This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

How can we make aviation/flying safer?

What proves it's secure? I'd have thought that was blindingly obvious given that these are in use over active warzones, controlled from thousands of miles away and don't get broken into...

It's blindingly obvious is it? So UAV's that are in use over active warzones, which weigh the best part of 100kg not even, can be related to the security of an airliner weighing in excess of 70 tonnes flying at least 20x higher, such that the lives of 170+ people (at least) depend on aircraft system which has no active PIC?

Original post by Drewski

More controlled? Well, 99% of any commercial flight is conducted on autopilot anyway, so making it 100% would indicate it was more controlled, purely in a pedantic application of the word.

Yes, it's easy, just let the UAS somehow (automatically), run dozens of flight checklists, aircraft walkarounds, inputting of GW's, ZFW's, MTOW's, CI, Cruise alt, thrust DR, SID's, STAR's, IRS aligning's, monitoring EPR, ELEC systems, temps, pressures etc.... These are just a few things airline pilots have to do, it's really not just "set it on AP and go to sleep". That simply doesn't happen unless the pilot is suffering from bad fatigue.

Original post by Drewski

And that was exactly my point in post #46. It's the hours that pilots are made to work that contributes to these. So let's give the pilots a more restful way of working. How could that be a bad idea?

I totally agree with you here, but you're missing the fact that it's simply not that easy to "switch out a pilot" as you so say it is. And as it currently stands, it is safer to have crew in our aircraft than not. What happens if there's a problem on board, something mechanical for instance? Idk, a HYD leak for instance, how will the UAS with today's technology, currently know exactly what decision will be best to carry out? AS it currently stands, I do believe the future holds pilot free flights, but not for a long time to come.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 61

jamesthehustler

19

Original post by Tawheed

I am terrified of planes, fearing the worst everytime i am on one.

How can we make aviation safer? Any ideas?

I believe security staff should be screened more, monitored more, and pilots paid more and have more mental health-checks. I also believe there should be tougher security, and people who buy tickets should know the age of the plane they are going on, and the experience of the pilot.

have you seen what a pilot makes i know one he banks £10,000

Spoiler

Reply 62

Drewski

19

Original post by tripleseven

It's blindingly obvious is it? So UAV's that are in use over active warzones, which weigh the best part of 100kg not even, can be related to the security of an airliner weighing in excess of 70 tonnes flying at least 20x higher, such that the lives of 170+ people (at least) depend on aircraft system which has no active PIC?

The Reaper's all up weight is 3.4tons.
The Global Hawk's auw is 15tons.
The latter will fly at up to 60,000ft.

Pretending these things are small toys is pointless. They're not. They're highly sophisticated and controlled from many thousands of miles away without issue.

Yes, it's easy, just let the UAS somehow (automatically), run dozens of flight checklists, aircraft walkarounds, inputting of GW's, ZFW's, MTOW's, CI, Cruise alt, thrust DR, SID's, STAR's, IRS aligning's, monitoring EPR, ELEC systems, temps, pressures etc.... These are just a few things airline pilots have to do, it's really not just "set it on AP and go to sleep". That simply doesn't happen unless the pilot is suffering from bad fatigue.

And where did I suggest there'd be no pilot involved? Remotely piloted vehicles are still piloted.

I totally agree with you here, but you're missing the fact that it's simply not that easy to "switch out a pilot" as you so say it is. And as it currently stands, it is safer to have crew in our aircraft than not. What happens if there's a problem on board, something mechanical for instance? Idk, a HYD leak for instance, how will the UAS with today's technology, currently know exactly what decision will be best to carry out? AS it currently stands, I do believe the future holds pilot free flights, but not for a long time to come.

Switching out a pilot for a UAV pretty much is that simple. One guy stands up, another sits down. Not tricky. Hell, if you were that bothered about redundancies you can have two ground units synced up to the same aircraft.

Other aviation professionals have suggested that one pilot based at a ground terminal could be in control of / monitoring several aircraft at once in the future.

And again, your point is nulled on the issues part. That's when the pilot based on the ground responds. There's no difference in response level, a terminal's instruments would be showing the exact same data you'd see in the cockpit, the inputs would be identical. I don't see how that's an issue.

The only issue is, nobody would fly on a plane without a pilot. You'd probably need a guy to dress up for show.

Reply 63

jamesthehustler

19

Original post by EuanF

What if the cabin crew were terrorists and they were trying to shoot everyone

then they'd know to blow out a window
one shot, several hundred kills

Reply 64

Tempest II

16

Original post by Drewski

Remember, just because there's no pilot on board doesn't mean there's no pilot in the loop. I'm not saying hand over to a computer in the entirety, you can still have pilots there ready to takeover and fly the thing by hand. It's just that they're in a more relaxed environment, thus negating the exhaustion argument.

PRSOM.
Would you keep one pilot on board in case of computer failure etc?
I do think we're still a fair way off controlling large amounts of airliners from the ground due to infrastructure. You might be able run short haul flights differently but from what I understand about the large RPASs they need to be controlled via satellite link (which contains a short but noticeable delay between control inputs due to the distance the signal had to travel). This isn't important in normal flight but in emergency situations it could cause an issue. For take off & landing you'd have to switch to a local recovery team who'd operate it directly instead of bouncing off of satellite (removing the delay). Again they'd probably only need to be there for emergency situations as with modern technology aircraft can take off & land themselves.

I definitely think that everything you've suggested is possible but I don't think it'll become mainstream yet.

Reply 65

Drewski

19

Original post by Tempest II

PRSOM.
Would you keep one pilot on board in case of computer failure etc?

Not sure. If it was a total computer failure then what could a guy who's on board do? In the case of an A320 you're in a fly-by-wire aircraft - there's no physical connection between your hands and the control surfaces of the aircraft. If those computers go down you're screwed no matter where the pilot is.

But I don't recall hearing of a single incident where this has ever happened.

Reply 66

Tempest II

16

Original post by Drewski

Not sure. If it was a total computer failure then what could a guy who's on board do? In the case of an A320 you're in a fly-by-wire aircraft - there's no physical connection between your hands and the control surfaces of the aircraft. If those computers go down you're screwed no matter where the pilot is.

But I don't recall hearing of a single incident where this has ever happened.

Again I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate here as everything you've said sounds plausible. I don't mean a total computer failure but one that it it did fail would cause safety issues. I don't think the chances of it would be high but it's not unheard of:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508839/A-hero-called-Coward-BA-pilot-declares-deputy-landed-stricken-flight.html

So I'd be tempted to have a single crewman/woman to man the cockpit if only to monitor & be prepared to take control in emergency situations. But yeah I definitely think everything else could be controlled by autopilot or from a ground control station.

Reply 67

JuliusDS92

18

A tightly packed plane is probably the easiest place in the world to grab a hostage or human shield. And unless you can guarantee 100% accuracy, armed security is almost certainly going to shoot a passenger or make a hole in the side of the plane.

And if this was a bomb, what would armed security have done about it?

More guns on a plane are not a good thing.

Reply 68

thunder_chunky

19

Racial profiling for the win.

Reply 69

username1539513

21

Original post by JuliusDS92

A tightly packed plane is probably the easiest place in the world to grab a hostage or human shield. And unless you can guarantee 100% accuracy, armed security is almost certainly going to shoot a passenger or make a hole in the side of the plane.

And if this was a bomb, what would armed security have done about it?

More guns on a plane are not a good thing.

What about a tranquiliser gun?

Reply 70

JuliusDS92

18

Original post by EuanF

Less bombs on aircraft

I've not done the research but I'm pretty sure more bombs makes the aircraft less likely to not explode

YES

Reply 71

JuliusDS92

18

Probably a better idea.

Reply 72

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Destoroyah

Give some of the control back to humans, perhaps? The Autopilot is vital, but what the plane tells people when something goes wrong should at least be understandable. Airbus seems to be going down the route of designing the captain out of the cockpit.

There is an idea that aviation would be much safer if every plane carried a pilot and a Rottweiler. The function of the Rottweiler is to bite the pilot if he attempts to fly the plane.

Reply 73

anarchism101

17

Aviation is safe, certainly compared to other forms of travel. The stats are far more favourable, and whenever there's a disaster the level of investigation is huge compared to similar situations. Indeed, that's why the few (and I literally mean a few - fatal air accidents are now generally in single figures per year despite hundreds of thousands of flights) distasters that do happen make the news.

If it is a terrorist attack, it's the first successful terrorist attack on a plane departing a Western airport since 9/11 (I'm not counting the Malaysian Airlines flight brought down in Ukraine - that was nothing to do with airport security, and it was also likely a case of mistaken identity, as I can't see why Russian ultranationalists would want to bring down a Malaysian passenger plane). Seriously, think about that. Successful terrorist attacks on commercial planes since 9/11 can be counted on one hand (though there have been some failed attempts that got disturbingly close), and most (in fact I think all but one) have been on Russian planes.

Reply 74

anarchism101

17

Original post by jamesthehustler

then they'd know to blow out a window
one shot, several hundred kills

Smashing a window wouldn't bring down a plane, not even close. A Somali plane (i.e. hardly the world's highest building and maintenance standards) earlier this year survived a terrorist attack that blew a human-sized hole in the fuselage, and still managed to land with no fatalities except the man whose seat the bomb was underneath (who was likely the perpetrator anyway). You need quite a sizable hole to cause the plane to break up. Sure, a smashed window will make cabin pressure and oxygen supply a problem, but planes are prepared for that kind of thing. Hell, planes have landed successfully after cockpit windows have smashed.

Reply 75

jamesthehustler

19

Original post by anarchism101

Smashing a window wouldn't bring down a plane, not even close. A Somali plane (i.e. hardly the world's highest building and maintenance standards) earlier this year survived a terrorist attack that blew a human-sized hole in the fuselage, and still managed to land with no fatalities except the man whose seat the bomb was underneath (who was likely the perpetrator anyway). You need quite a sizable hole to cause the plane to break up. Sure, a smashed window will make cabin pressure and oxygen supply a problem, but planes are prepared for that kind of thing. Hell, planes have landed successfully after cockpit windows have smashed.

depends on the altitude you up in the 25k foot margin the yes it can lower level have far less pressure

Reply 76

Destoroyah

9

Here's the glaring issue. If the computer of a fully-electronic plane determined a fault to be the correct course of action, it would follow that fault to catastrophic
results.

Here is an example.

[video="youtube;KEH7OpnA-I4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEH7OpnA-I4[/video]

This accident was partly the result of pilot error, but the final result was almost entirely the fault of the computer system. Had the pilots been able to fly the plane without the computer system interfering, they would have been able to climb out of the forest and back up to a safe altitude. The computer deemed this action to be incorrect, and wrestled control of the elevators away from the pilots and pointed it straight down, causing the jet to slam into the ground.

(SOURCE)

Spoiler

It's human nature to make errors. Even if you handed control over to a computer, that computer still has to be programmed by a human. Would you rather fly on a plane with a computer and two or more humans who can bring the plane under control if something goes wrong, OR have the plane returned to safety by the computer if the humans make a mistake, or a plane which acts solely on the commands given to it from within, no matter how flawed or dangerous they may be?

I'd much rather fly with two or more humans and a computer in the cockpit, thanks.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 77

anarchism101

17

Original post by jamesthehustler

depends on the altitude you up in the 25k foot margin the yes it can lower level have far less pressure

In 1988 a Hawaiian plane lost the front half of its ceiling, including the cockpit wall and door, at around 25k feet. It looked like this:

The plane nevertheless managed to land safely despite the explosive decompression. With the exception of one flight attendant who was blown out right at the moment the roof came off, there were no fatalities (though there were significant injuries). But you're saying that now. nearly 30 years later, with hugely more advanced technical and safety developments in aviation, planes are unprepared for a passenger window breaking?

Reply 78

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Destoroyah

I'd much rather fly with two or more humans and a computer in the cockpit, thanks.

That is the fallacy. In the case of most complex systems, the computer on its own is better than the computer plus human being.

Whilst there may be a few cases where the human might intervene and prevent a catastrophe which the computer is incapable of preventing, the human is more likely to act inappropriately and prevent the automatic system from doing what it ought to do, thus causing a catastrophe.

If the pilots of Air France 447 had stayed on Copa Cabana beach and the plane had flown to Paris without them, the passengers would be alive today.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

Reply 79

Destoroyah

9

Original post by nulli tertius

That is the fallacy. In the case of most complex systems, the computer on its own is better than the computer plus human being.

Whilst there may be a few cases where the human might intervene and prevent a catastrophe which the computer is incapable of preventing, the human is more likely to act inappropriately and prevent the automatic system from doing what it ought to do, thus causing a catastrophe.

If the pilots of Air France 447 had stayed on Copa Cabana beach and the plane had flown to Paris without them, the passengers would be alive today.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash

And this brings up the debate over whether it would be wise to have people capable of flying the plane on board. Let's just say that AF 447 is travelling over the ocean when the computer system makes a fatal error, and the plane enters a deep stall. While it is undeniable that the actual events were the result of pilot error, is it better to have a computer system which might make a mistake from which no one is capable of rescuing, or have a computer with this flaw, plus a human who also has the potential to make mistakes.

As I mentioned, until we can create computers that program themselves, these machines are powered by the knowledge that we, as the systems' designers, have. If the information held at the time is flawed and is programmed into the system, you're setting yourself up for disaster.

Although in another field, apparently a chemical plant that was fully automated very nearly suffered an explosion because when the system was programmed, an error was included that meant the computers used commas instead of decimal points while measuring chemicals.

(edited 7 years ago)

How can we make aviation/flying safer?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you