Thrust From United States, joined Sep 2003, 2428 posts, RR: 24 Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2825 times:
I know the glass cockpit is a remarkable achievement aeronautically, but is there such a possibility that planes could become as automatic as the subways? Because the trains know when to "depart" and stop. Is there a possibility in the next fifty years or so that planes essentially can be computerized enough to have their own flight plans (brains)?
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 5853 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2771 times:
Of course, no one knows exactly.
I think there are way too many variables and eventualities in a flight for any computer to cope with. I don't think, and I hope, we humans will ever trust any computer that much.
DeskPilot From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 767 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2724 times:
"..I think there are way too many variables and eventualities in a flight for any computer to cope with..."
We're already doing aspects of this through FBW. What's different ? Pilots are dependent on the flight computers converting their requests into action. There's no linkage remember.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8140 posts, RR: 65 Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2724 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
I tend to agree with SATL382G and Aloges on this one, but at the same time, imagine if you had presented the idea of modern flight to someone 100 years ago.
The idea of getting into a large metal tube with a couple hundred other people, reading a book and watching movies in total comfort at 8/10ths the speed of sound, and then landing on another continent several hours later would have seemed a LOT more ridiculous to them than any level of automation does to us.
Thrust From United States, joined Sep 2003, 2428 posts, RR: 24 Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2719 times:
I would ride on a train that has no driver. Just ask all the people in New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., London, and Tokyo. They all would do it. People 100 years ago were afraid to death of riding on trains without engineers. Eventually I believe the story of how trains developed will also be the story of how planes developed. Why not? Pilots may eventually become obsolete....however when that will happen is clearly open to debate.
Thrust From United States, joined Sep 2003, 2428 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2714 times:
Or if it will happen for that matter...but if a subway can travel all by itself, why not an airplane? They already have military drones that fly alone with a mission programmed into their systems. Drones clearly prove pilots indeed do not have to be on board an airplane in order for it to takeoff and land.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13596 posts, RR: 68 Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2707 times:
Would you put your family aboard such an aircraft? That'd answer your question right there....
Not today, but someday...
As for going beyond the glass cockpit. I think that what we are seeing in military applications will come into commercial aviation, just as before. Virtual display of the environment, with integral instrumentation, is the future. To start with, integration of outside views with instrumentation.
HUDs are the first step. Either helmet mounted (ok spectacle mounted), large display screens or retinal projection (ok that one is further our). Instead of seeing a cockpit, pilots see a virtual room where the environment is projected along with relevant data. Dangerous terrain may be highlighted in color or even flashing. Projected flight paths (own and other planes) are projected as lines. You get the idea.
For future supersonics, front windows will be a definite "maybe" given all the problems involved (droop nose) so we'll have to go to vision systems anyway.
Even further on, it's harder to speculate. Direct brain linkage. We're seeing the very beginnings of this now. Or maybe one pilot remotely supervising several autonomous aircraft, just like Global Hawk or Predator.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
Aloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 5853 posts, RR: 51 Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
Prebennorholm, my point exactly.
Maybe computers will be able to factor in fog, thunderstorms, tail-/headwinds, diversions, engine failures, sick pax, unruly pax, turbulence and birdstrikes one day, but yours truly living in 2004 can't imagine he'd ever set foot on a non-pilot plane.
DeskPilot From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 767 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
"..If anything unforeseen happens to the subway, then it is programmed to stop.
Do I need to say more...?
The computers could just pull the plane up on the side of the jetway, whilst they display a "blue screen of death". Seriously, there would need to be many layers of checking, protection, etc. We've already seen plenty of automation of functions (e.g. reduction to two man crews through replacement of the flight engineer). The pilot is in the middle, but there is a lot of automamtion/decision making being made for them. Eample how many zero-zero landings are entrusted to Auto-land/CatIIIc ? I know the crew is present, but they're monitoring. Plenty of protection (e.g. dual auto pilots, etc.) is needed before you can deploy.
Oh, and I'm in no way attepting to devalue to the skills of a pilot in this discussion. However, the whole pilot/plane relationship is changing through FBW, flight envelope protection (correct term ?), etc.
It mighten happend for a while, but we can't discount this.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
Jfkaua From United States, joined Aug 2004, 1000 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2665 times:
Honestly.. If the programs that flew the plane were completely tested and had a lot of redundancy.. I would feel safer flying in that plane... Think it eliminates one big source of error... Humans.. If all aircraft were flown electronically by a computer system, chances are the AA crash in bell harbor wouldn't of happened, and also the crash of the jet that ran out of fuel because of a language barrier..
Gigneil From United States, joined Nov 2002, 13893 posts, RR: 90 Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2656 times:
Would you put your family aboard such an aircraft?
I would. Absolutely, and without a second thought.
However, I can't imagine that there will ever be a single flight without at least one pilot on it to monitor the machine and make decisions in emergencies.
DeskPilot From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 767 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2638 times:
"..Let's see a computer that can pull off Sioux City..."
It's a credit to the crew that managed to bring the DC-10 back and save so many lives. However, I understand the attempts to re-fly the situation in a simulator with other crew failed to produce the same result. If this is true, it shows that not all pilots can pull off a Sioux City. I think it was the combination of crew, which included the extra pilot, plus a series of discoveries (e.g. control through differential throttle application, managed through the extra pilot) that brought that plane home.
However, can we say that automation can't be "self learning/adjusting" based on situations ? This is how the DC-10 crew managed to achieve their heroic result.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5616 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2611 times:
The technology is already there. The RQ-4 Global Hawk can file flight plans with the FAA, depart, and land on an intercontinental basis without human intervention. It just needs to be more reliable to be rated for humans. However, I could see it happening on freighters before it happens with passenger airliners.
[Edited 2004-12-29 07:01:17]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
AUAE From United States, joined Apr 2004, 296 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2565 times:
Good Topic Thrust,
I definately think the pilotless cockpit is a reality some day. Prior to that, I think the first big step is going from two crew to one. I think there can be enough electronic redundancy to remove the second person. In reality, the copilots biggest asset is the human redundancy to the pilot. Not discounting any copilot or their skill, just pointing out that the true reason we haven't gone to one is redundancy.
As too beyond the glass cockpit, Starlionblue hit the nail on the head with the new generation HUDs. In conjunction with newer GPS, the systems are pretty damn cool. Boeing is testing out a bunch of neat stuff these days, a HUD that outlines the runway, an automated taxi system, new terrain alerting systems. Visual screens instead of windows could become a real possibility as well. Not just on supersonics.
You know, thinking about it, what about digitial control over all those darn circuit breakers up there. I mean the general layout of a cockpit hasn't changed much in the way of reducing all the circuit breakers up there. I am no EE, but surely there is a better way to do that these days.
Shawn
Air transport is just a glorified bus operation. -Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13596 posts, RR: 68 Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2521 times:
You know, thinking about it, what about digitial control over all those darn circuit breakers up there. I mean the general layout of a cockpit hasn't changed much in the way of reducing all the circuit breakers up there. I am no EE, but surely there is a better way to do that these days.
This will happen someday, but given how seldom they are touched you might as well keep them around for now.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
2H4 From United States, joined Oct 2004, 8140 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2501 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
You know, thinking about it, what about digital control over all those darn circuit breakers up there.
Great idea, but Bombardier beat you to it.
The Global Express uses an electrical load management system that replaces the conventional circuit breaker/relay panel, and performs automatic load control.
The electrical load management system distributes, controls, and monitors power to all aircraft loads and power busses, and automatically performs all load management and electric bus switching control functions. In case of an emergency (or electrical failure), the system automatically reconfigures the electrical busses, sheds loads if necessary, and simultaneously informs the crew, keeping them in the loop.
Take a look at the large version of this photo. The "circuit breaker" control screen is visible just to the left of the yoke.
Calpilot17 From United States, joined Jul 2000, 109 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2469 times:
For every 1 crash you ever hear about their were probably 1000 times that a pilot returned a airplane to The ground through a bad situation ( weather or mechanical). people should not look at pilots as the weakest link in the cockpit because the pilot is of the up most flexibility in any cockpit operation. I realize that I'm lucky to fly a airplane with DME and I have flown with tons of bone head pilots but in a world with 3 dimensions not running on rails things become infinitely more complicated.
Philhyde From United States, joined Aug 2003, 609 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2440 times:
I for one am highly skeptical that we'll ever seem humans replaced by computers on-board airliners. By the time they figure out how to do this, we'll be beaming back and forth a-la Star Trek.
Prebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5126 posts, RR: 55 Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2439 times:
Please do not make any comparison to military UAVs. Like the subway trains they have a much simpler failure mode.
Failure mode of the UAV is simply "crash". And replacement with a new bird.
But thinking about the psychological issue, the CAAs, pax, airlines may be the easier ones to convince that pilotless airliners are a good idea.
But the people on the ground? How could they be convinced? And they will always be a majority.
With pilotless airliners we can just forget about having airports within 500 miles distance from populated areas. People won't accept it. Which means that maybe we will have pilotless airports on the Moon long time before we get them on planet Earth.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13596 posts, RR: 68 Reply 25, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2432 times:
I for one am highly skeptical that we'll ever seem humans replaced by computers on-board airliners
Never say never. When the London Underground was constructed, many critics said that humans would go insane from the enclosure, the noise of passing trains, the air, etc... This just goes to prove how much we take for granted can change with time.
Please do not make any comparison to military UAVs. Like the subway trains they have a much simpler failure mode.
Failure mode of the UAV is simply "crash". And replacement with a new bird.
Granted. But UAVs are still in early days in many ways.
This no-pilot stuff could prove disastrous for the aviation windshield wiper industry...
The windshield industry would have a problem too LOL.
Tact Is For People Who Aren't Witty Enough To Be Sarcastic
26 2H4: I think people here are examining the possibility of pilotless aircraft with two very different perspectives... The first perspective considers the pr
27 Wing: Can an airliner fly without a pilot? The answer is yes and you don't need to wait for decades for it.The menkind has put a man on the moon and guess
28 Prebennorholm: Wing: Can an airliner fly without a pilot? The answer is yes and you don't need to wait for decades for it.The menkind has put a man on the moon and g
29 Starlionblue: Neil Armstrong landed Eagle fully manually using one of the first FBW control systems in the world. Whether it was first or not is of course open to
30 Wing: Long posts always boring to read I guess thats why I couldn't make myself clear enough.Here is the summary of what I was trying to say; Technology fo
31 MrFord: There's also a very important concept in regard of automates and computers. Since the beginning of the 'computer era' if I can call it that way, there
32 Starlionblue: Since the beginning of the 'computer era' if I can call it that way, there's always the hype that computers could become intelligent machines that cou
33 Airplay: Let's see a computer that can pull off Sioux City. The majority of aircraft accidents are caused by so-called "pilot error". The vast majority of thes
34 Starlionblue: Pilots on the other hand continue to price themselves out of the market.... That'll make you popular on this board Pilots are actually not really paid
35 Whiskeyflyer: was reading an aircraft business magazine recently and one of the big freight operators (DHL or FedEx, I cannot remember which) is seriously working o
36 Wing: Its down to economics and business. Computers do not have flight and duty time issues, recurrent training, strikes, pay demands, etc ............. bu
37 Airplay: All in all I am not saying pilotless flying it is not possible,I am saying it is not logical and feasable Thats what many people thought when airplane
38 Starlionblue: It is currently economically illogical. It is technologically quite feasible.
39 N328KF: I disagree. I believe it is: Economically logicalTechnologically feasiblePolitically infeasible
40 Starlionblue: Economically logical We could argue about this one all night. Considering the investment required versus the current system of pilots, I think the ret
41 Bri2k1: they cannot think by themselves This is not correct. One of the largest areas of research currently going on in the computer science field is with com
42 Starlionblue: they cannot think by themselves This is not correct. One of the largest areas of research currently going on in the computer science field is with com
43 Aviation: I would like to just add this ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE if we continue to evolve computer at the rate we are currently in !!!!!!!!!50!!!!!!!!! years anythi
44 Bsergonomics: We are working on unmanned civil transport aircraft at the moment, in the 30-40 year timeframe. The main difficulties are not the technological aspect
45 AAR90: Eample how many zero-zero landings are entrusted to Auto-land/CatIIIc? Probably fewer than you're thinking. Most autoland capable acft require 600 fee
46 Starlionblue: And NO, I do not get on "no-operator-aboard trains" either. Not even the Airtrain at EWR or the trains at MCO and ATL? Is it even possible to transfer
47 Peterpuck: ATC isn't "in control" of the aircraft. The final authority for every action on an aircraft is the PIC. There have been many times in my career where
48 Airplay: Technology has removed the navigator, flight engineer and radio operator seat from aircraft even though the operational capabilities have increased dr
49 Fly2HMO: NOBODY has mentioned the possibility of having cockpits with only ONE pilot... I'm only against this because computers might have my future job one da
50 DeskPilot: "..I think I will live long enough to see pilotless 747 sized cargo aircraft though..." What do you base this prediction on Fly2HMO ? Assuming you're
51 Boeing7E7: Would you put your family aboard such an aircraft? That'd answer your question right there.... Circa entering the jet age.... With all those crashes,
52 2H4: Well, what about traffic lights and automated railroad crossing gates? Everyone here, from time to time, blows underneath a green light or across rail
53 Scbriml: Planes of the future will feature one 'pilot' and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog, while the dog makes sure the pilot doesn't touch any of t
54 Whiskeyflyer: So WING says "Whiskeyflyer saves his job for the future while eliminating pain in the a** pilots out of the place for ever,that should be a dream come
55 Boeing7E7: There was a time when people said they'd never get on an automated rail vehicle as well. It's all generational. Each generation has a different reacti
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Sep 2003, 2428 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 5853 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 767 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 13596 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 5126 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 27809 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
