Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

[Tim Frank]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Yeah. What's the computer's answer when the engines suck up a bunch of geese?

If it's Windows -based, probably reset the engine temperature to 325 F. for 1/2 hour per pound and revise the cabin dinner menu....

 

[Smokey496]

I'm still not flying without a pilot. And a copilot where applicable.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

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.....

Simply feeling that something is ?clear cut? because you ?have so much experience? does not necessarily make it clear cut OR correct.

If your posts in other forums are accurate, you are a private pilot of light and ultra-light aircraft, and a recent graduate of an AME program (I think the US calls this A&P) who has complained about his difficulty getting a steady gig due to his lack of experience.
I am not sure how this translates to an expertise in advanced avionics or forms a good basis to criticize the very justifiable reluctance of the traveling public to put their lives in the hands of a computer.

People don't realize that 85% of aviation accidents are pilot error. A pilot is far more likely to kill you on any given flight than to save you.

Perhaps they don't realise that because it is a wildly inaccurate claim.
Stating that 85% of aviation accidents are due to pilot error is as misleading as it is incorrect. Don?t know how/why you came up with that number unless it is just ?POOYA?. It is a bit high for General Aviation, and for Commercial Aviation (I'll assume you know the difference ) is just?well, since this is DSC, I can?t use the best descriptor.
Heck,even the link YOU posted to a Wiki page says:

"During 2004 in the United States, pilot error was listed as the primary cause of 78.6% of fatal general aviation accidents, and as the primary cause of 75.5% of general aviation accidents overall.[1] For scheduled air transport, pilot error typically accounts for just over half of worldwide accidents with a known cause.[2]" :facepalm:

JB (succinct as usual) in one line summed up this entire thread

Pilotless = passengerless.

The original question by OP was simply whether anyone would fly on a plane without any ?liveware??not necessarily whether hardware and software were a superior option.

But since you have entered the debate voluminously,
A) Your examples of existing in-use automated flight controls are NASA and the military, extremely limited and specific in orientation, and not really relevant. This is a quantum level away from .commercial aviation and its near-absolute optional nature. No paying passengers, no scheduled flights. (didn?t JB already `say that?) 

B)

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. .

How do you define ?Almost????

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? .

You are looking for examples where pilots actually made a difference:
OK (not including Sully?s efforts?already mentioned), here are a few cases of which I am aware :
1) AirTransat 236?the fuel related one mentioned by OOOPS
2) BA38 ? a phenomenal piece of airmanship, and split second decision-making and going outside the box
3) BA 5390 ? cockpit window blew out, pilot sucked ? way out, head first?.co-pilot brought it home, pilot survived.
4) Aloha 243 ? 20 feet of roof blew off. Pilots coped.
5) UA 911
6) BA 9 ? on the job training ... volcanic ash in jet engines?.not a good thing. OOOOPs also mentioned this one.
7) AA 96
8) AC797 ? in flight fire?
9) EA517
10) AC143 - the Gimli Glider ? plane ran out of fuel due to inoperative fuel gauges, and human error in converting dipstick readings. Copilot was aware of an airport, from earlier experience, close enough to make unpowered landing. That is the ?human factor? that can?t be duplicated by microchips.
11) US1549

In many of these cases, the root cause of the emergency was a ?maintenance error? or errors, ~ which is another significant human generated input into air safety.
Given the very prominent and frequent appearance of "maintenance error" as the published cause of an aviation accident, there are clearly valid points-of-view other than that pilots are an unnecessary evil.

Two other well-documented accidents that occurred ?and the definitive description of the cause as being the failure or inappropriate intervention of automated system(s):
SAS 751 - ?A system known as Automatic Thrust Restoration (ATR) then increased output after the engines had been throttled back to idle in an attempt to save them. The ATR system's existence was not something the pilots were informed about.?

THY 1951 -?A faulty radio altimeter caused the plane's computer to automatically reduce engine throttle prematurely in anticipation of landing.?

Any acceptance by the traveling-public of fully automated, unmanned , cockpits would be subject to a total and complete (and unwarranted IMO) faith in the infallibility of the design, building, and maintenance of the systems?.and that our collective Body of Knowledge re: Aviation is complete. As OOOOOPS example of BA 9 and the volcanic ash demonstrates, that latter assumption would be as misguided as it would be tragic.

 

[rbh]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Nope, nadda, noway!!!


(Tim, bored/got some time on your hands today?? )

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Nope, nadda, noway!!!


(Tim, bored/got some time on your hands today?? )

I'm cooking the turkey....so yes to both....:facepalm::redface:

 

[angus63]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

How to cook a turkey- turn on oven - insert turkey- drink beer and watch football for six hrs- remove turkey- eat. You are multitasking. Enjoy the bird!

 

[hungupthespikes]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

"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."

This is the single biggest fault, imho, with no pilots. One bad upload to several airplanes and they all could be in trouble. One human error on the ground, could down multiple planes.

We found out this week the drones in Afghanistanstan have a virus. That's the best security system we can put together and it's military to boot, and someone hacked it. :facepalm:

 

[bigdee]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

As a person who has designed automation equipment I can tell you that it is not possible to design a 100% fail-safe system. Oh sure you can design in redundancy and hot back-ups but you cannot anticipate every unknown scenario. This principle is already being used in railroad transportation but when a problem is detected the train can simply come to a stop and wait for human intervention.....the same would not be possible for aircraft. I know it was old technology, but still, do you think Apollo 13 would have made it back to earth if humans were not aboard?

 

[GA_Boater]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Do y'all remember when the new Denver airport opened 18 months late ( Feb 1995) due to the state of the art computerized baggage handling system? And after 10 years scrapped the entire system. Seriously, how complex can baggage handling be? And now we are looking at using totally computerized flight systems. Oh wait, the failsafe will be a recorded message over the PA - "Will any passenger with flying experience please contact one the Flight Attendant robots"

 

[bassman284]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Do y'all remember when the new Denver airport opened 18 months late ( Feb 1995) due to the state of the art computerized baggage handling system? And after 10 years scrapped the entire system. Seriously, how complex can baggage handling be? And now we are looking at using totally computerized flight systems. Oh wait, the failsafe will be a recorded message over the PA - "Will any passenger with flying experience please contact one the Flight Attendant robots"

That oughta work! As far as that goes, while I've never actually flown an airplane, I've ridden in a lot of them and I used to drive semis so I'm used to having my hands on the wheel of something heavy. How hard could it be?

 

[mommicked]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

I think we should try driverless taxicabs w BIG bumpers and see how that works, before pilotless passenger jets. I'd feel safer w a half snookered, experienced pilot w thousands of hours in that particular aircraft.

 

[southkogs]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Flying is a business that on a day-in and day-out basis, a computer can handle for the most part. So, to the point of some: yes, pilotless aircraft is a potential reality that might work.

I still vote no for two reasons:

1.) 72 hours with Windows 7 will show you that every now and again CTRL+ALT+DEL applies, and that would be the pits on final, IFR in a 25kt crosswind.

2.) The reason Sully was able to make good decisions and save a bunch of lives was because he likes to FLY. That dude flies for a living, flies for fun and flies for extra money. A computer cannot be programed with the experience of a pilot who likes to fly like that. A computer cannot reason, it can only calculate.

Even in the most sophisticated cockpits in the world, there are still real live steam gauges sitting on the panel ... just in case.

 

[gus-gus]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Flying is a business that on a day-in and day-out basis, a computer can handle for the most part. So, to the point of some: yes, pilotless aircraft is a potential reality that might work.

I still vote no for two reasons:

1.) 72 hours with Windows 7 will show you that every now and again CTRL+ALT+DEL applies, and that would be the pits on final, IFR in a 25kt crosswind.

2.) The reason Sully was able to make good decisions and save a bunch of lives was because he likes to FLY. That dude flies for a living, flies for fun and flies for extra money. A computer cannot be programed with the experience of a pilot who likes to fly like that. A computer cannot reason, it can only calculate.

Even in the most sophisticated cockpits in the world, there are still real live steam gauges sitting on the panel ... just in case.

Sully did not survive because he was good, he lived because everything went perfectly. Almost nothing that happened, "ever happens". The engines usually tear the airframe apart in the separation, because they aren't designed to break away from that force direction. All planes sink quickly because of the water tearing the fuselage open. It was 99% luck and 1% skill.

There isn't one "steam" gauge in any modern aircraft. There is one very modern Artificial Horizon, which uses it's own battery in case of all aircraft power being lost and that is it. There are some "whiskey compass's" in older large aircraft, that is 1930's technology. They work independently from the aircrafts navigation systems. The only interface with the aircrafts systems is the small light within it. However all Airbus aircraft use fly by wire control systems. (Delta, Jet Blue, Virgin, Air France, FedEx, Frontier, Lufthansa, Air Canada, United, US Airways, America West, British Airways, Iberia, Nippon and many, many more that fly Airbus) Which means if you have ever flown in an Airbus you flew in a fly by wire aircraft. Even Boeings are moving into the fly by wire world. this is not yet remote controled aircraft, but the flight control systems are moving rapidly towards wireless flight control. Then it is a small step to move to remote piloting.

Modern aircraft use redundancy in all critical systems. In some cases 3 alike and separate systems to insure a seamless flight regime. New rules have become the norm in the last 20 years. RVSM, (reduced vertical seperation minimums) RALM, (Reduced alignment landing minimums) ETOPS,(Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance) and many more specific sets of rules that require repeated qualification for both the aircraft and also the mechanic to keep the aircraft safe to fly blind. In otherwords, flying completely dependent on electronic (many) wireless systems, getting all the relative fed information from on ground systems to maintain altitude, heading and attitude being done by onboard computers, 100%. So all the claims of wanting a pilot on board is hilarious to me, since the crew are always the reason things go wrong. Mechanical issues (including electronically) are less than .05% of the causes in accidents. The causes are almost always the pilot who caused or created the trouble.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Sully did not survive because he was good, he lived because everything went perfectly. Almost nothing that happened, "ever happens". The engines usually tear the airframe apart in the separation, because they aren't designed to break away from that force direction. All planes sink quickly because of the water tearing the fuselage open. It was 99% luck and 1% skill.

Many would say that everything went perfectly because he is good....but:

Those who can...do.
Those who can't.... teach
Those who can't teach....criticise....often with invented numbers

In otherwords, flying completely dependent on electronic (many) wireless systems, getting all the relative fed information from on ground systems to maintain altitude, heading and attitude being done by onboard computers, 100%. So all the claims of wanting a pilot on board is hilarious to me, since the crew are always the reason things go wrong. Mechanical issues (including electronically) are less than .05% of the causes in accidents. The causes are almost always the pilot who caused or created the trouble.

Two completely indefensible (and completely incorrect) statements back-to-back?
Your numbers are simply wrong.
If you are at all concerned about credibility, you should change your "mechanical issues" value of "0.05%" to "approximately 30%"...a difference of more than 600% and pilot error accounts for on the order of 50% of accidents....a big difference from "always".

Different time frames, various Aviation sectors, and different geographical pools will give slight variances, but those numbers are good baselines form commercial aviation....the subject of the thread.

http://planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

 

[gus-gus]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Many would say that everything went perfectly because he is good....but:

Those who can...do.
Those who can't.... teach
Those who can't teach....criticise....often with invented numbers

Yep,,,,,, thought so.

Welcome to the ranks of the critical.

This is a forum, you know that right? Is credibility really a commodity on any forum?

You didn't critique the one I answered who was also completely off base, but such is your credibility.

 

[oops!]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

actually......the words pilot error tick me off.

a lot of situations pilots face are much more than can be handled by a person.....things like blocked pitots.... they just don't have all the information......

and unless major modifications to the sensor systems on large aircraft are made....computers don't have the information either !

NTSB places a lot of fault on the pilots ....these charges are sometimes IMHO bad because there are too many factors for a person to deal with.

fatigue......erroneous, commands from ATC...computer telling him conflicting reports....(over speed and stall at the same time while flying level) that is just information overload.

in an emergency situation.....the pilot is not only worried about flying the airplane....(the basic job he must always remember to do) ......but he knows the consequences !
his death.....the deaths so most if not all on board.....his family and the passengers family.....as well as not bending the airplane....
this is a huge stress factor !

an un eventful flight is a good flight.....but when trouble rears its ugly head.....and all goes bad....the pilot in command is responsible......and so finally at fault !
there has been a few pilots that have been deemed heroes for saving an aircraft......however the NTSB calls the situation in general, pilot error !!!!

 

[southkogs]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

You didn't critique the one I answered who was also completely off base, but such is your credibility.

Easy there tiger ... I'm not COMPLETELY off base. I spend a lot of time in airplanes (mostly 182's), even though I'm not a pilot. While I don't know everything, I am experienced (enough to know that a steam gauge is a term that distinguishes "older" type dial gauges from "glass" type modern stuff). I also spend enough time talking to pilots from all manners of aviation to tell you that there is a difference between what a computer can do, and what a person can do.

Perhaps we can civilize the comments a bit, eh?

 

[GA_Boater]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

actually......the words pilot error tick me off.

there has been a few pilots that have been deemed heroes for saving an aircraft......however the NTSB calls the situation in general, pilot error !!!!

Absolutely right. If the Sully incident didn't turn into a miracle he could have been blamed for "pilot error" for not avoiding the flock of geese in the first place. Stranger things have happened during accident investigation/re-creation.

 

[Philip_G]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

It takes a lot more than just a cursory look at an accident/incident report to fully understand the chain of events that led up to that incident. Just reading the exec summary and stamping it pilot error really tells you very little... it's almost never that simple and multiple breakdowns have to occur in the "chain"

Again, can the computer fly the airplane? Absolutely. Can it deal with the smallest grain of sand in the machine? Not always. the flying public demands 100% and professionals strive to deliver it. Saying this will work 99.999999% of the time doesn't cut it.

It's interesting to read the different viewpoints. I can tell which come from a mechanic, having supreme confidence in the machine and I can tell who comes from at least a little flying background having confidence in the human. I put my confidence in the system in which I'm a part of, which works extremely well in the US. Take either element out and it changes everything. The machine is such a small piece of the big picture but it doesn't surprise me that the engineers and mechanics think the way they do. I think there are many more decisions made by humans throughout a flight that you just don't think about that computers can't make.

 

[gus-gus]

Re: Boeing - Replace the pilot with computers.

Easy there tiger ... I'm not COMPLETELY off base. I spend a lot of time in airplanes (mostly 182's), even though I'm not a pilot. While I don't know everything, I am experienced (enough to know that a steam gauge is a term that distinguishes "older" type dial gauges from "glass" type modern stuff). I also spend enough time talking to pilots from all manners of aviation to tell you that there is a difference between what a computer can do, and what a person can do.

Perhaps we can civilize the comments a bit, eh?

I have been in Aviation since 1972.

Pilots to me are not heros, they are men doing a job, a thankless job that they chose to do. Much like policemen, firemen, mechanics or bread truck drivers. Nothing special, just trained at a different level. The saying "a person who never makes a mistake, isn't doing anything" is the only truth. I worked many post accident aircraft and watched closely as the NTSB made their analysis of damage and blame. I didn't agree with some of their findings but found their analyses are usually darned good and incredibly accurate.
The term "pilot error" is just a term, it fills a void when there are so many variables which are only slightly connected to the fault of the pilot. But to say there was a 15% chance it was the pilots fault doesn't fit the publics demanding way of accountability. So the pilot or the mechanic/maintenance assumes 100% of the blame in the media. Not within the company (usually).

That reality skews the "interweb" searches and criteria of cause. No one really knows the truth, because politics enters the equation. It could be 33/33/33 pilot, weather, mechanical. But we will never know. The facts are changed by media, when they can't even name the pictured aircraft accurately behind them in the article. Then the NTSB reports their findings and are almost instantly chastised and the findings disputed and the results can and often are adapted without an open publication announcement. The media now with egg on their face isn't anxious to admit their incorrectly reported information, in effect allowing the original story to remain. It doesn't happen often but it has happened often enough to make us watching these investigations skeptical of the percentages from all sources.