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: 2, Informative) by m2o2r2g2 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @12:42AM
I remote co-pilot. What a good idea. No one will ever hack into the system.
That way I don't have to worry about the 1 crazy in-flight co-pilot, I have to worry about the millions of psychopathic hackers out there that want to have a real life flight sim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @05:19PM
Not to mention that it would be a dream for 9/11 style terrorists: Now they don't have to pass airport security and fight flight personnel to get control, they just have to hack into the system from anywhere in the world in order to crash the planes into whatever building they want. And they don't even need suicide terrorists for that, since the hackers will certainly survive.
Also conventional hijackers will profit from it: Since they are no longer on the plane they hijack, they are in a much better negotiation position.