Topic: Pilotless Passenger Planes Might Soon Become A Reality. - page 2. (Read 2041 times)

Your conclusion cannot be meaningfully substantiated until an abiological agency can both intelligently “discuss” ontology and “know that it knows . . . that it knows that it is doing so.”

I would never get on the plane with no pilot how ever good it was or proven to be, the thing that could make me feel safer is if there was a last resort if the plane ever looks like it will be crashing because of lack of pilot then that kicks in a certain altitude. All respect and good luck to anyone that does get on one though

Humans are becoming obsolete very fast.

I do not know the exact details.  It happens both ways, though.   There is a tendency to think the other guy has taken care of checking something so you don't need to worry about it - in fact the other guy may be thinking you took care of it.

The specific issue here is the pilot's check of the Morse code three or four character identifier of the runway he is lined up on, prior to final approach and touch down.  And that's the "ILS" - those are largely being replaced by the new precision GPS approaches, which do not have the identifier.

Yet there are still issues.   What if an airport has two parallel runways?  Then the instructions would be "12R" or "12L", verbal only.  Repeating back and having confirmation, everything should be okay.  Really?  And it may be at the last moment, say less than a minute before touchdown, that the instruction to switch runway is recieved.

Consequently, do you think this was a bad pilot or bad air traffic control?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/travel/southwest-plane-wrong-airport/index.html

Cummings is an armchair general.  I'm sure she knows it all. 

Personally I'd rather have a pilot discuss issues of flight, one who has perhaps a hundred difficult and dangerous situations they have managed.  Situations in which one error made could lead to a cascade of more serious problems and result in a crash.  A lot of that would be weather related.

In many cases, severe thunderstorms will inhibit or even completely block communication between the aircraft and the ground.  So forget someone on the ground monitoring and ready to take control of the unmanned aircraft.

What about when the pilot catches an error by air traffic control?  For example two airports are close together, and air traffic lines him up for the runway at the wrong airport.  The human would protest, the error would be corrected.  It was previously mentioned that sensor problems can cause computerized systems to go crazy.

Pilots are required to train, over and over, to detect sensor and instrument failures and react correctly.   

The logical error here I think is to assume that because computerized aircraft control systems can operate the plane 98% of the time flawlessly that they can do the other 2%.  That's incorrect, because that other 2% is a thousand times more problematic than the routine.  Think of it as "driverless cars."  Sure you can create a driverless car. 

Let me know when you have a driverless car that you will get in to on on icy winter mountain roads.

From the article:


This describes me perfectly. It seems like more of a perception problem, based on the statistics of drone accidents vs. commercial accidents, but I can state unequivocally I will never fly on a pilotless flight. The thought of it just makes me too uncomfortable.

There's also a variable (and vulnerability in every type of airplane), but I don't want to give anyone ideas as no one really thought of it before.

I don't have a problem in general with automated planes and cars, but there must, absolutely be a remote override in them in case something goes wrong, so if there's a hacking as others have said ( Which is extremely likely because there are plans to put all this shit on a huge network which is stupid ) or if there's something in the way etc. that the computers won't be able to see. A basic example is like with sat nav, a route I take had a roundabout but it was recently changed to a traffic junction, so the sat nav was still reading that there was a roundabout there but I could plainly see that the whole system had changed for it. This means that you can't rely on the sat nav anymore obviously for that small portion of the journey and you have to make sure you take the right lanes yourself.

While on a small scale these kind of things aren't a problem, imagine though if you have thousands upon thousands of planes, cars and every other vehicle relying on these systems and suddenly a big portion of road is changed up or a building is put where a road used to be. Unless you can tell me with 100% certainty that these computers can adapt to such situations especially for planes with stuff in the sky then I don't want to hear about "Fully automated" anything.

Like I said, I like the automation, it makes life much easier and when it works, it works very well, but as somebody who deals with computers a lot A.I can't fucking adapt, that's just the honest truth, you put something unexpected in it's way it's completely confounded and that will end up putting peoples' lives in danger.

Agree computers are "intelligent" enough to handle a plane. The problem used to be the sensors. Even the smartest computer turns to clueless rubbish if the sensors providing false data. The good old Byzantine generals problem.

Yep, flight is already by far the safest mode of transportation. Ignore the scary news anecdotes and note the data.

I believe that with auto pilot the pilots lives are a lot easier, but removing the pilot altogether would be a big deal for everyone including the pilots who would lose there job. It seems like it will be harder and harder to find jobs computers cannot replace in the future!

With respect to computer virus / hacking, people have to be absolutely sure that systems are secure before implementing something like this. (We do have hacking and viruses in the Bitcoin world, but we also have offline storage. )
In case of exceptional problems, maybe somebody could provide "remote" assistance. This again opens up the risk of hacking, but as I said, systems have to be completely secure before something like this is implemented.

I think they won't. IMO they won't be able to completely remove us, humans, from the equation. Computers are still vulnerable to malfunction and if they do somebody will have to take over.
Just a few things to consider:
-a computer virus
-hacking
-physical damage to the computer or one of the systems
There's also a number of minor malfunctions that could be repaired during flight by a human. For example I remember reading about a case when they had an electric failure that prevented them from putting the gear down. The pilot managed to land without the gear and saved the plane.

Although humans are prone to errors they also can adjust to the situation.

Perhaps in the near future airlines will have 3 IT personnel on board, instead of 3 pilots. Pilots are kind of useless against hackers if the controls are computerized.

Hourly checks to make sure that planes are flying smoothly and no bases have been taken would be the best. I also personally think that it could be a bad idea through hacking or possible malfunctions or variables. The best would be the ability to still keep pilots on, but at the same time, keep someone who knows the infrastructure of the software to be able to repair anomalies.

Planes are already computerized to the point that if a hacker hacked into a plane's operating system, there's nothing anyone would be able to do to stop it from doing whatever the hacker wanted. (If not by controlling it directly, then by disabling it, thereby making it uncontrollable.)


Well said. The technology has been around for many years and is only getting better. Unions (protecting people's jobs) are probably the biggest obstacle to automation.

As a professional with several years experience in Autonomous platforms (mining trucks, drill rigs, aircraft & rail), I can publicly state that the technology already exists for fully autonomous passenger planes and cars. The issue for lack of adoption is two fold, most of which readers of this site would already understand;

1. Government / institutional inability or unwillingness to adapt to the new technology
2. Social / cultural reluctance to knowingly hand over operational transport control to a computer

The irony is that a large percentage of systems are already heavily automated, if not fully, and it is just kept out of the public spotlight. For example, 80% of Sth Korea has a fully automated metro rail network yet US , Australia and UK passengers reject the very same tech for fear of robot drivers. Yet the Chicago airport shuttle train is fully autonomous and runs for about 1.5miles under the tarmacs shuttling passengers between two terminals. Passenger aircraft take off, landing and transits are fully automatable and land better in adverse weather than manned systems as the follow the digital beacons rather than following their 'guts' when the weather gets bad.

Back to the question, will autonomous passenger planes become a reality soon. I believe the answer is yes and a lot sooner than the public will know about. Simply continue the heavy automation root whilst dumbing down pilot / crew training until they basically become a figure head that makes the public feel like a human is in control. A generation after that, the charades ca cease as the cultural adoption catches up with the technology being implemented.

but the plane's system is susceptible to hacking. so the terrorists wouldn't need to convince themselves to get on a plane and crash it if their demands isn't met.
compared to very rare occurrences where a pilot is a suicidal maniac, cyber attacks on the plane's autopilot system is more dangerous and numerous, don't you think?