Pilot-less plane ? No, thanks !
Cockpit automation is good and I’m a big fan of it, as long as it comes with appropriate training. The first rumors about the Turkish accident in Amsterdam are quite scary, but they’re only rumors, so I don’t comment or relay them. But as almost all aviation accidents in recent history have “human errors” as contributing factors the question of planes is not out of context…
Military operations are often supported by remotely-operated Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which can fly back and land autonomously if required. ILS category III approaches are nothing else than fully automated landings, and in comparison to approach and landing, take-off climb and cruise are not really an issue. Economical considerations aside, an airliner without pilot has one security advantage: computers can not be threatened by terrorists trying to take over airplane’s control. Other transport related industries already took this step: many tramway or underground trains are operated without drivers, not to mention terminal transfer trains at several airports. Automobiles are not yet fully automatic but some are already able to reverse-park by themselves.
So why not aviation ? Because of the major difference with terrestrial transport: planes can’t stop. The ultimate safety measure in automated ground transportation systems is always to stop the vehicle. If the computers or any other system fails, some separate safety mechanism brings the vehicle to a stop. The traffic regulation system then stops all following vehicles if it is not possible to overtake the stopped one. Stopping is never appreciated by the passengers and can be uncomfortable, but it’s much better than an high-speed accident. But planes can’t stop – they need speed to remain airborne. No speed, no lift. Continuing straight-ahead is not a solution, and flying a holding pattern requires some automation. Holding patterns are also not a long-term solution, and transferring a maintenance team on board while airborne is not exactly feasible. Some UAVs have parachute systems as ultimate emergency recovery system, but this is also not a sufficient warranty for an airliner…
System failure are only one part of the reason why I would not like a pilot-less plane, the second being the incredible creativity and adaptability of the human mind. Those who write aviation laws and regulations are not exactly light-minded or relaxed when it comes to interpreting the rules they create. But they’re clever enough to give final authority to the Pilot In Command (PIC). Being ultimately responsible for the safety of the plane, passengers and lives on ground, the PIC has the right to deviate from any published law, rule or procedures if deemed necessary.
This means that when major problems occur, which were not planned or imagined by anyone, the Captain is on his own… but with full freedom of act. Shall something like the Hudson River ditching occur over Washington, the pilot would be perfectly legal to land in the White-House’s garden if it is the only viable solution. Giving this freedom to the Captain is not always sufficient – accidents still occur – but it is the best that can be done. No automated system will ever be “creative” or “flexible”. Plane without a pilot ? No, thank you.
6 Comments, Comment or Ping
Julien
Hi Vincent!
I agree with you, pilotless passenger-carrying airliners are still probably very far away into the future. Although I’m sure Ryanair would do it tomorrow if they could
What I think is going to happen soon is pilotless cargo airplanes. Especially over oceans or near-empty landmasses. Maybe not for the DHL and Fedex of the world who use airliners, but I can see how people would choose the pilotless cargo drone over a human being flying a Baron or a Cessna Caravan.
Higher cargo load for the same costs since you do not need to carry a pilot, pilot seat, instruments, heating and so on. Can fly in really atrocious weather since there is less at stake. No limitation on pilot duty time, or overnight accommodation costs.
I’d be very surprised if this didn’t happen. Sadly enough, we may see freightdogs disappear.
Mar 23rd, 2009
Vincent
@Julien: While I don’t really appreciate the idea of pilot-less cargo planes flying around, I must admit that your idea sounds credible. I’m not sure yet how two particular problems will be managed:
1) Taxi and guidance on ground (other vehicles, parking, …)
2) Interpretation of en-route weather information and weather decision making
But both can probably be solved with assistance of ground operators. Let’s see what future will bring…
Mar 23rd, 2009
Wayne Conrad
Between the accountants, dispatchers, passengers and the pilots, only the pilots have both a personal stake in whether or not the plane makes it there and the authority to say “no.” In other words, the pilots are the passengers’ “safety hostages.” For that reason alone they are required ingredients for safe flight, no matter how good the computers get at flying the plane.
Apr 10th, 2009
Vincent
@Wayne: shall I understand that you will never travel on an automatic train for example ? I hope that the go / no-go decision will never be delegated to bean counters, but in today’s world… not sure.
Apr 10th, 2009
Wayne Conrad
Vincent, The question is not whether I would travel on an automated train. The question is whether or not a pilot makes an airplane safer even if the airplane can be piloted well by computerized systems (or, to generalize the question, whether a human driver makes a vehicle safer even if a computer can drive the vehicle safely). You had better do more than hope the decision will never be delegated to bean counters–I think political action will be necessary. UAVs are already here in U.S. civilian airspace, in the form of military aircraft on their way to or from Military Operations Areas. I suspect that cargo aircraft are sure to follow, and after that, someone is sure to propose an “unmanned” (or remotely piloted) passenger aircraft. Without the “safety hostages” on board, there will be nobody on the plane with both the authority to say “no” to a flight and the personal stake in the safety of the flight. What then will happen to flight safety, when the only reason not to crash the plane is economics and bad press? You can afford a crash now and then, after all–even though crashes are expensive to an airline, the cost of canceled flights add up, too. How many canceled flights are worth how many lawsuits on the bean counter’s balance sheet? Someday, when and if the regulatory change to allow unmanned passenger aircraft is proposed, contact the government in your country and squawk.
Apr 11th, 2009
Vincent
I fully agree with you Wayne but all the trends and signs I see around go in the other direction. Aviation educated persons will never accept this situation, but what about the masses of un-aware persons ? I’m sadly sure that stupid arguments like “pilot-less planes are safer because no one can threaten the pilots” could working. Thanks to media, people are much more afraid of unlawful interference than bad decision making, simply because they have no idea of all the decisions that crews make daily… Will see.
Apr 12th, 2009
Reply to “Pilot-less plane ? No, thanks !”