Slashdot Mirror
Planes Without Pilots
HughPickens.com writes: John Markoff writes in the NY Times that in the aftermath of the co-pilot crashing a Germanwings plane into a mountain, aviation experts are beginning to wonder if human pilots are really necessary aboard commercial planes. Advances in sensor technology, computing and artificial intelligence are making human pilots less necessary than ever in the cockpit and government agencies are already experimenting with replacing the co-pilot, perhaps even both pilots on cargo planes, with robots or remote operators. NASA is exploring a related possibility: moving the co-pilot out of the cockpit on commercial flights, and instead using a single remote operator to serve as co-pilot for multiple aircraft. In this scenario, a ground controller might operate as a dispatcher, managing a dozen or more flights simultaneously. It would be possible for the ground controller to "beam" into individual planes when needed and to land a plane remotely in the event that the pilot became incapacitated — or worse. "Could we have a single-pilot aircraft with the ability to remotely control the aircraft from the ground that is safer than today's systems?" asks Cummings. "The answer is yes."
Automating that job may save money. But will passengers ever set foot on plane piloted by robots, or humans thousands of miles from the cockpit? In written testimony submitted to the Senate last month, the Air Line Pilots Association warned, "It is vitally important that the pressure to capitalize on the technology not lead to an incomplete safety analysis of the aircraft and operations." The association defended the unique skills of a human pilot: "A pilot on board an aircraft can see, feel, smell or hear many indications of an impending problem (PDF) and begin to formulate a course of action before even sophisticated sensors and indicators provide positive indications of trouble." Not all of the scientists and engineers believe that increasingly sophisticated planes will always be safer planes. "Technology can have costs of its own," says Amy Pritchett. "If you put more technology in the cockpit, you have more technology that can fail.""
Automating that job may save money. But will passengers ever set foot on plane piloted by robots, or humans thousands of miles from the cockpit? In written testimony submitted to the Senate last month, the Air Line Pilots Association warned, "It is vitally important that the pressure to capitalize on the technology not lead to an incomplete safety analysis of the aircraft and operations." The association defended the unique skills of a human pilot: "A pilot on board an aircraft can see, feel, smell or hear many indications of an impending problem (PDF) and begin to formulate a course of action before even sophisticated sensors and indicators provide positive indications of trouble." Not all of the scientists and engineers believe that increasingly sophisticated planes will always be safer planes. "Technology can have costs of its own," says Amy Pritchett. "If you put more technology in the cockpit, you have more technology that can fail.""
Did you read the article I quoted? They flew the airplane all the way to the floor in a stall. Every time they pushed the nose down the stall horn started. Every time they (erroneously) pulled *UP*, it silenced. Absent any visual cues and without cross-referencing instruments, they thought they were making things better by maintaining that attitude.
The point I was trying to make is, if the FEP would've allowed the stall horn to sound when at that high alpha, MAYBE they would've kept pushing the nose down, horn be damned, and fly the plane out of the stall. The FEP, to me, was not the cause but definitely a huge contributor.
How about this one? I jokingly call this one the Paris Lawnmower. Airbus A320, during a demo at the Paris Airshow. You know, home court. FEP again got in the way, the pilot asked for more power and up elevator, the computer told him to get bent.
The crew applied full power and the pilot attempted to climb. However, the elevators did not respond to the pilot's commands, because the A320 computer system engaged its 'alpha protection' mode (meant to prevent the aircraft entering a stall.) Less than five seconds later, the turbines began ingesting leaves and branches as the aircraft skimmed the tops of the trees. The combustion chambers clogged up and the engines failed. The aircraft fell to the ground.[2]
There was a theory floated by some that Airbus messed with the FDR data and threw the pilot under the bus. Airbus denies this. We'll never truly know.
And I should know better than to take your flamebait, but here you go: I'm not just a fan of Boeing, I'm a fan of most airplanes out there, old and new, little and big, from many eras, from many makers. Aviation is one of humanity's most useful, influential and coolest achivements. The DC-3 transformed America, The Jet Age (on the wings of the 707 and DC-8) truly transformed the world.
Wanting to have a pilot have the ultimate say is why I'm not too keen on pilotless aircraft under the current state of the art.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
You have a large high power radio transmission tower (or the ability to jump airgaps into ATC transmission networks), and you also have the ability to break whatever message authentication / validation encryption system that such a remote piloting system would use? Cool! Followup question: are you the NSA, or is there another organization that I need to be worried about? Last question: wouldn't it have been about a hundred times easier for you just to buy a couple MANPADs?
Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'