FAA: Considering Unmaned Commercial Flights

2010-06-09 18:54:13

#1

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6834|San Diego, CA, USA

Source: http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl … ial-flight

https://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9597/insight2b.jpg

Popular Science wrote:
The Federal Aviation Administration wants you to fly the robot-friendly skies, but the regulatory overseer has more than a few challenges to overcome before it can extend that invitation in earnest. The FAA today announced it has added a research project aimed at figuring out exactly how the U.S. can safely fold unmanned aircraft into its national infrastructure and eventually the airspace it governs.

I wonder if our tickets would be cheaper? Or by taking humans out of the cockpit we fly safer? Or would this just be a means for terrorists/hackers to control planes

2010-06-09 18:57:45

#2

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6960|Canberra, AUS

It would be pretty damn hard to "hijack" a plane with no cockpit. Hacking, I have no idea.

Last edited by Spark (2010-06-09 18:58:05)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-06-09 18:58:37

#3

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5871

I wouldn't fly in plane controlled by a computer.

2010-06-09 19:00:32

#4

Canin: Conservative Roman Catholic; +280|6760|Foothills of S. Carolina

Macbeth wrote:
I wouldn't fly in plane controlled by a computer.

Most already are, they just have a human on hand to keep things straight.

On that note, I would not be in an unmanned passenger jet.

2010-06-09 19:01:13

#5

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5871

Canin wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
I wouldn't fly in plane controlled by a computer.
Most already are, they just have a human on hand to keep things straight.

On that note, I would not be in an unmanned passenger jet.

You know what I meant.

Last edited by Macbeth (2010-06-09 19:01:51)

2010-06-09 19:01:35

#6

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6823|Long Island, New York

Way of the future. Way of the future. Way of the future.

https://images.allmoviephoto.com/2004_The_Aviator/2004_the_aviator_002.jpg

I like the idea, but I just don't know if I'm immediately ready to trust a plane that doesn't have a professional human right there in the plane at the ready in case of emergency.

2010-06-09 19:02:21

#7

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6992|67.222.138.85

Despite safety records that will undoubtedly be better than automobile safety records, it's not going to happen for a long, long time because of the risk involved with not having a person who actually knows what they are doing physically next to the hardware.

2010-06-09 19:04:00

#8

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6782

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Despite safety records that will undoubtedly be better than automobile safety records, it's not going to happen for a long, long time because of the risk involved with not having a person who actually knows what they are doing physically next to the hardware.

you talking about cars now?

2010-06-09 19:05:24

#9

Canin: Conservative Roman Catholic; +280|6760|Foothills of S. Carolina

burnzz wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Despite safety records that will undoubtedly be better than automobile safety records, it's not going to happen for a long, long time because of the risk involved with not having a person who actually knows what they are doing physically next to the hardware.
you talking about cars now?

If he were talking about cars he wouldn't have put the part about having a person who actually knows what they are doing in the statement.

2010-06-10 02:39:11

#10

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

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.

2010-06-10 02:43:32

#11

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6940

I remember on an episode of Myth Busters they were seeing if it was possible for a ground controller (with the help of a computer) guide a passenger with no flight experience to land the plane. It worked just fine.

I'm sure they'll have many failsafes and redundancies in place, and allow for human control (in the air or from the ground) in order to keep everything ok.

Computer-guided vehicles are definitely the future. Whether it's a personal automobile or a plane flying many people. Get places quicker, smoother, and cheaper. I'm excited for it!

2010-06-10 03:32:10

#12

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7095|Nårvei

Say hello to skynet

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2010-06-10 05:07:49

#13

pace51: Boom?; +194|5458|Markham, Ontario

Firstly, UAV commercial would be a bad idea, in my opinion. On regular commercial flights, most of the flight is controlled by automatic flight controls and computers. The pilots still fly, but the computer reduces their workload. However, in the event of a freak weather disaster, or computer failure, the pilots have the skills to safely get the plane down. If the UAV plane is damaged so that it can't receive instructions via sattelite, it's screwed. There should be a pilot onboard just in case.

2010-06-10 05:31:22

#14

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

pace51 wrote:
Firstly, UAV commercial would be a bad idea, in my opinion. On regular commercial flights, most of the flight is controlled by automatic flight controls and computers. The pilots still fly, but the computer reduces their workload. However, in the event of a freak weather disaster, or computer failure, the pilots have the skills to safely get the plane down. If the UAV plane is damaged so that it can't receive instructions via sattelite, it's screwed. There should be a pilot onboard just in case.

yes...one pilot who monitors the systems. no flying.

2010-06-10 05:36:46

#15

pace51: Boom?; +194|5458|Markham, Ontario

If a freak accident happens, rendering the UAV unable to pick up signals from the person controlling it, it's going to crash unless there's a pilot there to take over. If the plane doesn't receive remote instructions, and is completely automatically controlled (if it flies itself instead of being flown by remote), that would be better, since it only needs to be programmed and it'll fly to its destination. However, even with a completely automatic UAV, if a control system fails, it would be useful to have one pilot onboard who can control the plane manually and initiate emrgency procedures.

2010-06-10 06:57:22

#16

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

pace51 wrote:
If a freak accident happens, rendering the UAV unable to pick up signals from the person controlling it, it's going to crash unless there's a pilot there to take over. If the plane doesn't receive remote instructions, and is completely automatically controlled (if it flies itself instead of being flown by remote), that would be better, since it only needs to be programmed and it'll fly to its destination. However, even with a completely automatic UAV, if a control system fails, it would be useful to have one pilot onboard who can control the plane manually and initiate emrgency procedures.

thats why i said one pilot. please dont try and tell me about commercial aviation.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-06-10 06:57:47)

2010-06-10 06:59:24

#17

pace51: Boom?; +194|5458|Markham, Ontario

I agree, one pilot. Sorry, I got defensive.

2010-06-10 08:17:39

#18

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6279|Truthistan

The application for these would probably be like an air taxi. A small passenger load where you get in, state a destination and the plane takes you there. No pilot no stewardness no anything. The safety mechanism for computer failure would probably be a frame paracute. On a big jet with hundred passengers and cargo it really wouldn't make sense to delete the pilot.

Anyway what they call the fly-by-wire stuff that's out there now is a "pilot and a dog outfit" where the pilot is there to make the passengers feel safe because there is a human being at the controls and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything.

2010-06-12 10:51:21

#19

Harmor: Error_Name_Not_Found; +605|6834|San Diego, CA, USA

Computers don't strike:

Discount Carrier Spirit Airlines Cancels All Flights as Pilots Strike

2010-06-12 10:54:22

#20

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6853|Mountains of NC

unions won't allow this to happen

they could start it out on cargo planes to see how everything goes

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2010-06-12 12:40:27

#21

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6936|USA

Macbeth wrote:
I wouldn't fly in plane controlled by a computer.

There was a time where people would not fly on an airplane without a propeller.

2010-06-12 12:42:00

#22

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6936|USA

SEREMAKER wrote:
unions won't allow this to happen

they could start it out on cargo planes to see how everything goes

Tell that to navigators, flight engineers, and radio operators.

2010-06-12 13:05:19

#23

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

lowing wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
I wouldn't fly in plane controlled by a computer.
There was a time where people would not fly on an airplane without a propeller.

or the 747

2010-06-12 20:50:24

#24

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6960|Canberra, AUS

lowing wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
I wouldn't fly in plane controlled by a computer.
There was a time where people would not fly on an airplane without a propeller.

You reckon it's a good idea? Curious to know.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-06-13 07:52:01

#25

11 Bravo: Banned; +965|5522|Cleveland, Ohio

I do. Have one pilot to sit up there and just monitor the systems. You wouldn't have to pay them as much either. Plus the govt should regulate the airlines again if this would happen so each pilot in every airline is on the same pay scale. That way strikes would be a thing of the past alsofor the most part.

BF2S Forums FAA: Considering Unmaned Commercial Flights

Popular Science wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Canin wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

burnzz wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

pace51 wrote:

pace51 wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

lowing wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Board footer