Boeing studies pilotless airplane

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 959
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by confusedalot »

You missed the point. Nowhere is there any indication of controllerless ATC. You need some form of ATC with pilotless airplanes. So how are pilotless aircraft to be managed in complex airspace environments. No need for verbal communications anymore, but some form of super advanced CPDLC would be needed, it seems to me. Air transportation operates as a whole unit, so day to day airspace management also needs to be addressed in order for these machines to be viable.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

Posthumane wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 12:10 pm
Rockie wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 9:48 am You guys are arguing that technology can safely operate an aircraft autonomously which in the environment we operate in would end in disaster very quickly. It’s far too dynamic. But that’s just part of it.
It is a dynamic environment. But on what basis are you concluding that it is TOO dynamic? Out of the many environments that autonomous vehicles are being developed to operate in, IFR flight is one of the most controlled.

Rockie wrote: Wed May 16, 2018 9:48 am What none of you consider is that physically flying the aircraft is just one small part of the job, and not even the part I really get paid for. I am paid for my judgement. I am paid to say “no” when I deem it necessary, and as CWE (who occasionally knows what he’s talking about) is fond of saying the hard part about flying is knowing when to do that. It’s hard to do in large part because virtually everybody else including your employer wants you to say “yes”.
Actually, everybody has considered that. And it's a point I agree with, if you'd actually read and take in previous posts on the subject. The whole point of additional automation is to move the human up the command level, from control manipulator, to indirect control, to "tactical" level planning, to strategic and operational level. Your statement is a perfect example of that. The decision about whether to launch a flight based on the state of the aircraft, ground systems, weather, etc. is a tactical level decision, as is the decision whether to continue the flight if conditions change or whether to divert due to a system failure, etc.

None of those decisions require you to be sitting, watching the localizer needle, ready to take control if it deviates. The reason you have to do THAT in your aircraft is because the systems in your aircraft are not reliable enough to be able to do the job safely without monitoring. They were never designed to be. The entirety of the aircraft was designed with the concept of the human pilot being in control and being the backup for many of the systems. But the creation of better fault monitoring and fault tolerant systems with their own sets up of back up systems gradually diminishes the need for that human monitoring, leaving the human more available for the tactical and strategic level decisions.
Do you fly IFR to busy places Posthumane? Have you ever experienced the mix of IFR and VFR in places like that such as instructions to “fly the Hudson”? Have you ever actually flown an automated aircraft and progressively scaled it back all the way to full manual flight because it was required? I’m guessing not.

You’re also still focused on manipulating the controls. You’re talking about moving humans up the command chain from one level to another, and failing to realize the pilot already is active and required at all those levels. You mistakingly think you can make strategic decisions that will eliminate tactical ones...you can’t. Saying “no” could be done long before the flight is scheduled to leave, or it could be made in the span of one second when you decide to abandon a landing because of what’s happening, or more importantly what you think will happen. That is just one of countless and unpredictable situations that requires judgement, which requires an active, trained brain.

Has real AI capable of that been invented yet?

One other thing you utterly fail to consider is the requirement for humans to deal with and decide on human issues. We fly humans around Posthumane, not computers. We frequently deal with human issues and conduct our flights accordingly.

Has real AI capable of that been invented yet?
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by trey kule »

No, I do not think real AI has been developed yet and we could be decades from that time.

But real AI is not necessary to reduce flight crew by one. Or, possibly eliminate on board crew entirely. There is a huge dufference, for example, between cars and aircraft in many critical areas, that will enable aviation to adapt more quickly to technology

The signs are there if one looks. The push to allow single crew in cargo aircraft,,,A small step, but significant. Boeing looking into pilotless aircraft. Millions of dollars being spent because, it seems, they can not see what some can see ( cough,*** cough***, Rockie). with regard to human superiority.

It kind of harks back to a century or so ago, when experts pontificated that man would never fly , while the first planes were quietly being built in shops all over the world.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

"Boeing studies pilotless airplanes"

Flying cars and supersonic executive jets have been studied for decades. Studying doesn't in any way mean it's going to happen, it's just being looked at as are countless other things that don't materialize. Waiting for AI which, yes Trey Kule, is necessary before serious study of pilotless passenger aircraft can even begin.

The Boeing guy in charge himself said this:

"But a self-flying plane would need to be able land safely as Captain Chesley Sullenberger did in the "Miracle on the Hudson," Sinnett said. "If it can't, then we can't go there."

Substitute "landing on the Hudson" for pretty much anything else requiring critical thought, judgement, compassion, intuition, perception, prediction etc. The list of human abilities required that computers don't possess is really really large. Quoting the Star Wars movies, "I have a bad feeling about this" has saved the day in real life innumerable times.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by rookiepilot »

Rockie wrote: Tue May 15, 2018 12:34 pm
I'm beginning to think you don't fly airplanes and are therefore unqualified to comment on what it takes to be safe and effective flying them. You're an engineer right?
Unless I'm wrong, I suspect your background is flying aircraft, and not top level engineering.

I suspect the men and women working on autonomous driving, and autonomous aircraft one day, are in the same league as those engineers you like to denigrate, who designed the space shuttle, put men on the moon, and designed turbine engines with almost a microscopic failure rate, that you trust with your life.

In other words, geniuses.

Regardless of your flying qualifications, I'd be a little hesitant to speak with authority on what this group can and can't design to a high standard, given enough time and practical application.

I doubt they will ask you, frankly, or me, what can or cannot be done.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

Engineers work best when they’re supervised by subject matter experts telling them what their product is supposed to do. So if you don’t tell me what it takes to fly airplanes I won’t tell you what it takes to design high level systems.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 959
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by confusedalot »

Just saw a Nova documentary on PBS just last night about ''can we build a brain''. I'll spare you the details, but the answer is somewhere between ''no'' and numerous decades. It appears that even the most simplest of human activity that we take for granted becomes exceedingly complicated for current, even top of the line, computers. Well put together documentary.

Of particular interest I found were the self driving cars. Stating the obvious, they operate in two dimensions, lateral and time. An airplane operates in four dimensions, the basic three plus time. Like most people, thought that self driving cars could navigate any city any time, and avoid any mishap. It appears that they can only negotiate specific preplanned routes. They don't tell you that in mainstream media. Not that it happenned alot, but one self driving vehicle ran down a pedestrian.

You can go onto the Nova website but unfortunately, if you are in Canada, you cannot download the episode.

I'd love to believe that technology can do anything anytime. Mostly a former pilot, not an engineer, but did work for simulator engineering companies and therefore with engineers for short bursts between layoffs. Great and interesting stuff, a whole different world, but I feel that many tend to think that engineering can do anything and anytime. Flight simulators typically have tons of snags out of the box that need to be corrected over time. And that is just a run of the mill simulator. Even an engineer will tell you there are limitations in the tech world.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?
Posthumane
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Posthumane »

Rockie wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 4:17 am

Do you fly IFR to busy places Posthumane? Have you ever experienced the mix of IFR and VFR in places like that such as instructions to “fly the Hudson”? Have you ever actually flown an automated aircraft and progressively scaled it back all the way to full manual flight because it was required? I’m guessing not.

You’re also still focused on manipulating the controls. You’re talking about moving humans up the command chain from one level to another, and failing to realize the pilot already is active and required at all those levels. You mistakingly think you can make strategic decisions that will eliminate tactical ones...you can’t. Saying “no” could be done long before the flight is scheduled to leave, or it could be made in the span of one second when you decide to abandon a landing because of what’s happening, or more importantly what you think will happen. That is just one of countless and unpredictable situations that requires judgement, which requires an active, trained brain.

Has real AI capable of that been invented yet?
First off, your constant attempts to discredit posters by appeal to authority are a red herring. You can assume I'm a 10 year old kid sitting in my parents' basement for all it matters. The question you should ask is do the design teams have this experience? The answer to that is yes. The combined experience of the people involved in these projects is far greater than yours.

You didn't fully understand what i wrote. Humans obviously make decisions at all levels of the command chain in manned aircraft. Its not the strategic decision that would absolve you from having to make tactical ones, its having someone, or some thing, that is reliable making those tactical decisions for you that would allow you to not focus on those. So, have systems bern developed to abort a landing in a split second because of what's happening or what will happen? Yes! That particular task, monitoring progress, conditions, system operability, has absolutely been done by computers. In fact that technology is at a high enough TRL that its been used on aircraft prototypes flown by the end user.

One other thing you utterly fail to consider is the requirement for humans to deal with and decide on human issues. We fly humans around Posthumane, not computers. We frequently deal with human issues and conduct our flights accordingly.

Has real AI capable of that been invented yet?
What human issues specifically? If dealing with passengers is your biggest hangup, then image this whole thing in the context of a cargo flight. Or are those not real airplanes requiring real piloting in your mind?
Rockie wrote: Thu May 17, 2018 2:29 pm Engineers work best when they’re supervised by subject matter experts telling them what their product is supposed to do. So if you don’t tell me what it takes to fly airplanes I won’t tell you what it takes to design high level systems.
Its a good thing the engineers on these projects DO work with subject matter experts, and those experts are telling them to keep going. Why they've never consulted you will have to remain as one of those unsolved mysteries I suppose.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by digits_ »

Not to mention, before it can be operated in a 703 operation it has to learn to bust minimums, to ignore MEL items, to only snag a plane in a maintenance base and soo much more. You need real pilots to do that!
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

Posthumane wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:17 am First off, your constant attempts to discredit posters by appeal to authority are a red herring.
My intent is not to discredit you, but to make you aware of the giant gaps in your thinking.
Posthumane wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:17 am You can assume I'm a 10 year old kid sitting in my parents' basement for all it matters.
Not really, I don't know any 10 year old engineers with a pilot's license. Maybe you're just sensitive.
Posthumane wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:17 am The question you should ask is do the design teams have this experience? The answer to that is yes. The combined experience of the people involved in these projects is far greater than yours.
I'm sure Boeing does have many subject matter experts guiding the engineers in studying this, and the one in charge of this study quoted in the article seems to completely agree with me. Read his quote again.
Posthumane wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 7:17 am What human issues specifically? If dealing with passengers is your biggest hangup
In this whole years long discussion I think it's the first time I've brought this particular point up, so where do you get the idea it's my biggest hangup? It is a factor that engineers do not typically consider which is why they need to be closely supervised, and the fact you have to ask what human issues I'm talking about proves my point better than anything I could say myself.

BTW, did you know in the B787 there are many environmental conditions that exceed the autopilot's capabilities and autoland is not approved. There are many equipment faults that seriously degrade the autopilot's function, and by a very quick search of the QRH at least 3 that render the autopilot inoperative completely. I'm sure there are more that Boeing hasn't anticipated or figures will never happen so don't need a procedure for. Airbus used to think like that too when the 320 first came out. Their education has been a hard and bloody one over the years.

First rule when an engineer extols the virtues of his unproven creation...don't believe him.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by mbav8r »

I have to admit that I haven’t read this whole thread so if this has been covered, my apologies.
Posthumane, you mention the technology exist for a split second decision to go around for various scenarios but my thoughts go back to outside forces.
What is or would be the latent delay for a remote operator in a situation where tower issues a go around because someone crossed the hold short line or misses the hold short altogether as one example of a reason to go around, a second or two could be a huge difference in some situations?
Next, a completely infallible autoflight system would have to be designed, completely infallible, how many redundancies would be needed for that? At what point would the cost of the system outweigh the perceived need?
What would the computer do fighting an onboard fire in the avionics bay? This is a situation that requires two pilots and probably worst case scenario, one to hand fly another to run the checklist to fight the fire, would the computer consider of off airport landing or even recognize and be able to implement that plan.
Far too many variables and some smart people will at some point figure they have it covered until a, “we didn’t account for that” situation comes up, for me I hope I don’t see this in my lifetime or that my kids don’t either!
On the topic, ALPA has authorized all means available to stop this initiative, I for one hope they succeed.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by trey kule »

When engineers designed aircraft, I don’t think they ever expected a pilot to stall an aircraft and then pull back on the stick. But the crew in AF did exactly that. And at the end there were three human pilots in the cockpit..
And Indont think engineers ever expected that a herd of senior pilots would do an approach and when they got to low/slow, not think about adding power...but they did.
Or did the engineers anticipate a flight crew identifying and feathering the wrong engine...
But they did....

In the grand scheme of things, there will be accidents. This insane belief that there should be zero accidents is great for getting higher budgets to govt departments, but it is , at least at this juncture, unrealistic.

The question is can one, two, even three flight crew members be eliminated or substituted with a ground based pilot...think a cruise pilot on the ground, one in the cockpit, and one flight crew resting on long hauls.
That technology is not far off, as it does not eliminate the human factors Rockie likes to continually stress.

The issue with this discussion, I see, is twofold. One, the posters who want to go to extremes to prove their point, and 2. Not considering the balance of probability that more technology will be eventually a suitable replacement. Not accident free. But reduced accidents is the goal here. And the issue of passangers is not relevant as I expect it will begin with cargo only, long haul, and reduce the inflight crew from 3 to two.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

trey kule wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 1:44 pm When engineers designed aircraft, I don’t think they ever expected a pilot to stall an aircraft and then pull back on the stick. But the crew in AF did exactly that.
Did the engineers expect the pitot tubes to ice up, the air data computers go crazy and the autopilots to fail? If so why didn't they prevent it so the crew wouldn't be put in that position in the first place?
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by trey kule »

I expect they will in the future. No learning curve for pilots, right?
And maybe add a canister of gas to neutralize the flight crew and a few lines more of code to cause a pitch down...
or maybe some kind of capusule so the Capt would get 8 hours of alcohol free rest.....never heard of automation staying up all night before a flight....but that is some of the charming emotional human charm you kerp speaking of...

We are never going to agree as I am getting to much enjoyment from disagreeing....
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

trey kule wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 2:40 pm
We are never going to agree...
Well, we agree on that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4762
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by trey kule »

Well played. :prayer:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
User avatar
C-GGGQ
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2051
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 12:33 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by C-GGGQ »

The point of ground based pilots for military drones is to keep people out of warzones and harms way. There is no practical reason for ground based crews on a passenger plane. Its an unecessary complication.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 959
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by confusedalot »

So now we are talking ground based pilots on a pilotless aircraft thread. What's the point of putting them behind a desk? You still need a pilot. Who cares where he is situated. You are still paying a salary to that person.

It appears to me that you can take an off the shelf well equipped airliner today and make it operate on it's own with a few more automated systems. All you need is auto taxi, takeoff, collision and weather avoidance, gear and flap actuating, autoflight selections and yer done. All within current technology, actually ten year or more technology. Weather avoidance may be a bit dicey though, weather radar is good but not great, still takes alot of human interpretation. Handling an emergency through automated means is really no big deal....cargo fire...no problem.....fire the bottles, divert to closest airport.

ATC can easily be provided with the tools to direct the machine with a mouse or some very basic keyboard commands, therefore ensuring separation, by replacing verbal or cpdlc type communications. No big deal there.

But, ATC effectively becomes the operator of the aircraft, raising responsability and legal issues.

Even though it can be done in a perfect world, I can't see it happenning anytime soon. Primarily because of cost, but also because of regulatory inertia and, down the road, acceptance by the ordinary person on the street. Met a few non aviation people over time who are absolutely terrified of airplanes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?
Posthumane
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 6:16 pm

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Posthumane »


I'm sure Boeing does have many subject matter experts guiding the engineers in studying this, and the one in charge of this study quoted in the article seems to completely agree with me.
Perhaps you should read what he said again. You said the task is impossible until a true ai who is self aware is developed. He said that the technology won't be used until it can deal with emergency situations as well ss human pilots have. They are not at all the same statements. His I agree with.

BTW, did you know in the B787 there are many environmental conditions that exceed the autopilot's capabilities and autoland is not approved. There are many equipment faults that seriously degrade the autopilot's function, and by a very quick search of the QRH at least 3 that render the autopilot inoperative completely. I'm sure there are more that Boeing hasn't anticipated or figures will never happen so don't need a procedure for. Airbus used to think like that too when the 320 first came out. Their education has been a hard and bloody one over the years.

First rule when an engineer extols the virtues of his unproven creation...don't believe him.
Did you know that the 787 is an aircraft designed to be piloted by humans? Like the airbus, although it has some piecemeal automation to aide the pilots, it was obviously never designed to operate without them. Systems like the autopilot are not designed to the practical limit of reliability and redundancy because they don't have to be. Things like powerplants are, at much greater cost, because a total power failure carries much more risk than an autopilot failure. After all, the pilots can't pedal the damn thing. But even thren, total power failure can still happen, and that's simply a risk that's accepted. In autonomous aircraft where the autopilot is a critical item they are made with the same levels of redundancy as the powerplants. In small, cheap aircraft that means one questionable powerplant and one questionable autopilot, and in larger systems that can pose a real hazard it means multiple systems with error monitoring and fault tolerance, which can fly with several control system failures.

Btw, i have yet to see an organization where thr designers and engineers are supervised by tge equipment operators. The SMEs are typically other, more senior engineers.
Rockie wrote: Fri May 18, 2018 2:16 pm Did the engineers expect the pitot tubes to ice up, the air data computers go crazy and the autopilots to fail? If so why didn't they prevent it so the crew wouldn't be put in that position in the first place?
Indeed they did. Which is why they made alternate control laws which come into effect when the systems have some failures, relying on the pilot as the backup system. I'm sure you know a lot about alternate laws, since that is actually your area of expertise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." -George Bernard Shaw
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Boeing studies pilotless airplane

Post by Rockie »

Still missing the obvious point Posthumane. Dealing with all the possible emergencies requires a self aware real AI. You could cherry pick something and in 50 years build a system to deal with that one narrow set of circumstances, but we are required to deal with everything. You just don’t get that and never will it seems. That’s also why engineers are not supervised by senior engineers, they are supervised by SME’s.

Years ago in a different life my company hired at great expense software designers to build a scheduling program. These people knew how to build software...they did not know anything about what it was actually supposed to do and it was a dismal, expensive failure.

Engineers by themselves do not know anything about physically flying an aircraft and certainly know nothing about commanding one. How could they?

Stay in your lane.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”