Current Events > Would you fly in a plane without a pilot, an automated plane?

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/travel/remote-controlled-passenger-airplane

^^^ video

"The Centaur
Weight: 4,100 pounds

Length: 28 feet

Wingspan: 44 feet

Top speed: 200 mph

Maximum range: 2,300 miles

Engines: Twin propeller

Capacity: Four people"

Yes. Automated is generally a lot more trustworthy then people
---

i dont think there has been a single plane crash when the plane was on autopilot
---

Where is the "2. Yes" option?
---

Planes are already flown by computers. Humans are at the wheel during takeoff and landing, but most other operations are done through a guidance system. The more you know.
---

Twinmold posted...

Planes are already flown by computers. Humans are at the wheel during takeoff and landing, but most other operations are done through a guidance system. The more you know.

This, you fly by a computer every time you fly a major commercial airline. It's just the humans that handle takeoffs and landings.
---

Sure.
---

i dont think there has been a single plane crash when the plane was on autopilot

This was a special case, but about 15 years ago IIRC there was this thing and I don't remember the details but some special forces US plane or something was flying along through another country's airspace and said countey was not happy so they sent up some fighters. The US plane and one of the fighters actually collided, forcing the US plane to land. In a panic, the crew destroyed data as fast as they could and such andit was a big thing. I'm sure someone here remembers more.

But anyway, when they were tossing around blame.for the incident, one of the US' defenses was that their plane was on auto-pilot.

So I mean if that's the kind of situation you have to look for to find an incident, then year that's a pretty killer track record.
---

And having them there for even just that is great, imo. I love having both auto-pilot, and real people, for double security. Would pilot-less flights at least be much much cheaper?

Doubt it. I dunno how much pilots get paid but when there are hundreds of people on the flight and a couple of pilots they'd have to make serious dough for it to affect the price of an individual ticked by more than a couple bucks.
---

I'm a pilot and yes.

As others have said, flying is already pretty automated. Autopilot takes most of the work off flying and even takeoffs and landing go by specific measureable guidelines (take off when your speed reaches this, enrich the mixture and push trottle to full speed). They are tasks that computers can easily be programmed to do.

The question is what is the error control like? Where human pilots currently trump machines is during emergencies, like engine failures or power failures.

Once I had to land a plane with no working flaps. When you land a plane like that, you need a much longer runway. The runway ATC directed me to was too short. I had to make the call to abort the landing and find a different nearby airport.

We just need to safeguard planes for every possible thing that can go wrong.
---

uh let me shock your mind

Pilots only guide the planes these days, once is in the air it is AUTO PILOT until the landing,

its not 1965
---

kewldude475 posted...

Honestly I have to say I'd probably have to pass. Computers can malfunction, and having two people who are skilled at piloting is great for peace of mind. At this point in time I'd rather have a pilot.

People malfunction more than computers do.
---

Soviet_Shurima posted...

i dont think there has been a single plane crash when the plane was on autopilot

They don't have to, or can't rather, take off or land on auto-pilot though, commercial jets I mean.

Zanzenburger posted...

The question is what is the error control like? Where human pilots currently trump machines is during emergencies, like engine failures or power failures.

Thank you for your insight. I think this here is a huge question. I think to myself about all the mid air complications that can happen. Or some people elsewhere have pointed to people like Captain Sully and say there's the reason we need a pilot.

Zanzenburger posted...

I'm a pilot and yes.

As others have said, flying is already pretty automated. Autopilot takes most of the work off flying and even takeoffs and landing go by specific measureable guidelines (take off when your speed reaches this, enrich the mixture and push trottle to full speed). They are tasks that computers can easily be programmed to do.

The question is what is the error control like? Where human pilots currently trump machines is during emergencies, like engine failures or power failures.

Once I had to land a plane with no working flaps. When you land a plane like that, you need a much longer runway. The runway ATC directed me to was too short. I had to make the call to abort the landing and find a different nearby airport.

We just need to safeguard planes for every possible thing that can go wrong.

PS: What is your opinion of the idea of privatizing ATC, as has been recently proposed?

Who do I clap for when we land then?
---

giantblimpN7 posted...

Who do I clap for when we land then?

lol, clap for God and Country.

K181 posted...

It's just the humans that handle takeoffs and landings.

They're also there for if shit goes wrong.

I'm fine with auto pilot, I'm not fine with no pilot at all.
---

No simply because we need human oversight incase of emergency or the system has an issue.
---

As a pilot no, and from reading the article is still takes a pilot to operate the aircraft, they just get to fly it remotely like a predator drone

most flying today anyway is all done by auto pilot although it's comical how people think an auto pilot it a simple on/off switch
---

Cocytus posted...

PS: What is your opinion of the idea of privatizing ATC, as has been recently proposed?

That worries me. Our ATC system is finally getting its crap together and upgrading their 1980s equipment that is long overdue. The system we have works great. Its only issue has been inefficiency and worker stress but that problem is being phased out with the new navigation systems being installed.

Privatizing is essentially starting over. You have new managers looking at things from a perspective of "how can we keep planes safe" to "how can we make more money"? Private industries cut corners to save on costs. We cannot afford to do that in hectic air travel. If corners aren't cut, the only other option is raising ATC fees. That means airline prices will skyrocket. Imagine having the equivalent of toll booths at airports. You gotta pay extra based on where you are going and what company owns that district.

I can understand the idea if our ATC was problematic or dying, but we have one of the best ATC systems in the world. Trust me, you don't want to trust ATC to land you safely in Honduras.

Keep it the way it is, is my opinion.
---

They're only talking about small commuter planes here. Even the experts weighing in on the story are saying it's not likely to happen on the commercial scale within our lifetime.

I do quite enjoy one tweet they linked:

"Not to belabor the point, but I'd like to have the pilot have a vested interest in my safety. Like being on board."

Nubcake13 posted...

As a pilot no, and from reading the article is still takes a pilot to operate the aircraft, they just get to fly it remotely like a predator drone

most flying today anyway is all done by auto pilot although it's comical how people think an auto pilot it a simple on/off switch

This, lol. Autopilot isn't just "the win button" in a video game. You have to program it specifically to meet the needs of you area, like what altitude you want to fly at, the speed, taking into account restricted airspaces. Honestly, since most of the flights I flew were short, I didn't even bother with autopilot. It was easier to just set the trim to a comfortable level and just fly passively.
---

Zanzenburger posted...

Cocytus posted...

PS: What is your opinion of the idea of privatizing ATC, as has been recently proposed?

That worries me. Our ATC system is finally getting its crap together and upgrading their 1980s equipment that is long overdue. The system we have works great. Its only issue has been inefficiency and worker stress but that problem is being phased out with the new navigation systems being installed.

Privatizing is essentially starting over. You have new managers looking at things from a perspective of "how can we keep planes safe" to "how can we make more money"? Private industries cut corners to save on costs. We cannot afford to do that in hectic air travel. If corners aren't cut, the only other option is raising ATC fees. That means airline prices will skyrocket. Imagine having the equivalent of toll booths at airports. You gotta pay extra based on where you are going and what company owns that district.

I can understand the idea if our ATC was problematic or dying, but we have one of the best ATC systems in the world. Trust me, you don't want to trust ATC to land you safely in Honduras.

Keep it the way it is, is my opinion.

Yeah I think so too. Thanks.

kewldude475 posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

kewldude475 posted...

Honestly I have to say I'd probably have to pass. Computers can malfunction, and having two people who are skilled at piloting is great for peace of mind. At this point in time I'd rather have a pilot.

People malfunction more than computers do.

We can have computers and humans at the same time is what I'm trying to say

Yeah but that's a little redundant isn't it, for a fully automated plane?

I Like Toast posted...

K181 posted...

It's just the humans that handle takeoffs and landings.

They're also there for if shit goes wrong.

I'm fine with auto pilot, I'm not fine with no pilot at all.

---

Nubcake13 posted...

As a pilot no, and from reading the article is still takes a pilot to operate the aircraft, they just get to fly it remotely like a predator drone

most flying today anyway is all done by auto pilot although it's comical how people think an auto pilot it a simple on/off switch

I know, I was thinking about this. What the hell is the advantage of keeping the pilots remote anyways? Is this innovation taking a step backwards maybe?

Zanzenburger posted...

We just need to safeguard planes for every possible thing that can go wrong.

Oh OK
---

Sada_Pop posted...

Zanzenburger posted...

We just need to safeguard planes for every possible thing that can go wrong.

Oh OK

lmao

Canuklehead posted...

They're only talking about small commuter planes here. Even the experts weighing in on the story are saying it's not likely to happen on the commercial scale within our lifetime.

I do quite enjoy one tweet they linked:

"Not to belabor the point, but I'd like to have the pilot have a vested interest in my safety. Like being on board."

That's a very good point, a vested interest.

Wotswayla posted...

Yes. Automated is generally a lot more trustworthy then people

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/10/31/study-self-driving-cars-accidents/74946614/


On another note, aren't planes auto piloted anyways? Pilots handle take off and landings and flip the auto pilot switch and take a nap.
---

Zanzenburger posted...

Nubcake13 posted...

As a pilot no, and from reading the article is still takes a pilot to operate the aircraft, they just get to fly it remotely like a predator drone

most flying today anyway is all done by auto pilot although it's comical how people think an auto pilot it a simple on/off switch

This, lol. Autopilot isn't just "the win button" in a video game. You have to program it specifically to meet the needs of you area, like what altitude you want to fly at, the speed, taking into account restricted airspaces. Honestly, since most of the flights I flew were short, I didn't even bother with autopilot. It was easier to just set the trim to a comfortable level and just fly passively.

Exhibit A, this topic lol
---

Contact was lost with MH370 shortly after pilots took manual control.
---

Oh wow, the No's overtook the yeses after a long run.

Self driving cars are just around the corner, and when we finally get flying cars, they'll all be automated.

It's certainly a daunting task but I wouldn't say it's outside the realm of possibility to have a self-flying plane that really does plan for every contingency, or at least every reasonable one.

Hardware errors can be all but nullified via fault tolerance techniques that have been around since the 60's and no doubt most of the exceptional flight circumstances we've encountered have been thououghly documented. Plus you can put situaions into categories.

Like suppose there's never been a moose blocking the runway before. There can still be a generic "blocked runway" protocol. The airport would be the ones to make the call on what does and doesn't constitute a blocked runway, and they could even have humans on the ground doing it and the flight still count as fully-automated.

But we're still talking a lot of circumstances...
---

Damn. Pretty even split.
---

when we finally get flying cars

Did you know they actually made them?

Nobody bought them because it's a terrible idea and deep down everyone knows it.
---

Yes.

You also cannot hijack such a plane.
---

Cocytus posted...

PS: What is your opinion of the idea of privatizing ATC, as has been recently proposed?

i'm an atc and I think it's a shit idea
---

Ilishe posted...

You also cannot hijack such a plane

Lol
---

700,000lb flying piece of metal going 500mph with no one behind the controls ??? You won't see it happen for a century or more. There isn't one single legitimate insurance company on this earth that's going to touch that gamble.

just saying
---

prince_leo posted...

Cocytus posted...

PS: What is your opinion of the idea of privatizing ATC, as has been recently proposed?

i'm an atc and I think it's a shit idea

Same reasons?

Cocytus posted...

Same reasons?

basically. the problems we have aren't the ones that will be fixed by privatizing it. it's clearly just a way for someone to make some money.
it really sucks that natca (our union) isn't fighting for us

then again, I know so many controllers who voted for trump not caring that if he had it his way they'd lose their pensions


I like my job, but it's very stressful. I planned my life around retiring in my 50s with a sweet pension. if we get privatized and I lose those benefits, then i'll leave the industry. I know i'll be fine elsewhere, not gonna put up with it
if we become like usps then I might stay depending on what changes, but at that point I just don't see the point
---

^are you a center guy or tracon/tower btw?
---