Future of aviation

[goodness0001]

Do any of you think there is going to be a day where the human pilot is not needed and if so, how far out do you see that coming?

[John_Jones]

Quite a few years from now, nothing I think any of us have to worry about happeneing anytime soon...

[Parabellum]

I'm guessing we'd have to figure out how to have cars that don't require human drivers first.

[CapnJim]

I'm more worried about what I saw on Discovery Wings today-- the infamous Aircar, replete with fly-in communities. That would spell the end of airline pilots, not to mention an entirely new way for cell-phone yacking soccermoms to endanger everyone around them. You thought they were bad in SUVs; imagine one shooting an ILS!!

[E_Dawg]

^^Not a chance in hell that's gonna happen anytime soon.... or ever; And planes will always have human pilots.

At least as long as our current generation is alive.

[Parabellum]

Flying is way too unforgiving for people to start using it as often and as commonly as cars. If there were as many people flying airplanes as driving cars, it'd be a disaster.

I already have to put up with enough stupid people as it is working at K-Mart.

[E_Dawg]

Yeah but it would solve our overpopulation problems... and you'd have less 'stupid people' to deal with at K-mart!

[CapnJim]

I guess my tounge in cheek didn't translate too well into text...
I was joking folks!

[Doug Taylor]

[ QUOTE ]
Do any of you think there is going to be a day where the human pilot is not needed and if so, how far out do you see that coming?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not on any jet I'll be flying on, no thanks!

Considering about 1 out of every 5 autoland tests I've conducted aren't passable, like hell I'm going to feel comfy having no one in the cockpit to comandere control of the aircraft from the autopilot!

[pilot602]

Would you trust a computer to drive your car to work and back?

Then why on earth would you let one fly an airplane un monitored!


The whole "flying without pilots" thing has been around, practically, from day one. It may happen someday but wer're talking many, many, many years down the road (like when we have colonies on other planets).

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

The last thing I want in a cockpit is:

"Error 2668: Rundll error occured. The program must shut down. Hit enter to crash-land..."

... and who's gonna come up with auto flight computers that replace pilots? Mircosoft ??? Ha.

[C650CPT]

The future of aviation is an automated cockpit consisting of a Dog and a Pilot. The Pilot is there to feed the Dog and the Dog is there to bite the Pilot if he tries to touch anything.

[Virusss]

[ QUOTE ]
Do any of you think there is going to be a day where the human pilot is not needed and if so, how far out do you see that coming?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually they have unmanned flights. but there is a controler on the ground controling the plane all the time.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing we'd have to figure out how to have cars that don't require human drivers first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has been done. LA had about 1.5 miles of highway cutoff to the public so they can test these cars. And guess what? They work perfectly.

[Doug Taylor]

The MD-88 is more or less a big DC-9 with lots of lipstick and makeup -- lots of cables, pulleys and perpetual motion devices and even that thing still requires an occasional control-alt-delete "reboot".

Sometimes the mechanics will almost by default say, "Ok, shut everything down, external power off, battery switch off, wait about 60 seconds and repower the aircraft and see if that works" -- on the ground of course.

I couldn't imagine some of the weird maintenance issues with an Airbus! Ack!

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
LA had about 1.5 miles of highway cutoff to the public so they can test these cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

A 1.5 mile, closed course, controlled environment, is a long, long way from the chaos that is the LA freeway system ... and an even longer way from avoiding thunderstorms, with tops at 60,000, won a MEL flight and landing to mins (although with unmaned, the point would be no mins) and doing that over and over on a consistent basis.

Then you have the "fear factor." The general public just isn't going to accpet it. Now, a few generations down the road when there are none of us left who remember the world without computers and it may be a different story.

[Boltonpilot]

Computers cannot think. There are people who actually tell you that computers are smarter than they are, when the truth is, computers cannot do anything that you do not tell them to do.

The big thing that pilot have to do is to execute the best plan with the given situation considering all options. Computers cannot do that on their own. A.I. cannot exist.

[John_Jones]

[ QUOTE ]
Computers cannot think. There are people who actually tell you that computers are smarter than they are, when the truth is, computers cannot do anything that you do not tell them to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Kind of like the Terminator

[tonyw]

I don't think anyone's going to want a fully automated system without someone to watch over it in case something goes wrong. It's one thing if a computer hangs up now and you lose a proposal or spreadsheet or something like that.

Imagine the computer crashing and 150 people dying. As long as there's a risk of that happening, you will not see pilotless civilian planes.

The military is a different question, though. They are saying that the JSF will be the last manned military fighter because the airplanes are getting to a point where humans can't fly them to their limits.

[mrivc211]

I just watched T3............we can never let that happen!

[E_Dawg]

Was it good?

[wizard96]

Be forewarned. Military and aerospace companies are putting large $$$ to fund research and development of autonomous UAV/UCAV's. UAV are Unmanned Air Vehicle and UCAV is Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle. Keep in mind the military with its UAV/UCAV is in its infancy but all technologies developed from the military and space transition to the commercial sector. IMO, once the military has ironed out the software issues and start seeing operational squadrons of UAV/UCAV, you can bet your dollar that someone on the commercial side will try to transition that technology for commercial transportation.

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, once the military has ironed out the software issues and start seeing operational squadrons of UAV/UCAV, you can bet your dollar that someone on the commercial side will try to transition that technology for commercial transportation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is UAV/UCAVs are expendable. The military would rather put 10 UCAVs into battle and loose all of them as compared to sending 5 manned aircraft and loosing 1 or 2 aircraft and pilots. The only reason UAV/UCAVs are gaining popularity with the "brass" is they are cheap and expendable.

In the civilian sector nothing is expendable. Every flight that takes off is supposed to land.

[wizard96]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is UAV/UCAVs are expendable. The military would rather put 10 UCAVs into battle and loose all of them as compared to sending 5 manned aircraft and loosing 1 or 2 aircraft and pilots. The only reason UAV/UCAVs are gaining popularity with the "brass" is they are cheap and expendable.

[/ QUOTE ]

VERY INCORRECT ASSESSMENT!

I am actively engaged and working with two large aerospace companies that are trying to supply UAV/UCAV to the Air Force and Navy. The Air Force would like to store their UCAV until they are needed. The Navy on the other hand intends to fly their UCAV just like their operational manned aircrafts. Keep in mind the UCAV and ISR (Intelligence, Survaillence, Reconnaisance) vehicle are not your Predator size aircraft nor will they cost $2M/vehicle.

I had the chance to visit to see the Pegasus aircraft in person and it has a wing span of 27.8 ft, total length of 27.9 ft, with a height of 6.1 ft. Keep in mind its just little smaller from the F-16 which has a wing span of 32.8ft, total length of 49.3 ft, and a height of 16.7 ft (because of the vertical tail). To see the predator link below:

http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/030223/37039.html

I attendied an aerospace symposium and an Executive Vice President of Lockheed Martin and the Director of Northrop Grumman's Advanced Systems both stated that UCAV and larger UAV costs will not be inexpensive and the cost will be similiar to a Block 50 F-16. Keep in mind the avionics are the most expensive system on the airframe. Yes you are correct that some brass in the DOD and congress may see these as expendable vehicles but the designers do not because they design to the requirements! Anybody in a technical field or flies for the military will know what I am talking about. We are building survivable systems that can jam electronics, have reduced RCS and IR detection, and carry direct energy weapons for SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense). These vehicles are ment to survive and carry the battle on a higher tempo than manned aircraft. They are to go into places that you wouldn't send a pilot to risk his life.

So they are not what you say they are. My post said "IMO" I believed the military/space programs would fix any software and hardware issues involve with total autonomous flight (i.e. no pilot flying a joystick behind a TV tube). The military will fix these because they do not want an unmanned vehicle to fall down into someones backyard. With that said if commercial aviation will ever go unmanned it won't happen for quite sometime.

[Mahesh]

[ QUOTE ]
The last thing I want in a cockpit is:

"Error 2668: Rundll error occured. The program must shut down. Hit enter to crash-land..."

... and who's gonna come up with auto flight computers that replace pilots? Mircosoft ??? Ha.



[/ QUOTE ]

Of course Microsoft will ask the passengers if they would like to "Send a Report" as the plane plummets down.

[CapnJim]

We'd also have to block port 80. Last thing I want to come up on my PFD on an ILS down to minimums is "LOWER YOUR MORTGAGE RATE TODAY!! CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE!!! JIMRNZMSJBDOAHH@SPAMMEEE.COM!!!!!!!!