Boeing Studies Planes Without Pilots, Plans Experiments Next Year (seattletimes.com)

"Boeing has begun researching the possibility of commercial-passenger jets that will fly without pilots, using artificial intelligence guiding automated controls to make decisions in flight," reports Seattle Times. The company is planning experimental flights, without passengers, for next year. From the report: "The basic building blocks of the technology are clearly available," said Mike Sinnett, former chief systems engineer on the 787 Dreamliner and now vice president at Boeing responsible for innovative future technologies, at a briefing before the Paris Air Show. "There's going to be a transition from the requirement to have a skilled aviator operate the airplane to having a system that operates the vehicle autonomously, if we can do that with the same level of safety," Sinnett said. Sinnett said Boeing's research is driven by the pilot shortage worldwide that is only going to become more acute. In the next two decades, Boeing forecasts a demand for about 40,000 new commercial jets, roughly doubling the world fleet.

Comments

Cargo

[JBMcB]

I would think this would be a near no-brainer for cargo flights. Probably less so for passenger flights.

I would consider flying a robo-flight if they installed an authentic HAL 9000 eye on the cockpit door, if for no other reason just to see it.

Computer checks pilot

[aberglas]

If you have a pilot at all, they need to actually fly the plane, or they will deskill. No half-smart AutoThrotle that can cause crashes like the Air Asia one.

And then we need a smart AI system to monitor the pilot and warn them if they are doing something stupid. Like trying to land the plane miles short of the runway.

If the pilot does not respond the autopilot can disconnect the controls.

It used to be said that you need a pilot and a dog. The pilot to feed the dog, and the dog to bite the pilot if they touch the controls. But the Autopilot can the job of the dog as well. Maybe electric wires in the seat.

[AutoThrotle -- when flying a small plane, one constantly monitors air speed on descent. But large planes have autothrotles that are like cruise control and do this for the pilot. But if they autothrotle is set to the wrong mode, then nothing is monitoring the air speeed. which has led to several crashes.]

Hudson River

[xbytor]

Let me know when these AIs can land a plane on the Hudson River after a massive bird strike.

Re:Hudson River

[Ichijo]

Or a missing wing!

Re:Hudson River

[postbigbang]

Or a busy airport pushes planes out with a low ceiling on climb. Some nameless fool is using a RaspberryPi3 and doing pirate radio that nulls out the vision system. Engines fail, maybe both. The plane is overloaded with fuel to begin with, for a long flight. Suddenly the options are thin.

Siri? What do we do now? Several tugs and ferries are on the water landing zone, and that unpleasant silence of no thrust is pounding in whose ears? No ears.

It will take a very, very long time before AI can replace human pilots, fallible as they are. What happens when the ILS goes down in the middle of a windy thunderstorm? I've had wind push the tail so hard that we were landing sideways, but lived to tell about it. Feel free to search on windy landings, especially one made of a day at DUS to decide just how much you trust a Boeing program on the rudder pedals.

So many industries are pushing to get rid of transportation drivers because of their supposed costs that it's almost a mantra among the MBAs in transportation companies, who have nickled and dimed us to death. Those pesky pilot unions, always wanting more..... yet many pilots get paid less than bus drivers. It's all about playing to the greed of airlines, who loathe the next political disaster that craters their stock.... and their pension funding (looking at you, United).

Heinlein hit this nail on the head

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never fly on a plane if the pilot isn't also on-board with me. He may not be able to as good a job as the computer and may cost more than a ground-based drone pilot, but in an emergency I know he'll do his damndest to try to save both our lives.

Re: meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Airbus A320 pilot and also a software programmer, albeit not a good one. In any case, you are wrong. Airbus does let you override the computer. In fact, the computer is quite dumb. It only has protections such as bank angle limits. It's still easy to mess up. Even the ECAM (electronic diagnostics and problem resolutions), is still dumb. For example, it can lead you to disconnect two IDGs if blindly followed. Would you want to be over the ocean without electricity?

I love the A320/321 but don't place too much faith on how smart these systems are. They only automate the most benign of tasks.

The Airbus A320 is safer than a 737 but it still requires quite a bit, if not more, knowledge.

Re:Doomed from the get go

[dgatwood]

I can counter that with a suicidal pilot [wikipedia.org] - something that machines don't yet aspire to.

Give them enough time around airline passengers and they will.... :-D

Progress!

[Archtech]

Oh good. In the past there have been incidents when the computers apparently took over an aircraft and locked out the pilots.

http://www.smh.com.au/good-wee...

Now there won't be any pilots to be locked out, so the aircraft can just destroy itself in its own preferred way.