Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday April 07 2015, @09:29PM   Printer-friendly
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.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:24AM

    by isostatic (365) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:24AM (#167692) Journal

    if one of the pilots steps out, a flight attendant steps in.

    So instead of having two highly educated highly trained pilots in the cockpit, who are very unlikely to want to commit suicide, you instead have a highly educated highly trained pilot, and someone who passed a cursory background check and has been working for the airline for 2 months.

    When 9/11 happened, people said "it's simple, just lock the cabin door and make sure you can't break it down". However that's led to crashes of 4U9525, TM470, ZU522, and possibly MH370.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:48AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @02:48AM (#167703)

    who are very unlikely to want to commit suicide

    All air travel safety is about the "very unlikely" cases at this point. That's part of why it's so safe.

    Sure, the flight attendant can't do the kinds of things the other pilot can do, but s/he can certainly handle opening a door to let the other pilot in. And most of them have way more than 2 months of experience: This isn't the 1960's, when stewardess' primary job was to look pretty for the rich businessmen.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by monster on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:39PM

      by monster (1260) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:39PM (#167878) Journal

      I think that what Isostatic is arguing is: What if it's the attendant the one who wants to commit suicide? She hasn't passed the same checks as the pilots and may even be a recent hire. While trying to reomve some worms from the can, you are also adding some new, different worms.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:26PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday April 08 2015, @04:26PM (#167890)

        What if it's the attendant the one who wants to commit suicide?

        Then the pilot that's already in there can act to stop her. And flight attendants get a bunch of background checks too.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @05:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @05:00PM (#167902)

    In the German Wings case, all the flight attendant would have had to know in order to prevent the crash is how to open the cabin door to let the pilot back in.