8 ms·

For those in the aerospace industry, are we seeing any movement towards unmanned commercial airplanes? Are the impediments mostly technical or social? Any rough

For those in the aerospace industry, are we seeing any movement towards unmanned commercial airplanes? Are the impediments mostly technical or social? Any rough timelines?

mynameishere 17y ago
I'm pretty sure that commercial aircraft are about 99 percent unmanned at present.
- teuobk 17y ago
  Indeed. As shown by the recent distracted-pilots-flew-past-Minneapolis fiasco, modern planes have become so automated that one of the biggest problems for pilots is fighting boredom: http://www.startribune.com/local/68083742.html http://www.startribune.com/local/68083742.html
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  And from reading Philip Greenspun's blog, pilot's salaries are reflecting that reality. It's heading towards a minimum wage job.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
randallsquared 17y ago
There's probably too little freight to justify development of an unmanned commercial plane. I think the trivial advantages for passenger planes would be outweighed by the misdirected incentives. :)
evgen 17y ago
There are several problems for an unmanned commercial airplane. None of them are insurmountable, but they add up to making it easy to see how this will probably be the last sector that gets automated. In a combat aircraft the advantages for getting rid of the pilot are numerous: less weight & volume for the pilot and their associated support kit, eliminating the pilot allows for plane geometries that are just not possible with a human onboard, eliminating the pilot enables maneuvers that would turn a pilot to jelly, etc. The pilot is probably the most expensive component of a combat aircraft. Eliminating the pilot opens up new mission profiles (e.g. you don't have to worry too much about the aircraft getting back to base.) For a commercial aircraft the benefits of going unmanned are not as pronounced and in some cases are non-existent. In addition to the lack of benefits, you introduce additional costs related to liability (you can always blame pilot error for a problem, but if there is no pilot then it is the airlines fault for either not maintaining the system properly or for selecting the system in the first place) and the fact that passengers are not going to trust this system anytime soon. The impediments are almost completely social, but the benefits are so slight that it does not make much sense to bother aiming for completely unmanned. What you are going to see (and in fact what has been happening for years now) is the increasing automation of cockpit tasks. There will always be a human being "at the controls" for the forseeable future, but what that actually means and how much active control they are exercising is going to be slowly changing.
- sown 17y ago
  What about cost reduction -- less than 1 pilot per plane, there only to monitor situations that require a human?
- mikedouglas 17y ago
  You can always blame pilot error for a problem, but if there is no pilot then it is the airlines fault for either not maintaining the system properly or for selecting the system in the first place Great observation. The primary advantage I saw (reduced pilot errors, responsible now for ~3/4 of all aviation accidents) is a liability for the airline and the manufacturer.
- joez 17y ago
  > eliminating the pilot enables maneuvers that would turn a pilot to jelly I think this is a common misperception. I believe the operational risk is that manuevers above 6g (varying on pilot and G-suit) reduces blood flow to the brain (by forcing it into the legs) and cause a blackout. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC Blackouts, even for a few seconds, can be devastating in the middle of a dogfight. I believe there is software in modern fighter jets for just when pilots blackout but I can't find it on google right now.
  - nostrademons 17y ago
    I didn't interpret evgen's comment as literally turning a pilot to jelly. (Hrmm, there's an interesting visual.) For practical purposes, a pilot that's blacked out = jelly.
    - joez 17y ago
      Oh, I was responding in general. Most articles, the one (linked included) talk about physical limitations about human pilots. I always thought it was something more gory until I found out about blackouts a few years ago.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    There is also a Redout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redout, but for the purpose of this discussion the difference is merely a curiosity.
spitfire 17y ago
Unlikely to be soon. Radar guided missiles are easily defeated with modern ECM. Despite what the salesmen will tell you, in a real fight you have to get in and knife the f*&kers. The same happens with remotely piloted vehicles. If you ever go up against even a modestly sophisticated adversary they will show phenomenal pluck and ingenuity. See serbian downing of an F-117 for an example. Human pilots will be needed for some time to avoid having your toys fall out of the sky or stolen and used against you.
- dmix 17y ago
  I agree, the article talks about the competition investing in UAV's but it fails to mention the average modern military's ability to defend themselves against UAV's.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  Didn't they say the same thing about swords when guns were invented, about infantry when artillery was invented, and about battleships when aircraft carriers were invented? It was true back then, too - it was a good 25 years between when aircraft carriers were invented in WW1 and when they sank their first vessel at Coral Sea. But new technology opens up new tactics and new economies of scale that can fundamentally change the rules of battle. What if you didn't care about having your toys fall out of the sky, for example? Make them so cheap that you can literally blanket the sky with them. Send up thousands of computer-piloted missile-aircraft. If they get shot down, who cares? If they shoot each other down, who cares? If they get stolen by the enemy and used to shoot down your own missile-craft...well, that's what was happening before anyway. But you could throw up a curtain so dense and so shifting that it's impossible for anything to fly through them. And that's exactly what a potential adversary of the U.S. wants: nullify American air power so the f#&kers on the ground can knife our guys. It doesn't matter if they shoot down 10 of their own missile-craft for every one of ours. If they can put up 100x as many, that still equals no aircraft in the sky for Uncle Sam. There was a recent wargame that followed a strategy much like this, except that instead of computer-controlled aircraft it used human-controlled small boats launching cruise missiles (that other automated-pilot air weapon): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
xcombinator 17y ago
Today, no passenger wants the computer to control the plane. They are right. Today planes can take off and land using only software and radio signals, even when the pilot can't, like no visibility when cloudy. The problem is that computer understanding of the surroundings is NULL. Today there is no software that could understand(well) that there are birds(or small planes) on the way that are going to be eaten by your engines, and damage it. The only technologies that work are active, like LIDAR, this is going to change, but first on vehicles with less degrees of freedom. Trains(1FD) before ships(2FD) before cars before planes.
- kwantam 17y ago
  Today there is no software that could understand(well) that there are birds(or small planes) on the way that are going to be eaten by your engines, and damage it. This is just fearmongering. Birds, sure, but airplane engines are designed to ingest small birds and for the most part can handle it reasonably well. Small planes still must have a transponder, and TCAS systems will identify and warn of ADS-B signals ("squawk"), even if the smaller plane has not been equipped with a TCAS transceiver.
  - xcombinator 17y ago
    I'm talking about groups of birds here, they are very real. E.g, the pilot of a big plane saved the lives of the passengers when a big group(thousands) of flamingos take off from Doñana national park in Spain, he did what the book says not to do, put the plane in full-power and fly over them. There is a rule in engineering, never underestimate a 900km/hr projectile. And I have seen myself engines birds test that are mandatory on every turbine.
Dove 17y ago
Entirely social. Commercial jets are already equipped with software that can take off, navigate, fly, and land the jet. Generally more efficiently than a pilot can. The job really is an easy one for software. Unless something like this happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 . Then there's absolutely no replacement for a human being or three in the cockpit, and the public and the FAA know it. A pilot's salary or two is not too much to pay to protect the lives of several hundred people once in a while, even if it's otherwise unnecessary. The military believes it, too, and the jets they fly have a higher likelihood of encountering life or death situations such as having pieces shot off and needing to get home. While there may not be pilots in the jets in the next generation, they'll be flying them for a while yet, and commanding them for a long time. The battlefield is too difficult, complex, and important for anything else. Once someone gives the order to drop a bomb, they'll trust software to execute the order efficiently and correctly. But it's going to be a human being giving the order for a long time. Possibly forever. There are some jobs that won't be done by software until it can pass a Turing test. Software may be able to do the job in the vast majority of cases, and in some societies that may be good enough. Socially speaking, in this society, it isn't.

For those in the aerospace industry, are we seeing any movement towards unmanned commercial airplanes? Are the impediments mostly technical or social? Any rough timelines?

mynameishere 17y ago

I'm pretty sure that commercial aircraft are about 99 percent unmanned at present.

teuobk 17y ago
Indeed. As shown by the recent distracted-pilots-flew-past-Minneapolis fiasco, modern planes have become so automated that one of the biggest problems for pilots is fighting boredom: http://www.startribune.com/local/68083742.html http://www.startribune.com/local/68083742.html
ojbyrne 17y ago
And from reading Philip Greenspun's blog, pilot's salaries are reflecting that reality. It's heading towards a minimum wage job.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

randallsquared 17y ago

There's probably too little freight to justify development of an unmanned commercial plane. I think the trivial advantages for passenger planes would be outweighed by the misdirected incentives. :)

evgen 17y ago

There are several problems for an unmanned commercial airplane. None of them are insurmountable, but they add up to making it easy to see how this will probably be the last sector that gets automated. In a combat aircraft the advantages for getting rid of the pilot are numerous: less weight & volume for the pilot and their associated support kit, eliminating the pilot allows for plane geometries that are just not possible with a human onboard, eliminating the pilot enables maneuvers that would turn a pilot to jelly, etc. The pilot is probably the most expensive component of a combat aircraft. Eliminating the pilot opens up new mission profiles (e.g. you don't have to worry too much about the aircraft getting back to base.) For a commercial aircraft the benefits of going unmanned are not as pronounced and in some cases are non-existent. In addition to the lack of benefits, you introduce additional costs related to liability (you can always blame pilot error for a problem, but if there is no pilot then it is the airlines fault for either not maintaining the system properly or for selecting the system in the first place) and the fact that passengers are not going to trust this system anytime soon. The impediments are almost completely social, but the benefits are so slight that it does not make much sense to bother aiming for completely unmanned. What you are going to see (and in fact what has been happening for years now) is the increasing automation of cockpit tasks. There will always be a human being "at the controls" for the forseeable future, but what that actually means and how much active control they are exercising is going to be slowly changing.

sown 17y ago
What about cost reduction -- less than 1 pilot per plane, there only to monitor situations that require a human?
mikedouglas 17y ago
You can always blame pilot error for a problem, but if there is no pilot then it is the airlines fault for either not maintaining the system properly or for selecting the system in the first place Great observation. The primary advantage I saw (reduced pilot errors, responsible now for ~3/4 of all aviation accidents) is a liability for the airline and the manufacturer.
joez 17y ago
> eliminating the pilot enables maneuvers that would turn a pilot to jelly I think this is a common misperception. I believe the operational risk is that manuevers above 6g (varying on pilot and G-suit) reduces blood flow to the brain (by forcing it into the legs) and cause a blackout. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC Blackouts, even for a few seconds, can be devastating in the middle of a dogfight. I believe there is software in modern fighter jets for just when pilots blackout but I can't find it on google right now.
- nostrademons 17y ago
  I didn't interpret evgen's comment as literally turning a pilot to jelly. (Hrmm, there's an interesting visual.) For practical purposes, a pilot that's blacked out = jelly.
  - joez 17y ago
    Oh, I was responding in general. Most articles, the one (linked included) talk about physical limitations about human pilots. I always thought it was something more gory until I found out about blackouts a few years ago.
- raganwald 17y ago
  There is also a Redout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redout http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redout, but for the purpose of this discussion the difference is merely a curiosity.

spitfire 17y ago

Unlikely to be soon. Radar guided missiles are easily defeated with modern ECM. Despite what the salesmen will tell you, in a real fight you have to get in and knife the f*&kers. The same happens with remotely piloted vehicles. If you ever go up against even a modestly sophisticated adversary they will show phenomenal pluck and ingenuity. See serbian downing of an F-117 for an example. Human pilots will be needed for some time to avoid having your toys fall out of the sky or stolen and used against you.

dmix 17y ago
I agree, the article talks about the competition investing in UAV's but it fails to mention the average modern military's ability to defend themselves against UAV's.
nostrademons 17y ago
Didn't they say the same thing about swords when guns were invented, about infantry when artillery was invented, and about battleships when aircraft carriers were invented? It was true back then, too - it was a good 25 years between when aircraft carriers were invented in WW1 and when they sank their first vessel at Coral Sea. But new technology opens up new tactics and new economies of scale that can fundamentally change the rules of battle. What if you didn't care about having your toys fall out of the sky, for example? Make them so cheap that you can literally blanket the sky with them. Send up thousands of computer-piloted missile-aircraft. If they get shot down, who cares? If they shoot each other down, who cares? If they get stolen by the enemy and used to shoot down your own missile-craft...well, that's what was happening before anyway. But you could throw up a curtain so dense and so shifting that it's impossible for anything to fly through them. And that's exactly what a potential adversary of the U.S. wants: nullify American air power so the f#&kers on the ground can knife our guys. It doesn't matter if they shoot down 10 of their own missile-craft for every one of ours. If they can put up 100x as many, that still equals no aircraft in the sky for Uncle Sam. There was a recent wargame that followed a strategy much like this, except that instead of computer-controlled aircraft it used human-controlled small boats launching cruise missiles (that other automated-pilot air weapon): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

xcombinator 17y ago

Today, no passenger wants the computer to control the plane. They are right. Today planes can take off and land using only software and radio signals, even when the pilot can't, like no visibility when cloudy. The problem is that computer understanding of the surroundings is NULL. Today there is no software that could understand(well) that there are birds(or small planes) on the way that are going to be eaten by your engines, and damage it. The only technologies that work are active, like LIDAR, this is going to change, but first on vehicles with less degrees of freedom. Trains(1FD) before ships(2FD) before cars before planes.

kwantam 17y ago
Today there is no software that could understand(well) that there are birds(or small planes) on the way that are going to be eaten by your engines, and damage it. This is just fearmongering. Birds, sure, but airplane engines are designed to ingest small birds and for the most part can handle it reasonably well. Small planes still must have a transponder, and TCAS systems will identify and warn of ADS-B signals ("squawk"), even if the smaller plane has not been equipped with a TCAS transceiver.
- xcombinator 17y ago
  I'm talking about groups of birds here, they are very real. E.g, the pilot of a big plane saved the lives of the passengers when a big group(thousands) of flamingos take off from Doñana national park in Spain, he did what the book says not to do, put the plane in full-power and fly over them. There is a rule in engineering, never underestimate a 900km/hr projectile. And I have seen myself engines birds test that are mandatory on every turbine.

Dove 17y ago

Entirely social. Commercial jets are already equipped with software that can take off, navigate, fly, and land the jet. Generally more efficiently than a pilot can. The job really is an easy one for software. Unless something like this happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 . Then there's absolutely no replacement for a human being or three in the cockpit, and the public and the FAA know it. A pilot's salary or two is not too much to pay to protect the lives of several hundred people once in a while, even if it's otherwise unnecessary. The military believes it, too, and the jets they fly have a higher likelihood of encountering life or death situations such as having pieces shot off and needing to get home. While there may not be pilots in the jets in the next generation, they'll be flying them for a while yet, and commanding them for a long time. The battlefield is too difficult, complex, and important for anything else. Once someone gives the order to drop a bomb, they'll trust software to execute the order efficiently and correctly. But it's going to be a human being giving the order for a long time. Possibly forever. There are some jobs that won't be done by software until it can pass a Turing test. Software may be able to do the job in the vast majority of cases, and in some societies that may be good enough. Socially speaking, in this society, it isn't.