3 ms·
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 probabl
by 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 agoWhat about cost reduction -- less than 1 pilot per plane, there only to monitor situations that require a human?
- mikedouglas 17y agoYou 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 agoI 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 agoOh, 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 agoThere 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.
- kwantam 17y agoThe big difference is that redout happens at substantially lower G force, partially because there is no way to use skeletal muscles to fight it. This is partially why both the Immelman and the Split S use a "climb" to effect their vertical movement.
- shpxnvz 17y agoSpecifically, at negative G-forces.
- gojomo 17y agoHow about for cargo planes?
- protomyth 17y agoI get the feeling with people are unwilling to have unmanned trains, then unmanned planes are a no go (except by the military who can make a logical cost-benifit-risk decision in this case). "Learn how hackers can bring down planes into buildings at 5"
- fnid 17y agoConsidering that military planes are used with the intent to kill, it's not as much of an issue as when passengers are aboard. Plus, most of these fighter planes are going to be flying over war zones where lots of people die all the time.
- protomyth 17y agoActually, a lot of the unmanned military planes are used in the US (some are stationed down the highway from where I work). I just think society isn't ready for unmanned mass transport, but the military has some systemic advantages in being allowed to go that way.
- ghshephard 17y ago"people are unwilling to have unmanned trains?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_%28Vancouver%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_%28Vancouver%29 When I moved from Vancouver to San Francisco I found it completely bizarre that they required Drivers for BART. It took me a couple years to get over that.
- gaius 17y agoThe DLR in London is unmanned too, that ferries commuters into London's second financial district. If that's not a terrorist target I don't know what is, so steps must have been taken to secure it.
- signa11 17y agoOne way to market this thing, for commercial planes, might be to tout the sheer impossibility of hijack...