By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotlessplanes.

Recently, Greg Farris posted:

says...


I was talking about autonomous operation. It doesn't matter where
that is.


The thread is about airline operations without pilots. Not about
philosophical considerations of autonomous operation.

And, my point is that you won't have pilotless airline operations without
autonomous capabilities. It isn't a philosophical matter because the
evidence of today's capabilities is pretty clear. If you wish to suggest
otherwise, show some proof that it works in any kind of vehicle, anywhere.
The difference between autopilots and autonomous airline operations is
pretty significant.

Regards,

Neil

In article ,
says...


The thread is about airline operations without pilots. Not about
philosophical considerations of autonomous operation.

And, my point is that you won't have pilotless airline operations without
autonomous capabilities. It isn't a philosophical matter because the
evidence of today's capabilities is pretty clear. If you wish to suggest
otherwise, show some proof that it works in any kind of vehicle, anywhere.
The difference between autopilots and autonomous airline operations is
pretty significant.

Regards,


I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups. Perhaps
you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)

You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
(human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
do.

To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster, because it
is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not making any decisions
by themselves, or very few. This, however, was not the point of the initial
thread, which was only concerned with removing costly, error-prone pilots
from airliners.

Perhaps you are not involved in aviation, or not aware of how the system is
organized. By the time a plane takes off, under an IFR flight plan, its
route has been scheduled, and the airspace is progressively cleared of all
conflicts. The FMS in the plane is programmed for the entire route, and it
is rare to have to deviate from this program. During the approach phase
though, significant decision making and clearance modifications are often
necessary - but the are buffers (holding patterns) built in, which machines
fly better than people anyway. If the air traffic control system (human or
machine) had the authority to write directly into the aircraft's FMS, then
the entire flight could be managed without a pilot, and would be less error
prone than the current system. We don't do so today for reasons of
responsibility - socially, legally and administratively it is not
acceptable today to remove this responsibility from the pilots.
Technically, it would not be a big step, and it does not involve artificial
intelligence.

My argument is that socially, this is not something we would accept today,
and I believe there are significant hurdles that argue against the initial
premise, which is that within 25 years we will all be flying in planes
without pilots.

G Faris

Recently, Greg Farris posted:

says...


The thread is about airline operations without pilots. Not about
philosophical considerations of autonomous operation.

And, my point is that you won't have pilotless airline operations
without autonomous capabilities. It isn't a philosophical matter
because the evidence of today's capabilities is pretty clear. If you
wish to suggest otherwise, show some proof that it works in any kind
of vehicle, anywhere. The difference between autopilots and
autonomous airline operations is pretty significant.


I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups.
Perhaps you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)

Perhaps you're contributing from alt.rec.dream-on? ;-)

You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't
the point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that
they have to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of
us, it means they are controlled from the ground, with a level of
human supervision and intervention scaled to the complexity of the
task. This means, as you say, the pilot is not physically in the
airplane. It also means that one 'pilot' (human or otherwise) can
manage several airliners, and moreover manage conflict between them
better than any one pilot in any one airplane could do.

Well, this is a shift to a slightly different approach, and adds both
complexity and unnecessary risk.

To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster,
because it is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not
making any decisions by themselves, or very few. This, however, was
not the point of the initial thread, which was only concerned with
removing costly, error-prone pilots from airliners.

Your system of having remote pilots *increases* the potential for errors.
How many screens will the pilot have to watch to replace the simple task
of scanning (this isn't as simple as it sounds, either)? And, you want to
have one guy managing more than one flight? At the very least, this is not
likely to improve the loss rate, which would more than offset the cost of
the pilot's salary. Add to that the expense of maintaining the requisite
systems, and it's easy to see that the cost of operation would be higher,
not lower than today. How much will an A&P with a computer science degree
cost?

Perhaps you are not involved in aviation, or not aware of how the
system is organized.

The FAA is satisfied that I am involved in aviation by virtue of a
certificate and current medical. And, I pass my checkrides without
problems, so I suppose I understand, at least to some degree, how "the
system is organized". ;-)

By the time a plane takes off, under an IFR
flight plan, its route has been scheduled, and the airspace is
progressively cleared of all conflicts.

Except for such things as developing weather (see the thread about XM
weather / Garmin 396), which is why we still have PIREPS, for example.

In short, *I* won't be flying on any airliner where the pilot is not on
board.

Neil

Greg Farris wrote:


I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups. Perhaps
you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)

You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
(human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
do.

To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster, because it
is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not making any decisions
by themselves, or very few. This, however, was not the point of the initial
thread, which was only concerned with removing costly, error-prone pilots
from airliners.


So you want to remove error prone pilot from the aircraft and put him on
the ground in charge of several aircrafts?

Greg Farris wrote:


I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups. Perhaps
you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)

You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
(human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
do.

To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster, because it
is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not making any decisions
by themselves, or very few. This, however, was not the point of the initial
thread, which was only concerned with removing costly, error-prone pilots
from airliners.


So you want to remove error prone pilot from the aircraft and put him on
the ground in charge of several aircrafts?

In article , says...


Greg Farris wrote:


I notice that this thread is cross posted to different newsgroups. Perhaps
you are contributing from alt.rec.metaphysics or something :-)

You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
(human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
do.

To you, if I understand you correctly, this doesn't pass muster, because it
is not true autonomous operation. the planes are not making any decisions
by themselves, or very few. This, however, was not the point of the initial
thread, which was only concerned with removing costly, error-prone pilots
from airliners.


So you want to remove error prone pilot from the aircraft and put him on
the ground in charge of several aircrafts?


I don't want anything of the sort! Remember me - I'm the guy who's been saying
it's not a desirable goal! I'm simply saying that everything some people are
saying is technically challenging is really little more than what already
exists, and is in use every day, on every flight!

Do you think there is not a guy on the ground today, managing several flights?

G Faris

post failed

says...


Your system of having remote pilots *increases* the potential for errors.
How many screens will the pilot have to watch to replace the simple task
of scanning (this isn't as simple as it sounds, either)? And, you want to
have one guy managing more than one flight?


Well, yeah!
Even thought of a name for it. I'll call it ATC. A savvy mix of human and
computer technology, watching over departure, en-route and arrival of several
planes at once. Science fiction, I know, but it could work, if you give it a
chance!


At the very least, this is not likely to improve the loss rate, which would
more than offset the cost of the pilot's salary. Add to that the expense of
maintaining the requisite systems, and it's easy to see that the cost of
operation would be higher, not lower than today. How much will an A&P with a
computer science degree cost?


I don't think the impetus of the thread was really to reduce costs - or at
least not exclusively. The airlines have found many ways to reduce pilot
costs!! I think the thread (which I did not initiate, and which I did not
even agree with) was as much about reducing human error as anything else.


Perhaps you are not involved in aviation, or not aware of how the
system is organized.

The FAA is satisfied that I am involved in aviation by virtue of a
certificate and current medical. And, I pass my checkrides without
problems, so I suppose I understand, at least to some degree, how "the
system is organized". ;-)



Sorry, I didn't mean anything insulting by that. I noticed the thread was
cross-posted, so I thought you might be responding from a non-aviation
viewpoint, that's all.



In short, *I* won't be flying on any airliner where the pilot is not on
board.



Neither will I! I've said from the get-go that I didnt think it was a good
idea. I just don't share your view about the technical complexity of it. I
think about 85% of it is in place already, and the remainder is not much
more complicated. Some challenges - sure. Nothing space-age though.

G Faris

Greg Farris writes:

You are hung up on the idea of autonomous operation, when that wasn't the
point at all. Flying airliners without pilots does not imply that they have
to fly themselves without human intervention. To most of us, it means they
are controlled from the ground, with a level of human supervision and
intervention scaled to the complexity of the task. This means, as you say,
the pilot is not physically in the airplane. It also means that one 'pilot'
(human or otherwise) can manage several airliners, and moreover manage
conflict between them better than any one pilot in any one airplane could
do.

Okay, let's accept that this system is built. What happens when
communication is interrupted? Radio failure is not an unheard of
event, is it?

In the case of communication failure, it would appear that you have
two choices. You could have the planes automatically go into a
holding pattern of some sort, or you could have the planes act
autonomously. If you went into a holding pattern, the planes would
have to be able to break out of the holding pattern and land
autonomously if they ran low on fuel or detected incoming weather.

Having a pilot on the ground remotely controlling the plane does not
remove the need for autonomous operation -- it just means that the
autonomous operation is only used during unusual situations. I
believe that handling these unusual situations are exactly parts of
the autonomous controller which will be the most difficult to design
correctly.

So, you are left with two choices: 1. Try to design a communication
system which is so robust that communication failure is virtually
impossible; or 2. Include some sort of autonomous system as a backup
for when communication fails.

Do I think this is impossible? No. Do I think it is quite hard to
get right? Yes. It certainly will take quite some time to get this
right enough to win the trust of the average passenger.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

In article ,
says...


Okay, let's accept that this system is built. What happens when
communication is interrupted? Radio failure is not an unheard of
event, is it?

In the case of communication failure, it would appear that you have
two choices. You could have the planes automatically go into a
holding pattern of some sort, or you could have the planes act
autonomously. If you went into a holding pattern, the planes would
have to be able to break out of the holding pattern and land
autonomously if they ran low on fuel or detected incoming weather.

Having a pilot on the ground remotely controlling the plane does not
remove the need for autonomous operation -- it just means that the
autonomous operation is only used during unusual situations. I
believe that handling these unusual situations are exactly parts of
the autonomous controller which will be the most difficult to design
correctly.

So, you are left with two choices: 1. Try to design a communication
system which is so robust that communication failure is virtually
impossible; or 2. Include some sort of autonomous system as a backup
for when communication fails.

Do I think this is impossible? No. Do I think it is quite hard to
get right? Yes. It certainly will take quite some time to get this
right enough to win the trust of the average passenger.



This I agree with completely, and it echoes my initial post to this thread
explaining why we would not desire to create such a system. Even if the
automated system delivers better safety performance overall than the
human-operated system, we will always be able to imagine a scenario where the
machine would not have an adequate response. Human operators create accidents
routinely, where no underlying emergency existed, and we accept this because,
well, we're all human. We would not be ready to accept, however, even a small
number of machine-induced accidents, in cases where a human operator on board
may have been able to save the situation.

We can easily imagine a response to the challenge you've just posted. But
where one is resolved, there are dozens of others waiting to surface. Making
the aircraft more "autonomous" is the wrong answer - it only makes the
equation more complex. Imagine if we've lost communication to the plane,
and can no longer tell it what to do. It's stuck in a holding pattern. Not
optimal. Now, in addition to this, imagine it is, to some degree, autonomous,
and is faced with a situation its designers didn't anticipate. Not only can we
no longer tell it what to do - we don't know what IT's going to do! That
sounds like real fun! Just one machine-induced disaster will have everyone
clamoring for a return of a pilot in the plane.

G Faris