I personally want human beings in the cockpit of any plane in which I am traveling. Computers can be hacked, and automated devices can fail.
8
I was once on a flight that made a very rough landing in a *heavy* rain storm. The flight crew came on the intercom congratulating us that we were on one of the first flights in history where the computer made the landing. Needless to say, I was not happy.
4
If we ever replace airplane pilots with robots because it 'saves labor costs,' (as suggested in a NYT story the other day,) then you will never find me in the air again. You will find me standing on the ground in the unemployment line next to Captain Sullenberger. To destroy jobs better done by human beings for the sake of 'efficiency' is to misplace our values.
15
All you need to know is in this youtube video, where the heroic Russian pilot saved hundreds of lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N5THRSp4hM
Computers don't make decisions like this. What we need is better computer intervention when the pilot is an idiot (Asiana crash) or the Spanish train engineer is chattering on the phone.
Computers don't make decisions like this. What we need is better computer intervention when the pilot is an idiot (Asiana crash) or the Spanish train engineer is chattering on the phone.
7
As an airline employee and private pilot, I agree wholeheartedly. Whoever says that pilots should be phased out by technology has never flown a plane. Think of it this way: the maneuvers executed by Captain Sullenberger (captain of the USAirways flight that ended up in the Hudson with no fatalities) and the captain of that United DC-10 that lost all hydraulics over Sioux City, Iowa some time ago, or the captain of the Air Canada 767 that lost both engines (he happened to be a recreational glider pilot who glided the disabled aircraft to a safe landing) could never have been planned in advance by a computer programmer.
13
I would remind Mr. Smith that it was that human pilot who flew that plane into the mountain and not a computer. The same probably goes for the disappeared Malaysian Air flight. Frankly, do I want a computer flying that plane or some monkey that just had a fight with his wife or significant other? How about a pilot that had too much to drink last night? How about a depressed pilot? Granted, computers are not the be-all and end-all for piloting aircraft, but I think I might trust that computer a tad bit more than a human being with all his/her psychiatric baggage.
3
Pilots aren't perfect and as the latest incident showed they can be downright dangerous, but the idea of a totally automated airplane carrying passengers is completely absurd. I hope that people are not that dumb as to go forward to that kind of future.
6
The myth of Icarus and the fiction of Jules Verne, Mary Shelley and H.G. Wells point to the hubris of mixing science and technology and complicated flawed human beings. Mistakes are and will be made.
While we seek knowledge and information and control we will never achieve perfection. When even our gods and demigods are less than omnipotent and omniscient what more can we expect from our human nature and nurture?
I have more faith in our carefully evolved 180-200 thousand year old biological nature than I do our technological scientific culturally nurtured prowess to matter and keep us reasonably safe. Even against the power of Mother Nature or some divine direction.
While we seek knowledge and information and control we will never achieve perfection. When even our gods and demigods are less than omnipotent and omniscient what more can we expect from our human nature and nurture?
I have more faith in our carefully evolved 180-200 thousand year old biological nature than I do our technological scientific culturally nurtured prowess to matter and keep us reasonably safe. Even against the power of Mother Nature or some divine direction.
3
Having a pilot right now is essential, and obviously safer, but I seriously doubt that 20 years down the line that would be the case. 10-20 years after fully automated airplane traffic(possibly with a remote pilot as a backup), all the glitches can be patched up. Plus a computer system can encompass a collective experience of all the possible situations from all the piloted aircraft. There is no doubt in my mind that commercial air traffic, can be made marginally safer and vastly more efficient through full automation.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is coming, as Airlines start cutting costs and technology become proven through freight air traffic.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is coming, as Airlines start cutting costs and technology become proven through freight air traffic.
1
The real issue here is institutional: All pilots know that flight physicals are a joke. It's basically an honor system, with pilots self-certifying their health status. So this isn't a matter of automation vs. humanity; it's a matter of replacing the honor code with an objective system for detecting health issues in individual pilots before they become safety issues for passengers.
5
Anything that can be controlled remotely can also be hacked remotely. For that reason alone, any notion of automated, ground-controlled aircraft is dangerous. Do we really want even a faint possibility of enabling terrorists to commandeer an airplane without even having to get on the flight?
9
Old joke but a good one. The plane takes off and a voice comes over the intercom: "Attention. This will be the first fully automated flight ever. There is no pilot, no co-pilot, no flight attendants. Everything is pre-programmed and run by an infallible computer system. Do not worry. Nothing can go wrong....go wrong....go wrong....go wrong....."
5
I don't know about Mr. Smith, but this good dog and I are planning our first flight in a pilotless
plane on the Fifth Day of Never.
plane on the Fifth Day of Never.
4
Anesthesiologists joke that our jobs amount to hours of boredom, interspersed with minutes of sheer terror. And we only have one life at a time under our hands. Thank you Mr. Smith for pointing out that, what can seem like a mundane task to some, is actually a complex series of steps that can easily go awry. Split decisions are best made with experience and knowledge, not with a computer program. While insurance companies (and some surgeons) would love to see us replaced by machines, no patient would like us to take care of them from a remote location. I've had many patients ask if I've slept well or had a fight with the wife. From now on, I'm bringing a box of chocolates, a big smile and genuine gratitude for you on board.
17
Ultimately, the problem boils down to whether you want your pilot to be on the plane with you, or safely on the ground. Pilots are the FINAL authority as to the safe operation of any airplane, by mandate. Not ATC (it's not "mission control," despite 70 years of the media trying to convince us otherwise), nobody else. Do we want a bureaucrat on the ground, more subject to management pressures, controlling things? Or, worse, do we want to rely on some engineer safely asleep at home having gotten every modal contingency right?
7
"Cue the aeronautics professor or university scientist who will blithely assert that yes, we are well on our way to a pilotless future." Ah yes, the bumbling, unrealistic profs claiming that the future will be different. Let's not miss a shot at them while discussing most any topic. Well, you can thank those profs for blithely assert we will cure cancer (we are on our way), have computers in our hand as powerful as any massive mainframe of the day (we do) and so many other things....like students learning advanced calculus, physics, physiology. Oh well, the pilot- author of this article, still has time to dis them, even when they are not really involved in the story?
1
Too bad we got a veteran pilot reassuring us on all the wrong things: that science fiction is, surprise, fiction. Sort of like explaining why driver-less cars have zero chance to come to fruition, or worse, why an Apple Watch is a waste of time for most of us. Am I the only one or are NYT readers being increasingly talked down to?
Hopefully Captain Smith gets invited again and maybe then he can give an insiders view on heavier topics like (a) medicated pilots (b) transponders that can be switched off unilaterally (c) the total absence of emergency communication capability outside the cockpit and (d) whether the bathroom break upon reaching cruising altitude is an industry ritual practiced more by male captains thumbing their nose down on lowly co-pilots or is it random, and whether the practice needs to be curtailed.
Hopefully Captain Smith gets invited again and maybe then he can give an insiders view on heavier topics like (a) medicated pilots (b) transponders that can be switched off unilaterally (c) the total absence of emergency communication capability outside the cockpit and (d) whether the bathroom break upon reaching cruising altitude is an industry ritual practiced more by male captains thumbing their nose down on lowly co-pilots or is it random, and whether the practice needs to be curtailed.
2
When cars and trains and busses are fully automatic, then aircraft will be. But they won't be... first.
2
There's an awful lot of misinformation out there- and this is the very worst kind. Glad to see the NYT setting things straight. As a former long-time private pilot, I can understand the reality of this article. JG-
2
"It’s also true that, unlike many of those who might counter my assertions, I have a solid understanding of the complexities of commercial flying, and of the complications that these futuristic endeavors would entail."
Thank goodness a pilot finally spoke up against this idiot idea. A pilot-less airplane? No way.
Thank goodness a pilot finally spoke up against this idiot idea. A pilot-less airplane? No way.
1
Advocates of self-driving cars should read this carefully. Many of the same concerns affect the soundness (or lack thereof) of turning our cars into automated transportation systems. Driving an automobile, which is not really "auto" at all, is a demanding task. Rather than turning it over to a system of computer commands, which are woefully prone to glitches, we'd do better to demand much higher training and performance levels for prospective drivers. We wouldn't put a pilot behind the controls of a commercial aircraft without intensive, extensive training, but we put ourselves behind the wheels of cars with little if any real training.
4
While I understand the necessity of having a pilot on command, i also think Mr. Smith only highlighted the negative aspects of automatization.
Giving the fact that he uses drones to draw parallels between automatization and manually controllable aircrafts, I think it is important to acknowledge that nowadays most vehicles in the US have some sort of automatic feature. Whether is cruise control to rear camera to censors, these technologies have helped drivers to operate a car in a more safely manner. We now have cars that can self-parked and break for us before we eve had time to react. So not all things automatic are bad. Of course, we all still need to pass a driver's test (some states lack of good driving education) to show we have the skills it takes to drive a vehicle.
I also think that programming an aircraft to take us from point A to point B could be safer in case of a hijack or even a suicidal pilot since the airliner would not deviate from the route that it was programmed to perform.
We shouldn't have a close mind, especially pilots, when it comes to new technologies and knowing that an automated aircraft won't be here any time soon, I wouldn't worry to lose my job as a pilot.
Giving the fact that he uses drones to draw parallels between automatization and manually controllable aircrafts, I think it is important to acknowledge that nowadays most vehicles in the US have some sort of automatic feature. Whether is cruise control to rear camera to censors, these technologies have helped drivers to operate a car in a more safely manner. We now have cars that can self-parked and break for us before we eve had time to react. So not all things automatic are bad. Of course, we all still need to pass a driver's test (some states lack of good driving education) to show we have the skills it takes to drive a vehicle.
I also think that programming an aircraft to take us from point A to point B could be safer in case of a hijack or even a suicidal pilot since the airliner would not deviate from the route that it was programmed to perform.
We shouldn't have a close mind, especially pilots, when it comes to new technologies and knowing that an automated aircraft won't be here any time soon, I wouldn't worry to lose my job as a pilot.
When I was flying the 767 at UAL, the head of Boeing engineering came along for a ride in the cockpit. He spoke with pride about how great the automation worked to seamlessly navigate the plane from shortly after takeoff to touchdown on the destination runway. I told him to not get too confident about that because I had never been able to do a completely flight on the automated system without once - and usually several times - finding it necessary to disconnect the automation, make an adjustment and reconnect it. He said he could not understand that; he said, "it works every time in the simulator." Maybe so. But not in the real world.
2
The drive to automate pilots out of the cockpit does not come from the idealistic notion of automation being safer. Far from it. It comes from greed from corporate america (airlines). Nothing more and nothing less. Pilots have limited work hours, require sufficient rest periods, training, medical benefits, pensions, raises, bonuses, belong to unions, etc..
A flying computer software does not require any of the above. Computer software can run indefinitely. It does not complain about long flight hours or how long it is away from family. Computer software does not need medical benefits, insurance, training, pensions, 401k, salary raises, and does not belong to unions.
Furthermore, computer software can be had for cheap by software programmers in India and China. The last updates for the Boeing 737 were notorious for having more parts assembled in a substandard way in Mexico and other third world countries. Boeing factory workers complained about the substandard parts used in the assembly of the latest 737s. Again, money comes first.
And if an airliner crashes, the phased out pilots are two less benefits the airline has to pay out.
A flying computer software does not require any of the above. Computer software can run indefinitely. It does not complain about long flight hours or how long it is away from family. Computer software does not need medical benefits, insurance, training, pensions, 401k, salary raises, and does not belong to unions.
Furthermore, computer software can be had for cheap by software programmers in India and China. The last updates for the Boeing 737 were notorious for having more parts assembled in a substandard way in Mexico and other third world countries. Boeing factory workers complained about the substandard parts used in the assembly of the latest 737s. Again, money comes first.
And if an airliner crashes, the phased out pilots are two less benefits the airline has to pay out.
3
The only way you can replace a pilot is with AI which doesn't exist yet. When a computer can make a weighted decisions then we may finally be going in an AI flightdeck controlled direction. For example, takeoff out of LGA you hit a flock of geese the right engine quits the left engine is on fire. The automation we have now would say FIRE! Shut down the left engine! A human brain says, well atleast I still have some thrust comming out of he left engine, lets keep it running until I can turn the right engine back on or land with the left engine ASAP.
1
And don't forget, start the APU. Not in the Airbus check list that comes up on the ECAM for single engine failure, But it was a critical decision Captain Sullenberger made immediately which provided electrical power when the second engine spooled down..
I'm a retired military and major commercial airline pilot.
No one is seriously suggesting pilots should be replaced by autopilots and computers. We have many examples of basic airmanship saving the plane and passengers after a major inflight failure of an essential aircraft system. This isn't the problem. The real problem is that airline human resources people and the FAA are letting pilots with weak hand flying skills and/or psychological and mental problems sneak thru the training and hire selection process. If the industry and its regulators can somehow weed out the unstable and poor pilots, most accidents will never occur.
No one is seriously suggesting pilots should be replaced by autopilots and computers. We have many examples of basic airmanship saving the plane and passengers after a major inflight failure of an essential aircraft system. This isn't the problem. The real problem is that airline human resources people and the FAA are letting pilots with weak hand flying skills and/or psychological and mental problems sneak thru the training and hire selection process. If the industry and its regulators can somehow weed out the unstable and poor pilots, most accidents will never occur.
6
A plane full of people without pilots? What a crazy idea!
1
This seems like a throwback to the pilot machismo of the early days of flight. I trust the engineers who designed and built the planes who say that they can indeed fly themselves. The technology is there. We already see it being used in multiple other applications. In any case, for the time being, no one is talking about replacing airline pilots, just having a way to lock out the pilots and fly the plane remotely in the event of an emergency.
"Pilot" machismo? Or maybe, for once, paying attention to someone who actually knows what they are talking about. As a teacher, I'm real tired of outside "experts" who've never been in a classroom telling me how I should teach/how to evaluate me. Same for pilots. Also remember: there are TWO pilots on every commercial airliner, not one.
2
I'll be comfortable flying in a pilotless commercial plane when the President takes off in Airforce One sans pilot.
4
Three words: Captain "Sully" Sullenberger
9
Hopefully, there will be only few suicidal pilots in the future. About one in five years seems to be inevitable, though.
"I would much rather have an experienced physically/mentally able pilot flying the plane in which I travel than a computer. "
----------------------
But therein lies the problem, eh? Again, the latest crash that killed 150+ people was crashed by a human and not a computer. Face the fact that our current state of psychiatric science just is not able to pick out the depressed or suicidal pilot. We do not understand psychosis all that well. We can describe externally what we see in an individual but never really know what is going on in that brain. Even physically, how many times have we heard of people leaving the office of their physician with a supposedly clean bill of health, and then drop dead on the sidewalk. We must face the fact that humans are frail both mentally and physically.
----------------------
But therein lies the problem, eh? Again, the latest crash that killed 150+ people was crashed by a human and not a computer. Face the fact that our current state of psychiatric science just is not able to pick out the depressed or suicidal pilot. We do not understand psychosis all that well. We can describe externally what we see in an individual but never really know what is going on in that brain. Even physically, how many times have we heard of people leaving the office of their physician with a supposedly clean bill of health, and then drop dead on the sidewalk. We must face the fact that humans are frail both mentally and physically.
I would much rather have an experienced physically/mentally able pilot flying the plane in which I travel than a computer.
As read in V.F. 10/2014 "Wiener's Laws"-
Every device creates its own opportunity for human error.
Exotic devices create exotic problems.
Digital devices tune out small errors while creating opportunities for large errors.
Invention is the mother of necessity.
Some problems have no solution.
It takes an airplane to bring out the worst in a pilot.
Whenever you solve a problem, you usually create one. You can only hope that the one you created is less critical than the one you eliminated.
You can never be too rich or too thin (Duchess of Windsor) or too careful about what you put into a digital flight-guidance system (Wiener).
As read in V.F. 10/2014 "Wiener's Laws"-
Every device creates its own opportunity for human error.
Exotic devices create exotic problems.
Digital devices tune out small errors while creating opportunities for large errors.
Invention is the mother of necessity.
Some problems have no solution.
It takes an airplane to bring out the worst in a pilot.
Whenever you solve a problem, you usually create one. You can only hope that the one you created is less critical than the one you eliminated.
You can never be too rich or too thin (Duchess of Windsor) or too careful about what you put into a digital flight-guidance system (Wiener).
5
I'm glad someone wrote this article, "Why Pilots Still Matter," because the first thing I think when I'm flying in an airplane is, "Why is there a human being flying this plane??" Thanks for putting this one to bed, Patrick Smith.
1
Ha ha 53. Add why won't the black box send all the data all the time everywhere over high-speed satellite?
1
what was there? an alert "Save your Job" . I've never seen so many people claim to be pilots- usually on the internet tubes its doctors and seals
I will not fly in a pilotless plane. Talk about really bad possible scenarios....Not into driverless cars either. Take public transit if you don't want to drive.
2
I will remind you that the recent plane crash in France was done by a human pilot who that plane into a mountain--not a computer. Same goes for the Malaysian Air flight a bit over a year ago. When you look at crash statistics, most of the causes come back to pilot error--sorry to disappoint you. You must face the fact that human beings are fragile things, both physically and psychologically. Is the training the best? How much are airlines willing to spend on that training? After all they are run by accountants. Do not think for a moment that the "bean counters" do not think in terms of payouts for crash victims and their families. They have those data down to a "T" and will not spend more than the payouts.
I suppose you also oppose automated autos. But take a look at the statistics again, it is driver error in most fatal crashes and accidents. Human beings are bags of psychosis and minds that can be altered by drugs and alcohol. Frankly, I can't wait until cars are automated!
I suppose you also oppose automated autos. But take a look at the statistics again, it is driver error in most fatal crashes and accidents. Human beings are bags of psychosis and minds that can be altered by drugs and alcohol. Frankly, I can't wait until cars are automated!
April 10, 2015
After the 2001 Space Odyssey film and the Suicide co pilot his Lufthansa plane - we surely are well aware that both machine and human mind are a check and balance to how we work and understand that a potential for errors or whatever needs the interaction smarts - and indeed by the managerial observers with aid from scholarship in multidisciplinary schools...
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
After the 2001 Space Odyssey film and the Suicide co pilot his Lufthansa plane - we surely are well aware that both machine and human mind are a check and balance to how we work and understand that a potential for errors or whatever needs the interaction smarts - and indeed by the managerial observers with aid from scholarship in multidisciplinary schools...
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
6
Short answer: Sully and the Miricle on the Hudson; NO i repeat NO computer can do that.
4
The industry will find no willing passenger market for drone flights, may not even find a willing market (let alone insurers) for drone cargo flights, given the liabilities and risk to persons and property below. When they pay test pilots to ride along and save the day, maybe. At which point they may as well pay qualified pilots to operate the flights. And so we loop back to status quo.
1
Pilots motivated by terrorism or suicide are a rare phenomenon. The vast majority (~99.8%) want to survive a flight as much as I do as a passenger. Therefore, I plan to fly manned aircraft when I travel. Somehow being piloted by a person on the ground doesn't comfort me. They just don't have enough skin in the game (literally).
6
Reminds me of the old joke where Bill Gates buys one of the troubled airlines and using MS software creates the world's first fully automated flight. The plane takes off without incident and smoothly ascends to cruising altitude. An announcement over the intercom explains to the passengers that it is an automated flight with no human intervention. Everything has been taken care of by computer and absolutely nothing can go wrong...can go wrong...can go wrong...
1
An excellent antidote to the drivel that's been out there these past few weeks.
8
In a remote-piloted airplane, the passengers become nothing more than pawns in an overblown video game; pixels on a monitor. The "pilot" of a fully automated aircraft has absolutely no skin in the game. He walks away regardless of the final outcome of the flight he just "piloted".
I, for one, will never step foot on a pilotless airplane.
I, for one, will never step foot on a pilotless airplane.
10
Good article. I want an experienced pilot running the computers. We have seen the disaster we get when "health care management" combines with "EMR-electronic medical records" and "midlevel providers (nurse practitioners with maybe 600 hours of training)" and computer assisted decision making. It works for the routine sore throat case just as it would work for the routine flight.....but how about the rest of them and how do you know ahead of time it is not going to be routine? About the last person I want flying the plane is a software "solutions" person commanded by a multi million dollar insurance executive/airline executive suit. Problem is the health care scam only kills one person at a time while if we let the information technology/high finance scammers take over the cockpits we will kill 400 at a time. There are too many variables and ultimately an experienced human is what you need when things don't go right. You are paying the pilot not for the routine flight but for the disaster he avoids, perhaps once in a thousand flights just as you are paying the doctor not for the treatment of a sore throat but for the ability to sense that it might be throat cancer....perhaps once in ten thousand times.
10
A skilled pilot is a joy to read, know, or, I imagine, be.
But if the public daydreams about automatic or automated pilots, there are 2 reasons that come to mind. First, the plane maufacturers have touted the plane that "flies itself" for decades now, especially the Airus-maker. Boeing has joined the crowd.
Secondly, there the scary if rare suicidal, drunken, drugged, or physically inacpacitated pilots whose stories make page one.
Oher possible causes for our disregard for human pilots? Since the union-busting of Reagan's administration, we've saw the erosion of pay for pilots and air traffic controllers, and it continues today even as planes get larger and flights more common. We've drunk the Kool Ade, creating an audience of unhappy and naive or ignorant passengers, fodder for the money-losing airlines and the union-hating populace. Sad.
But if the public daydreams about automatic or automated pilots, there are 2 reasons that come to mind. First, the plane maufacturers have touted the plane that "flies itself" for decades now, especially the Airus-maker. Boeing has joined the crowd.
Secondly, there the scary if rare suicidal, drunken, drugged, or physically inacpacitated pilots whose stories make page one.
Oher possible causes for our disregard for human pilots? Since the union-busting of Reagan's administration, we've saw the erosion of pay for pilots and air traffic controllers, and it continues today even as planes get larger and flights more common. We've drunk the Kool Ade, creating an audience of unhappy and naive or ignorant passengers, fodder for the money-losing airlines and the union-hating populace. Sad.
7
Automation works extremely well until you reach a situation that requires fast, creative thinking that an automated system might not be able to manage., things like choosing very quickly the best option among a lot of different possibilities and safely navigating and landing a gliding airliner on the Hudson River with no lives lost. An automated system might be to invariant to pull off the same feat.
7
Fully automated misses the point.
Surely there should be some "fail safe" system to prevent a suicidal pilot from making an obviously wrong and dangerous manual input. For many years there have been governors to prevent trucks or buses from going too fast. Pilot tries to put an airliner into a suicidal maneuver, the system would automatically override.
Surely there should be some "fail safe" system to prevent a suicidal pilot from making an obviously wrong and dangerous manual input. For many years there have been governors to prevent trucks or buses from going too fast. Pilot tries to put an airliner into a suicidal maneuver, the system would automatically override.
1
I think it's worth reviewing the Air France crash in the Atlantic a few years back, where the automatic systems in the aircraft shut down completely in favor of human intervention when its eyes and ears started providing conflicting information and went silent. The plane functioned as designed -- it shut itself down and sounded the alarm so that humans could step in and resolve the very complex problem being presented.
In Air France's case the three pilots in the cockpit had not spent enough time dealing with a troubled system to correct the problem. That's an indication of human failure, but not in the way you might think. These gentlemen had not been given the proper training and sufficient time on the stick to assess and resolve the problem. The fact that all three were incapable of saving the craft is an indication of systemic design errors in Air France's (and likely other airlines') pilot development program, not the aircraft. They had a very real purpose to serve on that plane but require proper training, support and procedures to carry out their jobs in a 99.9999999% fashion.
I'm the guy who codes these things. You take the pilot out of the craft and I'm not flying. Flying a plane remotely probably makes it more likely for someone to crash one, and having one run fully automatically, even if that is possible in the future, is building a single point of failure into the system. Bad idea, bad engineering, bad policy.
J.
In Air France's case the three pilots in the cockpit had not spent enough time dealing with a troubled system to correct the problem. That's an indication of human failure, but not in the way you might think. These gentlemen had not been given the proper training and sufficient time on the stick to assess and resolve the problem. The fact that all three were incapable of saving the craft is an indication of systemic design errors in Air France's (and likely other airlines') pilot development program, not the aircraft. They had a very real purpose to serve on that plane but require proper training, support and procedures to carry out their jobs in a 99.9999999% fashion.
I'm the guy who codes these things. You take the pilot out of the craft and I'm not flying. Flying a plane remotely probably makes it more likely for someone to crash one, and having one run fully automatically, even if that is possible in the future, is building a single point of failure into the system. Bad idea, bad engineering, bad policy.
J.
55
Interesting that the 747 made it though the storm while the Airbus didn't. I'll take a Boeing over an Airbus any day.
Thank you Captain Smith!. Reality is fairly important cruising along at mach 7.6 at 38,000 feet in a pressurized can full of souls.
And a question for all you code jockeys out there: even if the human component was eliminated from the flight deck there are still thousands of human hands required for a flight to take place. Providing it is even possible, how fare away is the code for anticipating every potential human error that could begin the cascade to catastrophic failure of the complex systems we call airplanes?
And a question for all you code jockeys out there: even if the human component was eliminated from the flight deck there are still thousands of human hands required for a flight to take place. Providing it is even possible, how fare away is the code for anticipating every potential human error that could begin the cascade to catastrophic failure of the complex systems we call airplanes?
Mach 7.6 is crazy! At best a commercial plane does Mach 0.7 to 0.8.
1
While I understand the necessity of having people being in control of commercial airplanes, the comparison the author makes to military drones should be erroneous.
First of all, drones are a new technology that keeps evolving and becoming more accurate. The fact that he says that more than 450 drone crashes have occurred since 2001--I'd like to know how many drone crashes have happened in the past year--,should also be compare to the first days of civil aviation when they were many crashes as well
Secondly, the purpose of drones is very different from those of commercial jets. Most drones are controlled by people in a specific location. The author makes it seem that drones have artificial intelligence which makes the device makes its own decisions, it doesn't.
Thirdly, I believe the author has a hidden agenda on this topic which is Airbus planes being more automated than Boeing aircrafts. This is a hot topic that can be found on any airline industry website/blog.
What the author forgets to mention is that many times a crash is due to a human error.
First of all, drones are a new technology that keeps evolving and becoming more accurate. The fact that he says that more than 450 drone crashes have occurred since 2001--I'd like to know how many drone crashes have happened in the past year--,should also be compare to the first days of civil aviation when they were many crashes as well
Secondly, the purpose of drones is very different from those of commercial jets. Most drones are controlled by people in a specific location. The author makes it seem that drones have artificial intelligence which makes the device makes its own decisions, it doesn't.
Thirdly, I believe the author has a hidden agenda on this topic which is Airbus planes being more automated than Boeing aircrafts. This is a hot topic that can be found on any airline industry website/blog.
What the author forgets to mention is that many times a crash is due to a human error.
About 25 years ago, my father, a former military pilot and aviation enthusiast, told me a futuristic "joke" about the first totally computerized commercial flight from NY to Paris. After take-off, the computerized-pilot regaled the passengers about this being the first totally computerized airline flight without a human pilot in the cockpit. After relating the cruising altitude and time in route to Paris, the "pilot" then assured the passengers that "nothing can go wrong . . . go wrong, go wrong, go wrong . . . ." Back to the future!
People seem to believe that a pilotless aircraft or a self-driving car... controlled by software written by humans... will somehow be safer than one controlled directly by humans.
How can adding several additional layers of complexity, with all the additional possibilities for errors, bugs, mistakes, design flaws, equipment failures, sensor integration problems, and ill-advised cost-cutting measures, possibly make a vehicle safer? Would you want a plane that was as reliable as your computer operating system or the aps on your cell phone? I rest my case.
How can adding several additional layers of complexity, with all the additional possibilities for errors, bugs, mistakes, design flaws, equipment failures, sensor integration problems, and ill-advised cost-cutting measures, possibly make a vehicle safer? Would you want a plane that was as reliable as your computer operating system or the aps on your cell phone? I rest my case.
2
Maybe it's too far in the past but in the first moon landing Neil Armstrong had to override the computer controlled landing to avoid something the program did not account for: big rocks in the landing area. Yes, technology now is light years more advanced but not all contingencies can be foreseen. Advanced computer code is now so complex that it cannot be checked by humans; another complex computer program debugs it. There is no perfect safety in anything. Every activity has inherent risk. As a former flight instructor I am comforted by the level of training that American airline pilots receive and would never entrust my life to a totally automated airplane
1
Pilots still matter, but in 10-15 years I'd expect them to become a formality at best (in the same way that automation is taking over for cars).
ed anger - I'd argue that we need to maintain a certain minimum level of pilot involvement in flight ops in order to ensure that pilots would be ready for the rare moments in your future scenario when they'd be needed. Such moments could never be eliminated completely.
Regarding others' comments about ground-based piloting via radio waves, I'd reply with one word: hackers.
Finally, I think it's worthwhile to remember that the Andreas Lubitz scenario, while terrifying almost beyond comprehension, represents virtually zero percent of air travel AND it can be mitigated with the two-people-on-the-flight-deck procedure. (I'd make it three people, in fact.)
Regarding others' comments about ground-based piloting via radio waves, I'd reply with one word: hackers.
Finally, I think it's worthwhile to remember that the Andreas Lubitz scenario, while terrifying almost beyond comprehension, represents virtually zero percent of air travel AND it can be mitigated with the two-people-on-the-flight-deck procedure. (I'd make it three people, in fact.)
1
There's an apropos joke about the airplane of the future. In the cockpit there will be a pilot and a dog. The pilot's job is to feed the dog and the dog's job is to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.
1
Captain Sully in the Hudson River? Could a computer 'pilot' have done that? Not a chance, IMHO. Keep the pilots in the cockpit, please....
5
Captain "Sully" Sullenberger landed in the Hudson because he had time to look up the correct angle of descent in his manual and because of the self-leveling and glide-speed adjusting auto-pilot. This is just the sort of thing a computer can do instantly. A computer would also be able to instantly analyze all the data, including the temperature, wind speed/direction, speed of the aircraft, and angle of descent, and make the best landing possible given the circumstances. A human pilot, subject to a myriad of other human failings or obstructions could have just as easily killed 155 people. It would have been "disaster on the Hudson" instead of "miracle on the Hudson." Using one example of a skilled piloted landing does not change the statistics: 70% of all air crashes are due to human error or suicide/genocide. Incredible computer landings in all kinds of situations will not be miracles--they will be marvels of automatic flying.
By the way, Sully forgot to flip the "ditch switch" which was designed to seal off the bottom of the craft from water entry. Subsequent flight runs in a simulator indicate that a computer pilot would have probably been able to immediately assess the bird strike damage and return to the airport, without loss of the aircraft and with less danger to life.
By the way, Sully forgot to flip the "ditch switch" which was designed to seal off the bottom of the craft from water entry. Subsequent flight runs in a simulator indicate that a computer pilot would have probably been able to immediately assess the bird strike damage and return to the airport, without loss of the aircraft and with less danger to life.
I believe a recent video of airliners landing in a strong crosswind shows why pilots will still be necessary for some time to come.
1
You are correct at the current state of the technological art. But self driving cars are advancing quickly; self-flying planes should benefit from the same technology that is making the cars possible. We're not ready for pilotless aircraft yet, but we might be in a few years.
1
The cockpit avionics on the Germanwings A320 were 20 years old. The cockpit design, etc on the 767 that Patrick flies was finalized in 1981. So, what do we do? Scrap the entire fleet, which will never happen? Or just wait for it to 'age out,' which will, also, never happen as there is no government limit on how long airframes can fly? I, regularly, fly airframes that were manufactured and flown during Vietnam or earlier.
Self-driving cars would eliminate all the fun in driving. This Massachusetts native and seasoned Bawstin drivah actually LIKES driving--especially with a manual transmission.
Commercial jets have been built with multiple redundant systems for every part of aircraft operation. For the brakes on a Boeing jet line to "fail", requires that all 4 braking systems fail simultaneously.
This level of engineered redundancy is what makes air travel so safe. By extension you would need 3-4 flight automation systems, as well. A human pilot is part of "command redundancy". What happens when these automated systems "disagree"?
This level of engineered redundancy is what makes air travel so safe. By extension you would need 3-4 flight automation systems, as well. A human pilot is part of "command redundancy". What happens when these automated systems "disagree"?
1
A safety dual problem that goes along with flight automation is monitoring technology. That is dramatically out of date as far as all aspects of what is going on with airline crews. We monitor and record casino employees much more closely. Obviously there are sensitive union and labor issues involved but I find it absurd that in this latest tragedy we are forced to rely on damaged black boxes and indirect audio to piece together what was really going on with the co-pilot.
1
In the old days pilots would talk, and instructors would teach, "seat-of-the-pants" flying which literally meant that a pilot could learn and sense aircraft movements based upon the pressure on one side of his "seat" or the other. These senses, and many many more, are honed over hundreds and then thousands of hours in the cockpit - with the 'hours of boredom punctuated by moments of shear terror." Perhaps in some distant future as artificial intelligence is honed to a fine science and human instincts can be replicated with 100% precision a serious discussion can be had concerning pilotless vehicles; but now and for a long time from now the learned hand of the skilled and trained pilot is an absolute necessity as the manager and arbiter of data and attitudes necessary for effective 'cockpit resource management.' Congratulations to Patrick Smith for sharing his important and accurate perspective.
5
It's time to read the 1950's Isaac Asimov short story, The Feeling of Power.
In it a lowly technician rediscovers hand arithmetic. The military quickly realizes the combat applications of this process. They begin immediately to make plans to replace super expensive computers piloting their aircraft with much, much cheaper humans who can do the same thing. When presented to the Great Programmer for a live demonstration, the meek technician solves a simple multiplication in his head. Given the answer, the Great Programmer asks, 'Does it reach the correct answer every time? Has it been checked by the computer?'
I think Asimov would be surprised, saddened, appalled, and fearful that we have reached a point he only imagined in jest.
In it a lowly technician rediscovers hand arithmetic. The military quickly realizes the combat applications of this process. They begin immediately to make plans to replace super expensive computers piloting their aircraft with much, much cheaper humans who can do the same thing. When presented to the Great Programmer for a live demonstration, the meek technician solves a simple multiplication in his head. Given the answer, the Great Programmer asks, 'Does it reach the correct answer every time? Has it been checked by the computer?'
I think Asimov would be surprised, saddened, appalled, and fearful that we have reached a point he only imagined in jest.
2
I agree with Captain Smith that pilot-less airliners are a long ways into the future. But remote monitoring and even control of aircraft is overdue. There should be systems that would detect situations such as an unexpected rapid descent and alerts operators not on the aircraft and that would allow in the most extreme circumstances for those remote operators to take control of the airplane in the same way that military drone operators control their drones.
The ground already knew what was happening, the aircraft was being tracked by ATC. The descent was handled by the computer, it was textbook. None of your conditions were met. They wouldn't have known there was a problem.
I really don't want to be in aircraft where the pilot has to fight a computer for control of the aircraft, do you?
I really don't want to be in aircraft where the pilot has to fight a computer for control of the aircraft, do you?
If this article is in response to calls for ground-controlled planes as a result of the Germanwings crash, it's clear that people aren't thinking things through. A pilot controlling the plane from the ground could just as easily crash a plane full of passengers from the ground, if he so decided, and without harming himself (though that seems to be the impetus for the Germanwing's pilot). Just like those reinforced cockpit doors made crashing that plane easier, so too would relegating pilots to the ground make crashing a plane less costly to the pilot.
Pilotless aviation is only good for non-passenger loads. There will always be a pilot on board a plane with passengers, even if he's only there for babysitting them until there is an emergency. Drone airplanes work for carrying cargo, like the rockets flown special delivery to the laps of the enemies of the American state, but also for ordinary stuff, such as UPS and FedEx planes carry. Moving cargo, however, is a small portion of the civil aviation industry. It is too expensive to fly something that can be sent over land or sea.
But Mr. Smith needn't worry. His job flying passengers should be safe.
Pilotless aviation is only good for non-passenger loads. There will always be a pilot on board a plane with passengers, even if he's only there for babysitting them until there is an emergency. Drone airplanes work for carrying cargo, like the rockets flown special delivery to the laps of the enemies of the American state, but also for ordinary stuff, such as UPS and FedEx planes carry. Moving cargo, however, is a small portion of the civil aviation industry. It is too expensive to fly something that can be sent over land or sea.
But Mr. Smith needn't worry. His job flying passengers should be safe.
2
The future for both vehicles and aircraft will be full automation precisely because humans are too often emotional, reckless, distracted, inebriated, unreliable, suicidal, murderous and even genocidal. Seventy percent of air crashes are due to human choices or error. Virtually all of the 1.2 million deaths and 50 million injuries in motor vehicle crashes are due to humans. It takes one to know one: the (computer) machines will drive the (motor vehicle) machines better and better, but we un-enhanced humans will always do poorly because we are so unlike the machines. The humans at Volvo understand this very well and it is why they have announced the production of an autonomous car for which they will assume complete liability in the autonomous mode.
Humans will still ride along in airliners to take care of the emotional needs of the passengers. It's what humans do best. As soon as they are ready, let the machines run the machines.
Humans will still ride along in airliners to take care of the emotional needs of the passengers. It's what humans do best. As soon as they are ready, let the machines run the machines.
The sixty (60) million automobile recalls in the US last year belie your claim of human responsibility for accidents and machine intelligence immutability or you could simply watch a flash video on your computer for a few cycles.
You should probably read some Heidegger to find out why you are precisely wrong.
You should probably read some Heidegger to find out why you are precisely wrong.
Heaven help us if one programmer is psychotic. Their program will be disseminated to thousands of aircraft. The program will be able to kill hundreds of thousands–at one time.
You're kidding yourself to think that auto-driving cars will be any better than the first year computer science student who the manufacturer subcontracted with to write the code that controls the car. No insurance company would touch such a liability trap.
You're kidding yourself to think that auto-driving cars will be any better than the first year computer science student who the manufacturer subcontracted with to write the code that controls the car. No insurance company would touch such a liability trap.
The statistic you cite on the percentage of accidents caused by human error is true...but misleading in this context. It is akin to saying...100 percent of soccer games are caused by the goalie missing a save, so we must get rid of goalies. Humans find solutions and complete flights safely when the system, and requisite technology, dont function as planned. Which happens.
1
Want to fly on an autopilot only airplane? Or one operated from the ground? Here is the drone or autopilot test:
1. The maximum crosswind component for an automatic landing is 10 knots. Now let's see the auto-drone land with a 30 knot crosswind and an engine out. just after V1
2. Takeoff at maximum certified gross weight ("max gross"). 30 knot crosswind. Now you have an engine failure just after V1 - on the downwind side.
Good luck with that. THese are real-world scenarios, not daily, but they do occur. Pilots (real pilots) are trained in them.
Retired airline captain after 35 years.
1. The maximum crosswind component for an automatic landing is 10 knots. Now let's see the auto-drone land with a 30 knot crosswind and an engine out. just after V1
2. Takeoff at maximum certified gross weight ("max gross"). 30 knot crosswind. Now you have an engine failure just after V1 - on the downwind side.
Good luck with that. THese are real-world scenarios, not daily, but they do occur. Pilots (real pilots) are trained in them.
Retired airline captain after 35 years.
7
Our problem is, we don't have enough air wars for pilots to gain hands on experience in dogfights and attitude control. Still, as rare as plane crashes are, even rarer are bad pilots. We have the unions, not the airlines, to thank for that.
1
I am all the way with the excellent observations of the author, thanks to his clarity of arguments that we are not ready for a fully automated pilotless civil aircraft flight.
Just recall On 4 November 2010, after departing from Changi Airport, Singapore, Qantas Airbus A380 sustained an uncontained engine rotor failure of Rolls-Royce Trent 900. Debris impacted the aircraft, resulting in significant structural and systems damage. The flight crew managed the situation and, after completing the required actions for the multitude of system failures, safely returned to and landed at Changi Airport.
It was a remarkable human, Richard de Crespigny, deservingly called Captain Marvel who hands on airman ship that saved hundreds passengers of and crew.
This one remarkable episode alone is enough to justify the argument that world is not yet ready for fully automated flying a civil aircraft.
Just recall On 4 November 2010, after departing from Changi Airport, Singapore, Qantas Airbus A380 sustained an uncontained engine rotor failure of Rolls-Royce Trent 900. Debris impacted the aircraft, resulting in significant structural and systems damage. The flight crew managed the situation and, after completing the required actions for the multitude of system failures, safely returned to and landed at Changi Airport.
It was a remarkable human, Richard de Crespigny, deservingly called Captain Marvel who hands on airman ship that saved hundreds passengers of and crew.
This one remarkable episode alone is enough to justify the argument that world is not yet ready for fully automated flying a civil aircraft.
47
I agree with Mr Smith. But one pilot flight decks might not be to far in the future.
1
The avionics on the Germanwings A320 were 20 years old. The original avionics design on the 767s that Patrick flies are 34 years old. Even the avionics in the Boeing 787–'brand new' 'state of the art'–were designed 6 years ago. There is no government specified maximum age for airframes. I flew DC-4s in firefighting that were immediately post-war. Helos who's airframe, etc was built and flown in Vietnam. I shudder to think how many 737s are out there hauling passengers that are 20+ years.
IF they were planning on building one pilot airframes they would have to start from scratch. At least 20 years in development. Then they'd have to wait until all the aircraft flying aged out. It might happen, but it won't happen in your lifetime; nor in your children's life times; probably not in your grandchildrens' life times.
Assuming that anyone was planning on building one pilot airframes. And there are a plethora of reasons for having two pilots I am sure you are not aware of.
IF they were planning on building one pilot airframes they would have to start from scratch. At least 20 years in development. Then they'd have to wait until all the aircraft flying aged out. It might happen, but it won't happen in your lifetime; nor in your children's life times; probably not in your grandchildrens' life times.
Assuming that anyone was planning on building one pilot airframes. And there are a plethora of reasons for having two pilots I am sure you are not aware of.
My father flew the Navy equivalent of a DC-6 and later instructed and flew for a large airline. In order to maintain his skills he manually flew every other flight. While in the Navy he had one notable flight from Honolulu to Anchorage, AK where the jet stream was so low that the entire flight had to be flown at an altitude of 1000 feet to avoid the fuel robbing headwinds. Returning to Honolulu they set the piston engine speed record for that route by riding the same jet stream back at a more comfortable altitude. On another flight they lost their rudder and brought the plane back to a safe landing using differential power via the right and left throttles and the ailerons to turn the plane.
Most pilots actually love to fly but the skill sets have changed.
Now days autopilots are deemed to be more fuel efficient and the fuel efficiency of individual pilots monitored. As the author points out, actual hands-on-control of present flights can be measured in minutes.
Most pilots actually love to fly but the skill sets have changed.
Now days autopilots are deemed to be more fuel efficient and the fuel efficiency of individual pilots monitored. As the author points out, actual hands-on-control of present flights can be measured in minutes.
5
Patrick said, "..symptomatic of our infatuation with technology and gadgetry, and the belief that we can compute our way out of every problem." -- as being the impetus for pilotless aircraft. I think it's really a smaller part. I believe the lust for pilotless aircraft is driven by the bottom line, i.e., management and stockholders. Fact is, cabin crew (unions, etc.) are their most costly ongoing expense. Germanwings was an aberration and sadly, a convenient obfuscation of that goal.
7
I just think about what would have happened to the US Airways flight the landed on the Hudson River. My bet is an automated control system would not have considered a river landing and might have opted to land at the closest airport and probably not made it. The decision to ditch in the river was based on the pilot's judgement and proved to be the right choice.
23
A computer is only as good as the programmer and mathematicians who give it life. Plane lost both engines and is falling fast? Programming would weigh the odds: land, airfield, highway, grassy plain, or river? Then it would select based on criteria its makers held, and land with settings already positioned for such an emergency.
A pilot could help every step of the way.
A pilot could help every step of the way.
I have nothing but the highest respect for commercial pilots these days, given the complexities of their job, the tremendous responsibility they are imbued with, and the trust invested in them, plus having to deal with the disruptive behaviors of unruly passengers who impact their work. I say bravo to pilots like Patrick Smith, and I, for one, would be happy to be one of his passengers in a heart beat, knowing that an experienced responsible person is at the helm.
23
Fully automated automobiles also present a golden opportunity for terrorists to drive mobile bombs right up to select locations without the bother of having to recruit a suicide bomber. Think about it for only a moment, and you realize that autonomous vehicles of any kind make one-way trips less risky for the terrorist and probably a lot more dependable.
A fully automated yacht full of nitrates and oil could take out a cruise ship full of American bourgeoisie--now that would be a grand gesture! A fully automated hummingbird lands on your shoulder and blows your head off!
Fully automated snakes crawl through the fence into your city's water supply carrying a tailored bio-bug that will grow logarithmically
The underlying question--will humans with an agenda use such technology? Of course they will. Some folks, if they have a nuke they will use it. If they have a hacker technique, they will use it. If they have a useful lie, they will tell it. If they have a pitchfork and you aren't looking, they will stick it in your back.
The only real security lies in having fellow human beings we can trust to be professional, alert, meticulously thorough, and adaptable to circumstances that may spring up for which no suitable solution can be programmed in advance.
A fully automated yacht full of nitrates and oil could take out a cruise ship full of American bourgeoisie--now that would be a grand gesture! A fully automated hummingbird lands on your shoulder and blows your head off!
Fully automated snakes crawl through the fence into your city's water supply carrying a tailored bio-bug that will grow logarithmically
The underlying question--will humans with an agenda use such technology? Of course they will. Some folks, if they have a nuke they will use it. If they have a hacker technique, they will use it. If they have a useful lie, they will tell it. If they have a pitchfork and you aren't looking, they will stick it in your back.
The only real security lies in having fellow human beings we can trust to be professional, alert, meticulously thorough, and adaptable to circumstances that may spring up for which no suitable solution can be programmed in advance.
7
Automation is rarely all or nothing. It never works that way in reality, these are piecemeal transitions. My friend showed me in his new Infinity that it automatically stopped before hitting the car in front of us, no pressing of the brake required. For Germanwings flights, when there is a situation when the aircraft systems or ground controllers identify the pilot is on a crash course could there not a similar fail safe?
1
When AF447 stalled and crashed into the middle of the Atlantic in 2009, one of the causes was the pilots being overly reliant on the automation and unable to recover an aerodynamic stall. In this case, speed sensors (pitot tubes) iced up and the autopilot disengaged.
After this, there were calls to increase pilot training and become less reliant on automation. Now you have a rogue pilot, and automation is popular again.
Instead of the news cycle determining what makes flying machines costing hundreds of millions, carrying tens of millions of people safer, lets instead listen to people who do this for a living, air safety authorities and airplane manufacturers.
After this, there were calls to increase pilot training and become less reliant on automation. Now you have a rogue pilot, and automation is popular again.
Instead of the news cycle determining what makes flying machines costing hundreds of millions, carrying tens of millions of people safer, lets instead listen to people who do this for a living, air safety authorities and airplane manufacturers.
25
Automation is only a long way away because of outdated laws and questions of liability. How do you sue a machine? That's basically it. What if an automated plane goes down? Suddenly, even though the machine crash was 1 in 1,000,000 flights and the human was 3 in 10,000, the public freaks out and demands some human be stuffed into the cockpit arbitrarily. In terms of computing power and the flexibility required of software, computers beat humans hands-down, and with Moore's Law, their prowess only grows exponentially while humans stay humans.
Sorry, pilots. I'd rather have the machines at the wheel. Cars as well. Humans are terrible, emotional, distracted folks. Although, it sucks that you will all have to lose your jobs, that is the way of the future for pretty much everything, so rather than arbitrarily doing something poorly, let's figure out how to make a society work that doesn't work. Please, not the Wall-E kind. Star Trek, maybe.
Sorry, pilots. I'd rather have the machines at the wheel. Cars as well. Humans are terrible, emotional, distracted folks. Although, it sucks that you will all have to lose your jobs, that is the way of the future for pretty much everything, so rather than arbitrarily doing something poorly, let's figure out how to make a society work that doesn't work. Please, not the Wall-E kind. Star Trek, maybe.
1
Hmm! I wonder how a computer would handle all the complex non-normal events that can occur, Many, not in the flight manual. Replace Sully and his miracle on the Hudson? I wonder how a computer would handle that? I'm glad it will never happen in my lifetime, if ever. Too complex to automate with too many variables. And I know as a 27,000 hour pilot for a major airline.
The promise of automated everything is based on the overly optimistic assumption that we can know and control all variables of all situations. This is somewhat true for socially established systems like law or business or for the sports world. It is never true for real-life situations with real-life problems.
Too many of our activities are carried out in socially established systems. Other real-life occurrences are taken up by films or TV, showing unusual or impossible situations with ever greater realism. But these unusual/impossible events become the new normal for the viewer who doesn't really know better. We are losing our cognitive grounding. A case in point is starving girls trying to reach in real life the photo-shopped figures of some models.
Too many of our activities are carried out in socially established systems. Other real-life occurrences are taken up by films or TV, showing unusual or impossible situations with ever greater realism. But these unusual/impossible events become the new normal for the viewer who doesn't really know better. We are losing our cognitive grounding. A case in point is starving girls trying to reach in real life the photo-shopped figures of some models.
I guess instead of 1500 pilot hours, FAA/airlines should soon require 1500 xbox/ps4/pc gamer hours. Love to imagine this pool of applicants.
2
I agree with Captain Smith, however, what frustrates me regarding the Germanwings tragedy is the non-discussion about the potentially deadly side-effects of the class of anti-depressenrs, SSRI's, which Andreas Lubitz was likely taking.
Here's just a few of the psychiatric side-effects listed for Paxil as published by it's maker:
Common (1% to 10%): Abnormal dreams, agitation, anxiety, depersonalization, depression, drugged feeling, emotional lability, lack of emotion, nervousness.
Uncommon (0.1% to 1%): Abnormal thinking, alcohol abuse, bruxism, euphoria, hallucinations, hostility, lack of emotion, manic reaction, neurosis, paranoid reaction.
Rare (less than 0.1%): Abnormal electroencephalogram, antisocial reaction, bulimia, delirium, delusions, drug dependence, hysteria, irritability, manic-depressive reaction, panic attacks, psychosis, psychotic depression, stupor, withdrawal syndrome
Frequency not reported: Suicidal ideation and behavior
Postmarketing reports: Confusional state, disorientation, homicidal ideation, restlessness.
Shouldn't this be part of a larger discussion?
Here's just a few of the psychiatric side-effects listed for Paxil as published by it's maker:
Common (1% to 10%): Abnormal dreams, agitation, anxiety, depersonalization, depression, drugged feeling, emotional lability, lack of emotion, nervousness.
Uncommon (0.1% to 1%): Abnormal thinking, alcohol abuse, bruxism, euphoria, hallucinations, hostility, lack of emotion, manic reaction, neurosis, paranoid reaction.
Rare (less than 0.1%): Abnormal electroencephalogram, antisocial reaction, bulimia, delirium, delusions, drug dependence, hysteria, irritability, manic-depressive reaction, panic attacks, psychosis, psychotic depression, stupor, withdrawal syndrome
Frequency not reported: Suicidal ideation and behavior
Postmarketing reports: Confusional state, disorientation, homicidal ideation, restlessness.
Shouldn't this be part of a larger discussion?
3
He didn't exhibit any of those symptoms. SSRIs are incredibly safe. 1% incidence is so small as to be nil given the number of users of SSRIs.
Depression is violence turned inward. Depression, by itself, usually does not turn people into mass murderers.
Read the side effects of any drug, you'll be surprised at what they are required to list by the FDA. You'd think they all were going to kill us.
Depression is violence turned inward. Depression, by itself, usually does not turn people into mass murderers.
Read the side effects of any drug, you'll be surprised at what they are required to list by the FDA. You'd think they all were going to kill us.
I've seen many sentiments like this. To start with, we don't know if he was taking his SSRI of not (though perhaps we will find out). If not, we don't know if he had withdrawal or not. We do know that, in general, many patients benefit from SSRIs and that suicides are less common in treated patients than in controls. And if there were warnings on the vegetables you buy, they would probably resemble those in a package insert.
This incident is remarkable for its premeditation and for its author's breach of the strongest ethic and trust. Surely there are lessons to be learned. But I doubt there is any simple answer.
This incident is remarkable for its premeditation and for its author's breach of the strongest ethic and trust. Surely there are lessons to be learned. But I doubt there is any simple answer.
Atmospheric conditions that passenger airplanes fly in are too unreliable to risk not having a pilot. A lightning strike could destroy the radios aboard a plane. Solar flares could disrupt communications, cutting off communications completely. Many kinds of interference could increase the latency of piloting commands, causing accidents. Intentional sabotage of the communications system by passengers with signal jammers could cut the aircraft off from ground control.
Finally, if computer hackers infiltrated the remote control system they could crash hundreds of planes simultaneously, killing tens of thousands of people in the air across the world. Imagine a 9/11 in every city with an airport across the world, all on the same day.
Finally, if computer hackers infiltrated the remote control system they could crash hundreds of planes simultaneously, killing tens of thousands of people in the air across the world. Imagine a 9/11 in every city with an airport across the world, all on the same day.
9
Lets keep the pilots - besides running the front seats they periodically have to deal human incidences caused by those in the back seats. Computers are just not good at that. However, it would be nice if airlines could unlock a cockpit door remotely or locate a plane wandering off course over the Indian Ocean. Perhaps silicon valley can figure a way to allow remote control in emergency situations without exposure to hacking by some ISIS computer nerd.
5
If they could unlock the flight deck door remotely, all a hijacker would have to do is convince the ground that the situation required that, when it didn't.
1
I'm a retired airline pilot now flying in Afghanistan. Automated airplane flown remotely? You'll never catch me on one. And with respect to drones, I can't tell you how many times I've encountered one that I was unaware of. Drones in domestic US airspace are a bad, bad, idea.
51
Why not , in the interim, a super pilots manned mega meag universal
monitoring system that monitors ALL planes in the air and forcibly takes control of any plane that seems to be going seriously wrong one way or another and lands it safely .
monitoring system that monitors ALL planes in the air and forcibly takes control of any plane that seems to be going seriously wrong one way or another and lands it safely .
Hmm... We all know that computerized systems never make mistakes, never fail, and are never hacked... Right? You just designed a huge bullseye target for terrorists - forget hijacking one plane, when you van hijack them all from a central control point.
1
Ummm - enter pilots Sully Sullenberg and Jeff Skiles......
4
No matter how good the programming skills used in achieving pilotless flying I don't believe the programmers can think of every contingency. While most flights are mundane, the fact there is a human that can take control is important for that one instance while the computer is going through it paces in determining what decision to make. Computers have gone through massive strides in capacity and capabilities but they still display that hourglass or spinning wheel from time to time, I prefer that not happening while I'm flying.
1
The public should be more afraid of the reliance on technology, not less. Just as in the field of medicine, aircraft technology has replaced good old human talent and know how. In with CT and MRI scans, out with the physical exam of our forefathers. Machines can only tell you so much. This matters whether you know it or not.
Sure, airplane technology makes it easier on pilots, but the reliance makes the younger pilots worse than the previous generation. I would point you to the crash report of the Air France disaster a few years ago. The younger pilot, an apparent slave to a frozen, erroneous instrument, crashed the plane because he steadfastly believed what the screen was saying. Experience flying without it would have told him otherwise. Unfortunately, the captain was not in the cockpit for much of this. When he did finally arrive, he immediately realized the copilot was pulling back on the controls to climb, not pushing to pick up speed. This was fatal to the entire cabin and crew. The recorders picked up the arriving captain saying "I don't believe it, we are going to crash".
That episode speaks volumes to me. I am more fearful of high tech flying these days, not less.
Sure, airplane technology makes it easier on pilots, but the reliance makes the younger pilots worse than the previous generation. I would point you to the crash report of the Air France disaster a few years ago. The younger pilot, an apparent slave to a frozen, erroneous instrument, crashed the plane because he steadfastly believed what the screen was saying. Experience flying without it would have told him otherwise. Unfortunately, the captain was not in the cockpit for much of this. When he did finally arrive, he immediately realized the copilot was pulling back on the controls to climb, not pushing to pick up speed. This was fatal to the entire cabin and crew. The recorders picked up the arriving captain saying "I don't believe it, we are going to crash".
That episode speaks volumes to me. I am more fearful of high tech flying these days, not less.
1
Two words: Al Haynes.
Okay, two more: Dennis Fitch.
Okay, two more: Dennis Fitch.
As an aviator myself I also laugh just a little at the idea of pilotless aircraft roaming the skies.
I'm sure it will happen just as soon as we have mastered engineer-less trains and captain-less ships.
JM
I'm sure it will happen just as soon as we have mastered engineer-less trains and captain-less ships.
JM
Aproximately ten years ago, I was a passenger on a flight landing at O'Hare. Seated by a right-side window just behind the wing gave me a view of flight-control mechanisms. As the plane neared the runway, a microburst pushed the right wing tip nearly to the pavement (seemed less than 2 feet). Almost instantly, the flap (or aileron) corrected the plane's angle. Seconds later a similar sequence happened. I immediately felt that the flight had narrowly escaped being on the nightly news. Had the wing struck pavement, disaster would have been likely. I waited to be last of the passengers to de-plane and asked the pilot, was it you or the computer flying the plane when the right wing dipped twice? Without hesitation, the pilot said he'd been flying the plane as those events occurred. I "knew" we had avoided disaster. Only later that evening did I learn that microbursts had frequent at O'Hare that afternoon. The pilot's focus, alertness, and reactions remain appreciated.
3
I am an instrumented rated private pilot and I can tell you that this is the most ridiculous column I have seen on the topic. Yes the pilots are busy communicating with ATC, and enter flight plans etc. But all this can easily be automated. Of course the system today is not built around these modifications. But just as the self driving car is coming (and this is a much more technologically demanding change), automatic flying will come. There are many automatic technologies where we place our lives without operators, high speed elevators, and some trains also. Its just a matter of time and will. But it is disturbing to see a clearly biased pilot who only concern is his high paying job, being given a platform for this silly column in the NYT.
A lot of resistance to automation in transportation is the perception of loss of control. This is why so many people are afraid of flying and prefer to drive; their chances of death or serious injury are greater, but at least (they think) they're in control.
I'll get into a plane with no pilot when it's shown to be safer than a piloted plane. (P.S. I have no problem with BART.)
I'll get into a plane with no pilot when it's shown to be safer than a piloted plane. (P.S. I have no problem with BART.)
As a kid in the '50's I remember laughing through some comedian's riff about the first totally automated airplane. The passengers are welcomed aboard by a soothing voice-recording that explains that there is no need for pilots or other staff, that the system has been thoroughly and successfully tested over several years, that everything is safe, efficient, and convenient, and that nothing can go wrong, can go wrong, can go wrong....
3
It is interesting to note the amount of emotion attached to aviation accidents and concomitant deaths. A civil aviation aircraft engaged in the carriage of passengers impacts the earth and 150 lives are terminated. The hue and cry which follows the loss of 150 lives appears to be a gross overreaction by the media and the public.
Statistics appear to bear this out.
In 2013, the (United States) National Transportation Safety Board reported that 429 lives were terminated in connection with U.S. civil aviation incidents.
By comparison, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that in 2014, 32,719 lives were terminated in motor vehicle incidents in the United States
Dividing the total number of lives terminated in automobile incidents (32,719) in the U.S. by the number of days in a year (365) results in a determination that Americans lives were terminated on U.S. highways at a rate of 896+ lives per day. When compared to the GermanWings incident, American lives terminated on U.S. highways at a rate 5.9 per day greater than the GermanWings single-day death count.
Comparing the U.S. annual highway death count (32,719) to the U.S. annual civil death count (429) for 2013 results in a comparative annual death rate of 76.2+ domestic highway deaths for each civil aviation death.
A comparison of U.S. civil aviation 2013 death rates, with U.S. highway death rates clearly demonstrates that driving an automobile is an undeniably more dangerous undertaking than flying.
Statistics appear to bear this out.
In 2013, the (United States) National Transportation Safety Board reported that 429 lives were terminated in connection with U.S. civil aviation incidents.
By comparison, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that in 2014, 32,719 lives were terminated in motor vehicle incidents in the United States
Dividing the total number of lives terminated in automobile incidents (32,719) in the U.S. by the number of days in a year (365) results in a determination that Americans lives were terminated on U.S. highways at a rate of 896+ lives per day. When compared to the GermanWings incident, American lives terminated on U.S. highways at a rate 5.9 per day greater than the GermanWings single-day death count.
Comparing the U.S. annual highway death count (32,719) to the U.S. annual civil death count (429) for 2013 results in a comparative annual death rate of 76.2+ domestic highway deaths for each civil aviation death.
A comparison of U.S. civil aviation 2013 death rates, with U.S. highway death rates clearly demonstrates that driving an automobile is an undeniably more dangerous undertaking than flying.
1
Completely agree with Captain P. Smith.
You can teach a computer (monkey) how to fly. You can not teach him when to fly.
You can teach a computer (monkey) how to fly. You can not teach him when to fly.
5
When circumstances are dire, I'd want somebody, not something, at the controls, who has the same exact skin in the game that I do. The sheer survival instinct of a pilot, coupled with their experience, thinking and judgement far outweighs anything the most advanced automation could ever do. Could have the most cleverly programmed computer ever make the decisions and take the actions to safely land a disabled jumbo jet on the Hudson in the midst of a crowded city and airspace?
3
For some strange reason, I woke up today thinking about this issue, having been impressed previously with the absurd notion of putting 200 people on a 50 million dollar aircraft and sending them off to fly at high, dangerous altitudes with no pilot on board.
On a theoretical level, every contingency in life is knowable and can be programmed into a very, very high level computer. Every choice every human will ever likely face could be anticipated and predicted, with high accuracy, knowing patterns of behavior, the range of options and the imposition of limitations of choice. So, too, with flight through the air, in theory.
What would happen when a computerized system were faced with a choice that could not be resolved? Okay, time to crash this aircraft? Let it keep flying for 28 hours while "I", the computer, figure this out?
The question of automated flight, similar to automated driving, revolves around acceptable risk. 100 yrs. from now, humans might be so conditioned to accepting computerized decision making on their behalf that the risk of dying by computer seems acceptable compared to the alternative, dying by human error. Right now, that choice is completely unacceptable to most.
If one in ten million flights crashed by computer glitch, people would not accept it. We understand and intuitively appreciate the need for human decision making to protect life. Computers in charge of our fragile, self contained system of beating hearts and thinking brains? No.
On a theoretical level, every contingency in life is knowable and can be programmed into a very, very high level computer. Every choice every human will ever likely face could be anticipated and predicted, with high accuracy, knowing patterns of behavior, the range of options and the imposition of limitations of choice. So, too, with flight through the air, in theory.
What would happen when a computerized system were faced with a choice that could not be resolved? Okay, time to crash this aircraft? Let it keep flying for 28 hours while "I", the computer, figure this out?
The question of automated flight, similar to automated driving, revolves around acceptable risk. 100 yrs. from now, humans might be so conditioned to accepting computerized decision making on their behalf that the risk of dying by computer seems acceptable compared to the alternative, dying by human error. Right now, that choice is completely unacceptable to most.
If one in ten million flights crashed by computer glitch, people would not accept it. We understand and intuitively appreciate the need for human decision making to protect life. Computers in charge of our fragile, self contained system of beating hearts and thinking brains? No.
27
So, what do you think about 'driverless' automobiles being tested today? The only difference is that the car has fewer people to kill.
I don't like that idea, either.
I don't like that idea, either.
1
Kudos, laurels, hosannahs to Patrick Smith! Long may he fly, and passionately - he's no Luddite pilot. He's the man up front who takes off and lands us -safe as houses - at our distant destinations. Notwithstanding that sometimes we passengers are holding up the plane by our tight white-knuckled grips on our Row A-B-C-D-E-F seat armrests!
1
Pilots will not be replaced in commercial aviation in the forseeable future.
It's simply too complex a system, filled with complex machines, and operating under complex weather situations. Things DO go wrong, and it takes pilot judgement to adapt and respond. In addition, the notion that you can have a control loop that's 12,000 miles long, making instantaneous adjustments is, at best, questionable. Ergo...no passenger drones.
None of this responds to the Andreas Lubin situation, where the "safety" provisions allowed the pilot to be locked out of the cockpit. That's just nuts.
And we may have a hole in US regulations, requiring two people in the cockpit at all times. Can a flight attendant replace a strapped-in pilot? If he/she were to get up to open the cockpit door, a rogue pilot could induce abrupt control surface changes, making it difficult or impossible for free standing personnel to reach the cockpit door. The entire matter needs careful rethinking.
It's simply too complex a system, filled with complex machines, and operating under complex weather situations. Things DO go wrong, and it takes pilot judgement to adapt and respond. In addition, the notion that you can have a control loop that's 12,000 miles long, making instantaneous adjustments is, at best, questionable. Ergo...no passenger drones.
None of this responds to the Andreas Lubin situation, where the "safety" provisions allowed the pilot to be locked out of the cockpit. That's just nuts.
And we may have a hole in US regulations, requiring two people in the cockpit at all times. Can a flight attendant replace a strapped-in pilot? If he/she were to get up to open the cockpit door, a rogue pilot could induce abrupt control surface changes, making it difficult or impossible for free standing personnel to reach the cockpit door. The entire matter needs careful rethinking.
1
When I think about this topic I always remember a white knuckle landing a US Air flight I was on made at Phoenix Sky Harbor a few years ago. We were landing during a strong thunderstorm and it must have been approaching the point where landings would no longer be allowed.
The seat belts signs were illuminated for the last 45 minutes of the flight and the captain required the flight attendants to also be seated and buckled in for the final 20 minutes. The plane was buffeted and tossed around to the point where this was one of the few of my many commercial flights where I wondered if we would land safely.
While we were taxing to the gate the captain said that he knew that some of us questioned what our tax money was spent for sometimes. He said that some of it had gone toward his Air Force flight training and that his experience as an Air Force pilot had just allowed us to land in very difficult circumstances without incident. I believe that every person on board would have agreed that the money was very well spent in that case. It reminded me of the value of the highly skilled pilots that allow us to routinely fly around the world with greater safety than the drive to the airport.
I for one no longer think that pilots are in any way optional in a commercial airliner and I write automation software for a living! Some tasks can still only be done by highly trained and skilled professionals and commanding an aircraft is absolutely one of them.
The seat belts signs were illuminated for the last 45 minutes of the flight and the captain required the flight attendants to also be seated and buckled in for the final 20 minutes. The plane was buffeted and tossed around to the point where this was one of the few of my many commercial flights where I wondered if we would land safely.
While we were taxing to the gate the captain said that he knew that some of us questioned what our tax money was spent for sometimes. He said that some of it had gone toward his Air Force flight training and that his experience as an Air Force pilot had just allowed us to land in very difficult circumstances without incident. I believe that every person on board would have agreed that the money was very well spent in that case. It reminded me of the value of the highly skilled pilots that allow us to routinely fly around the world with greater safety than the drive to the airport.
I for one no longer think that pilots are in any way optional in a commercial airliner and I write automation software for a living! Some tasks can still only be done by highly trained and skilled professionals and commanding an aircraft is absolutely one of them.
7
for a pilot to have the ability to be locked out of his own cockpit at any time is a security oversight that only cries (in keeping with the times) ….. stupid!!!!!!!!!!
My view is that computer-automated airplanes will be ... .... .... damn. My laptop just froze up.
6
I don't understand the idea of remotely flying the plane. Let's pretend the pilot is in a room somewhere with a supervisor to make sure he doesn't crash the plane. The supervisor could pull out a gun and shoot all the pilots. A terrorist could bomb the facility and crash ten planes at once just by killing all the pilots. There's simply no way to eliminate all the risk that someone will turn out to be malicious. At least, when the pilot is flying the plane from the inside, he/she has a vested interest in the outcome because he too will go down with the plane.
I do wonder if a big stressful event like the loss of mh370, and the other several large flights that went down within the last year or two, are taking more of a psychological toll on our pilots than we realise. Being responsible for the lives of 150 or more people is a big deal. A more psychologically resilient strategy for pilots might require less intense flying schedules and therefore more pilots on the roster and thus higher ticket prices. Are we willing to do that?
I do wonder if a big stressful event like the loss of mh370, and the other several large flights that went down within the last year or two, are taking more of a psychological toll on our pilots than we realise. Being responsible for the lives of 150 or more people is a big deal. A more psychologically resilient strategy for pilots might require less intense flying schedules and therefore more pilots on the roster and thus higher ticket prices. Are we willing to do that?
2
As an airline transport pilot and former aviation CEO, I concur with the author. He may in fact understate his case. Moreover, the pilot function in my view is not so much in contest with automation, as it is with reliable manual flying skills. Air France 447 is an example, as is Continental 3407. In both cases, data appear to support deficient manual flying skills as primarily causal.
As for this op-ed invoking the Germanwings accident, it is too early to make judgments, draw conclusions or assert any straw man or policy response. No formal professional investigation has been completed, and is otherwise in its very early stages. Only assertions have been made. In that regard, the article relies on one false premise.
Indeed, the European Cockpit Association that represents most of Europe's professional pilots, has rightly objected to premature judgments released to the public. Readers may wish to consult Wednesday's Financial Times on this matter in the Letters section.
In the meantime, I would respectfully encourage the captain to engage in as much manual flying as the opportunity presents itself, and to especially encourage, or insist himself that his younger co-pilots concentrate on "stick and rudder" skills, along with BAI proficiency. And keep heads up and eyes outside!
Good op-ed. Thank you for writing.
As for this op-ed invoking the Germanwings accident, it is too early to make judgments, draw conclusions or assert any straw man or policy response. No formal professional investigation has been completed, and is otherwise in its very early stages. Only assertions have been made. In that regard, the article relies on one false premise.
Indeed, the European Cockpit Association that represents most of Europe's professional pilots, has rightly objected to premature judgments released to the public. Readers may wish to consult Wednesday's Financial Times on this matter in the Letters section.
In the meantime, I would respectfully encourage the captain to engage in as much manual flying as the opportunity presents itself, and to especially encourage, or insist himself that his younger co-pilots concentrate on "stick and rudder" skills, along with BAI proficiency. And keep heads up and eyes outside!
Good op-ed. Thank you for writing.
7
Pilots should be credited for their safety advocacy too. Nothing comforts me more than the fact that they are along for the ride and take their lives in their hands along with mine. Notwithstanding the rare anomaly of the Germanwings incident, I'd trust someone who is about to ride in a plane to assess flight worthiness and follow up with incidence reports more than an engineer programming an automated system. Human pilots have been so effective at reducing airline crashes that fully automated systems will have a higher bar to clear in aviation than any other transportation mode.
7
Great article, you clearly hit the spot, not to mention that we (pilots) have to apply our criteria when it comes to avoiding bad weather and landing with adverse weather conditions, such as hard rain and gusty winds... Also, airplanes are made up of multiple computer components, and they do fail every once and then. Some of those failures lead to an inoperative auto pilot, so who's gonna fly then?? ;-)
1
And what would happen if computer-controlled airliner hit a flock of geese over NYC? Would the computer system be sophisticated enough to safely land the plane in the Hudson River? Pilots today, more than ever need to have lots of hours flying lots of different aircraft so that their basic seat-of-the-pants flying skills are sharp. The pilot who landed that plane on the Hudson had 3,000 hours flying gliders. And he was flying a glider after his engines went out. A computer would not have been able to safely land this plane. Likewise what would happen if a seemingly minor malfunction fed bad data into the computer confusing it and causing it to make bad "decisions"? A skilled and experienced pilot would hopefully be at the controls to assess the problem and override the computer. If anything, pilots today need to be trained and constantly reminded not to over-rely on computer systems that are doing much of the work in flying airliners.
5
On rare occasions, only a very skilled pilot can really make a difference.
Years ago while flying out of Denver's old airport on a very hot late afternoon, during the take off rollout just at rotation - when the wheels lift off, the outboard thrust reverser on the number 1 engine went on. Yhis was a very old 707. The plane slew sideways and the pilot immediately cut all engine power and slammed on the brakes. All tires were blown and we did not have to use the slides. When we exited the airplane the fire trucks were cooling down the blown tires.
Later when on another flight to SFO, a dead heading pilot/copilot were setting in front of me and one asked if my friend and I were on the flight with the problem.
He then said, "That is what we call a wet sack of s***." He then said how lucky we were to have a pilot with those incredibly quick reactions.
It is those occasions which frequent fliers like myself are really happy to see the pilot greeting the passengers as they deplane. I always say, "Thank YOU!
Years ago while flying out of Denver's old airport on a very hot late afternoon, during the take off rollout just at rotation - when the wheels lift off, the outboard thrust reverser on the number 1 engine went on. Yhis was a very old 707. The plane slew sideways and the pilot immediately cut all engine power and slammed on the brakes. All tires were blown and we did not have to use the slides. When we exited the airplane the fire trucks were cooling down the blown tires.
Later when on another flight to SFO, a dead heading pilot/copilot were setting in front of me and one asked if my friend and I were on the flight with the problem.
He then said, "That is what we call a wet sack of s***." He then said how lucky we were to have a pilot with those incredibly quick reactions.
It is those occasions which frequent fliers like myself are really happy to see the pilot greeting the passengers as they deplane. I always say, "Thank YOU!
9
I entirely agree with Patrick, and believe that we need to focus on the human factors side of safety.
1
I think we should first test this system on school buses for a few years first. Or maybe 18 wheeler's.
2
Mr. Smith, I am on board with you. I would add that my experience with computer crashes should dissuade anyone from thinking of turning an airplane cockpit over to a computer.
5
Quadruple backups with quadruple backups with backup backups.
There was a time
when you took real pride
in just
getting there
when you took real pride
in just
getting there
1
If flying were to become fully automated and guided from a centralized site, it is only a matter of time before that centralized site would become a target, thus imperiling multiple flights all at once.
2
Why would you fly everything from a centralized site? Each plane would fly itself. Air traffic control doesn't fly planes it just coordinates them. In fact, with automated planes, if the central traffic control went down, the planes could talk to each other to ensure no air collisions.
Sorry, MMC, you're right. I was responding to the idea of remote control, which I assume would be from centralized sites.
1
As a NASA engineer I completly agree, full autonomy is a long way off. For the near future autonomy will be thère to help the pilot. I ride the bus in DC and it is interesting to watch all the off-nominal tasks the bus driver has to deal with. When more simple mass transportation like trains and busses start to be more autonomous, then maybe airplanes will also but that is a long way off. The Germanwings case might have been helped by autonomy to detect a very abnormal flight pattern and then place the vehicle into a safe-cruise state, giving the lead pilot time to recover control, still very limited autonomy, assisting the pilot.
7
Simplified transportation systems are not the measure for technology introduction in aviation. Its the other way around. There's little need for sophisticated technology in everyday travel and the challenge of equipping 300 million vehicles to be interactively compatible takes decades. The trickle down effect has been from spacecraft and military aviation into civilian aviation. Airliners are not the best equipped in the sky, with one example being that enhanced vision systems, used on corporate aircraft for several years, have yet to be used in airline operations. RBW's comment, correctly notes that the captain's job "is to exercise judgment. Period." That role no way implies or removes automation's ability as the primary operator of the airplane or the system. Let's not confuse the traditional role of the captain to conclude that it affects the ability of technology to perform splendidly. It doesn't. The two are complimentary, not exclusionary. Today's passengers insist that an actual pilot be on the airplane, but once we had five people on the flight deck, then four, then three, mostly two now, and sometimes just one in certain operations. Throughout, the safety record has improved steadily. Its not whether we can make the system fully dependent on automation, but when we decide its technologically and financially feasible to do so.
There is no doubt that there will eventually be pilotless aircraft.
I will not be on one.
I will not be on one.
5
"pilot still matter " if you're a pilot getting a pay check, to the rest of us it doesn't matter.
When something in some system goes wrong as certainly happens, I want an experienced flight crew at the controls, thank you very much!
2
I don't buy this. You can't compare a commercial airliner to a military drone, they operate in different conditions and with different goals. We can remotely land a one ton rover on mars from a sky crane. Spacex is about to land the first stage of a rocket on a barge in the atlantic. Good control software can do incredible things. You are right that takeoffs and landings are a big challenge, but there are likely good solutions for that.
My guess Joseph is that you have never flown an aircraft into O'Hare... ;>)
2
I flew for both the military and airlines in a career that was very enjoyable. One fact still remains, an airplane is a machine and nothing can go wrong, can go wrong, can go wrong.... Thanks to Patrick Smith for his insight.
18
Let's face it - not every family has a member who is a pilot. So we are fortunate enough to get an inside peek at the makings of one of the pilots of the United States, a guy who has been a pilot for many years - my son-in-law. We also have had the opportunity to get to know his pilot friends and colleagues through the years.
I'll take one of these calm, smart, committed, skilled guys to be in charge of any plane I'm on - rather than a machine. A question about a plane having a tough landing at La Guardia entails a conversation of info that is interesting because my son-in-law, like any other professional who knows job details and is fond of the details, has a good time answering.
My son-in-law was laid off from Midwest Airlines, some years ago. It was a tough time for him - it was a tough time for his friends and it lasted for awhile. My grandson who was small, was puzzled, "my daddy doesn't fly airplanes anymore." It has taken time and airline job changes, some several changes, for these pilots to be once again back on track.
But they never lost their passion for the air and they never lost their ability to keep us safe. Like I said when my daughter became engaged to this man and I described him to my friends: "he's the exact kind of person I'd want 'driving' a plane I'd be a passenger on."
Yeah, I'll take the real deal any day....and any of his buddies too - not
Mr. Auto Pilot.
I'll take one of these calm, smart, committed, skilled guys to be in charge of any plane I'm on - rather than a machine. A question about a plane having a tough landing at La Guardia entails a conversation of info that is interesting because my son-in-law, like any other professional who knows job details and is fond of the details, has a good time answering.
My son-in-law was laid off from Midwest Airlines, some years ago. It was a tough time for him - it was a tough time for his friends and it lasted for awhile. My grandson who was small, was puzzled, "my daddy doesn't fly airplanes anymore." It has taken time and airline job changes, some several changes, for these pilots to be once again back on track.
But they never lost their passion for the air and they never lost their ability to keep us safe. Like I said when my daughter became engaged to this man and I described him to my friends: "he's the exact kind of person I'd want 'driving' a plane I'd be a passenger on."
Yeah, I'll take the real deal any day....and any of his buddies too - not
Mr. Auto Pilot.
63
Really loved Midwest--it was the best airline; great food, excellent service, wonderful attentive staff--and safe pilots. I would gladly pay more to have the chance to fly with them again!
Does anyone honestly believe computers could have done as good a job as Chesly Sullenberger when he landed his plane on the Hudson River? I will stop flying when there is no longer a qualified & experienced pilot at the controls. BTW, the same goes for computer controlled cars.
61
Sully's success was due to the automation of the plane: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2009/06/us_airways200906
An single example depreciates the fact that the Germanwing's crash and almost every other airline disaster is due to pilot error.
I am with R.F. completely. In fact, I take it one more step: I will not fly any airline that I don't believe has the type of competent pilots that US airlines do. By that I mean a real breadth of experience, many thousands of flying hours (preferably in a wide range of aircraft) and better yet - military experience. All that inevitably adds up to really good judgment and instincts (which is much harder to teach).
While I obviously can't be certain when stepping into any particular flight on, say, United or American or Virgin Air, that the pilot has the particular skill set(s) I've mentioned, it does steer me away from airlines that I believe are likely to have lesser training and experience overall. Put simply, we have the best pilots in the world and although there are cracks in every system, I'll risk my life with an American captain in charge — first and foremost — any day of the week.
While I obviously can't be certain when stepping into any particular flight on, say, United or American or Virgin Air, that the pilot has the particular skill set(s) I've mentioned, it does steer me away from airlines that I believe are likely to have lesser training and experience overall. Put simply, we have the best pilots in the world and although there are cracks in every system, I'll risk my life with an American captain in charge — first and foremost — any day of the week.
Listen to this man -- he knows what he is talking about. I get a little nervous riding on the conductor-less BART trains in the Bay Area. Nothing can go wrong, can go wrong, can go wrong ...
6
Agreed. Nervousness aside, conductor-less trains are infinitely less sophisticated than what would be required for aircraft. Those trains operate on a closed and finite track. If there is a problem all cars on the entire line can just be stopped in place, while the authorities can take there time to figure out the best option. That is just not possible with the thousands of aircraft in flight at any given time over the US alone.
1
Those trains have traveled millions of miles...if something goes wrong, it's not worse than having a conductor. It will just be a statistically anomalous failure.
BART has drivers in each train, though they are run by computer. They are not driverless.
Currently a pilot is needed even for drones. That being the case I should rather have the pilot on board caring for his body parts (and passengers) than comfortably detached.
Decades into the future there will be a fully automated transportation system which will be more efficient and will allow for tighter schedules than is possible now with human command.
Decades into the future there will be a fully automated transportation system which will be more efficient and will allow for tighter schedules than is possible now with human command.
3
pilots suffer from the same problem that truck drivers do, fatigue. They must take more flights to pay the bills. They earn less than just a few years ago per hour worked. There is a surplus of ex-military trained pilots out there so the workforce is flush with candidates for every job opening. This will never end.
3
Self-driving cars seem to be right around the corner (so to speak). Mercedes and other companies have begun advertising them. I've designed and built real-world software-controlled systems for decades. My mission in life is figuring out how to apply mathematics to build truly reliable and safe systems. But even NASA can't do this 100% predictably yet (google "mars code" to read about it). So I for one am extremely leery of self-driving cars - much less self-piloting commercial aircraft!
8
You're extremely of self-driving cars. I'm leery of other drivers. They tailgate, drink, lose focus, yell out their spouses, kids and parents. With youth, they're more likely to be distracted. With age, they have worse reflexes. With experience they develop road rage, an affliction of the 21st century. Cars (like planes) are weapons in the wrong hands. Unlike planes, anyone can get a car.
Of course pilotless airplanes are technologically feasible. Since early last century hobbyists have made and flown balsa wood RC model airplanes; and drones are just a more sophisticated outgrowth of that technology.
But the current pilotless airliner nonsense just sidesteps the real root cause of the Germanwings crash: a pilot was locked out of his own cockpit. So the obvious best practice going forward is simply to never again--under any circumstances--allow a pilot to be locked out of his own cockpit.
But the current pilotless airliner nonsense just sidesteps the real root cause of the Germanwings crash: a pilot was locked out of his own cockpit. So the obvious best practice going forward is simply to never again--under any circumstances--allow a pilot to be locked out of his own cockpit.
8
No, the pilot being locked out was NOT the root cause. The root cause was a co-pilot intent on crashing the plane. Locking the pilot out was just the easiest option for the copilot. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where one pilot incapacitates the other leading to the same final outcome.
I believe that the lockout function was actually beefed up after 9/11 with the idea of keeping out attackers from the passenger area. One solution would be to return to 3 person crews with a protocol that two must remain in the cockpit at all time. The navigator seat was eliminated by airlines for cost savings but a third person might have stopped the Flight 9525 incident.
1
Anyone, absolutely ANYONE, who reads the NYT on line must agree with this. I can just imagine as the software is updated to coordinate flight operations with ground control, and some airlines are slow to upgrade: Whoops, here we go, up suddenly, swerve to tne right, what was that that just popped into view - an AD? Oh, sorry - were you flying in THAT direction - we think you should be looking in THIS direction. Try THIS route, why don't you?
Give me a pilot, please, please, please!!!
Give me a pilot, please, please, please!!!
22
Pilots (and car drivers) are now the weakest link in the safety chain. Removing both will lead to safer travel. And automation is very close to being able to do both.
3
Of course, you're right. Who needs drivers or pilots? With computerized planes nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wron....
2
Because computers don't crash, code isn't written incorrectly, wifi signal is never interrupted and electronics are not inherently unstable?
Fully automated planes would also be subject to hacking - talk about a terrorist's dream come true! No thanks. I am happy to have pilots in the air. Europe happily is following the American rule of 2 in the cockpit at all times - hopefully avoiding such a catastrophe in the future.
I am perplexed as to why no physician reported Lubitz medical issues - I would think that privacy would be trumped by public safety. Germany certainly needs to rethink their policies if such is not the case.
I am perplexed as to why no physician reported Lubitz medical issues - I would think that privacy would be trumped by public safety. Germany certainly needs to rethink their policies if such is not the case.
29
I might be wrong, but I think German privacy laws tend to value privacy much more than American one's; take for example Europe's "right to be forgotten." It's possible that this extends to the point that a physician cannot report even if there is a danger to the public. Perhaps a German or other European reader can comment?
Thank you. This piece is both accurate and informative to the public.
The most important thing for the public to know is that what makes an airline pilot worth his or her salt and salary is not mere manipulation of controls, whether of the traditional stick and rudder sort or by the newest layers of electronics. Skilled manipulation of controls of whatever sort is a given in professional aviation (I fly the 777).
The fundamental job of a an airline pilot, in particular that person traditionally known as the Captain, is to exercise judgment. Period. Most flights are routine, which itself speaks to the professionalism of crews. Still, every flight presents at least some little challenge or twist of a technical or interpersonal or weather related or regulatory nature, or some other sort of surprise.
It's for these events for which the pilot's skills, knowledge, and experience coalesce into the exercise of judgment manifested by countless small, interrelated decisions during the flight.
The extremely remote but real possibility that a pilot might become murderously psychotic has now been proven. Nevertheless, give me the skies over, say, the New Jersey Turnpike any day.
The most important thing for the public to know is that what makes an airline pilot worth his or her salt and salary is not mere manipulation of controls, whether of the traditional stick and rudder sort or by the newest layers of electronics. Skilled manipulation of controls of whatever sort is a given in professional aviation (I fly the 777).
The fundamental job of a an airline pilot, in particular that person traditionally known as the Captain, is to exercise judgment. Period. Most flights are routine, which itself speaks to the professionalism of crews. Still, every flight presents at least some little challenge or twist of a technical or interpersonal or weather related or regulatory nature, or some other sort of surprise.
It's for these events for which the pilot's skills, knowledge, and experience coalesce into the exercise of judgment manifested by countless small, interrelated decisions during the flight.
The extremely remote but real possibility that a pilot might become murderously psychotic has now been proven. Nevertheless, give me the skies over, say, the New Jersey Turnpike any day.
107
I could not agree more with Patrick Smith. So let's focus on the problem that really needs to be solved: minimizing the chance that another rogue pilot is able to take command of a commercial airliner and imperil all on board. The obvious way to do this is to keep mentally troubled pilots out of the cockpit. The second is to implement cockpit access protocols built on the premise that licensed commercial pilots are not infallible. Flight 9525 shows how tragically wrong current practice is on both counts.
12
A mechanism for ceding control of the aircraft to the auto pilot and for remote programming of the auto pilot would have been useful on 9/11 and in the case of GermanWings. Would have bought time.
3
Which begs the question: if ceding control of an aircraft is possible, how do we stop bad guys from taking over any aircraft at will? They can already hack into your bank, email, and Facebook accounts. They've hacked into Sony Pictures. Viruses have been introduced into Iran's walled off nuclear program from afar. You don't think the Chinese, Russians and North Koreans are working nonstop to infiltrate America's drone network? Think again.
1
Not to overlook the obvious. What person in thier right mind would get in a plane with no pilot? Not me.
77
Then you dont understand the reality which is that 99% of all air disasters are caused by human error.
2
I agree. I want a pilot who is as invested in a safe flight as I am.
1
But that 99% is not pilot error. If there is a pilot on the plane and there is trouble s/he has skin in the game.
If everything goes as planned, or even as anticipated, I have no doubt that pilotless aircraft and fully automated air traffic control could do a safer, more efficient, and all-around better job of running air travel.
But stuff happens, and when the stuff hits the fan, there's little substitute for human experience, adaptability, ingenuity, and reaction. Perhaps the best example of this is the crash of UA232 in Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989. A massive mechanical failure resulted in the loss of all flight controls. This was deemed so unlikely -- virtually impossible -- that the situation wasn't even mentioned in the emergency procedures manual; certainly no autopilot or automated flight control system would have survived. But an experienced and innovative crew managed a controlled crash resulting in the survival of over half those on board.
But stuff happens, and when the stuff hits the fan, there's little substitute for human experience, adaptability, ingenuity, and reaction. Perhaps the best example of this is the crash of UA232 in Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989. A massive mechanical failure resulted in the loss of all flight controls. This was deemed so unlikely -- virtually impossible -- that the situation wasn't even mentioned in the emergency procedures manual; certainly no autopilot or automated flight control system would have survived. But an experienced and innovative crew managed a controlled crash resulting in the survival of over half those on board.
115
While seemingly grounded in reality and debunking the myths, this comment is actually just furthering the myth that the only time that pilots put into practice all of their years and years of hands-on training and skills in flying is on the rare occasion of an emergency.
To directly quote the article:
"The problem with this line of thought is that it begins with a false premise: the idea that jetliners today are super-automated machines whose pilots serve mainly as backup in case of an emergency."
I'm wondering if the commenter even read the article, at this point. True, the comment mentions "as planned" and "as anticipated", but to have "no doubt" that just around the corner everything that pilots do short of a complete disaster situation could be "fully automated" and be safer, more efficient, and do an all-around better job than pilots is complete fantasy. Not for a very, very long time.
To directly quote the article:
"The problem with this line of thought is that it begins with a false premise: the idea that jetliners today are super-automated machines whose pilots serve mainly as backup in case of an emergency."
I'm wondering if the commenter even read the article, at this point. True, the comment mentions "as planned" and "as anticipated", but to have "no doubt" that just around the corner everything that pilots do short of a complete disaster situation could be "fully automated" and be safer, more efficient, and do an all-around better job than pilots is complete fantasy. Not for a very, very long time.
1
Well it will be interesting when something goes wrong with hundreds of passengers on a flight, and nobody to take control of the airplane. By the way, why keep the flight attendants? I am sure robots will be able to do the job in a decade or so.
You never know what you have missed when writing a computer control algorithm until you hit the glitch.
113
In the 1920's navies learned the hard way that a man must remain in the control loop aboard submarines. They could and did automate things like diving. It was mechanical rather than computer, but it was a very mechanical task too.
Disaster comes in the little details. It is the watching and adjusting that keeps things safe. That is why so many drones crash. We lose spacecraft the same way, and sometimes send up a man to fix one.
Disaster comes in the little details. It is the watching and adjusting that keeps things safe. That is why so many drones crash. We lose spacecraft the same way, and sometimes send up a man to fix one.
9
Patrick Smith makes some excellent points about good pilots, however not every pilot is a Captain Sulley. The airlines, by prioritizing profits above all, have created a generation of mediocre pilots who don't deeply understand the automation, don't hand fly often enough, and are just as likely to cause catastrophes as to prevent them. The fascinating and chilling piece in Vanity Fair a while back about the crash of Air France 447 discusses the history and causes of this phenomenon of mediocrity.
2
Mr. Smith now knows how buggy whip manufactures felt about the advent of the automobile.
He did not respond to a more immediate potential solution: we have the capability to build "software walls" around the airplane to that the flight control system would prevent the pilot from deviating too far from the filed flight plan. Along with eliminating most recent terrorist events, this would substantially reduce the fifty percent of crashes that are "controlled flight into the ground" (AKA pilot error).
He did not respond to a more immediate potential solution: we have the capability to build "software walls" around the airplane to that the flight control system would prevent the pilot from deviating too far from the filed flight plan. Along with eliminating most recent terrorist events, this would substantially reduce the fifty percent of crashes that are "controlled flight into the ground" (AKA pilot error).
How would that software wall handle a simple diversion due to a sick passenger? Or responding to an inflight fire or other critical emergency.
I'm sure you can write code to cover every foreseen and unforeseen problem, can't you. And what happens when there's no electical power for your computers?
I'm sure you can write code to cover every foreseen and unforeseen problem, can't you. And what happens when there's no electical power for your computers?
2
Excellent column, Patrick. I think people anxious for robotically- piloted aircraft forget that they would need to be programmed and controlled with some human input. Perhaps a human like Andreas Lubitz.
12
Patrick Smith should pretty much be the go to person for any news source when any aviation related incident takes place, or if a question regarding flying is at hand. Aviation is the one thing that I see the general public and news media get wrong, over and over again, consistently. As compared to professions such as law or medicine, the actual work of flying remains a black box to the layman. It doesn't make for good TV like Grey's Anatomy or LA Law.
I would offer that it wouldn't be 10s of Billions to replace the infrastructure; more like trillions, that we surely don't have and will now never have in our lifetimes. None of us will see pilotless aircraft merely due to the economics of it. We're broke people.
I would offer that it wouldn't be 10s of Billions to replace the infrastructure; more like trillions, that we surely don't have and will now never have in our lifetimes. None of us will see pilotless aircraft merely due to the economics of it. We're broke people.
6
While some folks react to each and every tragic plane disaster with fear and horror of dangers of flying and make loud, holier-than-thou calls for better safety regulations, the fact remains that flying is unbelievable safe. Safer than staying at home. Each accident is a terrible tragedy but is there ever going to be a point at which we say "We've done all we can. The risks are minimal. But very occasionallly, there will be tragedies" It's almost as if we've come to stage where we're demanding that flying has fewer risks than life itself.
11
I would agree that the lesson of the recent plane crash is not to try to fly planes solely with technology. I come to this idea from a completely different approach, namely that we have no idea what's going on inside of someone else and that we all need to work on our individual health and on society's more general health. If the pilot felt flying was such a crucial part of his identity (that loss of it was perceived as such an intractable problem), something was wrong there already. But it was seen, from what I've read, as a "passion." We need a better system of values for what constitutes health and we need better coping skills to deal with life on life's terms. That's what I see, not more computers, automation, and technology.
18
You're absolutely correct. Unless flying becomes as simple as riding an escalator or an elevator, this conversation about pilotless planes is absurd. Even if you can remove the pilot from the aircraft, you would still have a human being guiding the takeoff and landing and dealing with emergencies. There would still be same problem of anticipating when the remote driver might, in a moment of mental instability, guide a plane into a mountain. All you advocates for pilotless aircraft: get back to me when you have an answer to this one.
1
As Patrick Smith's points out in his book, one of the problems is how Hollywood is awash with portrayals of a flight attendant being able to land a an airliner after both pilots have become incapacitated by virtue of a pilot on the ground simply "talking her through it, step by step" remotely. In reality, as Smith points out, there is virtually zero chance that this would lead to anything but a fiery crash. There are reasons that pilots are so highly trained, over a period of years and years. If anyone could do it, even with a few quick verbal instructions, what would be the reason for all that training?
A recent column in the New Yorker by John Cassidy put it that while pilots do execute takeoffs and landings", the rest of the time theyre just "systems managers". Even overlooking the dismissive mention of takeoffs and landings as if they're a minor part of flying an airliner, I'd love to see the advertisement for "system manager" that read "Must have IT experience, understand networking, back end and front end coding, and be a skilled pilot with thousands of hours of flight time and training capable of piloting a massive modern airliner in a thunderstorm"
A recent column in the New Yorker by John Cassidy put it that while pilots do execute takeoffs and landings", the rest of the time theyre just "systems managers". Even overlooking the dismissive mention of takeoffs and landings as if they're a minor part of flying an airliner, I'd love to see the advertisement for "system manager" that read "Must have IT experience, understand networking, back end and front end coding, and be a skilled pilot with thousands of hours of flight time and training capable of piloting a massive modern airliner in a thunderstorm"
83
Re: Your reference to John Cassidy's "dismissive mention of takeoffs and landings as if they're a minor part of flying an airliner," takeoffs and landings are considered the most critical times. The first three minutes and the last eight minutes are when an accident is most likely to occur. Eighty percent of airline accidents happen during plus three, minus eight.
27
A modern airliner can land automatically under normal conditions. The reason it doesn't happen much in real life is regulations and the possibility of a last-minute contingency. Once she figured out how to key the mike on a frequency that is in use, the flight attendant would be instructed in how to set up the autopilot for routing and landing.
However, any analogy between the human brain and the most advanced computers in their ability to handle anomalies is the realm of writers, not computer programmers. Not only do computers not think, we don't even know how humans think, except as a detailed block diagram of brain sites. You cannot program a computer to perform a task, thinking, that you don't know how to do.
However, there is another issue raised by the Germanwings disaster that Mr. Smith does not address. Did no one notice that the new pilot was a little off? Is there a code of silence such as exists in most police forces? While some criticize the West Point Honor Code, it establishes the individual responsibility to report problems the just might lead to a bad result. At least computers have no hesitation in displaying a blue screen when something goes wrong. They don't care because they don't think.
However, any analogy between the human brain and the most advanced computers in their ability to handle anomalies is the realm of writers, not computer programmers. Not only do computers not think, we don't even know how humans think, except as a detailed block diagram of brain sites. You cannot program a computer to perform a task, thinking, that you don't know how to do.
However, there is another issue raised by the Germanwings disaster that Mr. Smith does not address. Did no one notice that the new pilot was a little off? Is there a code of silence such as exists in most police forces? While some criticize the West Point Honor Code, it establishes the individual responsibility to report problems the just might lead to a bad result. At least computers have no hesitation in displaying a blue screen when something goes wrong. They don't care because they don't think.
1
I thoroughly enjoy reading Patrick Smith. His opinions are a result of his vast knowledge of aviation. I read all the columns he wrote for Salon, where he was a contributor for many years. I also read the two books he has published so far. It would be great to see him more often on the pages of the New York Times.
63
I'll echo the call to see him more often -- and note that Joe Sharkey has retired his business travel column.
1
"More than 415 large drones flown by the American military have crashed in accidents since 2001, a record that is acceptable, if expensive, for remotely controlled aircraft,"
After the recent crash of the German flight, I checked an online source for passenger aircraft crashed since 2000. The total is 250, according to that much used source. Between 2000 and 2011, the rate of crashes had doubled by 2011. From 2012 to present, the rate has halved for no obvious reason.
After the recent crash of the German flight, I checked an online source for passenger aircraft crashed since 2000. The total is 250, according to that much used source. Between 2000 and 2011, the rate of crashes had doubled by 2011. From 2012 to present, the rate has halved for no obvious reason.
1
Most of those crashes were not attributable to major airlines. When I fly I want a human being in the cockpit because conditions are constantly changing. I want s living, breathing pilot to make judgments about adjusting to changing conditions. Most pilots are very reliable and skillful. I work with computers in my job and know how often computer glitches can occur.
7
@Roger,
You forgot to consider the crash rate - as in X number of crashes per 100,000 flights.
The record of drones is totally unacceptable for passenger flights. Maybe at sometime in the future that will change. Then the only challenge then will be to get human beings to sign up for those pilot-less flights... ;>)
You forgot to consider the crash rate - as in X number of crashes per 100,000 flights.
The record of drones is totally unacceptable for passenger flights. Maybe at sometime in the future that will change. Then the only challenge then will be to get human beings to sign up for those pilot-less flights... ;>)
5
Both statistics here are misleading. You want a rate, not an absolute number. How many drone flights have their been for the 415 accidents? How many civil aviation flights for those 250?
8
I see this the same as the air police: it is already possible to send drones to control an unidentified airplane but it is much better to send a jet with a pilot because the human being can see (and feel) so many things the drone cannot apprehend as a whole.
BTW there is a joke: in the future, planes will have a pilot and a dog. The pilot will be there to reassure the passengers and the dog will be there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the commands...
BTW there is a joke: in the future, planes will have a pilot and a dog. The pilot will be there to reassure the passengers and the dog will be there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the commands...
11
Patrick might have also said that the reason that pilots spend so little time "hand flying" the aircraft is that the manufacturers and airline companies push the pilots to use the autopilot from shortly after takeoff to just before landing.
I flew the same Boeing 767 & 757 that Patrick flies and I almost always "hand flew" the aircraft from takeoff until after level off at altitude and turned the autopilot off during the descent as soon as the workload declined - usually about FL240 (24,000 feet above sea level).
If airlines required that, pilot's hand flying skills would not deteriorate.
I flew the same Boeing 767 & 757 that Patrick flies and I almost always "hand flew" the aircraft from takeoff until after level off at altitude and turned the autopilot off during the descent as soon as the workload declined - usually about FL240 (24,000 feet above sea level).
If airlines required that, pilot's hand flying skills would not deteriorate.
64