SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the extraordinary-hacker-opportunity-here dept.
John Markoff writes in the NYT that in the aftermath of the co-pilot crashing a Germanwings plane into a mountain, aviation experts are beginning to wonder if human pilots are really necessary aboard commercial planes. Advances in sensor technology, computing and artificial intelligence are making human pilots less necessary than ever in the cockpit and government agencies are already experimenting with replacing the co-pilot, perhaps even both pilots on cargo planes, with robots or remote operators. What the Germanwings crash “has done has elevated the question of should there or not be ways to externally control commercial aircraft,” says Mary Cummings. NASA is exploring a related possibility: moving the co-pilot out of the cockpit on commercial flights, and instead using a single remote operator to serve as co-pilot for multiple aircraft. In this scenario, a ground controller might operate as a dispatcher managing a dozen or more flights simultaneously. It would be possible for the ground controller to “beam” into individual planes when needed and to land a plane remotely in the event that the pilot became incapacitated — or worse. “Could we have a single-pilot aircraft with the ability to remotely control the aircraft from the ground that is safer than today’s systems?" asks Cummings. "The answer is yes.”
Automating that job may save money. But will passengers ever set foot on plane piloted by robots, or humans thousands of miles from the cockpit? In written testimony submitted to the Senate last month, the Air Line Pilots Association warned, “It is vitally important that the pressure to capitalize on the technology not lead to an incomplete safety analysis of the aircraft and operations.” The association defended the unique skills of a human pilot: “A pilot on board an aircraft can see, feel, smell or hear many indications of an impending problem (PDF) and begin to formulate a course of action before even sophisticated sensors and indicators provide positive indications of trouble.” Not all of the scientists and engineers believe that increasingly sophisticated planes will always be safer planes. "Technology can have costs of its own,” says Amy Pritchett. “If you put more technology in the cockpit, you have more technology that can fail.”
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:47PM
I fired a guy that couldn't fix cars right, he went to work as an inspector at a nearby aircraft assembly company. In fact, we lost quite a few techs to them. Some came back telling me horror stories about how people would phuck up something while building the airplane, and call the inspector in for the correct way to patch it.
(Score: 1) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:05PM
So you are saying that AI should build planes too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:09PM
No, what I'm saying is "you get what you pay for". Sometimes anyway. They were looking for cheap labor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @11:53PM
Why not?
(Score: 1) by eliphas_levy on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:40AM
Someone that can't make mayonnaise if their life depended on it could be a great restaurant manager (or maid), or someone that does not want to be below a car day after day turning bolts can be a great engineer. Your point?
This is a sigh.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:30AM
Anyone that puts a fan in backwards and punches a hole in the radiator doing so should not be working on aircraft, let alone inspecting them.