Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilotless Aircraft Concept Back In The News  
User currently offlineMiller22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 713 posts, RR: 4
Posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4236 times:

Looks like IFATS is taking the next step towards designing a pilotless aircraft. I have to admit, it looks pretty cool, but will anyone actually get into it?

The logical step is to go to a single-pilot cockpit, first, so I don't see this particular concept taking off, but the pressure to move in that direction is certainly starting to mount.

EU Unmanned Airliner Concept outlined

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2754 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4168 times:

I believe Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair recently brough this up as well saying he'd be interested in Boeing building him a pilotless 737 type aircraft... he said it would really help him cut more costs: no pilots! I just thought it was yet another of his stupid publicity stunts.

I mentioned it to a few friends at Airbus and they all burst out laughing.

Sure, maybe it will happen some day, but I doubt, and hope, it won't happen for the next couple of hundred years.

There is no way I'd like to be in a pilotless plane, and I think the immense majority of the flying public would be against this idea. Even the idea of getting rid of the co-pilot and just having a single pilot doesn't sound great to me (I know that's probably stupid when there are plently of light aircraft around with just one pilot, but...).

And can you imagine the reaction of the pilot's unions?? Just think of all the problems when cockpit crews were reduced from 3 to 2 (getting rid of the engineer).

This whole research is, in my opinion, just another waste of money that could be spent on something much more worth while.



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineVEEREF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

Someday. not in my lifetime though, thank God.

User currently offlineVEEREF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3970 times:

Here's a more economical idea.

Instead of pilotless aircraft, how about idiotless airline boardrooms?


User currently offlineRiddlePilot215 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3947 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the concept of pilotless aircraft is a good idea...But the plans for such implementation seem a bit grand for such a prototype idea....I'd start with something like, oh say small cargo planes, like a C208, and a Falcon Jet, and see how the program works out.

However I just don't see this flying with ATC too much...The complete automation of airplanes is just making it one step closer to completely automating ATC...



God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

Let's hope the pilot unions have the sense to make a huge stink about it.

Blackbird


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Just like: who would ever want to fly long-haul on a twin-engined aircraft?

It's inevitable that aviation will continue to change, and many of those changes will make die-hards "uncomfortable."


User currently offlineKearney From Canada, joined Nov 2006, 140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3882 times:

Quoting Miller22 (Thread starter):
The logical step is to go to a single-pilot cockpit, first

Since one pilot could fly a "two pilot aircraft", I think this means a one pilot aircraft would need to be able to fly without a pilot. Maybe im wrong, but its nice to know if one pilot gets sick there is still another pilot there to take control. One of those "just in case" percautions.


User currently offlineArchie From Mexico, joined Aug 2000, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3866 times:

The day pilotless airplanes start flying in airlines, is the day I will stop flying in airlines  Smile

Scary thought having a computer fly without human decisions and use of logic. Even if the computer is incredibly fast and all, it will never substitute human ability to make, change and execute decisions.

Best,
Archie


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5925 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3844 times:

Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 4):
I think the concept of pilotless aircraft is a good idea...But the plans for such implementation seem a bit grand for such a prototype idea....I'd start with something like, oh say small cargo planes, like a C208, and a Falcon Jet, and see how the program works out.

FYI, there has been several threads about this topic that you may be interested in reviewing. One most recently about Boeings patent for an auto-landing system that could be activited remotely and would remove control from the "crew"... or could be activated by the crew but could not be de-activated by them once enganged.

Quoting Archie (Reply 8):
it will never substitute human ability to make, change and execute decisions.

Oh, it will! And on the other hand, it won't make any pilot errors that are the cause of most accidents.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 3823 times:

Quoting Kearney (Reply 7):
Since one pilot could fly a "two pilot aircraft", I think this means a one pilot aircraft would need to be able to fly without a pilot. Maybe im wrong, but its nice to know if one pilot gets sick there is still another pilot there to take control. One of those "just in case" percautions.

You could perhaps see a second pilot become a member of the cabin crew who could come to the assistance of the main pilot if necessary.


User currently offlineSJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 3811 times:

Quoting RiddlePilot215 (Reply 4):
However I just don't see this flying with ATC too much...The complete automation of airplanes is just making it one step closer to completely automating ATC...

 checkmark 

Sometimes when I listen to ATC, it seems like they are the ones flying the plane. They tell the pilot when to turn, when to change altitude, etc. I imagine the whole process could be automated just like the BART trains in San Francisco, where the only thing the conductor does is push a button to close the doors are apply the emergency brake. The aircraft could have the flight plan entered into a computer before take off and altered by the ATC computer in flight if needed. We are probably still a ways away from that, and the transistion period I think would be long and difficult.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3810 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 10):
You could perhaps see a second pilot become a member of the cabin crew who could come to the assistance of the main pilot if necessary.

Commonwealth air forces did just that back in the 1940s. Given the shortage of pilots, all British heavy bombers had just one pilot's seat, as opposed to two, and dual control, on their US counterparts. The flight engineers were given rudimentary 'get you home' training in case the pilot got hit.

However, life was inevitably fairly cheap in those days - I can't see today's passengers standing for such a loose setup, just to save the salary of one pilot (which would probably be less, on a single flight, than the price of a business seat).

There's also the matter of fatigue. From here, 14-hour flights are not unusual - there is no possiblility that a single pilot could stay fully awake or alert for such a period. And, given the suddenness with which flying problems tend to arise, a situation of a 'controls watcher' tasked with literally waking the pilot up in the event of an emergency would be 'inadvisable,' to say the least.  Smile

So I unreservedly agree with those who have said that two pilots are the absolute minimum. Indeed, Qantas usually use at least three pilots anyway on longer trips, I don't know about other airlines.

I also agree with those who have said that it will be a long time before pilotless aeroplanes are introduced. Not even for cargo. Even a cargo aircraft which misbehaves has to crash somewhere - and given that a lot of accidents occur during landing or takeoff, they would very probably crash on or near airports most of the time.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDornier328JET From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

Quoting Archie (Reply 8):
The day pilot-less airplanes start flying in airlines, is the day I will stop flying in airlines

I'll second that.

IMHO, a pilot-less aircraft is a terrible idea. Granted, a computer may not make errors. However, computers malfunction. Not to mention a computer does as it is programmed. The pilot may not be in direct control of the aircraft, but someone still had to program the computer. Thus, human error can still happen. Also, if something goes wrong with the aircraft, a computer may be programed to solve the issue, but it can't beat human ingenuity. The human mind can be great during a disaster. See United 232.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

That un-interruptable auto-pilot which both Boeing and Airbus is designing is a disturbing trend. I personally think they're exploiting people's fear of terrorism to completely automate the planes and take the pilot out of the cockpit once and for all.

As I said before, I hope the pilot's unions have the common sense to make a federal case out of this thing before it's too late

Andrea K


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5262 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3799 times:

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 1):
Sure, maybe it will happen some day, but I doubt, and hope, it won't happen for the next couple of hundred years.

Ummm, a hundred years? No, it'll happen within our (at least my) lifetime. I give it 30, maybe forty years.

And by the way, I went to Riddle, my best friend (and two others) are pilots. So I don't have some weird hatred of them.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):

Check! I agree, it all depends on the flying public and what they think/fear. I guess you could market as the plane the can't be taken over by a hijacker (and now I'll get flamed by people who will say "what about hackers?"), but i don't think the flying public will be able to accept it until their cars have "auto-drive" whtaever. (which is infinitley harder but is coming sooner than later.)

Quoting Archie (Reply 8):
The day pilotless airplanes start flying in airlines, is the day I will stop flying in airlines Smile

Guess yuor job doesn't involve flying. Good for you!  Wink

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineVEEREF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Pilotless aircraft will eventually arrive.

So will lawyerless law firms, doctorless hospitals, greeterless Wal Marts, etc.

So those on this board so eager to see pilots replaced by computers, don't forget there are probably many also calling for your replacement as well.
Not just an aviation thing.


I still predict that within a week of introduction, one of these pilotless wonders will fall out of the bottom of a thunderstorm in a thousand pieces.

But no problem, with all of the cost savings of not having employees there will be plenty of cash to cover the lawsuits. Can anyone say "acceptable losses?"

[Edited 2006-12-23 03:37:29]

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

Quoting VEEREF (Reply 16):
greeterless Wal Marts

One can only hope...

However, this would be predicated by the old folksless Retirement Home.


User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

I think that the next step will be a remotely piloted aircraft with an onboard back-up pilot. I expect this would work like a two crew operation now, simply with the non-flying pilot being on board. In cruise, he could be in crew rest unless required by degradation of the primary control mode. He would also handle all ground ops, thus keeping the current airport systems.

Sensor sensitivity and data link integrity would be two big issues to address, but I expect both of those are close to maturity already.

A remote control location would have many ground-based pilots each monitoring several aircraft, and aided by automation.

The model for all of this is the recent advent of reliable uav's like the Global Hawk. I don't think the public is going to go for HAL the computer flying the plane, but they will go for a half-manned/half-remote if it could be sold as more reliable and more accurate and they get to keep one grey-haired guy with a hat.

[Edited 2006-12-23 03:50:37]


Jets are for kids
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 18):
A remote control location would have many ground-based pilots each monitoring several aircraft, and aided by automation.

Agreed - indeed that already applies to the (relatively small and slow-flying) Global Hawk/Predator.

But the justification for military types like that is the avoidance of casualties - they can go places where it would be too risky to send human pilots. It's hard to see what the justification would be for applying the same systems to civil air transports; the cost of the skilled personnel spread along the routes, plus all the extra systems and instrumentation, woud surely exceed the cost of a couple of pilots sitting up front, instead of one 'part-timer'?

In addition, airliners are probably the most difficult things of all to 'automate,' given that they fly at prodigious speed and enormous height. Also, they operate in three dimensions in a fluid medium (the air), the properties of which are continually changing.

By comparison, it would be virtual child's play to automate cars, which operate in only two dimensions, on predictable paths, and are subject only to well-understood hazards like collisions, which would be much more easily allowed for in any systems.

I think they should make a start with driverless airport taxis, myself. They'd be a damn sight easier to automate - besides being a helluva lot more dangerous than aeroplanes, the way they operate at present.

[Edited 2006-12-23 05:20:37]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3691 times:

Quoting Archie (Reply 8):
Scary thought having a computer fly without human decisions and use of logic. Even if the computer is incredibly fast and all, it will never substitute human ability to make, change and execute decisions.



Quoting Dornier328JET (Reply 13):
However, computers malfunction.

As already mentioned, around 60% of airplane crashes are caused by pilot error.

Quoting Dornier328JET (Reply 13):
The human mind can be great during a disaster. See United 232.

Unfortunately there are many more examples where that wasn't the case. United 232 was an exception...fortunately, but many more crashes have been caused by bad pilot decisions.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19):
In addition, airliners are probably the most difficult things of all to 'automate,' given that they fly at prodigious speed and enormous height.

Are you familiar with modern airplanes??

...and why is altitude any factor?

They are not far from executing the complete flight automated today.

In most cases it's either flown to a flight plan or directly from ATC instructions (then via autopilot/FMS etc. etc.). Heck, autothrottles, autoland, even autotaxi. I'm not saying pilots aren't a necessary requirement today, but the technology is already available.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19):
By comparison, it would be virtual child's play to automate cars, which operate in only two dimensions, on predictable paths, and are subject only to well-understood hazards like collisions, which would be much more easily allowed for in any systems.

I think they should make a start with driverless airport taxis, myself. They'd be a damn sight easier to automate - besides being a helluva lot more dangerous than aeroplanes, the way they operate at present.

Wow, are you serious??

We have almost zero automation for automobiles right now, and a huge amount for airplanes.

Childs play - are you kidding me?

Cars operate in much denser environments and MUCH less predictable paths than any aircraft on an IFR flight plan.

Well understood hazards?? Right!

At any one time there are around 5,000 IFR aircraft in the air over the USA. I'd feel safer automating those, than the 5,000 cars on the road in a 50 miles radius from my house!

Oh, it'll come....not too soon, but it'll come  Wink


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 19):
the cost of the skilled personnel spread along the routes

I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear: this would be analagous to a call center, situated in a low cost country and staffed by people who can follow a published procedure without deviation. i.e.-low cost. Satellite communication would eliminate the need for extra locations. A long haul fleet could probably save 80% of the crew costs against a remote control agency fee, and these are the flights with the least degree of difficulty.

I believe that this is coming, and a 20 year old just starting out will probably see it during his (truncated) career.



Jets are for kids
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 20):
As already mentioned, around 60% of airplane crashes are caused by pilot error.

That appears to be a drastic over-simplification. Pilot error is believed to have been a factor in about 50% or so of accidents - but I can't off-hand recall a single accident where it was the ONLY factor. In any case, I think you're making insufficient allowance for the hundreds of accidents every day which are AVOIDED by skilful pilots......they don't get in the newspapers.

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 20):
Are you familiar with modern airplanes??

Yes, reasonably. Are you in your turn assuming that all of them land only at full Category III-equipped airports? Large numbers of scheduled services land every day at airports that don't even have ILS. What do you do about that, persuade every country in the world to shell out billions to fully-equip ALL runways at ALL airports?

It would have been interesting, to say the least, to be able to judge how pilotless aeroplanes would have coped with the recent extreme weather in places like the UK and the western USA?

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 20):
At any one time there are around 5,000 IFR aircraft in the air over the USA. I'd feel safer automating those, than the 5,000 cars on the road in a 50 miles radius from my house!

Always get that reaction (barely concealed horror  Smile) when I suggest automating cars. But almost anyone can learn to drive a car adequately, far fewer can successfully learn to fly an aeroplane - for the simple reason that it's a far more complicated task, requiring much higher standards of skill and aptitude. So automating cars would be a simpler process.

And, given the size of the road toll, it would make a much bigger contribution to 'safety' in general, considering how many people die on the roads everywhere, every day; and how few die in aeroplanes. Given that money isn't unlimited, I think that would be a much more sensible priority to spend scarce resources on?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 21):
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear: this would be analagous to a call center, situated in a low cost country and staffed by people who can follow a published procedure without deviation. i.e.-low cost.

Occurs to me, Curmudgeon, that a high proportion of such stations would have to be established on the world's oceans?  Smile

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 21):
A long haul fleet could probably save 80% of the crew costs against a remote control agency fee

As I said, my guess is that one Business Class seat pays the cost of the pilots? Certainly one First Class one would. Given the cost of developing the required additional systems, fully-equipping all airports, building and maintaining all the control centres, recruiting and training all the staff, it's hard to see how you'd ever see any net financial savings?



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3640 times:

I'll do some thinking out loud here: A local airline operates B747-400 aircraft with seven complete crews per aeroplane, each consisting of four pilots. The cost total is 2.1 Million for Captains, 1.5 Million for F/O's, 2.1 Million for S/O's (there are two, hence the higher total).

If an airline could replace all of that with say 5 crew members total per airplane at 200K each (what are they gonna do? Strike?), that's a 4.7 Million per year savings per plane.

Layover costs and other employment expenses would be quartered, saving another approx 2 Million

Less crew rest space required= two or three more seats you can often fill, which would be worth say another million extra revenue.

That's a 7.7 Million savings in 2006 dollars

No extra ground costs at airports at all...the crew member taxis the plane as is done now. All data link from one center only (perhaps a second location can act as a back-up).

Say this local operator has a fleet of 40 long haul airplanes. That totals 308 Million/year. I can't estimate what the remote option would cost, but if it was spread out over a few thousand hulls, it would have to be cheaper by far.



Jets are for kids
25 RiddlePilot215 : I'm all for an "auto-landing" system...That will reduce delays, improve efficiency, and make flying everything it needs to be...and THEN SOME....But
26 Planemanofnz : There may be many hundreds of pilotless aircraft made in the next couple of decades, but remember that there will always be a market for human-piloted
27 Tugger : You are completely wrong about the inability of people to learn how to fly a plane. The key is that when humans tire out in a plane they don't just d
28 DCrawley : Boeing pulled a quickie on that one. Well said. I think you will see some interesting developments in the near future about what the unions are prepa
29 Curmudgeon : We already have that, and it does none of those things. What do you think flies the plane now? We have GPS corrected laser-ring gyro attitude and hea
30 Post contains links Planemaker : I don't know if you are aware of the DARPA's Grand Challange? It was a race between autonomous cars through 130 miles of the Mojave. http://www.sciam
31 NAV20 : One excellent point that no-one (including me) seems to have picked uo on. I reckon that's one area that no automated system could deal with. All met
32 Planemaker : It really isn't any point at all. And it is surprising that a pilot brought it up as he should really be more aware of the current technology and the
33 NAV20 : As someone who has flown aeroplanes, albeit mostly light ones, Planemaker, I'm getting a bit tired of this. Please provide forthwith the evidence on
34 Post contains images Planemaker : Aside from the fact that it has been published repeatedly in ALL the major aviation periodicals... you just have to go to the Boeing web site to view
35 NAV20 : You saying that Boeing - an AIRCRAFT manufacturer - doesn't have a vested interest in blaming pilots rather than aeroplanes? Please provide a more ob
36 Post contains images Bond007 : Not quite the same is it ...and this cannot be done by computer??? Only Humans? But, we ALREADY have automated aircraft. The technology is here today
37 VEEREF : Really? How many thousands of hours have YOU spent picking your way through lines of T storms in the midwest or Africa? How many times has YOUR onboa
38 NAV20 : It COULD be done, Bond007 - but only by a continuous datalink providing real-time visual relays of the weather radar screen of each individual airlne
39 Bond007 : Personally, since we have done almost nothing with car automation, we'd be starting from scratch. There simply is no existing infrastructure for auto
40 Flyorski : That would be nice......
41 NAV20 : But you'd be safe from any risk of 'driver error,' Bond007?
42 Planemaker : You're obviously not flying in a 777 with a WXR-2100. They already started by a little steps... many car manufacturers already have adpative cruise c
43 NAV20 : Why?
44 Bond007 : Just take a very simple example and it's easy to see. The short drive to my supermarket requires around 20 turns, 4 stop signs, and 3 sets of lights.
45 Post contains images Planemaker : I guess that you don't drive the LS 460 or an E-Class. However, at a much lower price point, the Civic in the UK offers voice repsonsive GPS, radar b
46 Archie : If 50% or 55% of all accident are caused by pilot error, that just means we need to better train pilots to avoid 55% of the accidents. Computers will
47 Planemaker : You would be very surprised at how well computers can "think" right now! A common, but low level example, of thinking is chess... computers have been
48 Post contains images Bond007 : Actually, I was exaggerating somewhat I meant, no automation that allows me to keep my eyes off the road, or hands off the wheel ... unlike a modern
49 Archie : Hey, Maybe a computer can beat people in chess, but they are still programmed by a person, they do not just create themselves and play chess. That is
50 Zeke : Nav, The report is fairly spot on for an overview, however one needs to dig into each accident to understand the causal chain. I dont know of a singl
51 Planemaker : I guess that you won't be flying the 787 then. You should be too scared that the FBW computers will get "stuck" or "freezes". I don't know what relev
52 Bond007 : Right, but if we're flying there now, it's not because of pilot genius or ESP right? If we can fly over the Atlantic with only partial HF coms, then
53 VEEREF : More and more jobs being taken over by computer, at the same the population continues to increase. What happy times to come! But for now, I'll enjoy m
54 DfwRevolution : That's totally irrelevant. No one is suggesting that an automated aircraft should have the ability to improvise its programing code on the fly. An ai
55 Post contains images Planemaker : But at least you'll be retired by then. Who will retire first? The 3-holer or you? I am generally an optimist and am hopeful that the world will adju
56 VEEREF : Unfortunately, the three holer....
57 Planemaker : Nostaligic already? ; BTW, in the news today there was an article (seriously) on the possiblity of having to give robots the equivalent of "human" ri
58 Aviator737 : I really can't imagine this idea being popular with air passengers. I mean, who would want to put their life in the hands of a computer, where if anyt
59 Planemaker : They already do!! You don't know the level of technology that is already available... let alone in 10 or 20 years from now. This will happen within 5
60 Post contains links NAV20 : Curmudgeon, I'm sure you're more or less right about possible savings on crew costs - although the highly-skilled ground controllers required would p
61 Post contains images Planemaker : No insult intetended, but you are really out of touch with the current technology, let alone having any idea of what is coming down the pike. And, no
62 Zeke : Planemaker, I think Nav has a handle on the technology. I have to agree with the argument Nav is putting forward. Aircraft frequently depart with a ME
63 Post contains images NAV20 : Blimey, Planemaker, what an aggressive response! I freely admit that my flying experience was thirty years ago, so I'm sure things have moved along a
64 Post contains images Bond007 : Let's forget the ILS stuff! ILS technology is decades old: A precision GPS approach will mean no cost to the airport at all. Satellite dish ??? The s
65 Post contains images Planemaker : Yes, that is today... and on aircraft and systems that were designed 5, 10 and even longer ago. Please try to look at tomorrow and not today. Again,
66 SkyexRamper : Oh help us all...an R/C A320! Now we can have non pilots flying them from a tv screen at home...the ultimate video game. Microsoft beat that!
67 VEEREF : There's no doubt that someday pilotless airliner technology will be COMPLETE enough to replace humans. But hopefully it will not be rushed prematurely
68 Planemaker : No worry there that there will be a rush... the technology will gradually migrate across platforms. It will perhaps be first applied to military supp
69 Zeke : I have a very good understanding of where we are going at the moment, and where things are going in the next 5-10 years, I get briefed on this, read,
70 Planemaker : While interesting, I'm sorry but your post is not really relevant. Pilotless pax airliners are 30 to 40 years out... not 5-10 years.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Echelon Back In The News: Europeans Take Notice posted Sun Jul 2 2000 23:31:13 by MAC_Veteran
Are These Damaged Aircraft Back In The Air? posted Thu Aug 28 2003 22:52:40 by 727LOVER
Bad News: The Monopoly Is Back In The Italian Sky posted Tue Feb 12 2002 21:19:49 by Airblue
Jetways Used For The Classic Props Back In The Day posted Sun Nov 12 2006 08:12:31 by Zippyjet
America West To MLI? (Back In The Day) posted Sun Oct 22 2006 05:51:24 by B757capt
MSY: Direct Air In The News Again posted Fri Oct 13 2006 17:02:45 by 71Zulu
ORD Back In The Slot Business posted Fri Aug 25 2006 07:25:23 by MasseyBrown
Low Concept Airlines In The Middle East & N. Afric posted Fri Jul 28 2006 02:05:40 by Detroiter
Analysis: SIA Puts Airbus Back In The Game posted Sat Jul 22 2006 15:52:36 by Singapore_Air
Forgeard's In The News posted Mon Jun 19 2006 07:00:19 by Ken777