79 replies to this topic

[THBatMan8]

This is why I don't think ground based systems are a good idea in the commercial industry,


The list of ICAO countries is staggering (over 100 countries). Each country operating tens of hundreds (depending on the country) of daily flights. Including GA, the number will reach in the thousands. Could you imagine the cost, or who would pay for it, or who could sit and monitor all of those flights? Even if the system would be limited to just the US and UK, that's still hundreds of thousands of daily flights to monitor. Also, there are parts of the world, like the ocean's for example, which don't have radar coverage (or even ATC coverage), so no one is going to know what's going on with the aircraft until the crew makes the mayday call on the radio as the transponder isn't being put to use.

I'm not taking anything away from Sully here, but the outcome of what happened to him was a combination of teamwork. He couldn't have done what he did without the PNF or the rest of the crew. Ditching procedures are listed in the FCOM, and the PNF prepares the aircraft for ditching. One person on the ground can't do that (they need to concentrate on flying the aircraft).  

It's reasons like I just mentioned why I think those systems would be impractical.

Edited by Da Bat Man, 18 August 2009 - 11:13 PM.

[lozzyh]

As far as I'm concerned this leads to a slippery slope. We shall have cars we don't need to drive, jobs we don't need to do. This kind of stuff makes people redundant and takes away the human touch. Would you really want a world where you can pretty much sit down all day controlling things? The desire to fly and be flown, to drive and be driven etc is what makes us human. A computer is only as good as the human that programmed it. Humans make mistakes and so to will computers. I'd rather have a person in the cockpit than just a computer.

So no, I don't think pilots should be excluded from the cockpit.

[reyven]

Da Bat Man, on Aug 19 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

This is why I don't think ground based systems are a good idea in the commercial industry,


The list of ICAO countries is staggering (over 100 countries). Each country operating tens of hundreds (depending on the country) of daily flights. Including GA, the number will reach in the thousands. Could you imagine the cost, or who would pay for it, or who could sit and monitor all of those flights? Even if the system would be limited to just the US and UK, that's still hundreds of thousands of daily flights to monitor. Also, there are parts of the world, like the ocean's for example, which don't have radar coverage (or even ATC coverage), so no one is going to know what's going on with the aircraft until the crew makes the mayday call on the radio as the transponder isn't being put to use.

I'm not taking anything away from Sully here, but the outcome of what happened to him was a combination of teamwork. He couldn't have done what he did without the PNF or the rest of the crew. Ditching procedures are listed in the FCOM, and the PNF prepares the aircraft for ditching. One person on the ground can't do that (they need to concentrate on flying the aircraft).  

It's reasons like I just mentioned why I think those systems would be impractical.

Point taken but again this is a Commercial application, GA ect. will remain the same.
The system I am thinking shouldn't be too costly, just software/hardware tweaks. Keep in mind this is a functioning technology being used today. How about this for a compromise:

e.g. Southwest Airlines as we know opperate B737's there would be a ground pilot not monitoring every flight. Only if a "mayday" is made "The System" would link both "ground" &  "On board" cockpits (Via Satelite tracking). The GP can communicate with flight crew if the situation is still manageable

The ground pilot only assumes control if:

1. Flight crew is overwelmed by the situation

2. A critical procedural step was missed ( Keep in mind this GP is a seasoned B737 Capt. )

3.The PIC surrenders control to GP

GP just used as a reliable "back up"  to the flight crew?!

[THBatMan8]

reyven, on Aug 19 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 19 2009, 12:06 AM, said:

This is why I don't think ground based systems are a good idea in the commercial industry,


The list of ICAO countries is staggering (over 100 countries). Each country operating tens of hundreds (depending on the country) of daily flights. Including GA, the number will reach in the thousands. Could you imagine the cost, or who would pay for it, or who could sit and monitor all of those flights? Even if the system would be limited to just the US and UK, that's still hundreds of thousands of daily flights to monitor. Also, there are parts of the world, like the ocean's for example, which don't have radar coverage (or even ATC coverage), so no one is going to know what's going on with the aircraft until the crew makes the mayday call on the radio as the transponder isn't being put to use.

I'm not taking anything away from Sully here, but the outcome of what happened to him was a combination of teamwork. He couldn't have done what he did without the PNF or the rest of the crew. Ditching procedures are listed in the FCOM, and the PNF prepares the aircraft for ditching. One person on the ground can't do that (they need to concentrate on flying the aircraft).  

It's reasons like I just mentioned why I think those systems would be impractical.

Point taken but again this is a Commercial application, GA ect. will remain the same.
The system I am thinking shouldn't be too costly, just software/hardware tweaks. Keep in mind this is a functioning technology being used today. How about this for a compromise:

e.g. Southwest Airlines as we know opperate B737's there would be a ground pilot not monitoring every flight. Only if a "mayday" is made "The System" would link both "ground" &  "On board" cockpits (Via Satelite tracking). The GP can communicate with flight crew if the situation is still manageable

The ground pilot only assumes control if:

1. Flight crew is overwelmed by the situation

2. A critical procedural step was missed ( Keep in mind this GP is a seasoned B737 Capt. )

3.The PIC surrenders control to GP

GP just used as a reliable "back up"  to the flight crew?!

Here's my thoughts,

1) If the flight crew is overwhelmed by the situation, chances are ground personnel is going to be overwhelmed also, and they would be given control of an aircraft out of control (they probably aren't going to perform much better in most circumstances).

2) I don't know of too many pilots that would sit at a ground control station, and monitor flights. They would probably rather be in the aircraft.

3) The system would need the best protection available from hackers (if you know what I mean).

Edited by Da Bat Man, 19 August 2009 - 10:18 AM.

[Battle_Penguin]

Whats the point of being a pilot then?

Most pilots become pilots because they love being in the air and the great view..

In this case just put a mininum wage machinist infront of a computer and make him learn the basics?Thats what america needs..               

-EDIT--

What a lazy world, cars driven on there own, planes flown on there own, I mean do we really need to be lazzier?

Edited by AirTotalCEO, 19 August 2009 - 11:10 AM.

[Alex_S]

I see no point in planes being flown from the ground, waste of time and money changing the system. As it is air travel is incredibly safe. Going back to a point earlier about a GP coming in if the crew are incapacitated or something :
If the crew are - say incapacitated through oxygen starvation - then the chances of them being able to contact the ground pilot to inform them of this is minimal. Also by the time the GP realises the passengers and crew are likely to have suffered a less than peachy fate.

Edited by Alex_S, 19 August 2009 - 12:39 PM.

[reyven]

Alex_S, on Aug 19 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

I see no point in planes being flown from the ground, waste of time and money changing the system. As it is air travel is incredibly safe. Going back to a point earlier about a GP coming in if the crew are incapacitated or something :
If the crew are - say incapacitated through oxygen starvation - then the chances of them being able to contact the ground pilot to inform them of this is minimal. Also by the time the GP realises the passengers and crew are likely to have suffered a less than peachy fate.

Lets take a close look @ "The system" shall we.

  

points of interest 0:50, 2:33 & 2:45, 8:45 <The system then



point of interest  2:30, 4:18-5:08 < our reactive mind set to everything



1:08 says it all



0:30  <what ever happen "Go Around"  Capt. Genius?! Play around with your own life pal   

Maybe one day we'll be PROACTIVE and save lives! I would love for Aviation to be the Industry to lead the way, silly "Human Errors" cause lives

[THBatMan8]

^ If a trained and experienced flight crew makes mistakes, the chances don't look good for someone on the ground to do much better. Also, if the transponder isn't reporting pressure altitude, the controllers aren't going to know what altitude the aircraft is at, so the point to take control from the flight crew remains unknown. There are only a few incidents where I can see this program useful. Other than that, the costs would be staggering. If you try to substitute the expense with a cheaper alternative, then you increase the chances that someone will try to hack into the system.

[reyven]

Da Bat Man, on Aug 19 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

^ If a trained and experienced flight crew makes mistakes, the chances don't look good for someone on the ground to do much better. Also, if the transponder isn't reporting pressure altitude, the controllers aren't going to know what altitude the aircraft is at, so the point to take control from the flight crew remains unknown. There are only a few incidents where I can see this program useful. Other than that, the costs would be staggering. If you try to substitute the expense with a cheaper alternative, then you increase the chances that someone will try to hack into the system.

You know where the "real" change will begin?! In the "Next Gen" Airliners !!! The 787/A380/A350/CSeries from Bombardier.
They always put emphasis on "safety" new innovations to try an eliminate "Pilot Era" <<<(Play on words   )  Especially Airbus ! Expect a more sophisticated Satellite Guidance / Aircraft Avoidance Systems in these "Next Gens"( Probably Fly published procedures,Patterns etc. by itself if programmed    )  

IMO Aviation is gonna be so Automated in the future That airplanes will become computer driven "Aerial Monorails" that will be monitored from the ground. The system will be called "SkyNet" but we already knew this    

hope we be around to see how it all plays out  

Edited by reyven, 20 August 2009 - 01:33 AM.

[Mohammad]

There's one thing having a fully automated vending machine, and another when taking into account hundreds of passenger lives.

As for driverless trains, people are missing the point. Trains travel on railway lines, in other words they're considered to be the most linear form of transportation. And with all that, you don't see a fully automated intercity/long-distance train. Most of these driverless networks are based around intracity routes, and that's still quite difficult to manage. In fact, many of these driverless trains still have a driver inside just to ensure he could manually take control of the vehicle in case something goes wrong with the computerized system. And having an engineer control a train from his office room is different to piloting an aircraft.

Once oil tankers are capable of being run without a sea captain, then you can start theorizing fully automated flying. Anyway I won't get too excited about these kinds of news, as they are ultimately the things which destroy aviation and our love for this beautiful hobby.

Edited by Mohammad, 20 August 2009 - 03:17 AM.

[THBatMan8]

reyven, on Aug 20 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 19 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

^ If a trained and experienced flight crew makes mistakes, the chances don't look good for someone on the ground to do much better. Also, if the transponder isn't reporting pressure altitude, the controllers aren't going to know what altitude the aircraft is at, so the point to take control from the flight crew remains unknown. There are only a few incidents where I can see this program useful. Other than that, the costs would be staggering. If you try to substitute the expense with a cheaper alternative, then you increase the chances that someone will try to hack into the system.

You know where the "real" change will begin?! In the "Next Gen" Airliners !!! The 787/A380/A350/CSeries from Bombardier.
They always put emphasis on "safety" new innovations to try an eliminate "Pilot Era" <<<(Play on words   )  Especially Airbus ! Expect a more sophisticated Satellite Guidance / Aircraft Avoidance Systems in these "Next Gens"( Probably Fly published procedures,Patterns etc. by itself if programmed    )  

IMO Aviation is gonna be so Automated in the future That airplanes will become computer driven "Aerial Monorails" that will be monitored from the ground. The system will be called "SkyNet" but we already knew this    

hope we be around to see how it all plays out  

As Mohammad correctly noted, trains are steered by a track, and don't need much directional guidance. I agree that airliners are becoming more automated, but the automation is meant to reduce the workload of the flight crew and enhance their situational awareness, not necessarily take the entire flight crew out of the equation. You will still need someone onboard to take manual control at a moments notice.

BTW, great debating with you!

[Alex6714]

Put yourself in the back of a car, that someone is driving from the other side of the world. Do you feel better than if he was in the car with you?

[reyven]

Da Bat Man, on Aug 20 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

reyven, on Aug 20 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 19 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

^ If a trained and experienced flight crew makes mistakes, the chances don't look good for someone on the ground to do much better. Also, if the transponder isn't reporting pressure altitude, the controllers aren't going to know what altitude the aircraft is at, so the point to take control from the flight crew remains unknown. There are only a few incidents where I can see this program useful. Other than that, the costs would be staggering. If you try to substitute the expense with a cheaper alternative, then you increase the chances that someone will try to hack into the system.

You know where the "real" change will begin?! In the "Next Gen" Airliners !!! The 787/A380/A350/CSeries from Bombardier.
They always put emphasis on "safety" new innovations to try an eliminate "Pilot Era" <<<(Play on words   )  Especially Airbus ! Expect a more sophisticated Satellite Guidance / Aircraft Avoidance Systems in these "Next Gens"( Probably Fly published procedures,Patterns etc. by itself if programmed    )  

IMO Aviation is gonna be so Automated in the future That airplanes will become computer driven "Aerial Monorails" that will be monitored from the ground. The system will be called "SkyNet" but we already knew this    

hope we be around to see how it all plays out  

As Mohammad correctly noted, trains are steered by a track, and don't need much directional guidance. I agree that airliners are becoming more automated, but the automation is meant to reduce the workload of the flight crew and enhance their situational awareness, not necessarily take the entire flight crew out of the equation. You will still need someone onboard to take manual control at a moments notice.
BTW, great debating with you!

So how is an autopilot flying to "Way points" on an  "Airway" that much different than a Train track ?! We got technology today that can make satellite guided missile "hit a beer can of a wall" if need be. Guiding a slower moving commercial airliner aint that big of a challenge   
I agree flew crews will be just ONE pilot onboard eventually , the B727 was retired by many companies due to the cost of the "Three man Crew".  
And "MO" this won't "Destroy Aviation" but IMO Inhance it    

"BTW, great debating with you!   " <<< Dido Buddy      

Alex6714, on Aug 20 2009, 09:23 AM, said:

Put yourself in the back of a car, that someone is driving from the other side of the world. Do you feel better than if he was in the car with you?

Some one posted an article on these forums about "Driveless" Taxis. I am at work now I'll see if I can find it later

[THBatMan8]

reyven, on Aug 20 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 20 2009, 08:09 AM, said:

reyven, on Aug 20 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

Da Bat Man, on Aug 19 2009, 06:56 PM, said:

^ If a trained and experienced flight crew makes mistakes, the chances don't look good for someone on the ground to do much better. Also, if the transponder isn't reporting pressure altitude, the controllers aren't going to know what altitude the aircraft is at, so the point to take control from the flight crew remains unknown. There are only a few incidents where I can see this program useful. Other than that, the costs would be staggering. If you try to substitute the expense with a cheaper alternative, then you increase the chances that someone will try to hack into the system.

You know where the "real" change will begin?! In the "Next Gen" Airliners !!! The 787/A380/A350/CSeries from Bombardier.
They always put emphasis on "safety" new innovations to try an eliminate "Pilot Era" <<<(Play on words   )  Especially Airbus ! Expect a more sophisticated Satellite Guidance / Aircraft Avoidance Systems in these "Next Gens"( Probably Fly published procedures,Patterns etc. by itself if programmed    )  

IMO Aviation is gonna be so Automated in the future That airplanes will become computer driven "Aerial Monorails" that will be monitored from the ground. The system will be called "SkyNet" but we already knew this    

hope we be around to see how it all plays out  

As Mohammad correctly noted, trains are steered by a track, and don't need much directional guidance. I agree that airliners are becoming more automated, but the automation is meant to reduce the workload of the flight crew and enhance their situational awareness, not necessarily take the entire flight crew out of the equation. You will still need someone onboard to take manual control at a moments notice.
BTW, great debating with you!

So how is an autopilot flying to "Way points" on an  "Airway" that much different than a Train track ?! We got technology today that can make satellite guided missile "hit a beer can of a wall" if need be. Guiding a slower moving commercial airliner aint that big of a challenge   
I agree flew crews will be just ONE pilot onboard eventually , the B727 was retired by many companies due to the cost of the "Three man Crew".  
And "MO" this won't "Destroy Aviation" but IMO Inhance it    

The automation on a airplane is a bit more complicated vs a train.

[Mohammad]

Sometimes it's good to know you have control of things, reyven. A fully automated aircraft is like someone controlling your life and every step of direction you intend to take. Vehicles driven by people is like a human being being driven by his soul. When you take away the freedom of it and make it under somebody else's control, it loses its beauty. These technological things aren't supposed to take away our control of anything, theyre meant to enhance our awareness instead. Once it becomes fully automated or driverless, Im sorry but it loses its appeal. We're not passengers only, we are also in love with aviation. I cant see how anyone passionate about flying would accept this, because you also should know that ultimately it would also affect the financial position of these officers in the control room.

I don't mind something automated, just as long as the pilot is still in the cockpit and that the plane is capable of switching to manual control, which is what freedom of movement is all about.

At least, thats how I see it.

[reyven]

Mohammad, on Aug 20 2009, 01:27 PM, said:

Sometimes it's good to know you have control of things, reyven. A fully automated aircraft is like someone controlling your life and every step of direction you intend to take. Vehicles driven by people is like a human being being driven by his soul. When you take away the freedom of it and make it under somebody else's control, it loses its beauty. These technological things aren't supposed to take away our control of anything, theyre meant to enhance our awareness instead. Once it becomes fully automated or driverless, Im sorry but it loses its appeal. We're not passengers only, we are also in love with aviation. I cant see how anyone passionate about flying would accept this, because you also should know that ultimately it would also affect the financial position of these officers in the control room.

I don't mind something automated, just as long as the pilot is still in the cockpit and that the plane is capable of switching to manual control, which is what freedom of movement is all about.

At least, thats how I see it.

Lets look at Our Hobby/Passion's "Century of Flight",from Kitty Hawk to A380/F22.

Examine mans advances in Medicine/Science, Transportation, Communications ect. which aspect of Technology had "plateaued" to the point were it's gone as far as technologically possible?

This is the ONLY form of "Evolution" I believe in, Technology because we as men are always THINKING of ways to improve on "Yesterday" !  
In Aviation we've had Mega strides in concepts,design, propulsion,Aeronautical systems ect. Pilots had to advance with the technology, not vise versa . So one can only imagine where Aviation will be in the next 10 years!

Check this:

An Airline provides a Transport "Service" with the goal of being profitable.

Their interest is moving as many Pax as comfortably, quickly,efficiently  and safely as possible!

Aircraft Makers make what their clients want period! Knowing in the back of most travelers mind is the possibility of an accident they WILL play the "Safety Card"    . To show, hey my product is so advanced it can "Fly Itself".If that means a pilot just sits an monitors the flight do you think the Industry really cares?! They would cut back on what ever to stay in the Black(except CEO's Salaries   ), that's just business!

Edited by reyven, 20 August 2009 - 02:34 PM.

[Mohammad]

^Ahem, and that just proves what I said about aviation getting destroyed as a hobby.

Thats exactly my point. We should be against this because it doesnt serve our interest. Thats why I don't understand how someone who loves flying would ever support this driverless airplane theory. In any case, there are limitations so Im hopeful this would never happen.

[reyven]

Mohammad, on Aug 20 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

^Ahem, and that just proves what I said about aviation getting destroyed as a hobby.

Thats exactly my point. We should be against this because it doesnt serve our interest. Thats why I don't understand how someone who loves flying would ever support this driverless airplane theory. In any case, there are limitations so Im hopeful this would never happen.

1. Sport Flying, GA, ultra-lites will ALWAYS serve our Interest!!! Thats why my whole "debate" was @ the Commercial Level because that part of aviation is AN INDUSTRY! They don't care about a pilots passion or love for flying . Then on the flip side, "reckless", unprofessional, incompetent Airline pilots make The Industry's case for automated flights with minimal  "human" input a "selling" point for safety .

2. For the record I don't support "driverless airplane theory". I support every aspect of "Sullenberger's" Emergency and wish all flights had a capt that would be a "rock" under pressure    . Not panicky  and indecisive   an emergency situation is not the time to find out your capt is a Wuss   . But as long as they (The Industry) can point the finger and preach from their "soap box" Human Error" the pilots role in commercial aviation will continually diminish     .
I still stand by my theory, because as long as we the human element keep giving them the statical ammunition, one day "pilotless" flights will be a sad reality. I would hate to see commercial pilots go the way of the MILK MAN   !!!

Man, Mo you can't fight it or deny it, Technology is a Global Dictator ! I remember actually hand writing letters to friends and family in the 80's,post office, stamps all that. Now I shoot an e-mail! We on this forums are worlds apart but we converse with ease! growing up in the 80's I never imagined this so you see why NOTHING surprises me   !!

Peace bro  

Edited by reyven, 20 August 2009 - 08:45 PM.

[Mohammad]

^But youre still the one writing the letter. Sure, it takes a shorter time getting it to the other side but youre the one choosing the words, whether its by pen or keyboard. Theres no machine choosing the words for you. Theres a big difference to the examples youre giving me. A pilotless airplane is like giving your life to the hands of somebody else. There still needs to be a sense of control that human beings have over computers, which is why your idea is never going to happen. Yes, the commercial airline industry doesnt care. But guess what, the profit Qatar Airways or United Airlines want to make has to come from somewhere else. Theyre not the ones building the aircrafts, Boeing and Airbus are. So were not going to have fully automated airplanes at 33,000 ft just because a greedy CEO sitting in the 56th floor of his office headquarters decides to cut back on expenses. This whole corporate idea is theorized in Hollywood movies, not in real life. There are simply certain limitations we will never cross in our lives. Like I said, unless you see a Captain-less Oil Tanker crossing the Atlantic, youll never find this scheme coming true.

An airplane is a vehicle, just like a car or boat. Vehicles cannot travel by themselves. Humans use them to travel from one place or another. Humans control their movement and actions, just the same way our soul controls the physical body. Something driverless still needs to have a person monitoring it, which pretty much negates the whole point of having driverless vehicles in the first place. Unless we're talking about linear forms of travel, this simply cannot apply to airplanes or ships. Yes, a railway line traveling in downtown Manhattan can run automatically. But airplanes are a whole different field of transportation.

Anyway, I feel like Im repeating myself. Look at it this way. Boeing aircrafts aren't only made for the commercial airline industry. Several multi-millionaires also own their own private 767s and 777s. Plenty of them, as a matter of fact. And Im sure these guys aren't going to be traveling alone at a high altitude, neither would they put their lives at the hands of someone on ground. Theyll probably want their own personal pilots, or fly the planes themselves. This is probably a stupid reason but ultimately its ONE of the reasons why fully automated planes can never exist, unless these planes can be flown both manually and automatically. So thats the only solution. Pilotless aircrafts can be possible provided they can also be switched into manual in case anything goes wrong during the flight. Otherwise its not going to happen, because unlike a train you cant stop the plane from moving by increasing the resistance to the railway tracks with a push of a button in the control room.

Peace, reyven.

Edited by Mohammad, 21 August 2009 - 03:57 PM.

[Da_Man]

no! a pilot in a plane having a problem wants to save his as much if not more then the people on the plan, this would take away the fear factor that DOES occupy every pilots brain and make them less aware of their surroundings and not as agile......