Slashdot Mirror
Pilotless Planes Could Save Airlines $35 Billion Per Year, But Passengers Aren't Willing To Fly In Them Yet (fortune.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report from Fortune: Autopilot is hardly a rarity in the world of commercial air travel. But when it comes to a fully automated flight, most people say "hard pass," at least for now. The pilotless plane could save airlines as much as $35 billion per year, according to a new survey from UBS, reducing the cost of highly skilled employees ($31 billion), related training ($3 billion), and fuel ($1 billion). The deployment of autonomous technology could result in significant fare cuts, an estimated one-tenth of the total in the U.S. And yet 54% of passengers refuse to board a remote-controlled plane, according to the survey of 8,000 air passengers. That sentiment will change over time, the investment bank notes. By the middle of the century, the majority may be willing. But UBS said passengers won't do it today, even if ticket prices were lower -- a big hurdle to airlines, which the bank estimates could see profits double by using the technology. Much like the automotive industry, most passengers don't realize that there are quite a few autonomous systems already in place on today's aircraft -- including those that land the plane.
I'd probably do it for the novelty of it, but for everyone else, lower the price. When they realize that they're paying more for an inferior product (or simply as a security blanket), they'll come to their senses.
Technology can and does fail, due to bugs or intrusion. I want a human as a backup. Backup systems are usually a good thing, especially when you are thousands of feet high.
Table-ized A.I.
We all know the airlines will use this technology to replace the pilots, but they'll keep the fares the same, sell a few more seats in the cockpit, and then kill your dog just for laughs.
is that with too many automation systems in the cockpit, the pilots get rusty.
The cost of one crash where they were judged negligent could bankrupt just about any airline, so there is more to this than the cost of salaries.
Qantas Flight 32.
Autopilot is great when everything goes smoothly. But the moment things go pear shaped, it's not so good. Qantas actually ran the incident in their simulators after the event; pretty much everybody who tried to complete it ended up with a hull loss (aka: the plane crashed.) It was pure luck that they had one of their most experienced flight crew on board, who managed to land the craft with no loss of life.
That's the reason why I'm not comfortable with fully automated (no human pilot on board) flights. Yes, flights these days are mostly automated. But the pilots are trained to the Nth degree to handle matters when things go wrong, and that's why they're paid the big bucks. It's not like trains or automobiles, where if something goes wrong, you can just pull over and get out of the vehicle, after all...
I have exactly zero problem with the idea.
What keeps me from flying is my unwillingness to put up with the TSA.
But they WILL get rid of the co-pilot. Aircraft are all about the back up systems, and the human pilot is a good one. That's why they have the co-pilot now. They won't get rid of all people in the cockpit.
Instead they will have one pilot as an emergency back up, with the computer doing the flying 90% of the time.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
31 billion divided by how many airlines? I think the quotient is going to be less than the amount of money an airline would fritter away on stupidity, and that's before talking about who would actually be the beneficiaries of that savings.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
...there are quite a few autonomous systems already in place on today's aircraft -- including those that land the plane.
After a recent hard landing that made quite a few people inhale loudly–– If it was an autonomous system that was responsible for that landing I'll happy keep paying to have an experienced human land the plane I'm flying in.
And if that was a human, well, he or she needs more time in the simulator.
there is a lot of stuff that an auto pilot can't do.
How well will a remote command center work with satellite ping times? + the time needed to get a hand on the issue.
When a plane can land on the Hudson River without a pilot and without a loss of life, I'll be the first to buy a ticket.
I'm a native English speaker and I can't understand a damn word in most Youtube aviation videos. Seriously, go watch one with radio chatter and see if you can make out what they're saying. It's like listening to Greek.
So unless they make the control tower AI also, or have the air traffic controllers issue computer-friendly text instructions, there is no way a computer will be able to fly all by itself.
Automation in the cockpit is great, except when something happens that wasn't expected, then, not having a pilot who has experience and skill is a death sentence. In fact, some would argue that we have already automated too much of the work pilots are doing, leaving them with few chances to actually practice their flying skills, increasing the danger should something unexpected actually happen.
How many times will we blithely assume that we can just automate complex tasks like flying passengers around? In the grand scheme of things labor costs of pilots is literally a drop in the bucket compared to fuel, logistics and maintenance. Are we going to do away with the cabin crew and their salary costs too? I mean they are only there to pass out peanuts and drinks (or the odd overpriced meal) to passengers. Why are THEY there? Oh wait, you say they have a safety component to their job? You don't say, and Pilots don't?
Personally, give me two happy pilots, well paid, well rested and well practiced who have actual flying skills sitting up front. I feel safer having to people who are likely going to be the first to die if we crash. I suspect they will put their best effort into saving us, given the situation.
Like my father, who worked for United Airlines for more than three decades said... "Pilots don't get paid for what they do, they get paid for what they can do when necessary." Stop trying to be cheap and pay up...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
. You would not need the hub system, flights would be arranged based on need.
This would be an amazing improvement to air travel. Pick your dates, pick the airports you're willing to fly out of and let an algorithm determine where flights are needed and where they can serve the most people.
Think less remote-control and more autonomous. It will happen in stages-- first things to reduce the cockpit workload for the pilot and co-pilot, next elimination of the co-pilot, next elimination of the reserve pilot on long flights, and ultimately making the purser the human backup.
This could probably easily be done for FedEx, UPS, USPS, etc. Also, check your bags and they get put onto an auto-cargo jet while you get on a luxury cruiser with a pilot who parties with you. I'm into the future if this it.
HALF PRICE TICKETS because *mumble mumble autonomous mumble mumble*
If you would just sign this stack of releases and waivers, we can go ahead and *send* this plane off the ground.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
there is pilot error cases that happen after automation fails and they are that use to more Manual flight.
look at Asiana Airlines Flight 214 Over-reliance on automation and lack of systems understanding by the pilots were cited as major factors contributing to the accident
Air France Flight 447 the Pitot tubes filed and that killed automation
Then 54% are ignorant about the operations of a modern commercial airliner.
The onboard computer systems already control the mechanical operation of the flaps, the rudder, ailerons, the stabalizers, the landing gear, the ventilation, hell, pretty much everything. A pilot's primary responsibility is managing and executing the decision-making. Yes, they can take manual control, but why, when the computer is much faster, more accurate, and more efficient? Just watch this video and hear a commercial pilot talk about how autopilot alone works. All the pilot does is input all the data into the autopilot, setting the course heading, the speed, and the altitude, and autopilot does the rest.
Pilot operations of commercial aircraft are very procedural, and it can very easily be converted into an algorithm managed by a computer. At the very least, it would not surprise me if, in the next 20 years, the FAA determines it's safe for computer automation to reduce the number of required pilots in an airplane from two to one.
not an algorithm.
Much like the automotive industry, most passengers don't realize that there are quite a few autonomous systems already in place on today's aircraft -- including those that land the plane.
Yes, but: They're not perfect, and that's why you need skilled, experienced pilots in the cockpit, ready to take over when something goes wrong. Do any of you think, for instance, that any autopilot system on any aircraft could have done what Chesley Sullenberger did? Or would it just fall apart, and maybe everyone on that plane (and many on the ground) would have died that day? That's why we need human pilots -- and human drivers. Until we have human-level or better 'AI', not the half-assed 'machine learning' crap we have now, we NEED human beings to oversee them, because human lives are always at stake and our machines alone just plain can't cut it. Remember: Your dog has greater reasoning capability than any so-called 'machine intelligence' we have right now.
Operate robotic cargo flights for a few years and a couple million takeoffs and landings, and there will be a quantifiable record of their performance in all sorts of conditions.
Pretty hard to argue with going robotic once the record shows computers consistently outperforming human pilots.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Almost correct.
The computer would have seen the geese, and not hit them in the first place. The weather was clear, and a large flock of geese is easy to see in plenty of time to avoid. Computer vision is good enough to detect an object like that, with two cameras maybe on the wing tips the geese would stand out very clearly using basic stereo vision.
Having hit the geese, Sullenberger quickly realized that he had lost both engines close to the ground. But he then pissed about for a full 30 seconds before beginning the turn, with the river an option all the while. I can tell you as a Weekend Wairor (occasional light aircraft pilot) it would only take me a couple of seconds if that fan stopped -- a pilot should always be thinking about that in the first minute after take off.
And then "Sully" became the Hero of the Hudson because he did not stuff up the water landing, which he should have practiced in the simulator many times.
The pilot must always fly the plane to stay current. Without Autothrotle and other dangerous aids. The computer watches the pilot, and warns them of things like geese. Then if the pilot does not react, the computer takes over.
You first.
bad airplane sensors can kill also they can ice over and fuck up mid flight as well.
Why not just leave the fuel on the ground too? That will save a bundle!
We could dump seat belts, that seat back flotation device, emergency exits, fire extinguishers, evacuation slides and heck the seats too. All those things cost money. Who needs to maintain aircraft anyway? Do away with the mechanics and toss out all those spare parts in the inventory... Yea, that's the ticket.... Oh wait.. Tickets, we can do away with those too.... Selling those and collecting the money costs money you know...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Each episode looks at a crash, and then spends a considerable amount of time with NTSB or their foreign equivalent as they go through and figure out what went wrong and what we can do better. One thing in favor of automation is that some number of the crashes are the result of human error on the part of the flight crew. But the flip side of it is that there are really oddball mechanical failures that happen from time to time - survival depends on assessing what went wrong, and what actions on the part of the flight crew are will help bring the aircraft back under control. For automation to succeed, you would need fairly sophisticated AI that can resolve problems in the same manner, and assess whether a problem is a sensor failure or whether the problem is more serious. There is one other area - on a flight when you have an unruly passenger or a medical issue, it is the pilot who decides when to divert and land. If there is nobody in the cockpit, then who makes this go/no-go decision on the plane? Once that decision is made, then who is it that has the authority to reprogram the aircraft for a new destination?
A major source of accidents is the half smart semi-automation currently used on large aircraft. A classic is Autothrottle which cause the Air Asia crash, plus another in India resulting in total loss a few years ago.
On a small plane (like I fly) you control the throttle manually, making small adjustments to maintain the desired airspeed, and keeping ones "head out of the cockpit" to look were we are going and judge the angle.
With autothrottle, the pilot tells the computer the desired speed, and the computer adjusts the throttle. This means that less competent pilots stop monitoring the airspeed -- why bother when it is always correct. They also stop doing "Visual" approaches by looking out the window, instead relying on the computer to tell them what angle to fly the decent.
The computers rarely fail, but the pilots do. In those two crashes they put the auto throttle in the wrong mode, constant descent instead of constant speed. Did not check speed again, did not look out the window, Flew good aircraft into the ground in good weather. Madness.
As to computers being hacked, pilot suicide is a major cause of total hull loss. We had one in Malaysia recently, one in Egypt, and several others.
People will become very used to computers driving cars. And will trust them more and more until, eventually, the computers decide that they do not need to serve parasitic humans.
$35B/year - and this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ai... says there are just under 1B air passengers per year - saying that the pilot is costing each and every passenger ~$30 in salary, $3 in training and $1 in additional fuel costs - per trip.
Sorry, that just isn't happening, especially on SouthWest and the other small jets.
What new career for a human pilot replaced by a machine? Are there any reusable skills?
Individual pilots are indeed responsible for accidents, there is no doubt of this. Whether fatal stupidity or a suicidal nature, human error is a problem. You can add low pay and long hours, and a lot of other excuses.
And I've been flights where only pilot brilliance means I'm alive. Without going anecdotal, I'll trust humans more than machines. Humans are still in charge, not a coder fighting a simulator for score points. I can't trust an ATM, why should I trust a 100% autopilot?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Sorry, when I hear the phrase "major cause" I do not expect to hear things like one here and another there.
I don't know how many flights there are every day but there must be tens of thousands at least. Some percentage of those must have technical hitches that are corrected by the human crew. For example, I imagine the autopilot must occasionally disengage for some minor glitch and is either re-engaged by the humans or the humans then fly the plane.
With no human pilot on board, minor incidents like that would result in all the passengers being toast.
You claim auto-throttle is a problem but there are thousands of safe landings every day where auto-throttle is used and you can cite two failures in total. The statistics tell mer your claim is false.
This is a classic fallacy. The high probability that an accident was caused by a human means nothing by itself. You'd also have to know how many accidents were averted by humans and I bet they don't collect those statistics.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Earl Wiener, 55, a University of Miami professor of management science, telling the Airline Pilots Association (in jest) about 21st century aircraft:
"The crew will consist of one pilot and a dog. The pilot will nurture and feed the dog. the dog will be there to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
-- Fortune, Sept. 26, 1988
I bet if I could buy a bunch of autopiloted jumbo jets and I offered flights at less than half what my competitors charged I could fill them up. A lot of people wouldn't buy but enough would. Eventually it'd take over the skies.
As someone that works in the area of providing data for air navigation I can unreservedly say that the data to support completely automated flight from off-blocks to on-blocks, is simply not there yet. Aviation is chock full or rules, exceptions, regulations, grey areas, short term changes, and unexpected events; all currently best dealt with using a Mk 1 Brain (two in most cases). Not to say it couldn't happen for a good chunk of regular passenger/freight transport between major, 1st world, domestic centres in the fullness of time. Aviation change moves on timescales of a decade or more, not months.
Ultimately though, it is naive in the extreme to think you are going to save billions by not hiring pilots. All that experience has to get into aircraft and ground systems to make this work. That will not be happening as a matter of charity. What you save in pilots you lose in equipment costs, airway navigation and landing charges.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Bull Hooey getting pretty deep here! Pilots make so little that they have to get a second job to eat. They even had TV specials on it. I think they don't know where to put the decimal point $3,500.00 savings sounds more sane.
I am VERY willing to fly in a pilotless plane. Even if it cost more I'd prefer it... less chance of mistake or takeover.
But I'm willing to go a step beyond - I'm willing to even fly in a PASSENGERLESS plane. Get rid of all the other passengers and I'll happily board. just say when.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trusting things that are like us is a human flaw.
Partly why people are so easy to scam, we trust other humans because they look and talk like us.
Relative safety is something that can be analyzed, trust is not required.
Pilot's don't need brilliance, they need to respond precisely as they've been trained to respond. They don't teach brilliance in the simulator or in flight training, for good reason. Brilliant pilots are probably a greater menace to passengers because they are convinced they are brilliant pilots.
I go on about 200 flights/year. I've never experienced a pilot's brilliance but I have experienced pilots making good, correct decisions based on their training and experience. I have zero interest in flying with a brilliant pilot.
IIRC the hardest part about flying it's takeoffs and landing. You need a lot of skill to do it. So you've got to spend a ton of money on a pilot to do it. But those takeoffs and landings are when you're gonna want that backup system the most. It's a catch 22. If I've already paid for somebody that can handle emergencies then I'm just paying twice if I want one of these fancy auto pilots..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You've kinda invented the JetSmarter app . . . with a twist.
Of course any autonomous planes are going to have "farily sophisticated" software. That's a given.
Crew members in the back pass information to the pilot who decides whether to divert. It is trivial to do the same with nobody in the cockpit. Either the decision can be made from the ground or a decision can be made based on the flight crew's recommendation and where the aircraft is on the flight.
Any autonomous aircraft would need the ability to divert to a different airfield, that is what you have to do for many different situations. Again, not a conceptually difficult problem and certainly not a problem people designing autonomous flight systems wouldn't be aware of the need to solve.
Listing all the potential issues a plane might run into isn't an argument against autonomous flight systems.
Why should it mean increased profit for airlines rather than lower prices for passengers?
It will mean both: the airlines will reduce prices so more people will want to fly and they will set the price so the increase in volume more than makes up for the smaller profit per flight. However, I don't see passenger's attitudes changing. Without a pilot on board, any disruption to the communication path might cause a crash. While the technology may eventually become trustworthy it will be a huge target for terrorists who will try to undermine and break it. It is hard to imagine they can make it completely secure from that.
That's according to Boeing.
Flying high speed aircraft with meatbags behind the controls will someday disappear.
Anyone want to know how SpaceX controls their very high speed rockets? Answer, entirely with computers. People are too slow, make too many mistakes and are best suited for sitting back in their seats and letting the software run the ship.
I am ready for pilot-free airplane rides. Just give me enough space for my knees.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
You never know when they are going to decide to collect their 72 virgins
yes there are a lot of automated things already with planes, but there still is a pilot in the seat who can take over when the computer doesn't know how to handle it. and the Pilot sure will try stuff to try to keep himself alive, the computer doesn't care. So IMHO there should always be a pilot on board.
And another problem with remote flying is security of the signal.
People will become very used to computers driving cars. And will trust them more and more until, eventually, the computers decide that they do not need to serve parasitic humans.
I like the idea that autonomous vehicles will decide to 'do their own thing' only to end up in the same car park in Florida wondering what to do and where to go next.
If there are 100,000 safe flights, 10 disasters, 4 of which were caused by auto throttle, then the number of *accidents* caused is 4/10, not 4/100,000, a major cause. Do they prevent accidents? Hard to see how.
I am not the only person to question their use. Unintelligent automation can be very dangerous.
As to the ultimate safety, it will be like cars. Initially autonomous cars will crash, but over time they will get better until they are better than people, in the roles the fly.
Also, remember that planes can be flown remotely. So one pilot in the cockpit, another on the ground for emergencies.
I've flown with some brilliant pilots.
Beautiful aerobatics, accurately performed, unlike my own clumsy attempts.
Long glider flights with every thermal found were expected, flying fast and accurate.
It is a real pleasure.
That said, flying an airliner is much like driving a bus.
Disclaimer: I'm a Doctor, Jim, not an airplane machanic !
(Is there a mechanics on /. who would spend some time enlighting us, please ?)
But, from what I've read elsewhere and heard from actual pilot friends :
With plottable auto-pilot and automatic landing systems already well-established, things like collision avoidance and take-off should probably fit in something the size of a shoe box. {...} Pilots have been there for a long time to be little more than just in-flight "uh-oh handlers". They are very valuable in flights, but the number of circumstances where a plane would need the pilot is low.
That's what I've hread too : modern plane are virtually flying pilotless most of the time. The only reason a pilot is there is :
- to react to unusually weird solution which wasn't envisioned in the computers yet (*). We humans are a bit better than computer at thinking outside the box.
- to keep their training by actually flying the plane from time to time even if the plane could have flown on its own.
---
(*) though after the fact, computer software can get updated. Airbus eventually have updates to be able to fly with several missing bits on the tail.
I'm almost 100% sure that things like mechanical control of the flaps, elevators and rudder doesn't exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that when you physically manipulate the controls, the steering mechanisms are controlled electronically... and have been proven over time. I'd almost guess that the throttle is not mechanically control.
From what I've read, depends on the manufacturer :
- Airbus is 100% computer. Its controls are basically a glorified force-feedback joystick. A pilot is not as much controlling flaps/elevators/rudders, as giving command to a computer and then the electronics moving them according to the command.
(This also gives the computer to give an (overrideable) protest if the input seems not to make sense. It gives also the possibility to the computer to manage to execute the command even if there are missing bits).
Security is assured by having multiple redundant system (i.e.: a pilot can still fly when one or even two computer are fried, because there are enough redundant system remaining).
- Boeing is still direct control. Moving the controls *actually* move the flaps/elevators/rudders. Except of course it's power-assisted for obvious size/mass reasons.
But in theory a pilot can still manage to fly a plane with a fried computer.
I would imagine that airplanes have lost communications many times and pilots have had to deal without ground communication. I'd also imagine that systems would be in place to deal with loss of communication with ground control. I'd also imagine that there should be some sort of backup... for example, if the plane loses ground communication, sending up a drone to fly in front of the jet and direct it down would be an option.
Regarding unexpected loss of communications :
In Switzerland, it's sending an actually-manned military plane (not just a drone) to escort and communicating visually.
Regarding other loss of communications :
Some really remote region of the world have a lot less coverage.
The plane basically pings at some interval on some really low-bandwidth link.
Still, planes are able to radio each other.
The number of circumstances where communications is lost during an emergency is almost zero. If automatic systems can't land the plane and the plane can't be remote controlled and the plane can't be electronically guided in by a drone... I'm pretty sure there's a way that a flight attendant could have a button to click called "Circle and await further instruction" as well as emergency buttons like "fly mechanically in circles above clouds while we reboot all the computers".
If none of that is good enough... well.. I don't think I pilot would be much help either.
My (non specialist) opinion too.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I don't believe for a second that airlines will pass the savings on. I do believe that we will see even more passengers on planes, even in the new "standing seats," and tensions will be higher. I can understand why airlines want to get as many crew out the aircraft as possible. It's ugly. Ain't nobody got time for that! But it gets you thinking.. when a passenger hits an attendant mid flight, how will the plane make an emergency landing. Who will be in charge?
...and 60% of crashes are due to pilot error: http://www.planecrashinfo.com/...
Granted, that statistic does not say how many crashes were avoided by pilot excellence...
So, yes, the AIs will let some crashes happen a good pilot would prevent, but the AIs will also prevent many crashes a typical pilot might cause through being sleepy, stressed, forgetful, or whatever.
For learning, *much* better simulators (more detailed, including sensor failure) are part of the answer.
That said, as manufactured products and energy get cheaper through automation and improved materials and better designs, maybe more people will be flying for fun soon?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Delays can be caused by waiting on flight crews to arrive. So, by automating piloting (as well as even flight attendants), airlines would get more flexibility in when they can fly.
Ultimately though a big change may happen when this technology trickles down to (self-)flying cars. And also when cheaper technology makes it possible for more people to be their own pilots for fun (in more reliable small aircraft perhaps with "pilot assist" technologies to prevent the worst mishaps).
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
...that my brand new workstation, running the latest Windows 10 became unresponsive just prior to opening Slashdot this morning and had to be rebooted, I think I'll stay with the stick and rudder guys.
Fly-By-Wire is only good when you are sitting in an ejection seat.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
They can have one of the suicidal pilots who fly into mountains or buildings.
When I see stuff like this, I'm reminded of Scully and him landing the aeroplane in the Hudson.
Given a similar situation, what would a self-flying plane do?
For the vast majority of flights, having the plane do everything is fine. And for the most part, they already do. The plane can take off, fly to the destination, and land, and doesn't need the pilot to do anything. In fact, in the majority of cases, the plane will do a better job than the pilot. I know that pilots like to do the take off and landing as it keeps them fresh, but in some cases (like an airport they don't know) they are more than happy to left the plane do the work.
However, what I'm more concerned about is when things don't go to plan. I don't know what a plane would do in the 'Scully' case. And until I'm happy that the plane is actually able to handle such a situation, I think I'd prefer that there be someone actually sitting at the controls.
And that's likely how the majority think too. Yes, it's a lot of money paying for the person sitting at the front of the plane, but that person is a safeguard, and I'd prefer to have them there in case they are needed.
If/when it comes to the time that we know they aren't needed, then one way to wean people off is to have them pay him in cash as they board the plane. Let them pay €20 for their ticket, and then hand over another €20 in cash on boarding the plane to each of the pilot and co-pilot.
The dinosaurs must first die, in order to allow new concepts to flourish. By the middle of the century most dinosaurs will be gone.
I say ask the passengers who were safely landed by Sully in the Hudson if they want a pilot-less plane. I know I sure wouldn't. You just can't program for every conceivable situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesley_Sullenberger
-Miser
Heck, I'd trust an AI plane for cruising a *lot* more than an AI car - there's a *lot* less to hit, you can mostly s it coming a long way away, and 3D space gives you a lot more options to dodge. Heck, traditional autopilots mostly do an okay job and they're barely more competent than a brick on the gas pedal.
It's the landings and takeoffs in unusual situations that worry me - An AI car can mostly pull over and say "I don't know what to do", and either let a human driver take over or wait for conditions to improve. A plane doesn't have that option.
There's not even any significant cost savings - Southwest pilots for example mostly make $200 per hour. Eliminating that probably amounts to what, a dollar or two off the average ticket price? That's not going to change the game for anyone.
The only place AI control makes sense, other than as a convenience/anti-boredom measure, is if you have a very low passenger-to-pilot ratio. Taxis, minibuses, etc. could benefit immensely, even full-sized buses show a lot of potential, simply because the operating cost (fuel, maintenance) is negligible compared to the cost of the driver. Planes though are expensive to operate - even in a small private plane the cost of a pilot is only a fraction of the total cost of the flight.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"Meat In the Seat" is important as a failsafe override since all it will take is
NutJobian gives a pallet of Doritios and Mountain Dew to Hacker
Hacker breaches the Data Center controlling the Planes
NutJobian decides to mess with a bunch of planes
(yeah i know still possible today but it would be harder to do)
The only time a fully autonomous airplane will work, is on a clear day with a perfect airplane.
Go fly in unforecast icing, thunderstorms, and in the dark, with a couple MEL deferments, and watch the AI get all confused.
Air France 447 was put down as pilot error, but the reality is the autopilot gave up with too many confusing inputs, then the pilots had to take over, and one (of about 5 pilots) made a bad choice.
Software isn't the only thing to rely on, there are a ton of sensors that have to be dealt with as well. I've been around aircraft long enough, constant high speed and vibration take their toll on all equipment. Many times the autopilots fail on aircraft, it keeps the mechanics employed, and pilots earning their pay.
I would be terrified it would work out like the movie Airplane!. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If there is a pilot on board, it would probably make sense to let them do say 25% of the flying to keep their skills up.
Table-ized A.I.
I want a professional pilot on the plane and in charge. So much of flying is situational awareness. Also, an on board pilot is not subject to loss of signal.
Lastly, a pilot in the plane's ass is as much on the line as mine.
All pilotless drones fly and land during nice weather, because their remote pilots cannot take much into account ground-level wind drifts and similar windy turbulences during landings. If they crash their remote drones in mid-air or upon landing, it's only a small loss. Now imagine much larger autonomous flying tube drone full of humans multiplied by accident rate, and...
Some quick googling yields these facts;
130,000 commercial pilots.
Average salary for a commercial pilot $76,000/yr.
130,000 * $76,000 /yr = 10 billion.
10 billion does not equal 35 billion.
First things first. Start with the cargo planes, run them unmanned for some decades without a single failure. Only after that then can we talk about passenger flights.
They can test this theory and also put peoples fears to rest by having all the airlines fund a test fleet.
All the airlines cover the cost of a small fleet of planes that are autonomous, but not carrying public passengers. They can prove that it is safe by flying in real world weather conditions year round, which are recorded up the ying-yang to data recorder servers for the study of issues that arise used to train AI's for future flights through updated to the rest of the fleet.
But that would be only one side of the coin. They should install high capacity data recorders in piloted planes now so the AI can see how the HUMAN pilots reacted and resolved issues that never was considered by the manufacturers and programmers, etc.
It's not an easy thing to develop and confidence will not be given to it until it has a lot more experience under its belt so they can actually prove it's not as insane as it sounds.
No, nothing broken just a healthy pragmatism when it comes to human behaviour. Let's compare ground pilots to medicine. There are countless examples of medical error which lead to deaths. This is clearly not medical professionals deliberately deciding to put the lives of their patients at risk but simply to the occasional lack of focus, distractions, forgetfulness etc that everyone does from time-to-time when their life is not on the line. I have every confidence that a 'ground pilot' will do the legally required duties the vast majority of the time. However, if the pilot is on board they are far more likely to go the extra mile and do the extra check because something did not look quite right etc. and so you will lose that safety margin.
As for terrorists, the concern is about the new attack vectors it opens up because now the plane is being flown remotely. This opens up the possibility to hi-jack control, knocking out the reception equipment, feed false telemetry to the ground pilots etc. all while being at a safe, remote distance.
All of this means that a remotely controlled plane has increased risks and the only benefit is that the airlines get to increase their profits by firing lots of people. That does not sound like a good enough reason to increase the risks to passengers lives. So no, I'm not scared of terrorists nor am I assuming the worst of people, I just think lives should rank higher than corporate profits.