172driver wrote:
airlines of course would have much of that info via internal reporting, but it’s not normally made public
Not just airlines, every commercial operator and even FTOs must have a safety management system and internal reporting. The reports themselves are not made public, but there are audits performed by the authority who also do some kind of statistical evaluation. So there are plenty of numbers available to base decisions upon. No commercial operator wants an accident, for smaller ones this is usually the end of their operation. Therefore we can be sure that they will not want to introduce pilotless aircraft when their internal incident statistics tells them something different!
Actually, come to think of it, 9/11 is a classic example of why autonomous aircraft couldn’t cope.
Imagine the scene: hundreds of aircraft, with thousands of pax, approaching the US mainland, when US airspace was closed without warning. Some aircraft had to work through to 7th or 8th choice alternates, using some fairly obscure airfields in Canada.
I was flying commercially at the time, half-way across the pond in a 767; there was no immediate information from ATC regarding the reason airspace was closed. Our ops control back in the UK was flooded with requests for info and communication was impossible. We based our subsequent decisions by listening to BBC News on HF (or LW – can’t remember). Why did we continue and not turn back? It sounded more interesting ahead.
How would our robot aircraft have managed? Not just in the air, but on the ground? What’s envisaged for taxying, at an emergency airfield, with one person in the tower, dealing with 14 unexpected arrivals?
Anyway, food for thought…..
2greens1red wrote:
when US airspace was closed without warning.
The US airspace wouldn’t have been closed without warning if the three aircraft wouldn’t have been hijacked in the first place. With pilotless aircraft there will be no closing of airspaces – as simple as that. “Airspace” and “state boundary” are purely arbitrary demarcations anyway for a vehicle that by itself knows no borders (“Luft hat keine Balken” is an old saying around here – “air has no bars”).
what_next wrote:
With pilotless aircraft there will be no closing of airspaces – as simple as that.
Well… With remotely controlled aircraft, the hijackers wouldn’t even have to be onboard. Speaking as a computer scientist, I find the idea of remotely controlled aircraft horrifying from a security point of view.
I can think of other scenarios where a country’s airspace could be closed at short notice. Hijacking is just one example.
I can’t see the world’s aircraft fleet switching over to totally pilotless aircraft. Who would finance the trillions of $$$$$ needed to achieve that?
Forgetting airspace shutdowns, how would our pilotless aircraft cope with a pax life and death emergency requiring an immediate diversion? Let the cabin crew take over and make the decision? Press the red button – land as soon as possible?
4-engine flameout due to volcanic dust?
In a dire emergency, requiring immediate landing, how would our robot aircraft liaise with ATC?
Those saying that a passenger wouldn’t even notice 3-5% savings in ticket prices are looking in the wrong direction.
Firstly, it will be more than that. With no cockpit needed (the electronics can be buried somewhere less valuable than the cabin), there will probably be at least an extra 2 rows of fare paying seats. Probably very premium seats due to the excellent view.
So it could be a lot more and 3-5%.
But even if it’s only 3-5%, the accountants certainly will notice the difference. If the passenger doesn’t notice, then it won’t be passed on to them, and it will all hit the bottom line. If the dividends go from 2% to 5-7% (2%+3 to 5%) it will make a huge difference to company valuations, and hence directors bonuses etc.
The blocked runway is easy to solve. Autonomous cars already have that technology in a much more complicated environment. An aircraft just have to check one straight piece of ‘road’ and go around if it’s blocked.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well… With remotely controlled aircraft, the hijackers wouldn’t even have to be onboard. Speaking as a computer scientist, I find the idea of remotely controlled aircraft horrifying from a security point of view.
I am no computer scientist, but I feel exactly the same.
The trouble is we think we can factor in every scenario and most of the time we can. We live in an uncertain world but long periods of certainty make us feel in control. Then you get the odd event such as the volcano and Iceland (and the possibly of much worse to come – no the certainty at some point in time) or the tsunami or a ground based nuclear accident or worse terrorists getting their hands on something really nasty and all the time aircraft are on routes of 6, 8, 10 hours and more there is time enough over the course of a flight for the goal posts to move massively and the accountants will not want the aircraft carrying more IFR reserves that is for sure – so I see those as huge challenges for systems than may need to operate without human intervention, and even with huge intervention the propensity to place a huge demand on the data network. I think these are challenges that will take a great deal of time to overcome, never mind persuading the paying public. I say again people are comfortable with the ability to stop a car or ship, and in the former case take back control by getting out and doing your own thing and dont think they are anywhere near as comfortable in a metal tube that they know will only stay aloft as long as its finite fuel reserves last.
Cargo – an entirely different matter – I see freight dogs flying between coastal airports over long ocean routes. Should the worst happen as long as the aircraft can be brought down over the sea the loss can be factored into the financial equation and the politicians and aviation authorities kept happy. I think that will be a much closer reality.
2greens1red wrote:
4-engine flameout due to volcanic dust?
In normal operations the aircraft will be monitored and operated from a center somewhere on the ground. The operator will do exactly what the pilots on board will do: Turn on the ignition, wait and pray. Even an onboard computer can do that.
2greens1red wrote:
In a dire emergency, requiring immediate landing, how would our robot aircraft liaise with ATC?
Exactly the same way we human pilots will do it: Transmit a mayday call, both electronically and as voice message for the non-computerised aircraft in the vicinity, state it’s intensions and request the required assistance.
2greens1red wrote:
Forgetting airspace shutdowns, how would our pilotless aircraft cope with a pax life and death emergency requiring an immediate diversion? Let the cabin crew take over and make the decision? Press the red button – land as soon as possible?
Yes, exactly. This is not a decision that requires a “pilot”. Cabin attendants get the same first aid training as we do. And if they come to the conclusion that a passenger requires immediate medical attention, instead of banging on the cockpit door and let the pilots divert the plane they do it themselves. Again, during normal operations there will be a control center on the ground with which everything can be discussed and coordinated. With some superior (maybe a pilot who instead of monitoring one aircraft at a time, as it is now, monitors a dozen) in charge who takes the final decision.
Again: As a passenger I would prefer it that way instead of putting my fate into the hands of the two guys up front, one of which may be an undiscovered madman as in the recent Germanwings crash.
A very interesting debate and I guess we shall just have to wait and see how it pans out. Whether this forum will still be here in ten years time (I hope so) I dont know but I reckon in will not happen in that time span at least but maybe someone can resurrect this thread when it does.
