United 767-300 Has Fuselage Buckled by Hard Landing at IAH July 29, 2023
- Thread starter john_pifer
- Start date
I clearly said something similar it may not be exactly the same implementation. To say that it will never happen is disingenuous. I do not think it is pie in the sky. What do you think people said when the Wright brothers first flew? Or the first jet engine came about?
People also said LORAN for boats and the WAAS system for Airplanes were the only ways for navigation. Now most planes have have GNSS(GPS) receivers which they did not in 80s.
People said Auto Pilot would never happen yet here we Today.
Do you remember people not believing phones would be be a mini computer. (I certainly do.).
You also forgot V2x as well. Vehicle to everything. Airports have a very small footprint compared to the highways and equipping a whole airport V2V, V2I or V2X is certainly a lot easier than equipping the whole interstate.
Just because it is not available today does not mean it will not be in the future. It is the natural progression.
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
MolaKule
Staff member
It is not disingenuous simply because I disagreed. I disagreed because you are neglecting the importance of human factors in these systems, primarily that of context and situational awareness in dynamical situations.
I know what people said when those technologies came about.
You cannot assume that a progression in one technology will give rise to another. This is a fallacy of Unwarranted Extrapolation.People also said LORAN for boats and the WAAS system for Airplanes were the only ways for navigation. Now most planes have have GNSS(GPS) receivers which they did not in 80s.
People said Auto Pilot would never happen yet here we Today.
Do you remember people not believing phones would be be a mini computer. (I certainly do.).
You also forgot V2x as well. Vehicle to everything. Airports have a very small footprint compared to the highways and equipping a whole airport V2V, V2I or V2X is certainly a lot easier than equipping the whole interstate.
Just because it is not available today does not mean it will not be in the future. It is the natural progression.
Cheers
Last edited:
Don’t give lord emperor Elon any ideas
The issue isn’t progress, it’s the “five or ten years” timeline as a prediction for when AI will be flying airplanes.I clearly said something similar it may not be exactly the same implementation. To say that it will never happen is disingenuous. I do not think it is pie in the sky. What do you think people said when the Wright brothers first flew? Or the first jet engine came about?
People also said LORAN for boats and the WAAS system for Airplanes were the only ways for navigation. Now most planes have have GNSS(GPS) receivers which they did not in 80s.
People said Auto Pilot would never happen yet here we Today.
Do you remember people not believing phones would be be a mini computer. (I certainly do.).
You also forgot V2x as well. Vehicle to everything. Airports have a very small footprint compared to the highways and equipping a whole airport V2V, V2I or V2X is certainly a lot easier than equipping the whole interstate.
Just because it is not available today does not mean it will not be in the future. It is the natural progression.
Cheers
Progress will happen. I’ve been flying for nearly 40 years now, I’ve seen plenty of progress. But none of it as dramatic as pilotless passenger airlines.
That is a lot more than five or ten years away.
I would definitely agree nothing will happen in 5-10 years, just to retrofit airports and planes would be a huge undertaking.
GON
$100 Site Donor 2024
The real question is- who is willing to accept unnecessary risk for pilotless passenger aircraft for the assumed tradeoff of reducing costs.
That’s a great question.
Clearly the Air Line Pilot Association position is clear - the best safety system is two well trained, well rested, pilots in the cockpit. Naturally, I agree.
Research into autonomous flight is being driven by DOD and industry.
DOD for obvious reasons - e.g. a warplane with no pilot can be flown in higher risk missions. Pilots, military pilots, cost a great deal to train, and a great deal to maintain proficiency, so there are potential large cost savings there.
Industry interest is similar - cost savings.
But while potential savings in commercial passenger flight exist - it’s not at all clear that the flying public will accept autonomous flight in passenger travel. ALPA and the public are aligned on this - both want well trained humans at the controls. This is a cultural barrier to adoption.
So, research and development continues, primarily on DOD, but the impetus in the commercial sector is modest at best because of that barrier.
The world just isn’t ready for it, yet.
One other point - and this is important - the visual approach.
I have already mentioned that I had to avoid, visually, another airplane in flight. Had I followed instruments, there would’ve been a collision. Or who’s fatal, perhaps not.
I acquired the target, a blundering small airplane without an operating transponder, visually.
Visual approaches are often used in commercial operations. Frequently, this is because the glideslope is inoperative, while in other cases, it allows a higher arrival rate (e.g. SFO). Without both a glideslope and localizer, an aUro flight system cannot determine runway centerline or vertical relationship to the runway with sufficient accuracy to stay on the runway (and not crash).
GPS accuracy is currently insufficient for this purpose. Staying on the runway, and landing in the touchdown zone, are essential for safety.
There are times when GPS accuracy is degraded from local interference, or from insufficient satellites in view, or other factors. WAAS, an adjunct to supplant GPS signals, can be jammed, or interfered with, and doesn’t work all the time. 5G cellular towers degrade radar altimeter data.
So, when 5G interferes, or GPS is inaccurate, and the ILS system isn’t working, a human pilot flies a visual approach. Lands. All good. Passengers are blissfully unaware of the role of the experienced pilot in getting them there safely.
This happens a lot. Perhaps 1/3 of my approaches are visual.
There is no way for any sensing system currently available to “see” the way a human pilot can.
Every single aircraft location system currently in existence relies on the radio spectrum. ILS, GPS, radar altimeter, all of them. Which means that they can be interfered with, either through system problems (insufficient satellites, power interruptions, equipment fault, systems down for upgrades or maintenance) or through the deliberate actions of actors with an interest in making airlines a target.
Consider, for a moment, what would happen to autonomous piloted airliners if a terrorist state decided to mimic GPS signals, provide false data, and drive airliners off course. This can be done, from a technology standpoint, today. it is a real possibility. So is a conflict between superpowers that potentially would affect GPS/GLONASS.
Keep in mind that the computer relies on those sensors and data inputs that it has been given. Just like MCAS relied on the data it was given - an AOA probe that happened to have a failure, and gave false data. Tragedy resulted.
The human pilot has options in those cases. The autonomous/AI pilot does not.
I have already mentioned that I had to avoid, visually, another airplane in flight. Had I followed instruments, there would’ve been a collision. Or who’s fatal, perhaps not.
I acquired the target, a blundering small airplane without an operating transponder, visually.
Visual approaches are often used in commercial operations. Frequently, this is because the glideslope is inoperative, while in other cases, it allows a higher arrival rate (e.g. SFO). Without both a glideslope and localizer, an aUro flight system cannot determine runway centerline or vertical relationship to the runway with sufficient accuracy to stay on the runway (and not crash).
GPS accuracy is currently insufficient for this purpose. Staying on the runway, and landing in the touchdown zone, are essential for safety.
There are times when GPS accuracy is degraded from local interference, or from insufficient satellites in view, or other factors. WAAS, an adjunct to supplant GPS signals, can be jammed, or interfered with, and doesn’t work all the time. 5G cellular towers degrade radar altimeter data.
So, when 5G interferes, or GPS is inaccurate, and the ILS system isn’t working, a human pilot flies a visual approach. Lands. All good. Passengers are blissfully unaware of the role of the experienced pilot in getting them there safely.
This happens a lot. Perhaps 1/3 of my approaches are visual.
There is no way for any sensing system currently available to “see” the way a human pilot can.
Every single aircraft location system currently in existence relies on the radio spectrum. ILS, GPS, radar altimeter, all of them. Which means that they can be interfered with, either through system problems (insufficient satellites, power interruptions, equipment fault, systems down for upgrades or maintenance) or through the deliberate actions of actors with an interest in making airlines a target.
Consider, for a moment, what would happen to autonomous piloted airliners if a terrorist state decided to mimic GPS signals, provide false data, and drive airliners off course. This can be done, from a technology standpoint, today. it is a real possibility. So is a conflict between superpowers that potentially would affect GPS/GLONASS.
Keep in mind that the computer relies on those sensors and data inputs that it has been given. Just like MCAS relied on the data it was given - an AOA probe that happened to have a failure, and gave false data. Tragedy resulted.
The human pilot has options in those cases. The autonomous/AI pilot does not.
Are the GPS receivers used on airliners capable of receiving and utilizing GLONASS?
For comparison, does anyone know how an autonomous car like a Tesla will react when driving down a highway at 50mph or more and hit a patch of black ice? Would anyone want to be the passenger in that car?
Airplanes and pilots have so many more variables to deal with. How would that autonomously flown airplane react in those situations? They are too numerous to list here.
Airplanes and pilots have so many more variables to deal with. How would that autonomously flown airplane react in those situations? They are too numerous to list here.
US airplanes aren’t but many airlines use both.
Not hard to envision a scenario in which superpower conflict affects objects in LEO. Like navigation satellites.
There wouldn’t be any advance warning.
Last edited:
Are you positive about that. I was a party that one of my friends that worked a Raytheon designing on some secret stuff , He couldn't tell me and I didn't ask. We went to a party and there were nerds, boring then another group of people that seemed exciting . I worked my way into the exciting crowd and found out were pilots that fly the P3s out of Moffet field . I asked them what do you guys fly, they said we are P3 drivers. Pilots are really fun!
Are you saying if the electronic devices that fly and guide/ navigate the planes for some reason stopped functioning the pilots could navigate and land the plane? [Referring to the why even need pilots post.] When my son was in Boy Scouts I went on every outing we would spend a month under the stars. The Scout Master was a back seater on an A4 and he was scary smart, scared the heck out of me. He would have the scouts do some incredible navigating skills through the forests.
Basically.
One of the things I do, as Check Pilot and Captain, is demonstrate, and encourage, and sometimes, require, actual flying. All the doo-dads turned off. Autothrottles, autopilot, ILS, all of it - Off.
Fly the airplane on pitch, power, trim, and visual sight picture.
So, not only do I think a pilot (a trained pilot, not a child of the magenta*) can navigate - pilots practice and enjoy that. It’s part of being a pilot, not just a systems manager.
*
So refreshing - the way we all learned it in the beginning.
When I had a new student that couldn't stop looking at the instrument panel, I would tape a map over the panel or turn the electric master off (less effective, because it doesn't shut off the vacuum instruments). Everyone has to learn to see and feel flying the airplane, then more advanced training brings your eyes into the instrument panel full time.
Pitch controls airspeed, power controls altitude, trim it, and be at one with the airplane. Doesn't matter if it's a J-3 or a 767, the basics are still the same.
Depending upon where you look and at what timeframe, cockpit crew are not that big a proportion of the costs of running a flight or an airline. These labor costs are dwarfed by things like fuel expense, maintenance expense and capital amortization/depreciation/debt service on aircraft including leasing expenses.
If I'm either an airframer, an engine maker or an airline, my focus will be on these proportionately larger expense items over the much smaller proportionate costs of pilots, so that's where my investments will be made.
Great strides have been made in both powerplants and airframes to address these expenses, with more efficient engines, more efficient wings and predictive maintenance to reduce maintenance costs and unplanned downtime.
There have also been serious efforts to reduce the cost of building aircraft, the 787 and the A350 both being examples of this. May not have really worked out in either case, but these are early days and manufacturing and assembly cost will absolutely be a focus of the next generation of transport aircraft.
There is a lot more room for improvement in all, so I'd expect a lot more effort on these items before anyone seriously pursues any pilotless transport aircraft proposal.
If I'm either an airframer, an engine maker or an airline, my focus will be on these proportionately larger expense items over the much smaller proportionate costs of pilots, so that's where my investments will be made.
Great strides have been made in both powerplants and airframes to address these expenses, with more efficient engines, more efficient wings and predictive maintenance to reduce maintenance costs and unplanned downtime.
There have also been serious efforts to reduce the cost of building aircraft, the 787 and the A350 both being examples of this. May not have really worked out in either case, but these are early days and manufacturing and assembly cost will absolutely be a focus of the next generation of transport aircraft.
There is a lot more room for improvement in all, so I'd expect a lot more effort on these items before anyone seriously pursues any pilotless transport aircraft proposal.
In sufficiently developed applications, AI/ML can out-perform humans in ordinary tasks that closely resemble its training scenarios. Yet as soon as AI/ML encounters a real-world situation that is outside its training, all bets are off. Its performance becomes poor and unpredictable. That's when you need humans who have situational awareness and actually understand what they are doing. Yet the problem is that these situations are not predictable - they happen quickly and unexpectedly, so you don't have much time to identify it and get a human to take over.
Put differently, one could say that the reason we have human pilots is to turn off the automation and fly the airplane, when it becomes necessary. But to do that effectively, those humans need experience and training, so they might as well be there all the time flying the airplane and using automation as appropriate to reduce their workload.
This. I'm not a pilot and have no skills there at all. I am in the tech field and know more about computers than most people. Unless we come up with real AI, not the current machine learning stuff that is being incorrectly called AI, that can actually think and anticipate like a real human being, computers will not be replacing humans in the cockpit anytime soon. Nor in many other fields that require more than just simple calculations and repetition.
Remember, we were already suppose to all be using fully automated cars 5 years ago. Hasn't happened and isn't even close to happening. While autopilot in airplanes has been a thing for a long time, most people have no idea how it functions or what its limitations are. There is a good reason why the planes auto pilot cuts off when the computer starts seeing sensor data and information that doesn't make sense to its programmed parameters. Also why those same computers are not capable of doing anything outside of the programmed parameters that it has.
Humans can and do. Yes, planes still crash from human error. But there are plenty of examples of planes being landed by humans in situations where a computer wouldn't have a chance. But it does require training and experience. Small wonder why pilots have to go through various training courses to be able to operate a plane. If any idiot could do it then I suppose it would be as easy as getting a drivers license these days.
If there is an issue with the plane during flight, I'll take Astro14 or any of the other pilots who post here every single time over a computer.