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: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:37PM (3 children)
Watch the movie - if Sully had been a machine, they could have landed at an airport instead of in the river.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:25PM (2 children)
> Watch the movie - if Sully had been a machine, they could have landed at an airport instead of in the river.
...if Sully had been a machine, *and if the machine knew what the glide performance was with 2-engines out* they could have landed at an airport instead of in the river. But that particular performance spec is not currently available (so would not have been available for programmers either).
No thanks, I'll stick with the NTSB report before I believe anything in a movie.
The Wired article does mention that in simulations the plane could have glided back to an airport, but with no checklist for 2-engine out operation (which should include a table of glide performance), Sully did the right thing. One of the NTSB recommendations is to add this checklist...
"Once the birds and the airplane collided and the accident became inevitable, so many things went right," NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman says in a statement. "This is a great example of the professionalism of the crewmembers, air traffic controllers and emergency responders who all played a role in preserving the safety of everyone aboard."
The report validated Sullenberger's action, saying ditching the plane in the Hudson "provided the highest probability that the accident would be survivable." Several pilots agree.
Schiff and others say there are big differences between dealing with a real emergency and dealing with one recreated in a simulator. Airline pilots regularly train for emergencies in full-motion simulators that do an incredible job recreating the experience of flying a real airliner. But it is difficult to recreate the mental and emotional state pilots experience in an emergency.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:28AM (1 child)
Why is that data not available? They routinely turn off (or, at least, idle) engines during training flights, surely someone can record the telemetry from those. Engine failure after takeoff is one of the standard test scenarios that you're repeatedly drilled in when you learn to fly.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:19AM
I'm sure the data is available now, and I'm sure that if that exact situation happened next time a computer could have done what Sulley did, possibly better.
However what happens next time there's something that hasn't been dealt with?
But generally for every Sulley there's a Lubitz. In cars it's likely that computers will be safer overall. In planes it's less clear. The obvious thing is to automate cargo only flights in sparse areas to start with.