept that they were actually thinking they're shocking someone (although it would trip everyone's disbelief even in a D&D campaign, because it's _that_ bogus), we'd still be talking about people who were confused and disoriented at the time they complied. That hardly qualifies as the same as the Nazi officer who goes to work every day, fully knowing that he'll execute more Jews today. We're comparing confused and disoriented people coaxed into submission at every step, to someone doing it every day and fully aware of what it means.

Fourth, the whole idea was that the "actor" was telling them to comply with the experiment. The idea is that if you are continually told to do something by an authority you will be more likely to do it.

A) And that is why it becomes crucial whether the actor was actually believable or not. Because if someone's whole attitude tells you "wth, this can't be REAL", you'll act like in a computer game.

B) It still doesn't support Milgram's whole sensationalist thrust about normal people being able to become the equivalent of Adolf Eichmann. These were people who had to be coaxed by a figure of authority at every single step, while Adolf Eichmann was someone who continued to round up and ship Jews to the death camps even after he'd been ordered to _stop_. So I'm basically supposed to believe that (A) he too was just coaxed by some figure of authority at every step (even though he actually did it on his own for years, without someone giving him 4 warnings all the time to keep doing it), yet (B) ignoring he had no trouble disobeying the exact same authority figure when it told him to stop. Something doesn't add up, you know.

Re:Seems to me more like an exercise in stupidity

[Moraelin]

Which kinda illustrates my point. When it was a more believable experiment, and it's actually believable that you're hitting someone, you stuck with 1 or rarely 2 out of 10. And I gather that even that thought was a traumatic experience for you. Yet according to Milgram, when people believe that they're administering 450V shocks to someone with heart problems (read: almost guaranteed kill: that's how the electric chair kills, by stopping the heart), somehow, sure, no problem, they'll go all the way to 450V. So basically I'm supposed to believe that, counter-intuitively, you'd have actually less problem with actually giving someone a painful death than with giving them a mild bruise.

Think about it. Something doesn't add up there. You had trouble giving someone a punch in the face, and still sound pissed off about being subjected to that idea, 30 years later. Do you honstly see yourself, the same person, as being able to zap someone to highly probable _death_ just because the teacher says it's ok?

I strongly suspect it's just the kind of suspension of disbelief issue I'm talking about. When you actually believe you're hitting someone, you _don't_ act like a psychopath. But when you give someone a scenario as blatantly absurd as "we'll let you murder someone in the name of science, right here in the USA, and, hey, we're telling you it's perfectly ok", suspension of disbelief flies right out the window that instant. It's something that would trip people's suspension of disbelief even in a D&D campaign. IRL? Heh. And when people _don't_ believe it can possibly be real, yeah, big surprise, they can push any buttons you tell them to push.

Re:Seems to me more like an exercise in stupidity

[Jon Luckey]

When the range of "punishments" is as stupidly large as 450V, which is _far_ into the lethal range

Just for future reference, its current that's deadly, not voltage. For example you get zapped by way more than 450 volts from a static spark like you get from scuffing your feet on some carpet.

Dr. Daystrom called

[cnettel]

He wants M5 transported back to the 23rd century, on the double.

It's already done routinely

[mcrbids]

Not that I see this coming to commercial flights any time soon (if ever), but: having the pilot not actually on the plane would make airplane hijacking a hell of a lot harder. If the pilot can't be personally threatened, and isn't directly faced with passengers being threatened*, it would be easier for "don't go along" training to be effective.

What most people don't realize is that the commercial airliners have had auto-pilot and auto-land for years. (yes, auto-land) Pilots use the auto-land about 1/2 of the time, from an account I read from a commercial pilot. (Some planes land roughly, Boeings are apparently very smooth)

There's even a designated radio identity signal for "I've been hijacked"! (Ask a pilot sometime about "squawking 7500")

So, all that's left is that ATC have the ability to tap into and/or activate the auto-pilot and auto-land capabilities built into any large aircraft. It might only be possible when the plane's radio is broadcasting the "I've been hijacked" signal, or something to avoid malicious takeovers.

Because the processing is being done locally, there's no real signal to jam - it's not remote control! So, at the worst, your terrorist might jam the GPS and/or VOR locator signals that the plane's autopilot/autoland computers use, at which point you just (at worst) crash the plane harmlessly at some random location, which is lots less likely to be disastrous than a well-aimed strike at some public monument.

I'm sure there's lots at stake, so they'd really take their time before implementing something like this - but why isn't this being done?

I'm sick of these #$%^ing dogs on this ... nvm...

[Mateo_LeFou]

n/t

Moo

[Chacham]

I can only imagine two pilots going for a duel.

"And if you will look out your left window, you will see Bob, my arch nemesis flying his plane. I will now send in two squadrons and get him back for yesterday."

swarm

[mugnyte]

  I imagine it won't be more than a decade before larger planes fly along with UAV "swarms" that can act in unison against a target. If perfected, only another swarm would be able to match capabilities. This would make for some spectacular air-air/air-ground interaction, and eventually would be a step towards "headless swarms" or "multi-head swarms" where if the leader was taken out, the UAV's could attach to another friendly head.

Neologisms-a-gogo

[ear1grey]

So what's the new name to be... Skyhacked? Hackjacked? Highhacked? ..and how long before the broadsheets use it in a shocking prediction of the kind of social computing phenomena we can expect by combining Web 3.0 with War-on-Terror Service Pack 4?

How about pilotless government instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, that would never fly, since the government has the very worthwhile role of keeping the country running well and implementing what the people want.

Oh, wait ...

Perhaps countries would run better without government at all. Seems to work for planes.

Valuable

[MindStalker]

Not particularly valuable against a insurgency without an Anvil though. //Obscure?

Re:somebody call orson scott card (No)

[Goldenhawk]

No, in Ender's Game, Ender and his fellow soldiers were sending commands via the ansible to other men actually piloting ships. I don't believe the story ever discusses sending drones. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons Ender is so affected by what has happened is that he didn't realize that all those "games" were killing real humans with each of his commands. It wasn't until a bit later that he was affected by the thought of having committed genocide.

Anyone want to be a Rigger?

[gknoy]

How long until we can get rigger's jacks, a la Shadowrun? :)

Loose Change

[Anonymous Coward]

Loose Change

MOD PARENT UP

Re:Loose Change

[krell]

Something's loose with those conspiracy lunatics, but you'd better check the screws and not the change.

Re:somebody call orson scott card (No)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's polite to add a spoiler alert when you do something like that.....although it's popular, not everybody has read the book.

Re:somebody call orson scott card (No)

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's polite to add a spoiler alert when you do something like that.....although it's popular, not everybody has read the book.

If you haven't read the book, you're not allowed to be here.

oblig simpsons quote

[Anonymous Coward]

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea.
They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall
mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by
small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is
clear: To build and maintain those robots. Thank you.
-- Military school Commandant's graduation address, "The Secret War of Lisa Simpson"

Terrorist&Kamikazes unemployed

[ferar]

I think terrorist and kamikazes will protest.

Every thought about mounting cams?

[Elbowgeek]

With webcams so cheap and light these days, would it be practical to mount one in an RC plane? Think of the fun you could have if you managed to mount a cam in the pilot's position with the guns as well. Of course, the practicalities of transmitting the cam signal back to base etc. is probably outside of the scope of most hobbyists.

They tried this a while ago...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ohh. Ohh, noo..."

True, but only to some extent

[Moraelin]

True, but only to some extent, and only in some warped way of splitting hairs.

1. Either when you're getting an extremely short pulse from a spark, or when you're connected to thick wires and with your arms on metal plates (as in at least one version of the experiment), then U = I * R, or I = U / R. There's a direct and linear proportionality between the two, so "it's current that kills" vs "it's voltage that kills" is just splitting hairs.

2. In practice, neither kills you as such. In practice you need both current (or voltage, since they're proportional) and enough _time_. Either to stop the heart or to literally cook you. Neither happens instantly. So in another way you could say it's not current either, but _charge_ that kills you. (As in Q = I * T.)

But in practice even that's not as simple a relationship, because even a hideous charge if it's something like micro-amperes over 10 years, also doesn't kill you. It must reach enough voltage over the heart muscles (or current times their resistance, if you want to stick to current) to cause them to spasm, and last long enough for that heart to not just skip a beat and recover.

3. If you want to go into even deeper details, the pulse length and wave form can cause even more anomalous behaviour, as observed in people struck by lightning. Unlike people killed by touching a high voltage wire, where you can see the trail of destroyed tissue between the two points, lightning seems to cause a _flashover_ effect, where it just flashes over the surface of the body without causing much damage inside. There are thermal burns on the entry and exit points, and clothes are often burned, but the tissue in between is pretty much intact. It just doesn't show the kind of destruction that that hideously large charge would cause if it actually went through flesh. (By comparison, a smaller charge in electric chair executions causes the eyes to boil and melt, and tissue to be cooked.)

4. But that all is still somewhat irrelevant when talking about Joe Sixpack's instinctive reaction to "you can give this other guy a 450V zap". Joe Sixpack knows that his 110V socket at home can kill or cause serious tissue damage, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that 450V is four times that. Heck, I figure I know more physics, and I'm not sure I'd go much farther than that either. You don't need paper and pencil and diagrams of the exact pulse shape and duration to figure out "omg, I could _kill_ that other guy", especially when the highest voltage rating says "Danger: Extreme Shock." You know, a "Danger" sign is kinda hammered into our mind to mean just that. Doubly so when the other guy told you that he has heart problems. Even if you did the maths and stuff, the possibility of a heart arrest has hit you like a brick-inna-sock already, and you're not gonna shake it off that easily.

And that's in the end all I'm saying. That when you put an average person in a situation as unbelievable as "you can give this other guy a potentially lethal shock... oh, heh, except he's in another room and you can't actually see it", the instinctive reaction would be "you're shitting me".

Re:True, but only to some extent

[Jon Luckey]

U = I * R, or I = U / R. There's a direct and linear proportionality between the two, so "it's current that kills" vs "it's voltage that kills" is just splitting hairs.

Direct and linear porotionality? You neglect the dimensions. Resistance is not a dimensionless constant. In more practical terms the V in Ohm's law is across a load, but the current I is flux through it. Very Very diffrent. A bird can perch on a high tension wire and be at thousands of volts with respect to ground, but have no current through it, therefore it doesn't die. Nor is this merely an issue of picking arbitrary measuring points. The impedence of the human body is not a simple resistor. You can have high frequency high voltages running across you as a surface charge, the so called skin effect, with no harm.

So in another way you could say it's not current either, but _charge_ that kills you. (As in Q = I * T.)

Lets pick a supposed lethal current. Off the first page of a google search, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy002 93.htm gives an example of 0.07 amps. It doesn't say how long, but lets assume a few heartbeats worth and call it 10 seconds. So that would mean that you consider 0.7 columbs lethal.

But then if I were to take a 10 microamps, and course it through you for 28 hours, you'd have had more than a whole columb go through you.

Think you'd die?

uh, I actually work in aerospace engineering...

[CompMD]

I'm honestly surprised by how few people in the slashdot community know anything about autopilots and unmanned aircraft. First of all, everyone who thinks UAVs are a bad idea have no clue what is happening when a modern airliner flies today. The vast majority of the time the aircraft is under computer control. The pilot watches some numbers on screens and occassionally pushes some buttons. When he wants to really fly, he will, but he doesn't have to. The aircraft can even line up for landing, land, and taxi to a gate. This is actually done in the UK, but not in the US. The average traveler has no idea.

Autopilot technology has existed for years. Analog automatic flight control systems have been around quite some time; a 40 year old IFR certified Cessna is quite capable. Digital flight controls have helped a lot. With GPS, and inertial navigation (INS) using MEMS accelerometers and magnetometers, waypoint navigation by maps without VOR is easy. Check out the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit system, its capabilities in the area of automatic flight control have been very good for the general aviation industry.

Believe it or not, but the people with PhDs in aerospace engineering know what they are talking about. Passenger aircraft today have triple redundancy for flight critical systems. UAVs are just as well made. The GlobalHawk has proven this time and time again for the military.

I'll post more on this later.

Didn't work for trains

[schweini]

I read somewhere (can't find it now) that people once experimented with automating trains. After a while it showed that even in trains the passengers hated the idea of not having a 'pilot', so nowadays most trainconducters are basically just sitting there for the comfort of the passengers, and not really doing anything strictly necessary.

There's only one way to get me on a pilotless...

[triso]

There's only one way to get me on a pilotless plane and that's as a virtual passenger. That's right, I'll stay at the airport and my virtual avatar can crash in the Atlantic when the plane's wireless link goes down as we pass behind an unusually dense cloud.

NASA SATS program

[SonicSpike]

In modern commercial aviation pilots do only usually fly for about 15 minutes or so (takeoff and landing), and the rest of the time they are doing visual checks, instrument checks, and nav checks.

As far as a telemetry network in which you describe, NASA is already working on this:
http://sats.nasa.gov/