Would you fly in a plane without a pilot aboard?

No, this si not a poll.

Modern aircraft are highly automated. Early, big airliners required five people to man: pilot, co-pilot, navigator, flight engineer and radio operator (you can see this well-ilustrated in the movie "Memphis Belle," although it's a bomber rather than an airliner). By the Jet era, the crew was down to three. These days we're down to pilot and co-pilot.

And of course there are drones used by the military, and increasingly by police, which ahve no onbaord pilot. Someone flies them, but the lone pilot is elsewhere.

There's a notion beginning to float around that as automation increases and modern pilots become more overseers and managers of the systems, rather than the people flying the plane, we'll soon see passenger aircraft with just one pilot. Kind of like a bus, which requires just one driver. After all, these days aircraft can take off and fly a set course all by themselves. In most modern airports, they can also land themselves (the airport needs to be equipped for this). Perhaps even someday the pilot won't need to be onboard at all....

I don't buy the last. Adn I have a hard time with the notion of a single pilot for large aircraft. Certainly smaller palnes can be flown by one person, reliably and with a reasonable degree fo risk. Most of the world's fighter jets are one-man planes, for example.

But, well, read up on aircraft accidents. I dare say all the accidents that ended up with a positive outcome, or relatively positive, involved the successful cooperation of the two pilots. And sometimes of more. I mean things like the recent water landing of a jet on the Hudson river (everyone survived), to the famous DC-10 crash landing at Sioux City, Iowa (60% of those aboard survived).

Many of these accidents were the result of technical failures, like hydraulic lines or components breaking, or outside causes, like birds being sucked up by the engines. Sometimes a pilot error compounds such accidents, sometimes not. But in every successful outcome, the pilots' minds and skills at the cockpit proved invaluable.

Who'd want to do away with that?

Embraer is going to try and configure such jets by the year 2020.

It seems impossible to believe that the general public will accept the idea.

I would, but I do have sort of a Chuck Yeager complex.

It seems we are mostly there anyways. All modern aircraft are fly-by-wire, requiring a computer to translate a pilots actions into motion. Other than taxi, takeoff, and landing, all flights are auto-pilot. In modern hyper-fighter aircraft like the Eurofighter Typhoon, they simply could not stay airborne if not for computers, as they're intentionally designed to be aerodynamically unstable for manueverability purposes.

Think also, probably 85% of time spent in an aircraft is under autopilot, yet pilot error is credited with 60% of the crashes. 60% of the crashes fall into that small 15% window of time that dumb ol' humans are behind the wheel.

My only question would be the "what ifs". What if we had a computer in control instead of Sullenberger for that Hudson crash. Would the computer try a ditch into the Hudson, or would it try to land on the nearest "runway", even if said runway was East 42nd Street? And what about emergency landings? Could a cpu do a belly landing like a human if the gear failed, could they land it sideways as the result of a 70mph crosswind like a human?

In the end, regardless of cpu superiority, I don't think it'll ever happen. Public opinion aside, computers do fail. Just as the systems aboard have many redundancies in case one fails, I'd wager that humans would be kept aboard if only as another redundancy.

Quote: Face

Think also, probably 85% of time spent in an aircraft is under autopilot, yet pilot error is credited with 60% of the crashes.

I don't know. There are accidents credited to pilot error that are not the pilot's fault. Like the A-320 that crashed int he Paris air show, or the Singapore air 747 that smashed into construction equipment in a closed runway in Taiwan, or the SAS plane that hit a Cessna in Milan (the Cessna was at fault).

Anyway, most accidents take place either at takeoff or landing. There are some that happen when cruising or at climbout or descent, but those are much rarer. Like the Aeroperu 767 (I think) that crashed into the ocean (I do watch Aircrash Investigation).

Quote:

My only question would be the "what ifs". What if we had a computer in control instead of Sullenberger for that Hudson crash. Would the computer try a ditch into the Hudson, or would it try to land on the nearest "runway", even if said runway was East 42nd Street?

I can answer that. There was no set procedure in place for what to do after a double engine failure shortly after takeoff. Therefore, at the time, there would not have been a programmed option either. I've no idea what the computer would have done, but that flight was saved by the pilots' airmanship.

Quote:

In the end, regardless of cpu superiority, I don't think it'll ever happen. Public opinion aside, computers do fail. Just as the systems aboard have many redundancies in case one fails, I'd wager that humans would be kept aboard if only as another redundancy.

Even if eveything goes well, eventually some computer-controlled plane, with or without an earthbound pilot, will crash. Suppose one does so because a meteorite hits it (I know). The public outcry will be to reinstate pilots in the cockpit.

BTW, how hard would an earthbound pilot try to save the plane? One reason pilots onboard keep doing what they can until the very end is that their lives depend on it.

You really ought to read this in its entirety, but here's an excerpt:

On July 27, Cummings was a guest on “The Colbert Report,” offering up some vintage claptrap. “Planes take off every day with the pilot never touching the stick, ever,” she said on the show. “From takeoff to landing.” She has said this same thing in various settings in the past, leading journalists to publish articles claiming that planes routinely take off and land by themselves.

Except that they don’t. This does not happen; not in a Boeing, not in an Airbus, not at any commercial airport, anywhere. As I’ve explained before, fewer than 1 percent of commercial aircraft landings are “automatic.” As for takeoffs, a full 100 percent are the manual kind; there is no such thing as an automatic takeoff.

And what do terms like “automatic” and “autopilot” mean, anyway? Autopilot is simply a tool, along with many other tools available to the crew. You still need to tell it what to do, how to do it and when to do it. And although it frees the pilot from having to have his or her hands physically on the control wheel (or sidestick) or thrust levers, this is only a fraction of what the act of “flying” entails. The autopilot is not flying the plane. The crew is flying the plane, through the autoflight system.

Quote: Nareed

BTW, how hard would an earthbound pilot try to save the plane? One reason pilots onboard keep doing what they can until the very end is that their lives depend on it.

Not necessarily.

Pilots sitting in simulators experience the same anxiety, increases adreniline, increased heart-rate, etc. that they experience in a plane.


I cna envision a day where a pilot sits in a room with a console similar to a simulator, but is remotely controlling a real plane rather than a simulation. He has the plane take off, achieve cruising altitue, on a heading towards the destination. He hits a few keys and is now controlling a different plane thru it's take off (or landing). Do this a few times and take a lunch break, etc.

It would certainly cut down on the boredom pilots face, as well as cutting the number of pilots required (and therefore reducing expenses).

However, I have a feeling we'd see a Johnny Cab before we see a Johnny Jet.

Pilots are expensive. The only reason Golden Retrievers are not used is that when things go wrong, no one could ever blame it on the mutt.

Flying becomes more and more an exercise in button pushing by persons who lack "seat of the pants flying skills". The Gimli Glider incident is becoming more and more significant. (Gimli was the small town in Canada where the plane wound up, Glider shows how much fuel its engines were getting). The pilot just happened to have a hobby. He flew gliders. He was used to making landings without having the ability to go around and try again. He was familiar with the need to make his altitude bleeding S-turns toward, not away from, his destination. He was familiar with cross-control skids even though airliners are not designed for it. Its skill that is required and nowadays too many pilots have only pushed buttons, never really flown an aircraft.

And far too many have never really pressed the buttons, they just have logbooks and certificates that say they have done so. One pilot with nine months of experience was unable to fasten his seatbelt. One pilot tried to land on the nosewheel. India is best at this sort of stuff... they have a culture wherein all students write on an exam paper is their cell phone number, then a payment is made and then a grade is issued. Its easy to get out of flying school in India with good grades and a log book full of good flying experience!

Most of the time things go well. Primary systems, Secondary Systems, Tertiary systems... crew coordination, routine procedures. Sometimes all you really would need is a Golden Retriever. After all, once the Toronto World's Fair operated dozens of subway cars with college students standing in a control booth and doing nothing at all since the subway was fully automated. It was the riders that felt reassured by the college students. Perhaps Golden Retrievers would have been reassuring too.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Pilots sitting in simulators experience the same anxiety, increases adreniline, increased heart-rate, etc. that they experience in a plane.

Yes. Simulators are immersive experiences, and the pilots in them feel about the same they would on a real plane that's really flying. But a drone wouldn't be flown that way. More like in front of a computer screen, or three or four, with video views of the environment and instruments. The pilot would issue orders to the plane's computer.

Now, I'm not saying that faced with disaster, the pilot "flying" a planeload of passengers would say "Oh, screw it! I'm already late for lunch and I'm safe anyway." But would he feel the desperation, the primal need to recover the plane? Maybe, maybe not. It is one thing worth looking into before removing crews from the cockpit altogether.

Quote:

However, I have a feeling we'd see a Johnny Cab before we see a Johnny Jet.

Ironically it's much easier to fly a plane automatically than to drive a car the same way. But driverless cars are finally coming. That, however, is another topic.

Quote: reno

Except that they don’t. This does not happen; not in a Boeing, not in an Airbus, not at any commercial airport, anywhere. As I’ve explained before, fewer than 1 percent of commercial aircraft landings are “automatic.”

I know that. Pilots like to "practice" landing their own planes, therefore few of them let the autmated landing systems do the work.

It needs to be understood that most pilots love to fly, that's why they are pilots.

Quote:

As for takeoffs, a full 100 percent are the manual kind; there is no such thing as an automatic takeoff.

I am somewhat surprised at that. I mean, takeoff is the easiest part of any flight.

Quote:

And what do terms like “automatic” and “autopilot” mean, anyway? Autopilot is simply a tool, along with many other tools available to the crew. You still need to tell it what to do, how to do it and when to do it.

The first autopilots could only keep a plane at a certain heading. So you pointed your plane to, say, 247 degrees and locked the autopilot in. If the plane drifted, the autopilot engaged rudder to correct.

These days they can keep a heading, altitude, speed, etc. They also respond to commands from the crew. In Airbus models, instead of pushing the yoke down or the throttles forward to descend, the crew enters a flight level on the computer and it does the rest (a bad display design on that function caused the A-320 crash at le Bourget during the air show, BTW). I suppose they can also follow a flight plan.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

"Where am I?"

"You are in a Johnny Cab!"