FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Pilotless aircraft

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Would you travel in one? How long will it be before a commercial airline decides to do away with pilots if ever?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In view of the recent disaster , I guess it is an option they'll consider. We have autopilot anyway don't we now ? I'll still rather have soneone else there to over ride -just in case !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes I would, if it is being piloted and controlled completely autonomously, using sattelites and radar, with the correct array of instruments to aid the intelligence controlling the aircraft.

However if it was controlled like a UAV, with a pilot sitting behind a desk in some company building then no!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *edangel_2013Woman
over a year ago

southend


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver. "

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The technology exists and commercial airlines do review it regularly, the biggest obstacle is public reluctance, we seem to trust humans over computers, maybe rightly so?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to. "

They'll sometimes be a guard but they don't have a driver.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to.

They'll sometimes be a guard but they don't have a driver. "

I don't give it a second thought when I use it. And probably wouldn't if the plane I was in had no pilot either. Most aircraft are controlled most of the time by autopilot, do we really need humans there to screw it up?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to.

They'll sometimes be a guard but they don't have a driver.

I don't give it a second thought when I use it. And probably wouldn't if the plane I was in had no pilot either. Most aircraft are controlled most of the time by autopilot, do we really need humans there to screw it up?"

I do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the point is most aircraft are controlled 'most' of the time by autopilot. For all the tragic stories like what seems to be coming out about the Alps crash, there's many small stories where a pilot has taken decisive action that's averted disaster, most of which we never hear about. Maybe pilotless aircraft one day, but I can't imagine it in the next 40 years or so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to.

They'll sometimes be a guard but they don't have a driver.

I don't give it a second thought when I use it. And probably wouldn't if the plane I was in had no pilot either. Most aircraft are controlled most of the time by autopilot, do we really need humans there to screw it up?

I do. "

I suspect 95%+ of the population would agree with you. But it is only a matter of time before we see driverless cars on the road and I can't help feeling pilotless aircraft in the sky with the advances we are seeing in technology.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just wouldnt feel safe on a pilotless aircraft, what if the software decides its doing a update mid flight

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ngieandMrManCouple
over a year ago

hereford

Based on a newspaper report I was reading there is now 4 incidents of plane crashes where by investigations suggest that the pilot or co-pilot binned it intentionally.

How does that compare to the number of crashes that resulted from mechanical failure? But perhaps more important, how many crashes have been avoided thanks to pilot skill and training?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to.

They'll sometimes be a guard but they don't have a driver.

I don't give it a second thought when I use it. And probably wouldn't if the plane I was in had no pilot either. Most aircraft are controlled most of the time by autopilot, do we really need humans there to screw it up?

I do.

I suspect 95%+ of the population would agree with you. But it is only a matter of time before we see driverless cars on the road and I can't help feeling pilotless aircraft in the sky with the advances we are seeing in technology."

I also think it's only a matter of time , but I won't be getting on a pilotless plane.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the point is most aircraft are controlled 'most' of the time by autopilot. For all the tragic stories like what seems to be coming out about the Alps crash, there's many small stories where a pilot has taken decisive action that's averted disaster, most of which we never hear about. Maybe pilotless aircraft one day, but I can't imagine it in the next 40 years or so. "
.You might be surprised to know that boeing flew one about 20 years ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to.

They'll sometimes be a guard but they don't have a driver.

I don't give it a second thought when I use it. And probably wouldn't if the plane I was in had no pilot either. Most aircraft are controlled most of the time by autopilot, do we really need humans there to screw it up?

I do.

I suspect 95%+ of the population would agree with you. But it is only a matter of time before we see driverless cars on the road and I can't help feeling pilotless aircraft in the sky with the advances we are seeing in technology.

I also think it's only a matter of time , but I won't be getting on a pilotless plane. "

I'm trying hard not to think of you as Mr T in the A-team....."I ain't gettin on no plane"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the statistic is something like 7 in 10 crashes are through human error

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas

There is technology for cars and trucks to be automated.

Would you sit in the passenger seat and let your car drive you to work?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 26/03/15 18:48:45]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Would you travel in one? How long will it be before a commercial airline decides to do away with pilots if ever?"
.

If I was going to fly (I choose not to) I wouldn't hesitate to put my life in the hand of technology, crazed driver/pilot on a bad day or computer programming glitch, it's all the same outcome

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Parachutes are all we need lol

Bugger the pilots.

I'm not in a trusting mood !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

no

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"There is technology for cars and trucks to be automated.

Would you sit in the passenger seat and let your car drive you to work? "
do engineers take over their cnc machines?

Do surgeons overrule their calibrated equipment.

Would you have an optometrist take over the computer doing laser eye surgery?.

You'd be a dammed site worse off if you did

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Interestingly enough, most of the flight is taken care of by computers anyway. The Captain and _irst officer are there for observation and supervision - and passenger reassurance.

The technology, of course, already exists to take care of landing and take off.

I watch Air Crash Investigation on National Geographic and is a very informative and interesting program.

Many of the problems that result in the loss of an aircraft are due to human error - pilot errors, maintenance errors etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think the statistic is something like 7 in 10 crashes are through human error"

The majority of aircraft crashes are due to pilot error.

Remove the human element and leave all the mathematical data, wind speed, altitude, cross winds, monitoring weather patterns, calculating fuel consummation. A computer can handle these things perfectly fine, all at once. Aircraft are becoming more and more technical, more and more systems are being installed and fitted to these aircraft. A computer wont experience fear in a crosswind or bad weather. The more systems being installed mean that more pressure on the pilots having to monitor the systems and adjust as necessary.

A computer can do all the thinking, chat with the other hundreds of aircraft in its airspace without having to take its eye from one panel to another as it will be monitoring them all!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Interestingly enough, most of the flight is taken care of by computers anyway. The Captain and _irst officer are there for observation and supervision - and passenger reassurance.

The technology, of course, already exists to take care of landing and take off.

I watch Air Crash Investigation on National Geographic and is a very informative and interesting program.

Many of the problems that result in the loss of an aircraft are due to human error - pilot errors, maintenance errors etc."

It still remains probably the safest form of transport. I guess most people view computers as more fallible than humans. It is that human psyche which is probably impossible to overcome. What I suspect is the airlines will have aircraft with pilots, but will increasingly let the computers fly to build a dossier of evidence so that over time they can demonstrate no need for the pilot oversight.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Interestingly enough, most of the flight is taken care of by computers anyway. The Captain and _irst officer are there for observation and supervision - and passenger reassurance.

The technology, of course, already exists to take care of landing and take off.

I watch Air Crash Investigation on National Geographic and is a very informative and interesting program.

Many of the problems that result in the loss of an aircraft are due to human error - pilot errors, maintenance errors etc.

It still remains probably the safest form of transport. I guess most people view computers as more fallible than humans. It is that human psyche which is probably impossible to overcome. What I suspect is the airlines will have aircraft with pilots, but will increasingly let the computers fly to build a dossier of evidence so that over time they can demonstrate no need for the pilot oversight."
.

Actually I believe that's elevators.... And guess what... Their pilotless ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to. "

I like sitting at the front and pretending I'm the driver

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

Most airplanes are automated, the have auto pilot, auto land systems.

It will never fully catch on, people like the human touch in the flight.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ristol HellfireMan
over a year ago

Bristol

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.

HAL

2001 (1968)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver. "

You understand that for trains the stopping distance exceeds the drivers vision distance?

If there's someone on the track thier instruction is apply break turn around to face the rear and yell at the top of thier lungs, this mutes out the impact sound which apparently is one of the main reported distressing factors over the long term.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas

Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible."
.

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington


"There is technology for cars and trucks to be automated.

Would you sit in the passenger seat and let your car drive you to work? "

if it could turn tge interior light on and off when I go dogging

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible..

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

"

It's a bit like your modern day car, turn the key, and then the management system tells it to start, if you break hard the antilock system tells it how to break, it's much the same in a modern jet, you tell the flight management computer and it tells the aircraft to execute it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible..

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

It's a bit like your modern day car, turn the key, and then the management system tells it to start, if you break hard the antilock system tells it how to break, it's much the same in a modern jet, you tell the flight management computer and it tells the aircraft to execute it."
actually alot of modern cars are fly by wire just like planes, your brake pedal isn't connected to your brake system.... It just pushes a lever that tells the computer to brake

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

You understand that for trains the stopping distance exceeds the drivers vision distance?

If there's someone on the track thier instruction is apply break turn around to face the rear and yell at the top of thier lungs, this mutes out the impact sound which apparently is one of the main reported distressing factors over the long term."

Been there , done that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he tactile technicianMan
over a year ago

the good lands, the bad lands, the any where you may want me lands

If its all the same to you give me a B. Sullenberger as pilot. Somehow I don't think that technology could have achieved what the pilot of American Airlines 1549 did shortly after taking off from New Yorks Leguardia airport and ditching in the Hudson river with no fatalities, but who knows, maybe in a few years time we will be discussing a similar incident and praising or even condemning pilotless aircraft

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible..

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

It's a bit like your modern day car, turn the key, and then the management system tells it to start, if you break hard the antilock system tells it how to break, it's much the same in a modern jet, you tell the flight management computer and it tells the aircraft to execute it.actually alot of modern cars are fly by wire just like planes, your brake pedal isn't connected to your brake system.... It just pushes a lever that tells the computer to brake"

Exactly, you still have to tell it to execute the action, on an aircraft it's set and confirmed by two people.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible..

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

It's a bit like your modern day car, turn the key, and then the management system tells it to start, if you break hard the antilock system tells it how to break, it's much the same in a modern jet, you tell the flight management computer and it tells the aircraft to execute it.actually alot of modern cars are fly by wire just like planes, your brake pedal isn't connected to your brake system.... It just pushes a lever that tells the computer to brake

Exactly, you still have to tell it to execute the action, on an aircraft it's set and confirmed by two people."
.

It doesn't have to be though, boeing flew pilotless test planes 20 years ago, when we had BBC computers!.

The fact remains no human can make better decisions than a computer.

They certainly have faster reactions, more awareness, and are way less prone to sleep, tiredness, bad moods, suicide, errors.

In fact trusting a human over a computer is actually completely illogical

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In view of the recent disaster , I guess it is an option they'll consider. "

That still doesn't solve the problem.

Anything programmed by man is STILL fallible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible..

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

It's a bit like your modern day car, turn the key, and then the management system tells it to start, if you break hard the antilock system tells it how to break, it's much the same in a modern jet, you tell the flight management computer and it tells the aircraft to execute it.actually alot of modern cars are fly by wire just like planes, your brake pedal isn't connected to your brake system.... It just pushes a lever that tells the computer to brake

Exactly, you still have to tell it to execute the action, on an aircraft it's set and confirmed by two people..

It doesn't have to be though, boeing flew pilotless test planes 20 years ago, when we had BBC computers!.

The fact remains no human can make better decisions than a computer.

They certainly have faster reactions, more awareness, and are way less prone to sleep, tiredness, bad moods, suicide, errors.

In fact trusting a human over a computer is actually completely illogical"

The computer will only decisions based on the information it receives be it human input or a frozen pitot tube.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver. "

It still has the guard person who tells the train when to go and keeps an eye on things. He just doesn't do it from the front

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In view of the recent disaster , I guess it is an option they'll consider.

That still doesn't solve the problem.

Anything programmed by man is STILL fallible. "
.

It's alright they'll just get women to programme it.

No reversing needed and no aggressive wheel spinning macho bullshit.

One week a month all flights will be grounded due to very bad tempered computers that want a cuddle, reassurance and then to fly you into the side of a mountain

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *umpkinMan
over a year ago

near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack!


"I wouldn't , I don't even go on the DLR as it has no driver.

I never knew that!! I've also never used the DLR. Mainly because I've never had to.

I like sitting at the front and pretending I'm the driver"

Me too! Although I have also been in one that was being driven/monitored by a driver. They are manually driven in the depots for safety reasons.

I was sitting in the left front seat one day when an American lady asked "Who`s driving this thang?" I replied "It sure as hell isn`t me!!!" to which her companion explained the computer control system!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible..

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

It's a bit like your modern day car, turn the key, and then the management system tells it to start, if you break hard the antilock system tells it how to break, it's much the same in a modern jet, you tell the flight management computer and it tells the aircraft to execute it.actually alot of modern cars are fly by wire just like planes, your brake pedal isn't connected to your brake system.... It just pushes a lever that tells the computer to brake

Exactly, you still have to tell it to execute the action, on an aircraft it's set and confirmed by two people..

It doesn't have to be though, boeing flew pilotless test planes 20 years ago, when we had BBC computers!.

The fact remains no human can make better decisions than a computer.

They certainly have faster reactions, more awareness, and are way less prone to sleep, tiredness, bad moods, suicide, errors.

In fact trusting a human over a computer is actually completely illogical

The computer will only decisions based on the information it receives be it human input or a frozen pitot tube."
.

A nice lady on here once passed this gem on awhile back.

Rat Neurons Grown On A Computer Chip Fly A Simulated Aircraft: https://youtu.be/1w41gH6x_30

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think you're getting mixed up between computer controlled airplanes. And unmanned air vehicles, humans piloting from a ground station. The big problem with both is that sometimes a planes need to be flown from "the seat of your pants". ie rainy night time, 65mph buffeting crosswind landing, 35 degrees of yaw on the nose with an ILS that has vectored you in 200 yards left of the centre line.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"Would aircraft without automation be more reliable?

Lots of accidents have happened because of bad information from sensors and crew believing them.

More annual training should also be introduced for manual flight.

Computers are used to save as much fuel as possible..

Statistically there'd be 70% more reliable!.

It's a bit like your modern day car, turn the key, and then the management system tells it to start, if you break hard the antilock system tells it how to break, it's much the same in a modern jet, you tell the flight management computer and it tells the aircraft to execute it.actually alot of modern cars are fly by wire just like planes, your brake pedal isn't connected to your brake system.... It just pushes a lever that tells the computer to brake

Exactly, you still have to tell it to execute the action, on an aircraft it's set and confirmed by two people..

It doesn't have to be though, boeing flew pilotless test planes 20 years ago, when we had BBC computers!.

The fact remains no human can make better decisions than a computer.

They certainly have faster reactions, more awareness, and are way less prone to sleep, tiredness, bad moods, suicide, errors.

In fact trusting a human over a computer is actually completely illogical

The computer will only decisions based on the information it receives be it human input or a frozen pitot tube."

I also think that more hand's on flying should be required by pilots because everything is so computerise.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I guess most people view computers as more fallible than humans. "

Interesting viewpoint considering that computers are incapable of making mistakes. They simply process the information that they are given. Whether it be from manual human input, or from sensor devices etc

For example, a blocked pito tube on an aircraft will give false readings to the flight computer, but would also give the same reading to the Captain's instruments.

The difference between the computer and the Captain is that the computer will simply process the information and act accordingly, whereas the Captain is able to rely on other senses, experience and gut feeling etc.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"In view of the recent disaster , I guess it is an option they'll consider.

That still doesn't solve the problem.

Anything programmed by man is STILL fallible. .

It's alright they'll just get women to programme it.

No reversing needed and no aggressive wheel spinning macho bullshit.

One week a month all flights will be grounded due to very bad tempered computers that want a cuddle, reassurance and then to fly you into the side of a mountain "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think you're getting mixed up between computer controlled airplanes. And unmanned air vehicles, humans piloting from a ground station. The big problem with both is that sometimes a planes need to be flown from "the seat of your pants". ie rainy night time, 65mph buffeting crosswind landing, 35 degrees of yaw on the nose with an ILS that has vectored you in 200 yards left of the centre line."

In the situation you describe, the computer would simply work out the best action based on the prevailing conditions, but without the emotion or fear.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I guess most people view computers as more fallible than humans.

Interesting viewpoint considering that computers are incapable of making mistakes. They simply process the information that they are given. Whether it be from manual human input, or from sensor devices etc

For example, a blocked pito tube on an aircraft will give false readings to the flight computer, but would also give the same reading to the Captain's instruments.

The difference between the computer and the Captain is that the computer will simply process the information and act accordingly, whereas the Captain is able to rely on other senses, experience and gut feeling etc."
.

Oh yeah and that saved that French airliner leaving south america didn't it.

That was obviously sarcasm as actually all three pilots failed to spot one wrong reading, which actually a computer programme would have picked up on with cross referencing!

Right now today most planes can land themselves, singer of you have probably been in a plane that's been landed on auto pilot.

I think it would be the sensible thing to go to computer flown aircraft with one pilot as backup.

Or at the very least a programme that takes evasive action should the plane be attempted to fly into anything!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heOwlMan
over a year ago

Altrincham

I would trust a computer to fly a plane, granted I suspect there is still a lot of work still to do before this happens. Yes it is relatively easy to get a plane to fly from A to B on its own, however it's a little more difficult to get it to deal with the unexpected events that can occur. That sort of thing will need fairly advanced AI to deal with. Ok so AI has imporved dramatically in the last 20 years (just look as Google Maps or MS Cortana), but it still has a long way to go before one can safely say AI could handle all the situations a flight could involve.

However I wouldn't trust humans to actually allow it to do so without interferance or rather without someone attempting to take controll of it for their own purposes.

So I guess the next question is, how long before someone hacks the first pilotless aircraft ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"I guess most people view computers as more fallible than humans.

Interesting viewpoint considering that computers are incapable of making mistakes. They simply process the information that they are given. Whether it be from manual human input, or from sensor devices etc

For example, a blocked pito tube on an aircraft will give false readings to the flight computer, but would also give the same reading to the Captain's instruments.

The difference between the computer and the Captain is that the computer will simply process the information and act accordingly, whereas the Captain is able to rely on other senses, experience and gut feeling etc..

Oh yeah and that saved that French airliner leaving south america didn't it.

That was obviously sarcasm as actually all three pilots failed to spot one wrong reading, which actually a computer programme would have picked up on with cross referencing!

Right now today most planes can land themselves, singer of you have probably been in a plane that's been landed on auto pilot.

I think it would be the sensible thing to go to computer flown aircraft with one pilot as backup.

Or at the very least a programme that takes evasive action should the plane be attempted to fly into anything!"

Most planes will auto disconnect from the flight management computer at minimums, very few airports have the technology for auto land and taxi.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would imagine somebody has already hacked a plane!.

I watched a hacker show how to do it 5 years ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icky999Man
over a year ago

warrington

Computers for writing letters.

humans for pushing the envelope

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ifferMan
over a year ago

Stow

The Airbus family is an incredibly clever aircraft. Engineers tell the crews, 'no matter how clever you think you are, this aircraft is smarter. It's designed by engineers for engineers and it can tell us everything that you do to it. We know where to look'. Even Airbus call the pilots 'systems managers' and not pilots.

It doesn't appear to be the case in this latest tragedy but when the aircraft really does get in a mess (think Air France A330 in the South Atlantic) you really do need good airmanship, something that a computer just can't provide. So while it might be nice to dispense with the services of the flight crew, it's a non starter in commercial aviation in my view. It's one of thing losing a drone over afghan, it's quite something else having an A380 pilotless over london.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There is really no reason why not you can install 20 back up computers is you want, the Tube now runs itself, the driver in there only operates the doors.

No reason not have cars driving themselves, can't be any worse than some of the dickheads I have to avoid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Airbus family is an incredibly clever aircraft. Engineers tell the crews, 'no matter how clever you think you are, this aircraft is smarter. It's designed by engineers for engineers and it can tell us everything that you do to it. We know where to look'. Even Airbus call the pilots 'systems managers' and not pilots.

It doesn't appear to be the case in this latest tragedy but when the aircraft really does get in a mess (think Air France A330 in the South Atlantic) you really do need good airmanship, something that a computer just can't provide. So while it might be nice to dispense with the services of the flight crew, it's a non starter in commercial aviation in my view. It's one of thing losing a drone over afghan, it's quite something else having an A380 pilotless over london."
.

You do know that the air France plane crashed through pilot error don't you!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"The Airbus family is an incredibly clever aircraft. Engineers tell the crews, 'no matter how clever you think you are, this aircraft is smarter. It's designed by engineers for engineers and it can tell us everything that you do to it. We know where to look'. Even Airbus call the pilots 'systems managers' and not pilots.

It doesn't appear to be the case in this latest tragedy but when the aircraft really does get in a mess (think Air France A330 in the South Atlantic) you really do need good airmanship, something that a computer just can't provide. So while it might be nice to dispense with the services of the flight crew, it's a non starter in commercial aviation in my view. It's one of thing losing a drone over afghan, it's quite something else having an A380 pilotless over london..

You do know that the air France plane crashed through pilot error don't you!"

Pilot error due to frozen airspeed/attitude sensors causing the aircraft to stall and spin, more hands on flying so pilots can recognise stall and recovery procedures.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Airbus family is an incredibly clever aircraft. Engineers tell the crews, 'no matter how clever you think you are, this aircraft is smarter. It's designed by engineers for engineers and it can tell us everything that you do to it. We know where to look'. Even Airbus call the pilots 'systems managers' and not pilots.

It doesn't appear to be the case in this latest tragedy but when the aircraft really does get in a mess (think Air France A330 in the South Atlantic) you really do need good airmanship, something that a computer just can't provide. So while it might be nice to dispense with the services of the flight crew, it's a non starter in commercial aviation in my view. It's one of thing losing a drone over afghan, it's quite something else having an A380 pilotless over london..

You do know that the air France plane crashed through pilot error don't you!

Pilot error due to frozen airspeed/attitude sensors causing the aircraft to stall and spin, more hands on flying so pilots can recognise stall and recovery procedures."
.

Not that the pilot had one hours sleep after corvorting with his mistress in Brazil all night then and expecting to have a kip while the plane fly's itself home then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Lord save us from Google experts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I summarised what the French report said, with some loose translations

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"The Airbus family is an incredibly clever aircraft. Engineers tell the crews, 'no matter how clever you think you are, this aircraft is smarter. It's designed by engineers for engineers and it can tell us everything that you do to it. We know where to look'. Even Airbus call the pilots 'systems managers' and not pilots.

It doesn't appear to be the case in this latest tragedy but when the aircraft really does get in a mess (think Air France A330 in the South Atlantic) you really do need good airmanship, something that a computer just can't provide. So while it might be nice to dispense with the services of the flight crew, it's a non starter in commercial aviation in my view. It's one of thing losing a drone over afghan, it's quite something else having an A380 pilotless over london..

You do know that the air France plane crashed through pilot error don't you!

Pilot error due to frozen airspeed/attitude sensors causing the aircraft to stall and spin, more hands on flying so pilots can recognise stall and recovery procedures..

Not that the pilot had one hours sleep after corvorting with his mistress in Brazil all night then and expecting to have a kip while the plane fly's itself home then?"

That wasn't the finding of the investigation and the same problem arose a year later on an exception flight where attitude indicators froze after being washed at heigh pressure.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Airbus family is an incredibly clever aircraft. Engineers tell the crews, 'no matter how clever you think you are, this aircraft is smarter. It's designed by engineers for engineers and it can tell us everything that you do to it. We know where to look'. Even Airbus call the pilots 'systems managers' and not pilots.

It doesn't appear to be the case in this latest tragedy but when the aircraft really does get in a mess (think Air France A330 in the South Atlantic) you really do need good airmanship, something that a computer just can't provide. So while it might be nice to dispense with the services of the flight crew, it's a non starter in commercial aviation in my view. It's one of thing losing a drone over afghan, it's quite something else having an A380 pilotless over london..

You do know that the air France plane crashed through pilot error don't you!

Pilot error due to frozen airspeed/attitude sensors causing the aircraft to stall and spin, more hands on flying so pilots can recognise stall and recovery procedures..

Not that the pilot had one hours sleep after corvorting with his mistress in Brazil all night then and expecting to have a kip while the plane fly's itself home then?

That wasn't the finding of the investigation and the same problem arose a year later on an exception flight where attitude indicators froze after being washed at heigh pressure."
.

Wiki.

The French news magazine Le Point published a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcription from a judicial report. Captain Marc Dubois said: "I didn't sleep enough last night. One hour – it's not enough right now" before he went to sleep and handed over the control to the two co-pilots. The co-pilots had spent three nights in Rio de Janeiro.[239][240] BEA included a section addressing the fatigue issue in its final report,[241] but they did not include the captain's fatigue comment to preserve privacy.[242].

Because he was there with his mistress!... Why do you think he only got one hour sleep! And what do you think he thought he'd do when he was on that 9 hour flight home and the planes flying itself

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I keep picturing a doodlebug

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I keep picturing a doodlebug "
.

You know thirty years ago people thought the banking industry was really well regulated and full of upright citizens!

It's a billon dollar business and there'll cut corners and break the law where they can get away with it for the sake of profit, it's just a way of life!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"The Airbus family is an incredibly clever aircraft. Engineers tell the crews, 'no matter how clever you think you are, this aircraft is smarter. It's designed by engineers for engineers and it can tell us everything that you do to it. We know where to look'. Even Airbus call the pilots 'systems managers' and not pilots.

It doesn't appear to be the case in this latest tragedy but when the aircraft really does get in a mess (think Air France A330 in the South Atlantic) you really do need good airmanship, something that a computer just can't provide. So while it might be nice to dispense with the services of the flight crew, it's a non starter in commercial aviation in my view. It's one of thing losing a drone over afghan, it's quite something else having an A380 pilotless over london..

You do know that the air France plane crashed through pilot error don't you!

Pilot error due to frozen airspeed/attitude sensors causing the aircraft to stall and spin, more hands on flying so pilots can recognise stall and recovery procedures..

Not that the pilot had one hours sleep after corvorting with his mistress in Brazil all night then and expecting to have a kip while the plane fly's itself home then?

That wasn't the finding of the investigation and the same problem arose a year later on an exception flight where attitude indicators froze after being washed at heigh pressure..

Wiki.

The French news magazine Le Point published a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcription from a judicial report. Captain Marc Dubois said: "I didn't sleep enough last night. One hour – it's not enough right now" before he went to sleep and handed over the control to the two co-pilots. The co-pilots had spent three nights in Rio de Janeiro.[239][240] BEA included a section addressing the fatigue issue in its final report,[241] but they did not include the captain's fatigue comment to preserve privacy.[242].

Because he was there with his mistress!... Why do you think he only got one hour sleep! And what do you think he thought he'd do when he was on that 9 hour flight home and the planes flying itself"

It's perfectly normal for a captain to spend time in the rest area between top of climb and descent.

I'd believe the official report.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The bea is the official report!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irst officerMan
over a year ago

Naas


"The bea is the official report! "

Mechanical errors that happened again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The bea is the official report!

Mechanical errors that happened again."
.

Yeah the official report isn't exactly a glowing reference for pilots!.

My point was that a computer programme would have dealt better with that scenario than what the three humans did.

I think if there'd put three humans who understood the computer and the computer together it would probably have been better still!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arehamMan
over a year ago

handforth

I have a friend that is a pilot for Virgin,he tells me when he flyes to the usa,when he gets to 250 feet after take off he presses a button and he sits back for the next ten hours and does nothing,he also said the plane will land it's self when it gets to the usa if he let's it,but he likes to land it him self?.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I have a friend that is a pilot for Virgin,he tells me when he flyes to the usa,when he gets to 250 feet after take off he presses a button and he sits back for the next ten hours and does nothing,he also said the plane will land it's self when it gets to the usa if he let's it,but he likes to land it him self?. "

250 feet?

Horizontal or vertical?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"In view of the recent disaster , I guess it is an option they'll consider.

That still doesn't solve the problem.

Anything programmed by man is STILL fallible. "

That's why 3 completely separate teams program 3 completely separate systems running on different hardware and that's just the bqck ups.

Each computer is actually 2 computers and they check theirs results against each other.

Programing so far hasn't caused an accident pilots have caused plenty though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *ike4362ukMan
over a year ago

Cheshunt

As an engineer that works in a field that uses robotics I would only trust computers to operate an aircraft in ideal conditions.

Aircrew are still the best when it comes to handling emergency conditions. The incident of the airliner ditching in the Hudson has already been mentioned. Everybody that heard the message from the captain thought that the aircraft would be wrecked. There had never been a successful airliner ditching prior to that. Pilots can make decisions that can appear unpalatable. Computers can never be programmed for all contingencies at all airports.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top