I think like all technologies, it will become old news, tried and proven and routine. It will become a non-issue. Most crashes are a result of human factors now, and the vast majority or those are pilot error. I have no problem with the idea of it.Spark wrote:
You reckon it's a good idea? Curious to know.lowing wrote:
There was a time where people would not fly on an airplane without a propeller.Macbeth wrote:
I wouldn't fly in plane controlled by a computer.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- FAA: Considering Unmaned Commercial Flights
That seems reasonable enough.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Unmanned in the cockpit = unmanned in the passenger section too.
People just aren't ready to get onboard an aircraft with no pilot up there.
People just aren't ready to get onboard an aircraft with no pilot up there.
Which is why I think 11 Bravo's idea has merit. A guy to just look over would certainly alleviate a lot of fears, and can even keep the "pilot" moniker.rdx-fx wrote:
Unmanned in the cockpit = unmanned in the passenger section too.
People just aren't ready to get onboard an aircraft with no pilot up there.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
- globefish23
- sophisticated slacker
- +334|6614|Graz, Austria
There definitely has to be a pilot on board. And a proper one too.
Think about the Hudson river water landing by Chesley Sullenberger.
I really, really doubt that any computer will be able to accomplish a feat like that anywhere soon.
Sure, a computer can land a jet perfectly on an airport's runway with fly-by-wire systems, but those don't exist on Hudson - when all engines fail and you're sailing 78 metric tons.
Think about the Hudson river water landing by Chesley Sullenberger.
I really, really doubt that any computer will be able to accomplish a feat like that anywhere soon.
Sure, a computer can land a jet perfectly on an airport's runway with fly-by-wire systems, but those don't exist on Hudson - when all engines fail and you're sailing 78 metric tons.
Actually, provided with enough information and the right computer, I would reckon that the computer would be a better pilot. The computer would be able to calculate all number of variables much faster than a human and analyze a given situation and make the best decision based on probability - all in a span of time that is much faster and more accurate than a human could do.globefish23 wrote:
There definitely has to be a pilot on board. And a proper one too.
Think about the Hudson river water landing by Chesley Sullenberger.
I really, really doubt that any computer will be able to accomplish a feat like that anywhere soon.
Sure, a computer can land a jet perfectly on an airport's runway with fly-by-wire systems, but those don't exist on Hudson - when all engines fail and you're sailing 78 metric tons.
I say do like 11 said: pilot there in case of emergency and let the computer do all the grunt work. There are already systems being developed for cars based on insect swarms (never any collisions because the way many bugs communicate, saw a docu about it on CNN once), so the same technology could easily be applied to commercial aviation (if it isn't already being used in the auto pilot systems).
I agree. Have the computer do the repetitive, basic stuff, and if there's and emergency, the pilot can take over. Because, a computer can make a good calculated decision, but, the pilot has eyes. The computer may not notice or may not incorporate certain factors into a landing. Also, a pilot may know the dangerous weather conditions that constantly change in a certain area. The computer may not.CapnNismo wrote:
Actually, provided with enough information and the right computer, I would reckon that the computer would be a better pilot. The computer would be able to calculate all number of variables much faster than a human and analyze a given situation and make the best decision based on probability - all in a span of time that is much faster and more accurate than a human could do.globefish23 wrote:
There definitely has to be a pilot on board. And a proper one too.
Think about the Hudson river water landing by Chesley Sullenberger.
I really, really doubt that any computer will be able to accomplish a feat like that anywhere soon.
Sure, a computer can land a jet perfectly on an airport's runway with fly-by-wire systems, but those don't exist on Hudson - when all engines fail and you're sailing 78 metric tons.
I say do like 11 said: pilot there in case of emergency and let the computer do all the grunt work. There are already systems being developed for cars based on insect swarms (never any collisions because the way many bugs communicate, saw a docu about it on CNN once), so the same technology could easily be applied to commercial aviation (if it isn't already being used in the auto pilot systems).
Because pilots are a big factor in the cost of your ticket? Not the cost of the plane itself, or the fuel, or all the other personell involved that would still be involved. Let alone you would need IT in a larger degree. The cost savings would be minimal.11 Bravo wrote:
pop sci is a load of bollocks most of the time. i do however support this. your ticket prices would drop dramatically as the operating costs and issues would drop off big time.
I would say the salery of an airline pilot is considerably higher than the cost to fly the plane without a pilot ... so if not dramatically lower prices we would see a drop in prices ...
How much does a pilot earn? ... around $150K or more perhaps pr year?
How much does a pilot earn? ... around $150K or more perhaps pr year?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
It's based on 2004 data, but not really.. http://www.pea.com/imd/airline-pilot-salary.aspVaregg wrote:
I would say the salery of an airline pilot is considerably higher than the cost to fly the plane without a pilot ... so if not dramatically lower prices we would see a drop in prices ...
How much does a pilot earn? ... around $150K or more perhaps pr year?
You all are speaking as if this is a change that will happen over night. The fact is, it is will be a gradual process. Just like the phasing out of prop airplanes. It was not one day we were flying in DC-3s' and the next day everything was 707's. It will take years, decades of a phasing in process. Perhaps down to 1 pilot first, but the day will come where people are going to be more comfortable with a computer pilot that they will with trusting their lives with a mere human.
You use the Hudson river crash as the shinning example of how and why humans are necessary in the cockpit. Try comparing that 1 example to the thousands of examples where the plane crashed because the pilot did not trust the airplane over his own senses, or over rode the airplane, or feed false information to the airplane. Already human pilots kill more people than auto pilots. Sorry to break it to ya.
Aviation has phased out the navigator, the radio operator and flight engineer, all of which 60 years ago you would never have believed it possible. Technology will one day phase out the pilot. It is something that has been worked on since the invention of the airplane. We have landed on distant planets without the need of a human pilot, I think we can eventually manage a landing in Dallas without one.
I do admit however since aviation is in my blood, it will be a sad day when pilots are no longer a young boys hero.
You use the Hudson river crash as the shinning example of how and why humans are necessary in the cockpit. Try comparing that 1 example to the thousands of examples where the plane crashed because the pilot did not trust the airplane over his own senses, or over rode the airplane, or feed false information to the airplane. Already human pilots kill more people than auto pilots. Sorry to break it to ya.
Aviation has phased out the navigator, the radio operator and flight engineer, all of which 60 years ago you would never have believed it possible. Technology will one day phase out the pilot. It is something that has been worked on since the invention of the airplane. We have landed on distant planets without the need of a human pilot, I think we can eventually manage a landing in Dallas without one.
I do admit however since aviation is in my blood, it will be a sad day when pilots are no longer a young boys hero.
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-14 09:02:16)
QFT +1lowing wrote:
You all are speaking as if this is a change that will happen over night. The fact is, it is will be a gradual process. Just like the phasing out of prop airplanes. It was not one day we were flying in DC-3s' and the next day everything was 707's. It will take years decades of a phasing in process. Perhaps down to 1 pilot first, but the day will come where people are going to more comfortable with a computer pilot that they will with trusting their lives with a mere human.
You use the Hudson river crash as the shinning example of how and why humans are necessary in the cockpit. Try comparing that 1 example to the thousands of examples where the plane crashed because the pilot did not trust the airplane over his own senses, or over rode the airplane, or feed false information to the airplane. Already human pilots kill more people than auto pilots. Sorry to break it to ya.
Aviation has phased out the navigator, the radio operator and flight engineer, all of which 60 years you would never have believed it possible. Technology will one day phase out the pilot. It is something that has been worked on since the invention of the airplane. We have landed on distant planets without the need of a human pilot, I think we can eventually manage a landing in Dallas without one.
I do admit however since aviation is in my blood, it will be a sad day when pilots are no longer a young boys hero.
European carriers pay their pilots a lot better than their American counterparts.mcminty wrote:
It's based on 2004 data, but not really.. http://www.pea.com/imd/airline-pilot-salary.aspVaregg wrote:
I would say the salery of an airline pilot is considerably higher than the cost to fly the plane without a pilot ... so if not dramatically lower prices we would see a drop in prices ...
How much does a pilot earn? ... around $150K or more perhaps pr year?
And cost of living is much higher in Europe than it is in America.CapnNismo wrote:
European carriers pay their pilots a lot better than their American counterparts.mcminty wrote:
It's based on 2004 data, but not really.. http://www.pea.com/imd/airline-pilot-salary.aspVaregg wrote:
I would say the salery of an airline pilot is considerably higher than the cost to fly the plane without a pilot ... so if not dramatically lower prices we would see a drop in prices ...
How much does a pilot earn? ... around $150K or more perhaps pr year?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Depends on where you are living. Cost of living can be quite low.
I don't care.CapnNismo wrote:
Depends on where you are living. Cost of living can be quite low.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you are just looking at salary. all the crew hotels......when pilots call in sick, which happens way more than you could even imagine, it causes issues which cost money. all the commuting issues which causes flights to cancel and/or be delayed costs a lot of money. not to mention what strikes cost. then all the training and recurrent training cost.nlsme1 wrote:
Because pilots are a big factor in the cost of your ticket? Not the cost of the plane itself, or the fuel, or all the other personell involved that would still be involved. Let alone you would need IT in a larger degree. The cost savings would be minimal.11 Bravo wrote:
pop sci is a load of bollocks most of the time. i do however support this. your ticket prices would drop dramatically as the operating costs and issues would drop off big time.
bundle all of that (and more) together and cut it in half. i bet it would save you about at least 100 dollars per ticket.
Again, the "costs" associated with the "pilot" is minimal. Even when you add everything together. I would say that a pilot on one plane does NOT cost 100 per ticket. Does it really cost an airline $30,000 on average per flight to have a pilot? Add in the fact that the pilots would be replaced with IT guys, and all the "added" costs would still be there. The costs would not really "drop off big tme". They would be minimal at best.
you are not looking at the big picture here. your staffing on the crew side of things would be cut in half also.nlsme1 wrote:
Again, the "costs" associated with the "pilot" is minimal. Even when you add everything together. I would say that a pilot on one plane does NOT cost 100 per ticket. Does it really cost an airline $30,000 on average per flight to have a pilot? Add in the fact that the pilots would be replaced with IT guys, and all the "added" costs would still be there. The costs would not really "drop off big tme". They would be minimal at best.
Really, why is that? They going to make computers that will hand out peanuts? Or ones that fuel the aircraft? Ohh I know, they will have a robot that will do maintenace as well. Baggage handlers better get a lobby group to go to Washington ASAP. The biggest costs are THE PLANE, and THE FUEL. Other cost that don't involve people are rather substantial as well.
ugh nvm if you are going to be a fucking smart ass about it.
...
My biggest question is, how would emergency systems work? There would probably needto be human personel on the UAV to notify all passengers about the safety equipment in the event of an emergency.
you dont need flight attendants. that safety shit is BS. you can have a video like they already do to explain where everything is. all you need is one pilot and one "cabin monitor" or something like that.pace51 wrote:
My biggest question is, how would emergency systems work? There would probably needto be human personel on the UAV to notify all passengers about the safety equipment in the event of an emergency.
Yes,like I said, you'dneed human staff on board. Even if only one or two.11 Bravo wrote:
you dont need flight attendants. that safety shit is BS. you can have a video like they already do to explain where everything is. all you need is one pilot and one "cabin monitor" or something like that.pace51 wrote:
My biggest question is, how would emergency systems work? There would probably needto be human personel on the UAV to notify all passengers about the safety equipment in the event of an emergency.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- FAA: Considering Unmaned Commercial Flights