By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotlessplanes.

Greg Farris wrote:
Technologically, we're just one step away. As soon as clearances are

Yeah, like the one step Neil Armstrong made.

In reality though, I do not believe the day will ever come when there is
not someone physically on board the aircraft capable of flying it and
landing it safely. There's just no good reason why we would want to do
that.

Exactly. Look at the JetBlue incident last week. A relatively simple
emergency but a whole chain of decisions needed to be made and executed
for the flight to end successfully. Now talk about engine failure, etc.
I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?

Once the airlines get pilots' salaries down to bus driver levels, the

I suspect that if you compute pay on a seat basis (i.e. $salary per
person carried) that you're already there.

-cwk.

wrote:

I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?

Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It has a
problem if something comes up that nobody thought of -- like the Sioux City
accident, or if it doesn't have certain information -- like the closed airport
used by the "Gimli Glider." And, of course, it can't handle failure of itself
very well.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

In article mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01,
says...


And, of course, it can't handle failure of itself
very well.



But then, human operators haev that problem too :
http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=19991011-0

"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:mle_e.11361$L15.4226@trndny01...
I agree that a computer can do a great job when everything goes more or
less according to plan, but what about when it doesn't?

Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It
has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of

The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
perfectly good airplanes.

I admit, I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I suspect that
human error in the cockpit causes more accidents than human novelty recovers
from.

This is the same reason that autopilot cars are a good idea, no matter how
offensive they may seem to some people. Yes, there will be failures of the
equipment. But that will happen MUCH less often than the failures of the
humans, and will improve the reliability and efficiency of our
transportation infrastructure at the same time.

Pete

P. Duniho wrote:

This is the same reason that autopilot cars are a good idea, no matter how
offensive they may seem to some people. Yes, there will be failures of the
equipment. But that will happen MUCH less often than the failures of the
humans, and will improve the reliability and efficiency of our
transportation infrastructure at the same time.

Agreed. But the idea has been around for a long time without much
progress being made to implement it. I remember the GM pavilion at the
NY World's Fair in '64 where the diaramas showed the cities of the
future with computer-controlled cars all running smoothly along the
freeways. At that time I would have considered it a virtual certainty
that we'd have auto-piloted cars by 2000 if not much sooner. There
were demonstration projects in the '60s and there are still such
projects and research studies being done today, but I don't see much
evidence that they're much closer to reality now than they were back
then.

So even if all technical hurdles of pilotless airliners can be solved I
don't expect to see them in operation by 2030 or for a long time beyond
that.

"peter" wrote in message
ups.com...
Agreed. But the idea has been around for a long time without much
progress being made to implement it.

I think it's possible it may NEVER happen. Culturally, especially here in
the US (but I think this is somewhat of a problem nearly everywhere), I
seriously doubt enough people could be convinced to relinquish control of
their cars to a computer. For the same reasons that they think that
spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to prevent a handful of
deaths from terrorists makes sense, they would rather be in control of their
own demise, even if it means that demise is more likely than if they gave up
control to a computer.

The average person just isn't all that good at evaluating risk and benefit.

So even if all technical hurdles of pilotless airliners can be solved I
don't expect to see them in operation by 2030 or for a long time beyond
that.

Pilotless airliners likely will happen before cars, and I agree that "by
2030" is VERY optimistic. I don't know how old you were at the '64
World's Fair, but I fear you may not live long enough to see pilotless cars
OR airplanes, even if you live to 100 years.

Pete

"Peter Duniho"
Pilotless airliners likely will happen before cars, and I agree that "by
2030" is VERY optimistic. I don't know how old you were at the '64
World's Fair, but I fear you may not live long enough to see pilotless
cars OR airplanes, even if you live to 100 years.


Wonder which World's Fair showcased the first pilotless elevator?


Montblack :-)

"peter" wrote

Agreed. But the idea has been around for a long time without much
progress being made to implement it. I remember the GM pavilion at the
NY World's Fair in '64 where the diaramas showed the cities of the
future with computer-controlled cars all running smoothly along the
freeways.

Most all of the systems have required that the roads have some kind of
technology installed, and until it is figured out who pays for it, we will
keep waiting.
--
Jim in NC

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of. It
has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of

A computer can do a great job, if the solution is properly developed.


The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
perfectly good airplanes.

Another valid question is:

Would the effort required to develop hardware/software for pilotless
aircraft be more or less effective than the effort to develop hardware/software
to help protect pilots from error?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Actually, a computer can do a great job of anything you can think of.
It
has a problem if something comes up that nobody thought of

A computer can do a great job, if the solution is properly developed.


The real question is whether pilots on average are able to come up with
inspired solutions to problems more often than they create problems with
perfectly good airplanes.

Another valid question is:

Would the effort required to develop hardware/software for pilotless
aircraft be more or less effective than the effort to develop
hardware/software
to help protect pilots from error?


You don't set out to build a pilotless aircraft immediately. That is why
Ford built a Model A before he learned how to build a Mustang Convertible.

Effective big systems evolve from effective small systems.

You keep adding automated decision support systems and automated control
systems, and automated planning systems, into the existing cockpit
environment.... and one day, you may wake up and realize: Hey, the pilot no
longer has anything to do.

*THEN* you build your pilotless aircraft.