One in Two People Say They Won’t Fly in Fully Automated Aircraft

kju1 said:
Perhaps you should defer to those of us with qualifications on the subject. I have spent many hours studying aircraft and actually flying them. I teach this subject as well as earn money doing it. When I tell you that you are mis-characterizing what you have heard/learned I am not being mean I am trying to help you understand the reality of the situation as seen/experienced by those of us directly involved in the industry.

Yes some autopilots are capable of handling all phases of flight under certain circumstances. But most airliners are not sufficiently equipped and most airports are not either. Just because a pilot isnt holding onto the yoke doesn't mean he or she isnt flying the aircraft. Just as a previous poster pointed out a TCAS avoidance maneuver requires pilot input. That may take the form of directing the aircraft via a knob to turn left 10 degrees or grabbing the yoke and overriding the autopilot. Either way the human made the decision and applied control inputs - what those controls were is irrelevant to the discussion.

Thats not to say "stick and rudder" skills arent important - they very much are and the lack of them are contributing factors to some high profile accidents.
Click to expand...

You may also realize that the realities behind the yoke of a Cessna is a bit different than an Airbus A320. The prior can barely fly straight without a pilot where the latter is extremely advanced in automated control.

EASA certifies new "Autopilot/Flight Director" TCAS mode for A380

Enhancing flight safety during TCAS manoeuvres
20 August 2009 Press Release
Enhancing flight safety during TCAS manoeuvres

Following recent successful development testing, a new Auto-Pilot/Flight-Director (AP/FD) TCAS* mode for the Airbus A380 has been approved and certified by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

The main benefit of the system is that it could further enhance safety during a traffic avoidance situation because the pilot can now fly the aircraft without switching out of one mode and into another. Thus, by simplifying the actions required by the pilot during a TCAS manoeuvre, this enhanced TCAS mode minimises potential overreactions or inverse reactions while preserving his or her concentration at a critical time.

In addition to now being certified on the A380, the AP/FD TCAS mode will also become available for retrofit on other Airbus Fly-By-Wire aircraft in the coming years.

AP/FD TCAS operation overview
The new AP/FD TCAS mode essentially completes the existing TCAS functionality by implementing a TCAS vertical guidance feature into the Auto Flight computer. The result is that now the Auto Flight computer can control the vertical speed of the aircraft which is adapted to each resolution advisory acquired from TCAS.

Moreover, with this new AP/FD TCAS mode activated, when a TCAS "Resolution Advisory" (RA) is received, the pilot no longer needs to disengage the autopilot or Flight Director before conducting the TCAS manoeuvres. Rather, the autopilot can now automatically conduct the correct TCAS manoeuvre, to position the aircraft clear of any potential traffic conflict.

Furthermore, in the case of the pilot flying the aircraft manually (i.e. without autopilot engaged) when a RA is received, previously the Flight Director 'pitch bar guidance' - indicated on the Primary Flight Display - had to be switched off, but with the new mode, the Flight Director bars remain active and smoothly guide pilot to fly the TCAS manoeuvre. At any time, the crew still retains the ability to override the proposed manoeuvre, so as to respond manually to a TCAS RA by flying according to "conventional" TCAS procedures, i.e. manually controlling the vertical speed by referring to TCAS indications on the pilot's vertical speed scale.
Click to expand...

The TCAS systems require pilot input CURRENTLY, yes. That doesn't mean that also that couldn't be automated. Actually there is at least one midair crash where the pilot chose to ignore the TCAS avoidance direction and pulled into the wrong way, causing a collision. Despite frequent pilot errors, current systems are designed to rely partly in the pilot, this is clear. Technologically speaking however it is already possible to create a fully autonomous flight as multiple drones already show. Airfields can easily be upgraded to specification anywhere where autonomous flight is required. It's simply a matter of cost.
 
Last edited:
kju1 said:
Not what I meant. I meant the engine out landings are more common than you would think. The reason you dont hear about them is because when they happen they are rather uneventful and not "sexy" enough for news coverage. Not I am talking about all of aviation here not just the airlines which most people think is "all" of aviation. Its so much bigger than youd realize.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
 
B00nie said:
You may also realize that the realities behind the yoke of a Cessna is a bit different than an Airbus A320. The prior can barely fly straight without a pilot where the latter is extremely advanced in automated control.



The TCAS systems require pilot input CURRENTLY, yes. That doesn't mean that also that couldn't be automated. Actually there is at least one midair crash where the pilot chose to ignore the TCAS avoidance direction and pulled into the wrong way, causing a collision. Despite frequent pilot errors, current systems are designed to rely partly in the pilot, this is clear. Technologically speaking however it is already possible to create a fully autonomous flight as multiple drones already show. Airfields can easily be upgraded to specification anywhere where autonomous flight is required. It's simply a matter of cost.
Click to expand...

TCAS is a great tool in the cockpit but it does only one thing really well but lacks SA in just about everything else around the jet. I've only had to ignore it once for safety reasons but regardless, appreciated having it every time.
 
gamerk2 said:
Basically, all you really need to do is tell the AI to "find someplace relatively flat, preferably an airport if possible", and "keep the plane horizontal", and you've accomplished basically the same feat as Sully.

Lets face it, what happened was essentially:

1: Engines lose power immediately after takeoff; plane becomes glorified glider
2: Understanding there isn't enough altitude + airspeed to turn around and make the airport again, requiring immediate landing in a relatively flat area (given NYC, this mandated a water landing)
3: Point plane at designated landing point (Hudson river, which is a pretty big flat target)
4: Glide into water at "reasonable" (not-too-fast on landing, not-too-slow you stall)
5: Thank the Federal regulation that mandates passenger planes be buoyant for at least 90 seconds after a water landing.

Honestly, what Sully accomplished is literally the easiest case for AI to handle. Loss-of-Engine-Power cases are relatively "simple", since you can just treat the plane as a glider at that point. Other failures [loss of control surfaces] are much harder to deal with by comparison, since you need to factor in aircraft control into the decision making process.
Click to expand...

No. Lol

Will a person or a computer do better with the following--
What's considered flat--a school yard or a corn field?
New development that has not been pushed into nav DB that makes terrain no longer flat/uninhibited?
Waterways that have cruises/taxies/ferry/bridges/powerlines?
Attempt the landing across or with the chop/waves?
Flap setting? Gusty winds usually drive different configuration

Depending on the jet--loss of control surface do occur with loss of engine powered systems
 
gamerk2 said:
Basically, all you really need to do is tell the AI to "find someplace relatively flat, preferably an airport if possible", and "keep the plane horizontal", and you've accomplished basically the same feat as Sully.

Lets face it, what happened was essentially:

1: Engines lose power immediately after takeoff; plane becomes glorified glider
2: Understanding there isn't enough altitude + airspeed to turn around and make the airport again, requiring immediate landing in a relatively flat area (given NYC, this mandated a water landing)
3: Point plane at designated landing point (Hudson river, which is a pretty big flat target)
4: Glide into water at "reasonable" (not-too-fast on landing, not-too-slow you stall)
5: Thank the Federal regulation that mandates passenger planes be buoyant for at least 90 seconds after a water landing.

Honestly, what Sully accomplished is literally the easiest case for AI to handle. Loss-of-Engine-Power cases are relatively "simple", since you can just treat the plane as a glider at that point. Other failures [loss of control surfaces] are much harder to deal with by comparison, since you need to factor in aircraft control into the decision making process.
Click to expand...

Oh shit, it's that simple!

Fuck me! I need to quit my job.
 
B00nie said:
Aircrafts are flown by computers about 98% of the way as it is already.
Click to expand...

98%? of what?

It's got to a point as where pilots are struggling to have enough 'hands on stick' time to keep their flight verifications despite working full hours on commercial flights.
Click to expand...

$/profits and lack of regulatory guidance. Want pilots with more stick time? I'd expect your ticket price to increase to fund it.

Also no modern jetliner does anything without a computer anymore. The pilots stick inputs are just suggestions to the flight computer on what to do. The newest planes will even stop the pilot from doing excessive movements that would endanger the plane for example.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong here but the increased automation/computers are great and it enhances pilot SA, decision making, and task management. Such systems are good while operating in the normal flight regime however it should never hinder a pilots abilities manipulate the jet during a catastrophic event.

Teslas need their driver overrides, jets are no different.

Most accidents happen because the pilots disengage the automation and give wrong inputs in confusion. Of course sometimes a problem may disengage the autopilot by design but that should obviously never happen in a fully autonomous airplane lol.
Click to expand...

Most?
 
Disco_Stu_04 said:
No. Lol

Will a person or a computer do better with the following--
What's considered flat--a school yard or a corn field?
New development that has not been pushed into nav DB that makes terrain no longer flat/uninhibited?
Waterways that have cruises/taxies/ferry/bridges/powerlines?
Attempt the landing across or with the chop/waves?
Flap setting? Gusty winds usually drive different configuration

Depending on the jet--loss of control surface do occur with loss of engine powered systems
Click to expand...


Why do you assume that the computer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between corn and kids? Or that it would be making navigational decisions based solely on its GPS database rather than the multitude of sensors and scanners it would be equipped with?
 
ryan_975 said:
Why do you assume that the computer wouldn't be able to tell the difference between corn and kids? Or that it would be making navigational decisions based solely on its GPS database rather than the multitude of sensors and scanners it would be equipped with?
Click to expand...

That'd make them more capable than a lot of our mil aircraft and cost quite a bit of money. What you're saying is not unreasonable but won't be realistic for quite some time. DAFIF/nav DB/Jep currently do not include those kinds of details.
 
N4CR said:
80% and it includes everything where humans have input, from manufacturing parts, to fitting/replacing them, to pushing buttons as a pilot.

Removing the pilot is merely a cost saving measure. They can save maybe 100 million a year in wages alone in some of the larger airlines... now you see why self driving is coming regardless? Trucks, taxis, trains, busses, planes, ships.
All we really need is maintenance people and a few skilled drivers/pilots/riders for applications too challenging (so far) for AI. Crop dusting, rescue work etc etc

We should really be saying, okay unmanned flights, IF you give us a cheaper flight...
Click to expand...

I'll gladly pay the extra cost. I'm not willing to let a company use their profits as a reason gamble on the loss of one autonomous airliner vs paying a pilot union.

CharonPDX said:
And Sully is an asshole. Have a couple friends that worked at the same airline. Nobody could stand him. But he was a "hero," so publicly they had to compliment him at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

Source? I googled "Sully is an asshole" and didn't find anything. Not everyone gets along in any industry that's out there.

nysmo said:
What I'm saying is being an airline pilot isnt that glorious and you can still do what you love and get paid for it, you'll just be doing it differently. Ask any pilot which aspect of flying he enjoys more, cruising around in his 2 seater bubble canopy or sitting behind a control deck with windows that give just enough visibility to see the runway and land.
Click to expand...

I do both but couldn't do one or the either as long as I have the ability. High flying gets me places, smaller gets me upside down.

kju1 said:
Have you heard about Air France?
Click to expand...

That pitot system was jacked. Hypothetically in a world of complete automation, how quickly could they push updated and tested code to the entire fleet without downtime? Jets can stay airborne with an informed crew.

kju1 said:
Four words: Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums...
Click to expand...

And Simultaneous Approaches to Parallel Runways!

B00nie said:
Wrong. That was just a pilot saying they're still needed in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Or that was just a police officer who walked the beat vs CCTV
Doctor vs robot surgery
English speaking customer service vs programmed voice menu

One of the most common causes to crashes is a strange warning signal(s) which leads to the crew doing a check list (as mandated by the rules). Many aircraft have crashed because the crew has been so busy with a problem or series of problems that they actually forgot to fly the plane until they ran it out of fuel or lost control.
Click to expand...

There's that "most" word again. Channelized attention is what you're describing.

Vercinaigh said:
I seriously doubt every jumbo jet pilot is a Maverik, I really do.
Click to expand...

True.
 
i fly a lot as a passenger and no freaking way would i fly on a plane without 2 or maybe 3 humans that know how to work it.
 
QqkAaj.gif


As long at the stewardess is properly trained we will be fine...
 
Disco_Stu_04 said:
Or that was just a police officer who walked the beat vs CCTV
Click to expand...
No, it's Robocop vs human walking the beat.
Doctor vs robot surgery
Click to expand...
Doctors already use robots for fine surgery delicate enough to require extreme precision and magnification. The human body just isn't accurate enough. AI can make faster and more accurate cancer diagnosis on tissue samples than humans already.
English speaking customer service vs programmed voice menu
Click to expand...
You really compare an Airbus autopilot to a programmed voice menu? Boy you have a lot to learn.

Most aircraft accidents occur due to pilot error (one in two accidents actually): http://rblaw.net/5-most-common-causes-of-plane-crashes/
 
Last edited:
rhexis said:
i fly a lot as a passenger and no freaking way would i fly on a plane without 2 or maybe 3 humans that know how to work it.
Click to expand...

I guess you'll never take an autonomous car ride then either.
 
B00nie said:
You may also realize that the realities behind the yoke of a Cessna is a bit different than an Airbus A320. The prior can barely fly straight without a pilot where the latter is extremely advanced in automated control..
Click to expand...

Once again you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. You also have no idea what I fly. That fact aside a Cessna is an extremely stable aircraft posses both positive static and dynamic stability. Which is precisely why they are used for training!
 
B00nie said:
I guess you'll never take an autonomous car ride then either.
Click to expand...

I decided to get a friend of mine to email a friend of his about flying without a pilot.

This person's answer was "Not a chance of getting me in the plane".

You may of heard of him - his name is Charles Yeager, obviously he knows less about flying than you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
kju1 said:
Once again you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. You also have no idea what I fly. That fact aside a Cessna is an extremely stable aircraft posses both positive static and dynamic stability. Which is precisely why they are used for training!
Click to expand...

If you begin to compare the autopilot capabilities of a Cessna to the A320 I highly doubt your pilot background. Did you even read the 2009 introduced fully automated TCAS certification I posted? The one you said can't be done without a pilot? :)
 
B00nie said:
If you begin to compare the autopilot capabilities of a Cessna to the A320 I highly doubt your pilot background. Did you even read the 2009 introduced fully automated TCAS certification I posted? The one you said can't be done without a pilot? :)
Click to expand...


Did you read the part of my post where I objected to your ability to call a Cessna unable to fly straight with a pilot as a wholly inaccurate statement?

Youre TCAS argument is not relevant. I was using TCAS as mentioned by a previous poster to show input is input regardless of the control manipulated.

Bottom line is you have demonstrated a stunning lack of real world knowledge about aircraft and have refused to listen to experts who have commented on this thread. Reading a few articles on the internet and fooling around in a simulator does not make you an expert.
 
kju1 said:
Did you read the part of my post where I objected to your ability to call a Cessna unable to fly straight with a pilot as a wholly inaccurate statement?

Youre TCAS argument is not relevant. I was using TCAS as mentioned by a previous poster to show input is input regardless of the control manipulated.

Bottom line is you have demonstrated a stunning lack of real world knowledge about aircraft and have refused to listen to experts who have commented on this thread. Reading a few articles on the internet and fooling around in a simulator does not make you an expert.
Click to expand...

Blah blah. I never even mentioned Cessnas stability in my post. I told its autopilot can barely keep it level as opposed to the extremely advanced automation found in the A320.

Your small plane experience seems to cloud your vision. The big boys fly in a totally different league.
 
B00nie said:
Blah blah. I never even mentioned Cessnas stability in my post. I told its autopilot can barely keep it level as opposed to the extremely advanced automation found in the A320.

Your small plane experience seems to cloud your vision. The big boys fly in a totally different league.
Click to expand...

You sir are nothing more than a troll. I quote you:

The prior <CESSNA> can barely fly straight without a pilot where the latter is extremely advanced in automated control..
Click to expand...

Now go back to your dark bridge.
 
kju1 said:
You sir are nothing more than a troll. I quote you:
Click to expand...

I can't help it if your reading comprehension is too poor to understand that the subject of the discussion was the autopilot.

You seem to have zero knowledge on how advanced the modern autopilot systems are so I'm not going to waste any more typing time with you. Like I said, your Cessna experience has clouded your judgment. The big airliners are like supercomputers compared to the small consumer aircraft.
 
B00nie said:
I can't help it if your reading comprehension is too poor to understand that the subject of the discussion was the autopilot.

You seem to have zero knowledge on how advanced the modern autopilot systems are so I'm not going to waste any more typing time with you. Like I said, your Cessna experience has clouded your judgment. The big airliners are like supercomputers compared to the small consumer aircraft.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what I fly. Many more than just small aircraft. Good luck with your closed mind.
 
B00nie said:
No, it's Robocop vs human walking the beat.
Click to expand...
Robocop--you mean the movie where the man was driving (piloting) the machine suit?



B00nie said:
Doctors already use robots for fine surgery delicate enough to require extreme precision and magnification. The human body just isn't accurate enough. AI can make faster and more accurate cancer diagnosis on tissue samples than humans already.
Click to expand...
Correct, doctors are directly supervising and manipulating these machines. Piloted.



B00nie said:
Most aircraft accidents occur due to pilot error (one in two accidents actually): http://rblaw.net/5-most-common-causes-of-plane-crashes/
Click to expand...
But you said
B00nie said:
"Most accidents happen because the pilots disengage the automation and give wrong inputs in confusion. Of course sometimes a problem may disengage the autopilot by design but that should obviously never happen in a fully autonomous airplane lol."
Click to expand...
and then you said...
B00nie said:
"One of the most common causes to crashes is a strange warning signal(s) which leads to the crew doing a check list (as mandated by the rules)."
Click to expand...
and now you just said...
B00nie said:
"Most aircraft accidents occur due to pilot error (one in two accidents actually)"
Click to expand...
Which one of your statements is the accurate one? They all can't be "most."
BTW technically, one in two is half...not most.



B00nie said:
I guess you'll never take an autonomous car ride then either.
Click to expand...
Autonomous cars require human monitoring and intervention/override when it makes a mistake.



B00nie said:
I can't help it if your reading comprehension is too poor to understand that the subject of the discussion was the autopilot.

You seem to have zero knowledge on how advanced the modern autopilot systems are so I'm not going to waste any more typing time with you.
Click to expand...

B00nie said:
Boy you have a lot to learn.
Click to expand...

C'mon dude, don't be like that.
 
Last edited:
Disco_Stu_04 said:
Source? I googled "Sully is an asshole" and didn't find anything. Not everyone gets along in any industry that's out there.
Click to expand...

Off the record conversations with multiple pilots. They were basically all threatened with negative consequences if they said anything bad about Sully in public.
 
Maybe their gossip is true but it seems strange that it would matter one way or the other or that anyone would threaten them if they said anything negative in public. I mean, what would motivate them to say anything negative in public? It certainly wasn't relevant to anything he was in the news for doing.

Reporter: "That sure was an incredible landing!"
Random pilot: "He's an asshole in person."

What would be the point of that? "Negative consequences" probably meant someone with any sense warned them that they'd just come across like a douchebag.
 
mope54 said:
Maybe their gossip is true but it seems strange that it would matter one way or the other or that anyone would threaten them if they said anything negative in public. I mean, what would motivate them to say anything negative in public? It certainly wasn't relevant to anything he was in the news for doing.

Reporter: "That sure was an incredible landing!"
Random pilot: "He's an asshole in person."

What would be the point of that? "Negative consequences" probably meant someone with any sense warned them that they'd just come across like a douchebag.
Click to expand...

Probably a PR thing. The media billed him as a hero and the airline most likely wanted to play off of that to increase passenger counts. Your own employees making public statements (think media mostly is my guess) that contradicted him or cast him in another light would likely harm that effort in their eyes. So policy issued.

Stupid? Absolutely.
 
I understand that. My point was questioning the motives of whoever was badmouthing him, not the motives of whoever supposedly was restricting it.

Badmouthing a guy behind his back, regardless of accuracy, just comes across as a jealous asshole to pretty much everyone else, imo.
 
B00nie said:
I guess you'll never take an autonomous car ride then either.
Click to expand...

The only time I ever ride in anything automated is when it's enclosed, separated, and not part of a network - such as a tram going from one part of an airport to another.

An automated car out in the open world? I'll never ride in one as long as I live.
 
mope54 said:
I understand that. My point was questioning the motives of whoever was badmouthing him, not the motives of whoever supposedly was restricting it.

Badmouthing a guy behind his back, regardless of accuracy, just comes across as a jealous asshole to pretty much everyone else, imo.
Click to expand...

Ah understood. Yeah badmouthing is just unprofessional anyway.
 
Disco_Stu_04 said:
Robocop--you mean the movie where the man was driving (piloting) the machine suit?
Click to expand...
No I mean the fully autonomous monster in the movie.
Correct, doctors are directly supervising and manipulating these machines. Piloted.
Click to expand...
For the time being. Progress is advancing to automated procedures.

But you said

and then you said...

and now you just said...

Which one of your statements is the accurate one? They all can't be "most."
BTW technically, one in two is half...not most.
Click to expand...

Your reading comprehension is poor. The phrase one of the most does not equal the most for starters. And if you would have understood what you read you would concur that those situations I mentioned lead to pilot errors and caused the crashes.
Technically one in two is most when there are more than two possible causes for a crash. Which there obviously are. Math comprehension please.

Autonomous cars require human monitoring and intervention/override when it makes a mistake.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Humans are required in helm only because of legislation. Autonomous cars can operate very successfully (they're on the streets as we speak and have way lower accident ratios than human driven cars on average).

C'mon dude, don't be like that.
Click to expand...

But it is like that. Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top