Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Planes Without Pilots

Posted by Soulskill on from the and-now-for-the-overreaction dept.

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.""

59 of 460 comments (clear)

  1. Sensors wrong by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many airline disasters are caused when sensors go wrong or the output is confusing. Air France 447 was one of those incidents. It would be even more confusing to a remote pilot.

    1. Re:Sensors wrong by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To add to this, people seem to forget everything that happened more than a month ago or so. I'd like to see the computer that would have ditched US flight Airways 1549 perfectly into the Hudson River just minutes after the start.

    2. Re:Sensors wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That figure must probably be read like "80% of accidents could have been prevented if pilots had reacted in exactly the right way when some unforeseen technical failure occurred ..."

    3. Re:Sensors wrong by TigerPlish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AF 447 would've had a better chance if the idiotic Airbus un-overridable Flight Envelope Protection had not silenced the stall horn when the aircraft exceeded what the FEP thought was a valid angle of attack.

      The high angle of attack *was* valid, it was reality, it was happening, and whenever the pilots would push the nose down to correct the stall, the stall horn would come on again, so they would pull the nose up again. Which *erroneously* silenced the alarm.

      From the Wikipedia article:

      The stall warnings stopped, as all airspeed indications were now considered invalid by the aircraft's computer due to the high angle of attack.[27] In other words, the aircraft was oriented nose-up but descending steeply. Roughly 20 seconds later, at 02:12 UTC, the pilot decreased the aircraft's pitch slightly, airspeed indications became valid and the stall warning sounded again and sounded intermittently for the remaining duration of the flight, but stopped when the pilot increased the aircraft's nose-up pitch. From there until the end of the flight, the angle of attack never dropped below 35 degrees.

      You see the problem there? The plane thought for the pilot, and it thought wrong.

      FWIW, Boeing's FEP can be completely over-ridden, but not Airbus'. Even with all the benefits of FEP, I think the pilot should always have final say.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    4. Re:Sensors wrong by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To add to this, people seem to forget everything that happened more than a month ago or so. I'd like to see the computer that would have ditched US flight Airways 1549 perfectly into the Hudson River just minutes after the start.

      A point very important you make. Automation is great for instances where sensor data is accurate and a proscribed course of action can be safely followed. More automation can be useful in such cases. However, it's the edge cases where the pilot's judgement is needed to safely operate an aircraft. The USAir 1549 is an excellent example, as is United Flight 232. Could a remote pilot glide a 767 to a safe landing, and avoid cars on the abandoned runway that the copilot happened to know existed, as happened with Gimli Glider? As with many highly complicated devices, automation is a great tool to help the operator in routine, and some casualty, operations; however when things go not as planned and a new twist is added to the scenario you need judgement, not rote rules, and judgement is sorely lacking in automation and difficult to do if you are thousand of miles away and only know what the sensor data feed tells you.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:Sensors wrong by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Is a glide path into a river something beyond the capability of automation? I'm skeptical, but this isn't my field.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Sensors wrong by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >80% of accidents are pilot error

      That doesn't tell the whole story. How many accidents were averted due to human intervention?

    7. Re:Sensors wrong by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      When humans make mistakes, they are generally far more rational and adaptable than a computer when it comes to recognizing them and making corrections. When a computer fucks up, it will usually chug right along on a clearly irrational path until some human steps in and reboots the fucking thing.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:Sensors wrong by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a technical issue, it's a policy issue: A computer will conclude 'no runways within range, you are all going to die.' A human can conclude 'Screw the procedures, I'm going to try a high-risk controlled crash into a river and hope for the best. No other options.'

    9. Re:Sensors wrong by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The decision tree to get to the idea of putting the aircraft down onto anything other than a runway with a CAT I, II or III landing system is beyond automation. Without ILS, the computers on board the aircraft had no idea what the ground infront of them looks like, other than "its there".

    10. Re:Sensors wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mod parent very negative.

      1) "Pilot error" much of the time means, "A committee of a dozen or more people, spending days to months looking over the evidence, employing a cadre of technical experts and judging with hindsight what should have been done, has concluded that the single person or pair of people should in the few seconds/minutes available have made a different decision which may have led to a better outcome".

      In the absence of pilots, this would just be "programmer error" as software doesn't have the benefit of hindsight either;

      2) It's Boeing selling fly-by-wire.

    11. Re:Sensors wrong by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The stall warning was cut off because the readings being fed to it made no sense (they dropped below absolute minimums - the reasoning being that the pilots having sat through 5 minutes of warnings and not changing their approach to flying the aircraft, it won't suddenly fix itself as the horizontal speed drops to zero) - it wasnt cut off because of any automation systems, it was cut off because the readings didnt make any sense.

      But it takes more than an avid Boeing fan to actually read the AF447 report.

    12. Re:Sensors wrong by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You think he was steering that thing like the Wright Flier? The A320 is a highly automated plane. The decision to land in the Hudson was his, but everything else was fly-by-wire - yes, in glide mode too. You can't overrule it on the A320. Everything involved in keeping the wings level and nose at the gentlest possible angle that wouldn't stall was managed by the flight computer - which is why the plane didn't flip when it hit the water.

      The chief engineer of the A320 project actually referred to the plane as "pilot-proof". If Sully had done absolutely nothing from the time the plane lost power, you know what would have happened? Apart from the plane heading to the Hudson, everything else would have been the same. The plane would have done its best to maintain its original trajectory and kept itself stable as long as it could without losing altitude. Then it would automatically have lost just enough altitude to keep it from stalling, keeping itself flying level for as long as physically possible. If Sully in such a situation had started jerking up on the controls trying to get altitude that the plane wasn't capable of achieving, you know what would have happened? Nothing. The plane would have ignored him.

      The pilot in a modern plane like the A320 doesn't manage, and isn't even allowed to manage, the finer details of flying. The plane does that. The pilot is only there for general overarching strategy. The plane makes it happen.

      Even when crashing.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    13. Re:Sensors wrong by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

      There are specific procedures the pilots are supposed to follow when sensors give bad data. The case you cite, the pilots were aware that something was wrong and did not follow the correct procedure.

      The problem is that we are living in a sort of no man's land in between manual and automated. Automated enough that the humans don't pay attention, but not automated enough that the systems can handle a multiple fail scenario.

      One of the problems with the current situation is that aircraft require BOTH Humans AND Computers to do their jobs. Neither one by themselves can cover for the other one.

    14. Re:Sensors wrong by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, pilot error means that they didn't do what they were supposed to do in a given predefined situation. And even many of the others were human error, on the ground side. Actual hardware faults as a whole are a very small minority of plane crashes.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    15. Re:Sensors wrong by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't an automated plane have a different sensor suite? I don't think we are talking about inflating the automatic pilot from Airplane! and calling it a day.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:Sensors wrong by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Why wouldn't it go: "no runways in range, consult chart for alternate landing zones"? I'm thinking that the Hudson (or any other large body of water) would be on the alternates chart.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    17. Re:Sensors wrong by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can't a computer figure out if there are no runways to fall back on emergency options like roads or rivers? Hard, I'm sure, but far from the hardest part of flying a plane.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    18. Re:Sensors wrong by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      80% of accidents may be due to pilot error, but probably close to 99% of all would-be crashes due system failures do not turn into an accident because of pilot intervention, and therefore never make it into the accident statistics. Take the pilots out, and you'll see at least an order of magnitude more crashes unless technology improves drastically.

      I'm a pilot, I've never had a crash (like the vast majority of pilots), but I've had several situations where automation failed (either completely shutting off or doing something unexpected and dangerous) and a crash would have resulted if we hadn't taken over.

      In fact, there are lots of crashes that are attributed to pilot error not because the pilots were the only cause for the accident, but because some system failure occurred that should have been handled safely by a well-trained pilot and somehow wasn't. We are expected to handle these problems, so if we don't, it's our fault (and rightly so).

      Take Air France 447 for example, airspeed sensors iced up, autopilot disconnected, other flight crews in the past had had the same problem but handled it well, these pilots got confused and crashed. Probably goes into the statistics as pilot error, but without pilots the plane would have crashed anyway. Every time, including on those flights where the crew did handle the situation correctly (even with inadequate procedures for this particular failure at the time) and landed safely.

      Another example, the Turkish Airlines flight that crashed short of the runway in Amsterdam. The plane was flying on autopilot, yet it's "pilot error" because the pilots should have immediately reacted when the autothrottles pulled the throttles back to idle and the airspeed decayed rapidly. Caused by a malfunctioning radio altimeter which let the automation think the plane was low above the runway and it was therefore safe to pull the throttles back for touchdown. There's a reason why we have an initial training and a yearly recurrent training for automatic landings. Haven't had the training? Manual landings only.

      So no, automation is not safer than human pilots. Not by a long shot, at least not yet. And given the slow pace of technological advancement in aviation, it will be a very long time before it will be.

      Take military drones, for example. Their mission is not exactly complicated: in relatively nice weather, take off, fly a predetermined route, drop some bombs, fly back and land. There aren't nearly as many drones as airliners flying around, yet drones crashes happen all the time, it's not even news.

    19. Re:Sensors wrong by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What sensor suite would that be? Even military systems find it inordinately difficult to discriminate between ground targets amongst ground clutter, and thats with human guidance.

      Currently an aircraft cannot find and airport and land without external input, be it GPS, ILS or other such systems - and thats to a well defined landing point. A computer would have to identify a safe location to ditch, make decisions based on available data and extrapolated data, and then actually perform the ditching.

      Another point to make about the Hudson ditching was that it was only successful because the pilot specifically skipped a load of stuff in the checklist and told the co-pilot to fire up the APU, because he knew there wasn't going to be enough electrical power from the engines and RAT to give him full command authority - he would lose things like flaps and spoilers, meaning his options would be much more limited. If he hadn't done that, chances are he wouldn't have made it even to the Hudson.

    20. Re:Sensors wrong by Rei · · Score: 2

      The simple facts are, accident rates on planes have gone way down as the amount of automation has gone way up. Computers are simply more reliable than pilots. The fact that most crashes come down to pilot error is a big problem, despite how you present it (ground error being probably the next most common). A computer will always follow the checklist for the right response to a given problem ("some system failure occurred that should have been handled safely by a well-trained pilot and somehow wasn't."). Pilots screw up.

      As for military drones, please, they're not at all comparable to commercial aircraft. Most don't even have a flight radar or anti-collision systems. They were designed to be gotten out to the battlefield as soon as possible, in as little development time and unit cost as possible - and they're not exactly flying a regular London to NYC route either.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    21. Re:Sensors wrong by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Theoretically, it can do that. Practically, somebody has to figure out all the possible emergency options ahead of time, along with how to rank them by desirability, for the computer to choose one. An experienced pilot can reason through his options based on his experience and knowledge of the actual situation facing him. A computer has to be preprogrammed with all possible options and how to rank them by someone who has to imagine all the possible situations before they happen.

    22. Re:Sensors wrong by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But it was. It kept the plane stable within the flight envelope so it wouldn't stall at low speed it flew, limiting the angle of attack to a safe one even when the pilot used his side stick for maximum nose pitch up. It helped to lessen the pilot's workload during the landing.

      You can read it all up in the NTSB report of the accident:
      http://www.ntsb.gov/investigat...

      For example this:

      The Airbus simulation indicated that the airplane performed as designed and was in the alpha-protection mode from 150 feet to touchdown. As discussed previously, the captain's attention was narrowed, which would have made it difficult for him to maintain awareness of the airplane's low-speed condition during the descent.

      or this:

      Despite being unable to complete the Engine Dual Failure checklist, the captain started the auxiliary power unit, which improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring that a primary source of electrical power was available to the airplane and that the airplane remained in normal law and maintained the flight envelope protections, one of which protects against a stall.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    23. Re:Sensors wrong by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are talking about billions of sites across the globe - and sites would be dependent on weather, local conditions, change of use etc etc etc. What if on that fateful day, one of the Hudson's ferries happening to be in the way but there wasn't enough power available to allow the use of the forward radar? What if the field pre-chosen had suddenly turned into a camp site? Or had a combine harvester and a fuel bowser parked in the middle of it. What if the Hudson was iced over?

      As for the APU, the issue is that it simply was way down on the checklist - and a lot of things on that checklist can't be done in parallel etc Just because a computer has a speed advantage, doesn't mean it can use it. It was a concious decision from the PIC to fire up the APU out of checklist order. You don't find concious decisions coming from computers.

    24. Re:Sensors wrong by brambus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is such an ignorant post I can't believe it. It appears you've never actually had an airplane's controls in your hands.
      1) Fly-by-wire isn't what you think it is. It simply means there are no mechanical linkages.
      2) Airbus' computer-over-human approach is no panacea and it has resulted in numerous near-disasters, one of the most recent ones.
      3) Even Airbus isn't religious about this approach. Read up on Alternate Law and Direct Law.
      4) Had Sully not maneuvered USAirways 1549, it'd have landed in the middle of housing.
      5) Water landings require you to do a flare & float to stall just feet above the water level to minimize airspeed. If he had not done this, the airplane could have easily smashed itself apart, since an A320 power-off glide rate of descent is around 1500 fpm. Water isn't soft at these kinds of speeds you know.

    25. Re:Sensors wrong by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Ahh, Wikipedia articles. One minor step up from UTTER AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

      Try reading the accident reports on both of your chosen examples - they differ wildly from the Wikipedia articles conclusions.

      In the case of AF296, the aircraft performed exactly as it should have - if the aircraft had allowed the commanded elevator action, the aircraft would have stalled and come down before the tree line. The issue with AF296 is that the pilot was being a fucking twat, had descended to below the height of local obstacles, and dropped the engines back to idle - the engines responded to the commanded thrust increase within the engine manufacturers specs, which is to say that it takes several seconds to spool up from idle to the setting the pilot input. By which time the aircraft was in the trees.

      The pilot should not have been flying at that altitude with the engines at idle, they should have been at a high thrust level and he should have been controlling his speed using spoilers, flaps and other aerodynamic devices - if he had done that, he would have had instant power available when he needed it. The bloke was a twat.

      If the same manoeuvre had been attempted in a Boeing 737, with the same vectors and the same thrust inputs, the aircraft would still be in the trees.

      The theory that Airbus messed with the FDR and CVR is also rubbish, and has been proven in the past to be rubbish - there was a period of "missing data", but that was caused by the tape being folded over, and when folded back again to how it was the data all matches up. A lot of the rumours about data tampering came about from a grainy photo taken of the crash scene, which showed the FDR with a completely different stripe on it than there was in the official photo of the recovered FDR - hence it not being the same FDR. But the original negatives of this photo have never been released for confirmation, and other photos of the same scene show the correct stripe on the FDR.

      Remember that the pilot involved in AF296 spent time in prison and has lost every court case he brought against Air France, Airbus, the French aviation regulatory body and everyone else - he is also the main proponent of tampering theories etc by Airbus.

      Take it from me - don't assume that Wikipedia articles are unbiased and fair. If you follow the aviation articles long enough, you see some very "interesting" edits and roll backs going on - entire sections backed up by aviation regulatory board citations go "missing", and negative hearsay gets put in its place. These edits only really seem to affect the Airbus pages...

    26. Re:Sensors wrong by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the aircraft is unlikely to be capable of evaluating the safety of those alternate landing zones. It couldn't coordinate with authorities on the ground easily to clear a road, for example, and rivers often have boats on them. It might be possible but it would be pretty hard to program an autopilot to land anywhere other than a runway, which has ILS and other landing aids, in a manner that doesn't sent it crashing into buildings or otherwise just cause a bigger disaster.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:Sensors wrong by Rei · · Score: 2

      Air France Flight 296 was crew error. And the body count was "3". The only thing the fly-by-wire system did was prevent their attempt to pull up before they had the speed to actually pull up; the plane was already doomed because they were too close to the trees before they realized their mistake.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    28. Re:Sensors wrong by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      The plane would calmly throttle up and abort landing, the same way pilots would be trained to do? What do you even think you're saying here?

    29. Re:Sensors wrong by sjames · · Score: 2

      Which translates to "The pilot didn't do what they were supposed to do in the predefined situation that took us a month to determine was the case".

      In other words, first you have to determine what the situation is, and that's not always trivial, even in retrospect.

    30. Re:Sensors wrong by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "Wouldn't an automated system have "ditch" sites programmed in?"

      Yes, if it's programmed to do so.

      "It wouldn't need to be smart enough to identify a river - just know that the river is there."

      No, the one that needed to be smart enough is the programer, and if the programer is that smart he'd immediately ditch it as an option since he wouldn't now in advance if the river is frozen, deep enough, sustained traffic at the moment of the accident, etc.

      The fact is that the automated system would need to be as fast as the human to evaluate the situation (very easy), had the ability to process as much environmental information as the human to input the evaluation process (very hard) and as clever as the human to think out of the box (impossible in the next few decades).

      No. Taking off the pilot from the cockpit is as of now not in the slightest about increasing security but about how higher a dead toll looks acceptable for better financial results.

    31. Re:Sensors wrong by mjwx · · Score: 2

      You think he was steering that thing like the Wright Flier? The A320 is a highly automated plane. The decision to land in the Hudson was his, but everything else was fly-by-wire - yes, in glide mode too.

      Sigh,

      It looks like you dont know what "fly by wire" is. Fly by wire is simply replacing mechanical controls (as in pneumatics, cables, pulleys and so forth) with electronic ones (as in sensors and solenoids). Modern cars are the same with "drive by wire". It simply means your go pedal isn't attached to the throttle body by a cable like it is in my old Nissan.

      If Sully had done absolutely nothing from the time the plane lost power, you know what would have happened?

      We'd be calling it a tragedy instead of a miracle because the plane would have landed in the middle of a bunch of houses... and by landed we mean crashed in a spectacular fireball.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  2. Why not both? by js3 · · Score: 2

    I'm still blown away that there is no active ground monitoring of all flight wherever they may be in 2015. We still have planes "disappearing" because nobody knows where they are once they leave the ground.

    So instead of having two pilots, why not have a computer monitoring system that actively monitors airplanes with only 1 pilot in it. Any weird actions by the pilot would trigger a warning allowing ground operators to override it. Boom, no more missing planes, or suicidal pilots.

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
  3. Technology can indeed fail by Rei · · Score: 2

    Such as the pilot's control hardware, indicators, windscreens, oxygen supply....

    And I know some people will just go, "Well, what if the pilot or copilot on the ground goes rogue and takes over?" The obvious response is that they'd be operating in a secure facility with dozens of other people and extensive supervision; nobody is ever going to just let any random person secretly take over a plane without anyone else knowing. And no, ATC systems are not net connected. I work in an ATC center, when I need to look something up online while trying to debug a problem I have to use my cell phone or go back to my office.

    Probably the simplest solution to all of this would just be an additional entry to the CPDLC standard, and the hardware changes necessary to support it: one that locks out the pilot from all control and switches the autopilot on, set to the last flight plan agreed to by both ground and the pilot. One would of course have to make sure that there's no way for the pilot, while he's still in control, to sneakily break the datalink communication stream fast enough that ground wouldn't have time from the onset of suspicious activity to send the command.

    Having highly reliable communications would be critical for any pilot-override or remote piloting system. In each case, any cutoff in communications should force on the autopilot as per above until communications could be reestablished.

    --
    Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    1. Re:Technology can indeed fail by BostonPilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a pilot, I would never fly an aircraft which has a remote capability to take control away from me. As a passenger, I would never fly in an aircraft in which remote control could be taken away from the crew. I don't even think the "remote copilot" is a good idea. There are a lot of good reasons to fly with a crew of 2... it's not just workload and risk of incapacitation. When things get weird, it's good to have another person to bounce ideas off of. United Airlines Flight 232 is a great example of that, and there are plenty more.

      This isn't the first time we've seen suicide by the crew, but it's extremely rare (I can think of maybe 5-6 in 40 years). It sucks to be the people in the back when that happens, but it also sucks when an airplane drops on your house and kills you and your family. I'm as worried about one than the other which is: not very. We can improve the situation some: better screening of crew, USA style "always two people in the cockpit" rules... To suddenly decide that we can't trust the crew despite the fantastic safety record aviation has is just ludicrous.

       

  4. Shortsighted linke always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A pilot saves all passengers by emergeny landing in the Hudson river, and everybody prÃzises the virtues of human pilots. A pilot Mills himself and 149 passengers and crew, and promptly we should geht rid of human pilots.

  5. We'll never learn by Aethedor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And when the first plane crashes due to a bug in the pilot software, we all start wondering again if removing the pilot was a wise decision.

    This whole Germanwings plane crash shows, again, one important thing: people suck at dealing with risks. Several hundred thousands of flights went well. The last incident with a pilot causing a plane to crash was back in 1995. The Germanwings plane crash was an incident. We must learn to treat it that way, as an incident. No reason to panic and start changing policies, rules and procedures. With every change, new risks and new ways of things to go wrong will be introduced. When that happens and you again make changes, you end up in a loop of changing things. The result: the changes will cost a lot of time, energy and money while the risks are not reduced.

    We need to start accepting that risks are part of our life. Unacceptable risks need to be dealt with, but more important: acceptable risks should be accepted, even when they occur!!!!

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
  6. Race to the bottom much? by johnnys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just put two reasonably competent people in the cockpit at all times and stop trying to f**k an extra penny out of every dime, you cheap chiselling b*st*rds.

    Right now many feeder airlines are barely paying a living wage for their junior cockpit staff, so stop pretending that the personnel costs are going to put you out of business. You're certainly not passing along the recent fuel cost savings to us sardines.

    (I haven't had my coffee yet, so that's my excuse for the "negative tone" in this post.)

    --
    Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
    1. Re:Race to the bottom much? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Just put two reasonably competent people in the cockpit at all times and stop trying to f**k an extra penny out of every dime, you cheap chiselling b*st*rds.

      Right now many feeder airlines are barely paying a living wage for their junior cockpit staff, so stop pretending that the personnel costs are going to put you out of business. You're certainly not passing along the recent fuel cost savings to us sardines.

      Pretty much any pilot working for a regional airline is a brand new pilot fresh out of flight school. That's with essentially no experience, just their ratings. A little Googling shows that after their first year, an FO at expressjet makes over 30k a year at almost $35 an hour at a 75 hour per month guarantee. To put that in perspective, the ground crew at my airline have to work for 4.5 years before they make that much. Many pilots live in crash pads that cost them $200-400 a month, utilities included. assuming they are a decent pilot, within 10 years they generally have enough hours and experience to apply for a major airline. Any pilot who come through the military has a pretty good shot at going straight to a major or cargo airline as opposed to a regional one. At the major airline I work for, currently the most junior FO on the lowest seniority A/C type makes $133 per hour, and are guaranteed at least 65 hours of pay per month. That is over $8600 a month. There are plenty of jobs that pay a lot less than what a brand new, zero experience pilot makes. Worst case, if they take 10 years to get to a major airline they are making over $60k at the regional then over $100k at the major. Until then, low-mid 30s and up (for only 2-3 years experience) is not exactly what many people would call a "barely living wage"(I was able to do just fine with much less than that), and it's certainly still better than the wage most of the people loading the planes, or even working security for the planes, are making.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Race to the bottom much? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      I'm curious which budget do you accuse them of being "cheap" with in this instance... ...the salary budget to pay for reasonably competent pilots, or the medical/psych budget to screen reasonably competent pilots at regular intervals?

      It would have perhaps helped if they did not completely ignore the warning signs of depression with this particular pilot. Yet again, likely budget constraints, but perhaps not the ones most obvious.

      Hint: Most pilots pay for their medicals out of their own pocket.

      And pilots really are paid piss-poor - after spending $50,000 getting your ATPL certificates and required hours to even go for an airliner, you get greeted with a whopping $20K/year job and shit routes. At a regional airline, since the big guys traditionally don't hire fresh new guys until they had a few thousand hours under their belt.

      Now, you can ask who are these crazy people who basically will spend 3/4s of a month away from their families for shit pay? Well, they're amongst the most dedicated pilots around - no one really does it out of necessity (I'm sure a McJob paying minimum wage would net you more, and you don't have flying school debt), so there's also an element of "don't ground me" involved as well. And given the really cyclical nature, you want to avoid any excuse to have your company lay you off.

      Of course, it's not all bleak - after a few years In the regionals, the pay does perk up some, Get left seat (captain) in a regional and you're looking at $50-70K, though most people jump to the airlines because even though you start at the bottom (typically - though airline backed regionals sometimes have seniority transfer), after a decade or so you can start getting paid in the 6 figures.

      But yeah, next time you're flying domestic, even with the airlines, the guy up front who is responsible for your safe arrival probably makes less than most of the /. crowd. (And no, when they're stopping over at a remote destination, they usually have to pay for their hotel, or sleep at the corporate office at the airport. At bigger hubs, a few pilots would often get together to pay for an apartment (lovingly called a "crash pad") to at least save on hotel bills and get a bit more peace and quiet away from the airport. It may only be a single room apartment where 3-4 (out of maybe 10 or so) will stay every night - the lucky one gets the bed, the next the sofa, everyone else lays a mattress on the floor.

  7. Perfect security by scotts13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone want to guarantee 100% perfect security for ANY wireless communication? Because if we have remotely piloted airliners (either because there's no pilot, or the pilot is suicidal) someone WILL hack into it.

    1. Re:Perfect security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyone want to guarantee 100% perfect security for ANY wireless communication? Because if we have remotely piloted airliners (either because there's no pilot, or the pilot is suicidal) someone WILL hack into it.

      Or 100% reliability for starters: it's 2015 and yet still you can easily lose your WiFi connection while sitting only 3 feet away from the access point.

    2. Re:Perfect security by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good point. Someone should recommend they not use home wifi routers for the mission-critical communications on commercial airliners.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:Perfect security by GIL_Dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You wouldn't NEED to hack into it (although it is certainly a legitimate vector). Less technical "terrorists" could simply use enough force to take over a tower or control center and send commands from an authorized terminal (likely with an authorized ID gotten by the "rubber hose" method). You would then be able to proceed to down any planes in the control area of that tower. I think I would rather have the smarts controlling the plane (whether it be computer or pilot controlled) on the plane with outside access limited to when it is requested by at least a couple of members of the flight crew.

    4. Re:Perfect security by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anyone want to guarantee 100% perfect security for ANY wireless communication? Because if we have remotely piloted airliners (either because there's no pilot, or the pilot is suicidal) someone WILL hack into it.

      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.'
    5. Re:Perfect security by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 2

      Because signals from commercial/industrial antennas cannot have interference or be actively jammed...

    6. Re:Perfect security by kheldan · · Score: 2

      Glad I'm not the first one to say this for a change.

      I wonder, however: How come I get shot down every single time I make a similar comment/observation about autonomous, driverless, manual-control-less cars? It's really not that different.

      Anyway.. If they want the ability to remote pilot commercial aircraft, that might not be a bad thing at all in emergency situations, so long as every effort is made to ensure the security of the system against hacking -- but there must still be a human pilot. Otherwise who the hell is going to trust it?

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Perfect security by barc0001 · · Score: 2

      >Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.

      Yes. That's one problem with any sort of mission critical wireless. It can be jammed by people with ill intent.

    8. Re:Perfect security by Fortran+IV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Same for the Air Canada flight that ran out of fuel halfway to its destination. It had Boeing's new "glass cockpit" with computer screens for everything, and guess what? When the engines died for lack of fuel, so did the computers. The crew were left with a handful of the most basic instruments; something like artificial horizon, airspeed, and altimeter.

      As I recall, the pilot landed that one safely because the plane had a mechanical backup system (an air turbine) that gave him minimal hydraulic power—and also because he was an experienced glider pilot who probably got more miles out of his starting altitude than most professionals (or computer systems) could have.

      --
      I figure by 2030 or so my 6-digit UID will be something to brag about.
    9. Re:Perfect security by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 2
      I design aircraft engines for a living. Much as I am an early-adopter type I cannot agree with the assertion that a pilotless plane is safer than one with a man in the loop. At least not yet.

      The question is not whether we could build a plane that could fly itself safely, we already build plenty of those, they're called 'drones' and any modern airliner can be specced with options to fly itself from gate to gate on an ordinary day including typical bad weather. The question that is not being properly addressed is this: does having a human pilot avoid more accidents that would have happened, than they cause by error? It is very hard to quantify the former number but tragically easy to quantify the latter.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  8. Remote link failure imply stand alone operation by jcdr · · Score: 2

    Remote operation imply data transfer, usually by radio, and this is the weakest part of the system. To ensure that the aircraft stay in safe operation without remote link, it fist must be able to sustain stand alone operation, including landing before running out of fuel.

    Concentrating control to a single point will increase the risk, concentrating control to a remote point will add an another layer of risk. The only solution is to allow distributed control, and this imply that each aircraft is able to operate safely by itself without remote control.

    If you are not convinced, just imagine that a remote control point is unable to operate for some reason: you have now dozen of flight without co-pilot and there need to all land as soon as possible, raising a another wave of problems.

  9. Re:And airplanes without passengers... by sonamchauhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Instead of having airlines staff the flight deck back up again to previous levels (i.e. reinstating the flight engineer, or adding a third pilot), cue the snake-oil salesmen with the same pitch - irresistible to airlines - which got us into this mess.

    "Shame about that last crash...
    "You know, you _CAN_ increase safety _AND_ lower costs
    "How? Well, for starters, one less pilot on the flight deck...

  10. Nonsense by snake_case_hoschi · · Score: 2

    I have wondered already, why the reckless ideas didn't poped up early and where invalided by sane arguments:
    * remote control means == remote attack vector/system error, could crash a thousand planes at once
    * humans can react indvidually on unknown problems (wrong and right, but at least they can)
    * never ever a sane person will give his life to a computer (did anyone trust windows? linux? macos?)
    * planes are not cars, if a computer on a car "fails" it will probably crash, if it fails on a plane *it will crash*

    And here an good example to trust pilots in case of emergency (german source):
    http://www.sueddeutsche.de/pan...

    Short:
    1. wrong sensor data
    2. computer believes sensors
    3. computer starts fast descent
    4. experienced pilot decides to turn of flight-computer
    5. 109 passenger saved ...
    5. airbus releases updates for flight-computer and new manual for pilots

    This story was released only four days before the tragic incident with Germanwings. Flight number "LH 1829" means Lufthansa, same basically same airline.

  11. One black swan and they go crazy... by gweihir · · Score: 2

    What about a bit of actually professional risk management? That one says this is an event that is exceptionally rare and that hence does not need countermeasures. The very extent of the press-coverage shows how exceptionally rare it was.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  12. Jamming not Hacking by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    someone WILL hack into it.

    It's worse than that - all they need to do is jam it which would be trivially easy to do. For example if you put powerful transmitters into a van, parked it somewhere on the approach path to a busy airport and turned it on you would suddenly have craft who were on approach lose all control and by the time authorities tracked down the van and shut it off who knows how many planes would have crashed.

    Remote control planes with passengers on are a stupendously bad idea. There is no way I'm flying on a plane which is not under the control of someone onboard whose life also depends on the plane landing safely. Even with such a strong motivation as that we have seen disaster happen - how much more likely will it be if the pilots are sitting remotely and have even less at stake? Suddenly things like disgruntled employees crashing planes becomes imaginable.

  13. The cockpit of the future by eis2718bob · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a very old joke by now but...

    The cockpit of the future will have two seats - for a pilot and a dog. The dog's job is to bite the pilot if he touches anything.

    The pilot's job is to feed the dog.

  14. Seems to Miss The Point by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

    If we want to prevent suicidal pilots, removing the second pilot, the only one capable of stopping him, is definitely not going to help with this. This is strictly a money saving venture, that will remove a layer of safety and redundancy.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  15. Horse, cart by fulldecent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    90%+ of comments here have been regarding lack of onboard pilots with commercial passenger flights.

    Naturally, the first offboard pilot flights would be with cargo only. And that is way more relevant and less sexy discussion.

    --

    -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

  16. Makes no sense whatsoever by jonwil · · Score: 2

    The number of people saved over the years by pilots doing things with airplanes that no computer system (or remote operator) could ever have done vastly outnumbers the number of people killed because of deliberate actions by pilots.

    Examples of such heroic flights where lives may not have been saved without pilots in the cockpit include:
    US Airways Flight 1549
    British Airways Flight 9
    Air Canada Flight 143
    British Airways Flight 38
    Northwest Airlines Flight 85
    TACA Flight 110
    United Airlines Flight 232
    Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8