142 replies to this topic

[Prancer]

 SwitchFX, on Jul 14 2010, 02:50 PM, said:

I don't see this going to production in my lifetime. It's an interesting project, but it just isn't worthwhile.

Said the people in the 40s about men going to the moon.  

[LA_PHX]

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

[Prancer]

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

It's already begun.

[bigflyersmallbyer]

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

It's already begun.

Not on a commercial level yet though. It's the case of are we willing to let computers fly for us. Yes they can make decisions quicker , but I know I would feel safer in the hands of a human even if that would make mistakes. It's things that like that which will really hamper the future of a complete UAV'ed world.

[Prancer]

 bigflyersmallbyer, on Jul 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

It's already begun.

Not on a commercial level yet though. It's the case of are we willing to let computers fly for us. Yes they can make decisions quicker , but I know I would feel safer in the hands of a human even if that would make mistakes. It's things that like that which will really hamper the future of a complete UAV'ed world.

Then commercial level is much further along than you think. Anyone who does all this PMDG or Level-D stuff knows most commercial aircraft are already pretty much fully automated and the 'pilots' are more or less engineers who babysit the system. Sooner or later, especially with how unhappy a lot of pilots are, they will say 'do we really need to pay all these people to go this distance?' and use the advanced technology to have the aircraft fully automated with the engineers looking out for them at a central control center. The technology already exists, heck there's automated cars that can drive down a road and park, normal or paralell better than most humans.

Either way, manned or unmanned the future of aviation is nothing like we know it today. We went from wooden gliders to the moon in just 70 years...and given medical technology is also rapidly advancing to improve human longevity, imagine what all we may see in our lifetime!

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Maic3IzHSew&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Maic3IzHSew&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[SwitchFX]

And what cars are these? Other than the parking ability demonstrated by the Lexus LS, which still isn't as good as a human who parks their car manually.

Edited by SwitchFX, 14 July 2010 - 04:24 PM.

[TopDollar]

 SwitchFX, on Jul 14 2010, 05:24 PM, said:

And what cars are these? Other than the parking ability demonstrated by the Lexus LS, which still isn't as good as a human who parks their car manually.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0AYCUSAMF9U&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0AYCUSAMF9U&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Edited by TopDollar, 14 July 2010 - 04:38 PM.

[Prancer]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/e32yeI1YSI0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/e32yeI1YSI0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yDVLUiJfpPw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yDVLUiJfpPw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mebq9vQNrIw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mebq9vQNrIw&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[LA_PHX]

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

 bigflyersmallbyer, on Jul 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

It's already begun.

Not on a commercial level yet though. It's the case of are we willing to let computers fly for us. Yes they can make decisions quicker , but I know I would feel safer in the hands of a human even if that would make mistakes. It's things that like that which will really hamper the future of a complete UAV'ed world.

Then commercial level is much further along than you think. Anyone who does all this PMDG or Level-D stuff knows most commercial aircraft are already pretty much fully automated and the 'pilots' are more or less engineers who babysit the system. Sooner or later, especially with how unhappy a lot of pilots are, they will say 'do we really need to pay all these people to go this distance?' and use the advanced technology to have the aircraft fully automated with the engineers looking out for them at a central control center. The technology already exists, heck there's automated cars that can drive down a road and park, normal or paralell better than most humans.

Either way, manned or unmanned the future of aviation is nothing like we know it today. We went from wooden gliders to the moon in just 70 years...and given medical technology is also rapidly advancing to improve human longevity, imagine what all we may see in our lifetime!

I don't care how complex a computer is and all it can do, it still isn't a human mind and still can only make a decision based on specific data that is fed to it based on set parameters programmed in before hand.  A human can use the human brain which I still see as a necessary tool for most aviation.

[Prancer]

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

 bigflyersmallbyer, on Jul 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

It's already begun.

Not on a commercial level yet though. It's the case of are we willing to let computers fly for us. Yes they can make decisions quicker , but I know I would feel safer in the hands of a human even if that would make mistakes. It's things that like that which will really hamper the future of a complete UAV'ed world.

Then commercial level is much further along than you think. Anyone who does all this PMDG or Level-D stuff knows most commercial aircraft are already pretty much fully automated and the 'pilots' are more or less engineers who babysit the system. Sooner or later, especially with how unhappy a lot of pilots are, they will say 'do we really need to pay all these people to go this distance?' and use the advanced technology to have the aircraft fully automated with the engineers looking out for them at a central control center. The technology already exists, heck there's automated cars that can drive down a road and park, normal or paralell better than most humans.

Either way, manned or unmanned the future of aviation is nothing like we know it today. We went from wooden gliders to the moon in just 70 years...and given medical technology is also rapidly advancing to improve human longevity, imagine what all we may see in our lifetime!

I don't care how complex a computer is and all it can do, it still isn't a human mind and still can only make a decision based on specific data that is fed to it based on set parameters programmed in before hand.  A human can use the human brain which I still see as a necessary tool for most aviation.

The human brain is where the flaw lies, though.

The computer won't get so fatigued or distracted that it:

-Lands on a taxiway and possibly causes a huge accident
-Overshoot it's landing site by 400 miles
-Not realize it's decsending over a faulty bulb (horrible tristar crash in the 80s)

[LA_PHX]

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

 bigflyersmallbyer, on Jul 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

It's already begun.

Not on a commercial level yet though. It's the case of are we willing to let computers fly for us. Yes they can make decisions quicker , but I know I would feel safer in the hands of a human even if that would make mistakes. It's things that like that which will really hamper the future of a complete UAV'ed world.

Then commercial level is much further along than you think. Anyone who does all this PMDG or Level-D stuff knows most commercial aircraft are already pretty much fully automated and the 'pilots' are more or less engineers who babysit the system. Sooner or later, especially with how unhappy a lot of pilots are, they will say 'do we really need to pay all these people to go this distance?' and use the advanced technology to have the aircraft fully automated with the engineers looking out for them at a central control center. The technology already exists, heck there's automated cars that can drive down a road and park, normal or paralell better than most humans.

Either way, manned or unmanned the future of aviation is nothing like we know it today. We went from wooden gliders to the moon in just 70 years...and given medical technology is also rapidly advancing to improve human longevity, imagine what all we may see in our lifetime!

I don't care how complex a computer is and all it can do, it still isn't a human mind and still can only make a decision based on specific data that is fed to it based on set parameters programmed in before hand.  A human can use the human brain which I still see as a necessary tool for most aviation.

The human brain is where the flaw lies, though.

The computer won't get so fatigued or distracted that it:

-Lands on a taxiway and possibly causes a huge accident
-Overshoot it's landing site by 400 miles
-Not realize it's decsending over a faulty bulb (horrible tristar crash in the 80s)
-Not use critical thinking based on experience and training that a human can do.

Humans and no-humans both have pros and cons.  But at the end of the day, I'd rather have a human sitting up front of my flights (and most aircraft) to make sure things are working correctly, even if they aren't doing much.

[bigflyersmallbyer]

Yes yes yes yes and yes. But people will still trust a human over a computer. Until they do, UAV aviation can't really take off.

[TopDollar]

Most aviation accidents are caused by pilot error.  I definitely think that commercial airliners are going to be fully automated eventually.  There's no logical reason why they shouldn't be.  In fact as already mentioned, they mostly are now anyways.  In fact other mass forms of transportation will probably adopt similar methods such as automatic trains and buses.

GA aviation will stay pretty much the way it is though because people will always want to fly airplanes.

[Prancer]

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 05:53 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 06:46 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 05:39 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 04:46 PM, said:

 bigflyersmallbyer, on Jul 14 2010, 03:34 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 09:19 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 03:18 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

As in replacing humans in the cockpit of most of aviation?  For some reason, I just don't see that happening.

It's already begun.

Not on a commercial level yet though. It's the case of are we willing to let computers fly for us. Yes they can make decisions quicker , but I know I would feel safer in the hands of a human even if that would make mistakes. It's things that like that which will really hamper the future of a complete UAV'ed world.

Then commercial level is much further along than you think. Anyone who does all this PMDG or Level-D stuff knows most commercial aircraft are already pretty much fully automated and the 'pilots' are more or less engineers who babysit the system. Sooner or later, especially with how unhappy a lot of pilots are, they will say 'do we really need to pay all these people to go this distance?' and use the advanced technology to have the aircraft fully automated with the engineers looking out for them at a central control center. The technology already exists, heck there's automated cars that can drive down a road and park, normal or paralell better than most humans.

Either way, manned or unmanned the future of aviation is nothing like we know it today. We went from wooden gliders to the moon in just 70 years...and given medical technology is also rapidly advancing to improve human longevity, imagine what all we may see in our lifetime!

I don't care how complex a computer is and all it can do, it still isn't a human mind and still can only make a decision based on specific data that is fed to it based on set parameters programmed in before hand.  A human can use the human brain which I still see as a necessary tool for most aviation.

The human brain is where the flaw lies, though.

The computer won't get so fatigued or distracted that it:

-Lands on a taxiway and possibly causes a huge accident
-Overshoot it's landing site by 400 miles
-Not realize it's decsending over a faulty bulb (horrible tristar crash in the 80s)
-Not use critical thinking based on experience and training that a human can do.

Humans and no-humans both have pros and cons.  But at the end of the day, I'd rather have a human sitting up front of my flights (and most aircraft) to make sure things are working correctly, even if they aren't doing much.

At the end of the day, it's not your call or mine as to what happens, so we can debate it till the cows come home. But given how much you already trust to computers, the day when air travel is pilotless, as Top Dollar says, is coming, no matter if you like it or not.

[THBatMan8]

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

 LA_BOS, on Jul 14 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

 Wampa_Stompa, on Jul 14 2010, 03:08 PM, said:

 pyruvate, on Jul 14 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

[

And Zarqueen, comparing this to the space shuttle? :mellow:  The space shuttle uses Rocket Engines, commercial aircraft use jets...  It's like running a Cessna on the same jet fuel that you run a B747 with.

And this new aircraft doesn't use jets, so it's logical to think aircraft built based on this design won't use jets either.

Use some common sense before you start crying about what the 'glorious' commercial planes of today use, because they're absolutely meaningless in this discussion. Not to mention it was never said this was going to be commercial technology, so why the heck do you keep crying about it? The Boeing Defense, Space, and Security branch is working on this, not the flying taxi cab branch.

Nobody is crying...

They are just making counter points and they don't see this as the "future of aviation," as you had said.  And I completely agree with them.

Nobody said it was the future of all aviation. But it is in aviation's future. Those commercial guys are more than welcome to stay in the stone age for all I care, which they pretty much are anyway.

And yeah, they do keep whining about that one aspect of aviation, while they are oblivious to the parts of aviation where this is going to be very, very useful. Bombers, recon aircraft, research vehicles, and even some cargo lifters are really going to benefit from this.

And like it or not, UAVs are the future.

UAV's can be very useful on the battlefield, but they are useless in the commercial industry. Not to mention you would end up placing every single airliner in bankruptcy putting UAVs in service.

 TopDollar, on Jul 14 2010, 06:55 PM, said:

Most aviation accidents are caused by pilot error.  I definitely think that commercial airliners are going to be fully automated eventually.  There's no logical reason why they shouldn't be.  In fact as already mentioned, they mostly are now anyways.  In fact other mass forms of transportation will probably adopt similar methods such as automatic trains and buses.

GA aviation will stay pretty much the way it is though because people will always want to fly airplanes.

What happens when a system fault places the onboard computer of the UAV inoperable? Trains are much easier to fully automate because trains travel on a track and can be easily stopped when something mechanical breaks. Planes on the other hand cannot.

The big difference between military planes and commercial planes is redundancy. Computers on commercial airplanes are meant to increase the situational awareness and performance of the flight crew, not remove them. If you remove the flight crew then you remove redundancy.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 07:28 PM.

[Dano]

Well said Batman. I work maintenance on a fly-by-wire aircraft, and the only thing I've learned from moving to a computer based aircraft than something all mechanical w/ flight controls, is a helluva lot more maintenance, the more computers = the more chances of something going wrong. We are FAR away from there being unmanned commercial aircraft.

Yeah sure, computers collect/compile data and work according to that data, and won't make a mistake a human might due to fatigue/miscrunched numbers,  but what happens when the computer sending the data malfunctions? Are you going to have the automated flight attendents tell 280 people on board they're screwed?

Computers fail to think outside the box. Thats where humans come in. I believe commercial flight will NEVER have a unmanned cockpit. I believe a plane will be able to fly itself from pushback to docking without a pilot one day yeah, but never without a human standing by.

Edited by Dano, 14 July 2010 - 07:44 PM.

[Alaska_MD-83]

 Element94, on Jul 13 2010, 06:36 PM, said:

The kicker is, if you do the stoichiometry behind the process, you use more electricity in generating hydrogen than you do by burning it (as I mentioned above). Presently, the largest source for commercial electricity is fossil-fueled power plants. Thus, you'd actually burn more oil/coal/natural gas/etc. in generating the hydrogen than simply burning the fossil fuels in current applications. So, unless the United States (and the rest of the world) converts entirely to nuclear, it really provides no net benefit, and even an increase in fossil fuel consumption.

Hence why I think Plug In Hybrids are a waste of money. Plus they don't sound as cool as Dodge Challengers.

[THBatMan8]

 Dano, on Jul 14 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

I believe a plane will be able to fly itself from pushback to docking without a pilot one day yeah, but never without a human standing by.

My thoughts exactly. No one will care when the B52 crashes in the middle of nowhere because the computer failed and the aircraft was pilotless, but a 747 carrying 400+ passengers is a different ballgame.

[TopDollar]

 Dano, on Jul 14 2010, 08:42 PM, said:

Well said Batman. I work maintenance on a fly-by-wire aircraft, and the only thing I've learned from moving to a computer based aircraft than something all mechanical w/ flight controls, is a helluva lot more maintenance, the more computers = the more chances of something going wrong. We are FAR away from there being unmanned commercial aircraft.

Yeah sure, computers collect/compile data and work according to that data, and won't make a mistake a human might due to fatigue/miscrunched numbers,  but what happens when the computer sending the data malfunctions? Are you going to have the automated flight attendents tell 280 people on board they're screwed?

Computers fail to think outside the box. Thats where humans come in. I believe commercial flight will NEVER have a unmanned cockpit. I believe a plane will be able to fly itself from pushback to docking without a pilot one day yeah, but never without a human standing by.

Both of you are suffering from technology nearsightedness.  You have no idea what type of advancements will be made in the field of computers in the future.  Saying it will "never" happen is unbelievably short sighted.

Like I said, there is no logical reason why automated airliners won't exist in the future.  Perhaps it takes an engineering mind to see this.

Edited by TopDollar, 14 July 2010 - 08:14 PM.

[THBatMan8]

 TopDollar, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

Both of you are suffering from technology nearsightedness.  You have no idea what type of advancements will be made in the field of computers in the future.  Saying it will "never" happen is unbelievably short sighted.

 THBatMan8, on Jul 14 2010, 09:12 PM, said:

No one will care when the B52 crashes in the middle of nowhere because the computer failed and the aircraft was pilotless, but a 747 carrying 400+ passengers is a different ballgame.

In order for UAVs to be successful in the commercial industry there needs to be a high enough demand for them, which right now there is none. It would be pointless to build a commercial UAV if no one will buy it.

Edited by THBatMan8, 14 July 2010 - 08:25 PM.