Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Will we see combat jets and eventually passenger flights controlled from the ground?
Large Video Player 686x436
Large Video Player 686x436
Are Pilot's days numbered?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
I wonder if it's possible to hack into the control system. It would give a whole new meaning to hijacking.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
If it's electronic it's possible.
For a pilot there is not much in the way of controls that dont go via a computer anyway. Do they not already have auto take off and landing facilities ?
Bob
Bob
During all the speculation re: flight 370, a "talking head" opined that it was possible to do that today using a laptop if one were following such-and-such type airliner close enough behind.
'Had something to do with a glitch in airliner software, but I don't recall any of the particulars.
There was an American TV program recently when a group of ex pilots etc went to test something under full crash conditions (cannot recall what it was though) and so they 'acquired' a 727 (can't recall the model exactly can you see a pattern emerging here?) and following some trial and error (with pilots aboard to handle the practise landing), eventually flew it perfectly via a regular R/C controller from a chase plane around <1 klick behind, and then of course crashed it in a controlled manner (without occupants naturally)
It is not a great leap to assume that if they had the transmitting power it could be done at much higher operating frequencies, at perhaps even BVR. This was all achieved using cheap commercially available bits from the R/C world.
I found it a fascinating story, and I also claim the GT40's "Paddock's Longest Sentence Without a Pause, Whilst Making Sense although Tiring The Reader Beyond What is Normally Acceptable" Award. (Sentence 1)
I have to write in a hurry sometimes as I will not always remember the point if I take too long to do..to do....to.......to...........
It is not a great leap to assume that if they had the transmitting power it could be done at much higher operating frequencies, at perhaps even BVR. This was all achieved using cheap commercially available bits from the R/C world.
I found it a fascinating story, and I also claim the GT40's "Paddock's Longest Sentence Without a Pause, Whilst Making Sense although Tiring The Reader Beyond What is Normally Acceptable" Award. (Sentence 1)
I have to write in a hurry sometimes as I will not always remember the point if I take too long to do..to do....to.......to...........
I love seeing and reading postulations from media boneheads who earnestly predict that soon pilots will be rendered obsolete, and passengers will be flying around in unmanned airplanes.
Not a single one of those pinheads is actually a pilot. Heck, none of them probably even KNOWS a pilot.
While automation is great, it requires human inputs to actually do anything, and more importantly, nothing replaces human judgement. Flying is one of the most dynamic endeavors that mankind pursues, with an ever-changing environment that requires hundreds if not thousands of judgments, both large and small, on every flight.
Computers are incapable of judgment. They can only respond to programming, and no program algorithm is capable of predicting even a fraction of the number of variables faced by pilots all the time.
On my last flight, we suffered a loss of cabin pressure while aerial refueling with a tanker. It wasn't a complete loss; instead, it was a slow leak. It required judgment to analyze the situation, attempt corrective action, and then when that failed, coordinate with air traffic control and take the appropriate action (don oxygen and descend as rapidly as possible to a safe altitude, one that kept us clear of the rocks, and other traffic). Computers would be incapable of doing that on their own.
It's true that combat airplanes are quickly being replaced by unmanned weapons delivery platforms (drones). Those do have several advantages, not least of which is the fact that there is no great loss if one is shot down, whereas if a fighter pilot hits the silk, that becomes a Very Big Deal indeed.
While drones are remarkably effective in the air-to-ground role, what is less known is how incredibly unreliable they are. Flying drones is a very imperfect science, and they routinely (yes, routinely) crash. The reason you don't hear about it is because they are (a) unmanned, and (b) over there. Some drone crashes into a rocky hillside in a deserted part of Afghanistan, who cares? There's nobody even there to see it, and it is simply quietly wiped off the books.
Drones aren't allowed to fly in most of the world's airspace for that reason. If a drone crashed into Wal-Mart, you'd hear about it!
Airline passengers can and will routinely board an unmanned tram to take them from one airline terminal to another. Computers are well able to manage a simple task like that, especially considering the machines are on tracks. There are only a handful of variables (for instance, is a passenger blocking the doorway and preventing the door from closing?), and it's a relatively simple task to write a program that can manage all of them.
But it's likely we will never see people boarding an unmanned airliner, no matter what the media boneheads predict....
Not a single one of those pinheads is actually a pilot. Heck, none of them probably even KNOWS a pilot.
While automation is great, it requires human inputs to actually do anything, and more importantly, nothing replaces human judgement. Flying is one of the most dynamic endeavors that mankind pursues, with an ever-changing environment that requires hundreds if not thousands of judgments, both large and small, on every flight.
Computers are incapable of judgment. They can only respond to programming, and no program algorithm is capable of predicting even a fraction of the number of variables faced by pilots all the time.
On my last flight, we suffered a loss of cabin pressure while aerial refueling with a tanker. It wasn't a complete loss; instead, it was a slow leak. It required judgment to analyze the situation, attempt corrective action, and then when that failed, coordinate with air traffic control and take the appropriate action (don oxygen and descend as rapidly as possible to a safe altitude, one that kept us clear of the rocks, and other traffic). Computers would be incapable of doing that on their own.
It's true that combat airplanes are quickly being replaced by unmanned weapons delivery platforms (drones). Those do have several advantages, not least of which is the fact that there is no great loss if one is shot down, whereas if a fighter pilot hits the silk, that becomes a Very Big Deal indeed.
While drones are remarkably effective in the air-to-ground role, what is less known is how incredibly unreliable they are. Flying drones is a very imperfect science, and they routinely (yes, routinely) crash. The reason you don't hear about it is because they are (a) unmanned, and (b) over there. Some drone crashes into a rocky hillside in a deserted part of Afghanistan, who cares? There's nobody even there to see it, and it is simply quietly wiped off the books.
Drones aren't allowed to fly in most of the world's airspace for that reason. If a drone crashed into Wal-Mart, you'd hear about it!
Airline passengers can and will routinely board an unmanned tram to take them from one airline terminal to another. Computers are well able to manage a simple task like that, especially considering the machines are on tracks. There are only a handful of variables (for instance, is a passenger blocking the doorway and preventing the door from closing?), and it's a relatively simple task to write a program that can manage all of them.
But it's likely we will never see people boarding an unmanned airliner, no matter what the media boneheads predict....
Agreed. I seriously doubt the FAA (for instance) would even consider the idea in passing let alone sign off on it.
Similar threads
