SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the queue-the-'Airplane!'-references-in-3,2,1 dept.
Pilotless commercial airliners are about to be tested, but potential passengers are wary:
How comfortable would you feel getting on a pilotless plane? That is the question millions of people may have to ask themselves in the future if they want to jet off on holiday around the world.
As we move closer to a world of driverless cars, which have already been on the road in some US cities and have also been tested in London, remotely controlled planes may be the next automated mode of transport. Plane manufacturer Boeing plans to test them in 2018.
A survey by financial services firm UBS suggests that pilotless aircraft not be too popular, however, with 54% of the 8,000 people questioned saying they would be unlikely to take a pilotless flight. The older age groups were the most resistant with more than half of people aged 45 and above shunning the idea.
Only 17% of those questioned said they would board such a plane, with more young people willing to give them a try and the 25 to 34 age group the most likely to step on board.
[...] Steve Landells, the British Airline Pilots Association's (Balpa) flight safety specialist, said: "We have concerns that in the excitement of this futuristic idea, some may be forgetting the reality of pilotless air travel. Automation in the cockpit is not a new thing - it already supports operations. However, every single day pilots have to intervene when the automatics don't do what they're supposed to. Computers can fail, and often do, and someone is still going to be needed to work that computer."
Fnord666: So how about it soylentils? Would you fly on a pilotless plane?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jimbrooking on Wednesday August 09 2017, @02:31PM (3 children)
According to a study done by Boeing (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_03_2.html) 80% of all commercial airplane accidents are caused by human error. There are already autopilots for modern aircraft that can take off, navigate to a destination, and land in most non-violent weather conditions (https://www.wired.com/story/boeing-autonomous-plane-autopilot/), so the software has been tested a lot. It seems a small step to achieve fully automated gate-to-gate commercial flight, reducing the 80% human-error-caused accidents would be welcomed by our risk-intolerant population. However, apparently their risk intolerance is not bundled with an ability to do risk assessment.
Reminds me of the early days of space travel, where the story was that the space shuttle could be manned by an astronaut and a dog. The dog was there to bite the astronaut if he tried to touch any of the flight controls.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 09 2017, @02:34PM
Apollo 13?
(Score: 2) by fraxinus-tree on Wednesday August 09 2017, @02:53PM
Boeing is not in a position to do such a study.
(Score: 3, Informative) by subs on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:39PM
What you don't realize, unless you're an actual pilot, is how often pilots need to intervene. Things break in flight, sensors die, entire subsystems spill their marbles on the floor and in many of those cases, the autopilot simply throws its hands up in the air and asks the crew to sort it out. Those "80% human-error-caused" are probably mostly those cases where the pilot failed to save the aircraft from tearing itself apart. What you don't realize is that in the vast majority of accidents, there's usually one or more technical faults that preceded it. This is of course excepting those cases where the human really did just have a straight up brain fart, but those are relatively few and far between.