Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Actually gus, modern fighters are for the most part unflyable without computers, there is even talk that in the not to distant future fighters will be flown via humans ,many miles from the front lines, its the future of combat and its actually a reality since our drones in afghanistan are flown by pilots in America I believe. All things considered modern fighters are held back by the physical limitations of the human body and the affects of G forces on the body so it makes sense that the engineers will simply remove the weakest part of the jet, the human. HOWEVER on a commercial passenger plane, yeah I want a warm blooded meat sack in the cockpit with the computer!!

some are probably flown out of here. But the contractors I've seen posting uav pilot jobs send them abroad. Also aside from the borders and gulf you probably wont see them in us airspace.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

The problem is that many things in aviation are routine, by the numbers mundane. However many also require judgement calls and computers don't do that well. How does a computer correlate the picture outside the window with what the wx radar shows especially when blanketed by one storm? It doesn't, and that's routine. How does a computer decide to change altitude or route when the ride gets bad? They don't.

Computers are far safer when talking about flying through bad weather, or I should say, around it. They don't get emotional, they don't get scared, they don't get tired, they don't drink on the job. A computer is just as accurate, alert, aware and powerful at landing as it was at takeoff, no pilot on the planet can say that about themselves. Go-no-go decisions can still be made on the fly by humans. An air traffic controller with weather radar can give flight guidance information to the airplane so it flies through the least severe weather out there.

I will admit I'd have knot in my stomach thinking about flying in a plane without a pilot. But knowing how little pilots do in the cockpit, it wouldn't be much of a change. Ever heard the saying, "The pilot is there to monitor the auto pilot and the co pilot is there to make sure he doesn't touch anything?" That's more accurate than you may think. I can definitely see how a pilot can be a better decision maker than a computer, but that would be where a ground based person would do just as well. They don't need to be in the plane, and one person can make the decisions for several flights while sitting at a desk. The plane can upload the weather data from its weather radar to a ground station and the ground personnel guide it to where it needs to go. While some reading this may say "why not just put this person in the cockpit?" The answer is....because they aren't needed at any other point in the flight and one person might be able to safely make flight decisions for 5 or more airplanes.

Don't worry, pilots aren't going anywhere because everybody is like you people, unwilling to fly with an inflatable pilot in the front......I'm thinking of that movie "airplane" with the autopilot that inflated and flew the plane. Hey, that blonde did a good job of blowing him up, didn't she?

 

[mscher]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

One possible problem, is that computers may not always be able to "think" their way out of an unusual emergency situation.

I'm not a pilot, so please correct, if this is incorrect information.

I heard a story where and computer flown aircraft, encountered severe icing during flight and was quickly losing airspeed, towards a stall. An experienced pilot, may have dropped the nose to glide, to pick up speed, but the the computer, only sensed, that there was airspeed loss, so it kept the nose up and continued adding power, which only made things worse. The Pilots were not expereinced with icing situations, so they assumed that the computer knows what was the right thing to do, so they made no attempt to overide. The aircraft eventually crashed.

 

[gus-gus]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

One possible problem, is that computers may not always be able to "think" their way out of an unusual emergency situation.

I'm not a pilot, so please correct, if this is incorrect information.

I heard a story where and computer flown aircraft, encountered severe icing during flight and was quickly losing airspeed, towards a stall. An experienced pilot, may have dropped the nose to glide, to pick up speed, but the the computer, only sensed, that there was airspeed loss, so it kept the nose up and continued adding power, which only made things worse. The Pilots were not expereinced with icing situations, so they assumed that the computer knows what was the right thing to do, so they made no attempt to overide. The aircraft eventually crashed.

Think of the lessons learned and would "NEVER" be repeated, because it would then be part of the flight program. The safety would increase as it already is because the pilots only do what the engineers allow them to do. I wasn't that long ago my father said, "I ain't getting in no airplane without a real navigator!", or an engineer!, or without flight attendants!
I work for Virgin America right now. Yes they use an Ipad looking devise in the cockpit to access charts and even all the manuals, reducing the planes take-off weight by a max of (approx) 300 pounds. They work well and each side is it's own system, yet they also connect to the home office and they can tell the company they are having an issue with one auto pilot or???

Lastly auto land is incredible. To watch the plane land from the cockpit is an awesome experience, one I have witnessed many thousands of times.
I would gladly volunteer to be the first to be in an unmanned aircraft, made by Boeing!

Yes Virgin has made major moves to reduce flight attendant numbers on their flights and it is incredible. You order food like at a restaurant on the seat back in front of you and it arrives. Drinks too. No carts up and down the isles, no begging for dollars crud, just slide your card...........amazing technology.

 

[Smokey496]

Not me.

 

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Computers are far safer when talking about flying through bad weather, or I should say, around it. They don't get emotional, they don't get scared, they don't get tired, they don't drink on the job. A computer is just as accurate, alert, aware and powerful at landing as it was at takeoff, no pilot on the planet can say that about themselves. Go-no-go decisions can still be made on the fly by humans. An air traffic controller with weather radar can give flight guidance information to the airplane so it flies through the least severe weather out there.

I will admit I'd have knot in my stomach thinking about flying in a plane without a pilot. But knowing how little pilots do in the cockpit, it wouldn't be much of a change. Ever heard the saying, "The pilot is there to monitor the auto pilot and the co pilot is there to make sure he doesn't touch anything?" That's more accurate than you may think. I can definitely see how a pilot can be a better decision maker than a computer, but that would be where a ground based person would do just as well. They don't need to be in the plane, and one person can make the decisions for several flights while sitting at a desk. The plane can upload the weather data from its weather radar to a ground station and the ground personnel guide it to where it needs to go. While some reading this may say "why not just put this person in the cockpit?" The answer is....because they aren't needed at any other point in the flight and one person might be able to safely make flight decisions for 5 or more airplanes.

Don't worry, pilots aren't going anywhere because everybody is like you people, unwilling to fly with an inflatable pilot in the front......I'm thinking of that movie "airplane" with the autopilot that inflated and flew the plane. Hey, that blonde did a good job of blowing him up, didn't she?

weather is not black and white. Its not 'don't fly into that its red ' its a judgement call and very possible to fly into a dry cell not painted on radar.
Atc weather radar at least in the enroute environment is quite poor. Much worse than the onboard.

 

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

One possible problem, is that computers may not always be able to "think" their way out of an unusual emergency situation.

I'm not a pilot, so please correct, if this is incorrect information.

I heard a story where and computer flown aircraft, encountered severe icing during flight and was quickly losing airspeed, towards a stall. An experienced pilot, may have dropped the nose to glide, to pick up speed, but the the computer, only sensed, that there was airspeed loss, so it kept the nose up and continued adding power, which only made things worse. The Pilots were not expereinced with icing situations, so they assumed that the computer knows what was the right thing to do, so they made no attempt to overide. The aircraft eventually crashed.

its possible. The AP will most likely roll in trim to adjust for the loss of altitude which was one theory tossed around on that dash 8 crash. Most jets have ice probes so it would be pretty simple to kick on the anti ice automatically based on that but it can't discriminate between light and extreme ice and know when to gtfo
I can think of a couple nasty accidents related to mismanagement of the anti ice system (palm 90 the primary)

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Would the computer, be able to make the quick decision, to glide Sully's doomed flight, into a smooth water landing, in the Huson River?

That has only happened one time in the history of commercial aviation. It would be pointless to continue with accident prone pilots because one situation happened that is likely to never happen again in our lifetimes.

The ONLY time that a pilot would come in handy is in an emergency situation. Those happen so infrequently that it's almost not justifiable. You have to look at the frequency that having a pilot saved lives vs. having a pilot costing them. You pointed out one instance in which having a pilot saved lives. I pointed out 3 or 4 instances where having a pilot cost lives. So how does that balance out?

I usually think people are stupid for not seeing the light in situations as clear cut as this since I have so much experience in this realm. But with this.....I definitely do not think anyone is stupid for not wanting to fly sans a pilot. I can see both sides of this coin equally, but due to my direct experience, I lean towards no pilot. But.....each to his or her own. I think its a great thread.

 

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

You're going to have to define 'happens infrequently ' I've had 3 instances this month where a pilot needed to make a judgement call. What happens to a computer if a plane goes no gyro even vfr? Bad things.

Which brings up a point. How many people die in car accidents? Start with 2d and build autonomous cars first (yes I know 2 exist)

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

You're going to have to define 'happens infrequently ' I've had 3 instances this month where a pilot needed to make a judgement call. What happens to a computer if a plane goes no gyro even vfr? Bad things.

Happens infrequently: Less than 1/10 of 1% of all commercial flights have an emergency on board caused by a mechanical malfunction of some sort.

There are redundant systems on an airplane. They would fly the same way that a pilot would, using other inputs. A pilot isn't superman, hes got the same information at his disposal that a computer would. But the computer can process it much more quickly than he can. The computer would literally be running on backups before the pilot even knew he had a problem. Electrical failure? Battery backup. That would be the only thing that would scare me.

Please go into more detail about a "judgement" call. What were the 3 instances? Pilots have to make judgement calls but nothing a computer couldn't do, or be programmed to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_error

 

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Happens infrequently: Less than 1/10 of 1% of all commercial flights have an emergency on board caused by a mechanical malfunction of some sort.

There are redundant systems on an airplane. They would fly the same way that a pilot would, using other inputs. A pilot isn't superman, hes got the same information at his disposal that a computer would. But the computer can process it much more quickly than he can. The computer would literally be running on backups before the pilot even knew he had a problem. Electrical failure? Battery backup. That would be the only thing that would scare me.

Please go into more detail about a "judgement" call. What were the 3 instances? Pilots have to make judgement calls but nothing a computer couldn't do, or be programmed to do.

I have already. Several times. But here goes.

A flight climbing through FL 350 loses all instruments. Where is your computer? That system is redundant and still failed much like the hydraulics werea redundant in Sioux city ia

A flight has a security threat. When dies a computer decide to divert?

Weather radar depicts nothing but there's a very ugly looking cell ahead. You just plow through it because the radar is clear, right?

Destination airport is closed for snow removal. You expect a 20 minute hold and have 45 minutes of fuel on board. When do you divert ? The holding stack puts you in icing. How does that affect the speed, configuration for the hold? Can a computer make that call not knowing how severe the icing is?

Ride is choppy at FL 360 borderline moderate. How does your computer get you out of it?

No offense but I'm curious if you hold an instrument rating.

 

[bigdee]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

computer in tandem with a live pilot,wise......computer without live pilot,risky greed.

 

[chriscraft254]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

I really have not read anything here that couldn't be handled through high technology programming on a computer. Computers can make descisions much faster than humans can in most cases.

If captain sully wasn't at the controls that day in NY, but the plane was equiped with the right programming it could have certainly done what the captain did. Along with this powerful computer would have to be sensors that supplied that computer with everything from wave height on the river, traffic on the river, speed at which the water might be moving and at what direction, wind directions, wind speeds etc etc etc. Data can be optained by a computer much faster than a human could ever optain the same info. There are computers today that do nothing more than input data into other computers. It is basically infinite in is design.

How many mathmatical equations can a human do in 10 seconds? How many could a computer do? Probably millions.

I'm not saying I would want to fly on a unmanned aircraft, but the technology is definately here. It has been for years.

I would say 50 years from now, there will be non-human piloted commercial aircraft. If nothing else, computers could be used for just flying cargo and not humans. Basically thats what the drones today are doing, there flying cargo. The explosive kind.

I think eventually that is what you will be seeing first is companies like UPS at the forfront of unmanned cargo aircraft.

Now the real question is the computers going to kill all the humans so they can rule the world. Wonder if computers have religion?

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

I have already. Several times. But here goes.

A flight climbing through FL 350 loses all instruments. Where is your computer? That system is redundant and still failed much like the hydraulics werea redundant in Sioux city ia

A flight has a security threat. When dies a computer decide to divert?

Weather radar depicts nothing but there's a very ugly looking cell ahead. You just plow through it because the radar is clear, right?

Destination airport is closed for snow removal. You expect a 20 minute hold and have 45 minutes of fuel on board. When do you divert ? The holding stack puts you in icing. How does that affect the speed, configuration for the hold? Can a computer make that call not knowing how severe the icing is?

Ride is choppy at FL 360 borderline moderate. How does your computer get you out of it?

No offense but I'm curious if you hold an instrument rating.

I didn't ask you for examples of judgement calls....I wanted the 3 instances you were actually involved in.

Destination airport is closed for snow removal. You expect a 20 minute hold and have 45 minutes of fuel on board. When do you divert ? The holding stack puts you in icing. How does that affect the speed, configuration for the hold? Can a computer make that call not knowing how severe the icing is?

If the destination airport is closed for snow removal the computer would divert to the alternate. Expecting a 20 minute hold and having 45 min of fuel on board would put you into the danger zone. Any pilot letting his fuel get that low would get a severe reprimand from the airline. A computer would catch that problem and divert. No issues there.

Weather radar depicts nothing but there's a very ugly looking cell ahead. You just plow through it because the radar is clear, right?

If it's that ugly it's going to show up as something. You're not going to get a cell into the high 30's flight levels that isn't putting out some kind of precip that is detectable by radar. This isn't very realistic.

A flight has a security threat. When dies a computer decide to divert?

Who the hell would hijack an airplane that is predestined to land at a certain airport and isn't reprogrammable from inside the plane? How much of a security threat would he be? He'll just blow up the plane, which a pilot wouldn't stop him from doing anyway. Its the job of the cabin crew to handle unruly passengers. So this is a bad example. If anything, not having a plane that can be flown just anywhere would make it less likely to be hijacked. It's hard to hit the twin towers when the plane is destined to land in San Francisco and there is nothing you can do about it.

And I took instrument training and got about 2/3 of the way through and had a run in with my instructor and ended up quitting the school. But I'd almost finished. I have no interest in flying in bad visibility so no point in continuing for me.

 

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Your posts just sound lime they come from a vfr standpoint. That's all...

I haven't even touched on the fact it would take the FAA 30 years to implement equipment to actually communicate with autonomous aircraft.

Unfortunately for this plan aviation isn't a 99.9% industry. 100% is demanded.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Your posts just sound lime they come from a vfr standpoint. That's all...

I haven't even touched on the fact it would take the FAA 30 years to implement equipment to actually communicate with autonomous aircraft.

But it doesn't matter. A computer doesn't need to see the ground. IFR VFR.....we're not talking humans, we're talking computers.

You do realize that a computer launches the space shuttle and flies it into orbit without the astronauts touching anything, right? How many times has a computer failure resulted in the loss of a shuttle? If you don't think flying a shuttle at Mach 17 is too dangerous for a computer to do, but flying a lumbering old slow airliner along is, I must ask why I am continuing this debate. Computers also fly fighter jets like F-16's, F-15's F-18's and F-22's. The pilots simply tell the computer where they want the plane to go.....the computer flies the airplane. I don't hear about those falling out of the sky. And those planes aren't even capable of flying without the computer so with only a computer, planes could be faster as they wouldn't have to be so stable in flight to be easy to fly. They could fly like a fighter jet.

Your second point is a good one however. But no pilot is 100%.

 

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Yes it does matter. If the gyros fail the computer is lacking eyeballs.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Yes it does matter. If the gyros fail the computer is lacking eyeballs.

Planes with computers don't have gyros. They have solid state electronics. Gyros are not needed to keep the wings level anyway. If I can buy a GPS off the shelf that can give me the "6-pack" of instruments off of GPS information only, what makes you think an airplane avionics manufacturer can't do the same?

Want to address anything else I said or you want to simply reply to my first sentence and ignore everything else? I still haven't heard any specifics about the "3 instances in a month" that you were involved in. I'm starting to think those are fairy tales.

 

[oops!]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

hey water !

great thread....

have a look at post 6. i cited one positive example....

and one daily example.

i also did not add the circumstances of a flight that had lost fuel and the pilot glided the plane farther than any one else had ever done before.....far longer than spec say it should have.
this was due to a fuel leak. the pilots were not aware of the leak and could not have been.

i think in a perfect world.....you wouldn't need a pilot......however......mechanical failures do happen......that's when pilots make their salary in one day.

 

[chriscraft254]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Mechanical failures like leaking fuel lines can be presented to computer through sensors on those fuel lines. Drop in fuel pressure will show up. The right sensors on an aircraft could probably coast a plane farther than a human because it could read the airflows around the aircraft and compute the best move many times faster than a human. The computers could sense lift,speed,pressure,etc. All it would take is the right programming and control sensors suppling continuos data to the computer.