Are Pilotless Planes in Our Future?

[Guest]

.
Pilotless planes 'could save airlines £35 billion a year'... if passengers are willing to give them a try   
The Evening Standard 
Pilotless: autopilot systems have already been used for years PA 
Developing technology which allows planes to fly without pilots could save airlines €35 billion a year, according to Swiss bank UBS.

An analysis by the bank claims pilotless planes would reduce pilot costs, lower fuel costs and lower insurance premiums.

Doug Davis, director of the unmanned aircraft programme at New Mexico State University, told BBC Future that pilotless planes are “the next big transformation in the aviation industry”.

Boeing, the world's leading aircraft maker, is already investigating the technology, the Financial Times reported.

Autopilot systems have been used for decades to kee planes on a steady, pre-programmed route and altitude. Automatic systems have also been used for years to help pilots land on aircraft carriers.

UBS said the first step would be to trim the cockpits of passenger planes down to just one pilot, with a second pilot based on the ground.

However, the bank admitted unwillingness from customers to fly on pilotless planes could be the biggest barrier to their success.

A survey of 8,000 people found that just 17 per cent would be happy to fly without a pilot, while 54 per cent would refuse to do so.

UBS hopes attitudes will change over the coming years, after the survey revealed 30 per cent of younger respondents (18 – 30) would be willing to use pilotless planes. 
 

[Vsplat]

The biggest issue I see with proposals like this is that the proponents omit critical components of the safety process.

Sure, the AP will precisely fly a track, altitude, and profile. But should it fly that track?

I have lost count of the number of times our crew has had to refuse a minimum time or fuel routing because of weather or CAT. Dispatch has its criteria, normally aligned with ours, but perspectives differ.   It is why we have a 'most conservative vote rules' policy.  Ditto, while enroute, how many times have we received recommendations to optimise our route, only to refuse because the recommendation took us right through weather or reported turbulence that was not showing on radar. 

While pilots are fine individuals [said without a hint of bias ;-)] , the simple element of being onboard to experience what the passenger experiences leads to better decisions on behalf of everyone.  Having a digital readout in a control centre on the ground that the aircraft is taking G in turbulence is pretty much useless. 

As always, just my opinion.

Vs

[conehead]

Pilotless planes are not in MY future. As an Avionics AME I've seen too many "glitches" that occur in everyday operations. 

[conehead]

True.

[DEFCON]

"An analysis by the bank claims pilotless planes would reduce pilot costs, lower fuel costs and lower insurance premiums."

You just gotta love those banksters.

Wouldn't a 'pilotless' plane actually 'eliminate' pilot costs?

Banksters apparently know that pilots are real fuel wasters, thank god for the coming environmentally friendly robot.

And banksters are so all knowing they can even predict lower insurance premiums???

"UBS said the first step would be to trim the cockpits of passenger planes down to just one pilot, with a second pilot based on the ground.

Who's going to keep the very bored onboard systems manager awake for the duration?

I'm going to call bs on this story.  

 

[blues deville]

Pilotless airliners. I say all airline accountants get front row first class seats. That way they can clearly hear all EGPWS warnings.

[thor]

I don't think so. Even before the aircraft gets to V1 of 160 kts the decision to reject or continue needs a human element. What happened to the Tesla's auto drive car? First fatality. So let's experiment with live people for pilotless aircraft. 

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/security-tech/technology/driverless-crashes/articleshow/56510821.cms

[Seeker]

Again?  Do we really have to re-hash this every three months?

 

Look, here's what you tell people who think this is a good idea or it's going to happen.  It is possible to create a system that can fly people around without human pilots at the controls but it is not possible to achieve an equivalent level of safety for less money than human pilots therefore it won't happen.  The cost of developing, installing and monitoring the systems that would be required is greater than the cost of having a couple of humans sitting there.  Do you know the US military has "lost" over 400 drones? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/19/more-u-s-military-drones-are-crashing-than-ever-as-new-problems-emerge/?utm_term=.f95afdf7317b

 

[DEFCON]

Logical thinking, but that's essentially what they said about three man cockpits Seeker.

 

[UpperDeck]

From left field.....I don't think that "we" can adequately synthesize the impact upon every aspect of our lives of robotic engineering and quantum computing.

A robot with human features will be available in the not too distant future that can be "synched" to the aircraft and detect and respond appropriately to incoming data that would overwhelm a mere mortal.

Of course we're not there yet but if humanity survives long enough, I have no doubt whatsoever that if it is even necessary to move people from A to B mechanically, it will be accomplished without human "servers".

It may not be necessary. With VR, meetings can be held wherever one desires and attended by any number of participants with no one ever actually leaving their cubicle. And tourism? VR will enable you to go places and interact with "locals" economically and without any fear of an over-booked flight!

[Zan Vetter]

This article boils to to Don't listen to pilots, they have vested interest! Listen instead to this avionics manufacturer and their uh, investment banker!

so yeah no

[Guest]

Opinion: Pilotless Commercial Aircraft Likely In 2020s, 2030s

In the future, nobody may be in the cockpit, but everybody could be wealthier

 

If your kid is thinking of going to flight school and maybe incurring serious student debt—or in your name—to become a commercial pilot, you might want to reconsider after reading this.

A new report from financial analysts at investment bank UBS takes a deep dive into the economics of potentially pilotless commercial aircraft and concludes that it is not a question of if, but when. Their best guess is almost certainly before the 2040s—when today’s college-age students should be hitting their peak earning years, traditionally.

While the flying public may not be much interested in it yet, pilotless commercial airplanes could be such a boon to the aviation and aerospace manufacturing industries. These analysts and others see a natural evolution in that direction. In essence, the money to be made or retained is too much to pass up.

 

Source: UBS

“Meaningful savings can be generated via mission optimization, greater predictability and reduced flight crew and training costs,” says the Aug. 7 report from UBS aerospace, airlines and logistics sector analysts.

They see a potential profit opportunity worth about $35 billion for the aviation and aerospace manufacturing sectors. That includes:

• More than $26 billion in pilot-related cost savings for the airlines that UBS covers
•  Up to $3 billion in similar savings for the business jet industry
•  $2.1 billion for civil helicopters
•  Flight optimization savings of more than $1 billion, or 1% of carriers’ $133 billion fuel bill globally in 2016
•  More than $3 billion per year in savings from lower insurance premiums (i.e., safer flights) and pilot training costs; and
•  Potential revenue increases from increased utilization rates (both cargo and commercial).

“With increased technology breakthroughs and lower costs, Airbus and Boeing could increase the appeal of their future aircraft programs,” according to the report. And, assuming commercial airlines retain all of the profit uplift from pilotless airplanes, those that could see the greatest pretax earnings boost are: Thai Airways (an increase of about 90%), China Eastern Airlines (80%), American Airlines (200%), United Airlines (100%), EasyJet (60%), and Air France-KLM (50%).

Cargo carriers FedEx and UPS also could see a potential boost of a combined $1 billion. Analysts say they expect cargo carriers to be on the forefront of adoption, perhaps by the end of the next decade.

Not surprisingly, leading avionics makers are expected to be the biggest beneficiaries, starting with Thales, Rockwell Collins and Honeywell, UBS says.

Technically, remotely controlled aircraft for carrying passengers and cargo could appear by about 2025, UBS surmises. Admittedly, that requires a heavy lift in rewriting regulations, and an even greater turn in consumer sentiment. The UBS Evidence Lab surveyed almost 8,000 people across the U.S., UK, France, Germany and Australia in April and May and found 54% were unlikely to take such a flight now. Just 17% said they would do so.

 

POPULAR NOW

USAF Picks Key Technologies For F-22 Follow-On

The Go/No-Go Decision: High-Speed RTOs Are Fraught With Risk

Minotaur Rocket Prepped For Cape Canaveral Debut

 

By nationality, French and German respondents were the most unlikely to take a pilotless flight, with Americans the most likely.

Moreover, when respondents were sorted by age, those 18-34 were found to be more willing to fly on a pilotless airplane—about 30% of those polled—and that might be a harbinger of what is to come. “This may bode well for the future development of such technology, as the 18-34 age group grows older and maintains such an attitude toward flying on pilotless airplanes,” UBS says. Of all the respondents who would buy a pilotless plane ticket, more than 60% said they would only if it was more than 20% cheaper.

To be sure, there are reasons to be skeptical of the rate of adoption. Aviation Week editors debated the issue in an Aug. 11 podcast online, and readers continue to carry out a robust debate on AviationWeek.com. What do you think? Join in the conversation. 

[Wolfhunter]

UAV/UAS technology is actually pretty cool and, in my view capable of doing the job. But, and it’s a huge but, my brief foray into the field was with a cadre of very experienced, veteran pilots at the helm… and there IS a pilot on the ground in the trailer. One plot at destination (as a for instance) can easily handle a series of sequenced arrivals. 

As is the case with current technology, skill fade will overtake the operation sooner than most might think. Some foreign trained pilots can’t hand fly a circuit at night and a hand flown, raw data ILS constitutes an emergency. 

Put the MBA guys back in their offices and lock the door. They have already done enough damage and clearly can’t be trusted to get this right. I’ll walk. 

PS'

The recent fiberoptic failure in the maritimes should serve as a cautionary tale for all. A few folks here discovered how reliant (vulnerable) they actually are.

[Zan Vetter]

GPS spoofing attack

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143499-ships-fooled-in-gps-spoofing-attack-suggest-russian-cyberweapon/

[Wolfhunter]

The system I’m acquainted with uses multi DGPS receivers and has a self contained, manually operated laser guidance system (for landing) in the event of DGPS failure. Enroute failures result in reversion to inertial nav. That said, technical vulnerabilities are the nightmare scenario here. Seriously… I would rather walk.

[Zan Vetter]

Yeah I realize a GPS spoofing attack shouldn't cause more than a, say, "NAV ACCURACY DOWNGRADE" message. Point is, bad actors currently have to breach the flight deck to control an airplane and steer it off course. 

[Wolfhunter]

Pilot skill fade is much to be feared here. I could stand on a roof naked and scream this until arrested… it will have no effect on the outcome. The MBA crew simply don’t get this. The fact that owners and BODs actually listen to these fools is astounding to me.