Bet 4
By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless planes.
Bet 4
Duration 28 years (02002-02030)
Predictor
Craig Mundie
Challenger
Eric Schmidt
Stakes $2,000
will go to The Lee Hartwell Innovation Fund at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center if Mundie wins,
or CHALK (Communities in Harmony Advocating Learning for Kids) www.chalk.org if Schmidt wins.
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
My logic goes like this: First, we have planes today that can take off, fly and land without a pilot. Pilots are there only in case something untoward happens. Second, we already have remotely controlled aircraft, which we've seen, for example, in the Afghanistan war. Third, computers themselves, over the next 18 years -- if we stay on this Moore's law kick -- will be about 4,000 times more powerful than they are today.
The next step in this logic is that with computers increasingly a part of critical infrastructure, the industry is going to have to focus a lot more on making machines that just don't fail. If we go at that hot and heavy for five or ten years, I imagine arriving at a methodology for system design that yields as much dependability, on an everyday basis, as the triple-redundant computer that flew guys to the moon. Finally air traffic control will no longer be based on staticky communications with people staring at radar screens; it'll be completely computerized and recast.
The assertion "Commercial air carriage will be pilotless in the U.S. by 2030" can't be really true.
No licensed air carrier (commercial or private) will be able to use it without at least one pilot supervising the whole process in the pilot seat, even though the technology to take off, cruise and land automatically already exists.
On takeoff, the training and timing around handling emergencies such as engine failure at rotation are not going to be transferrable to autopilots and machines.
On landing, the automated airplanes have to sequence in with many older airplanes with human pilots. The towers and air traffic controllers love to change everything at the last minute, and adding the ability to make changes by computer while simultaneously using voice is not realistic. Finally, the FAA changes so slowly that if this were even all possible, the adoption and certification would all take at least 50 years.
By 2030, commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless planes.
I had a long discussion with a pilot about what the current capabilites are and some discussions with folks in the R&D departments of both GM and Boeing about what kinds of things are possible in a state of the art system and the problem really boils down to the issue of dealing with the unpredictable variables (specifically other planes or cars.) Current pilotless planes have to be given a wide berth and basically a clear path to land or take off so the technology is only really applicable when it's ok to stall other planes and inconvinence others (like in an emergency). Given the rate of technology transfer into automotive and airline industries, I think this prediction is too optimistic.
I am not sure that it is safe to predict the kind of technology we will be exposed to by 2030. A lot can happen in 28 years, and although we can monitor a technological advancement curve for an estimation, we must remember that one jump in any one field can boost available technology in all other sciences in perhaps even one single year. The kind of artificial intelligence that would be required to fully automate commercial aviation today is not far out of hand. Certain aircraft, the B-2 for example, require three onboard control computers just to keep it stable. I predict that it will take only a few more years before the first completely automated commercial aircraft prototype will be ready to roll out of its hangar. The main issue here, however, is neither the technology available for aircraft nor the task of preparing airports for the change, for an ideal design would not require anything special to be modified in airports, but a more social ease. The fact is that even if Boeing came out with a line of fully automated commercial aircraft, no matter how much they guaranteed its safety, no airline would be ready to invest in it for the simple fact that few passengers would feel safe traveling in one of these planes, even if their fears are unbiased.
The advancement of the aviation industry lies in the hands of the public and their mindsets and once they find a way to trust what we do, this industry will really begin to take off.
Emergency situations could be handled by a pilot by remote, with the further advantage that a single pilot could monitor many flights simultaneously and only step in when an emergency occurs. This would probably be the first implementation of such a system anyway, if only for psychological reasons on passenger flights.
For structural strength and huge cost savings, engineers wanted to build the Concord SST with windowless passenger cabins. Psychologists suggested, and surveys confirmed, that even though the aircraft would be safer, passengers would not want to fly in it. For the same reasons, the pilotless aircraft scenario will most likely fail.
As a pilot, I know that while computers can and do fly better than I under most conditions, they cannot make an emergency decision to over-ride its programmed flight limitations. There will always be a reason to have a pilot up front - the big problem is how to keep him/her alert.
In the Afghan War, we see many pilotless drones being flown by American pilots. Each pilot was able to simultaneously fly multiple number of drones at once.
This is a quantum jump in airplane technology. In effect, if something like this is transplanted to the airline industry, huge cost savings and dare we say it, safety improvements will be realized.
The reasons for my statement is several fold.
1. I know one of the posts above stated that people feel safer with a pilot on board. That statements is from the viewpoint of an American or European. Let's view it from a different angle. In China, where future aviation growth will be massive, the national airlines have a notoriously poor safety record. Every year around Chinese New Year, airplanes come crashing to the ground like clockwork.
I would argue that in such a country, airplanes flown by remote but reputable pilots would actually make the passengers feel safer because the faith in the native pilots is so low.
Pilots flying by remote can fly in shifts 24/7 so that the effects of fatigue would be greatly minimized. This would result in much safer aviation. Furthermore, advanced electronics can assist or supplement them for even greater safety.
2. Cost. Pilots flying mulitple planes in shifts are very cost effective. Currently, the airline industry faces fierce competition and low profit margins. One of the greatest cost for running an airplane company is the salary of pilots. By flying remote, the precious pilot resources can be better allocated because the remote pilot will only fly the planes that are taking off or flying and not waiting around at air terminals.
3. Virtual reality and high speed wireless networks can create the same feeling as actually flying in the plane. This will facilitate the transition to pilotless planes.
4. Flying planes remotely will also result in better matching of specialized pilot knowledge to the routes or condition being flown. Pilots who are familiar with say rainy weather landings or flying dangerous mountainous routes can be assigned to fly the planes during those crucial moments. This will result in greater safety through the improved allocation of pilot expertise.
5. The technology is already here. The rapid acceleration in pilotless technology in the US Military will reap significant dividends for the civilian aviation industry.
The whole reason a pilot would want to stay on the ground, as in the US Military pilotless drones, is that the territory being flown is hostile to the aircraft, and the chance of crashing/being shot down is usually quite high. Absent this motivation (which would make most passengers hesitant to get on the aircraft as well), why would a pilot want to opperate remote control aircraft, and how would that pilot "get the feel" of the airplane in a chancey situation.... Something most pilots feel is at least somewhat important in getting from one place to another safely.
but will they let the computer have a gun in the cockpit? ZING! But seriously, folks; that computer-controlled plane would have to be hacker-proof, or some deranged hacker might put two more planes into two more buildings.
Since there are few hacker-proof systems; a pilot's presence might not make a bit of difference if they could be locked out of the plane's control. That will give the world of cyberspace a deadly challenge (and they LOVE challenges), and the world of terrorism an enigmatic face. Signals could be manipulated or distorted to produce radically different results (ever heard of the cop who clocked a tree going 1100 MPH on his radar?) I would hate to have a plane impale the statute of liberty because of a private plane's fax.
Or what if a massive computer failure occurred? would there be a sufficient amount of trained associates to sufficiently compliment the "current" airline landing and takeoff protocols? would that be economically feasible? and would that be enough to assuage the fears of the public, epically if they look at it (which most probably won't) as a pilot that might not be alert who does not get enough actual flight experience coupled with understaffed air traffic controllers who would get even less practice when it comes down to the worst case scenario?
If all that is needed to win this bet if for a single plane to make a single revenue flight then I wouldn't bet against it happening in some other country. But I seriously doubt in the next 50 years, in the U.S. it could happen mostly for social reasons, 1-lawyers, 2-social acceptance, 3-FAA, 4-safety. I have worked daily for the last 10 years as a commercial pilot in single engine Pt. 135 Operations and for four years as the "Chief Pilot". What I tell all new and remind all veterans each year is we aren't paying you the big bucks to fly back and forth, we are paying you to deal with emergencies and especially to turn back when it's unsafe. I believe the same is true for the bigger operations. That is the difference between an airplane pilot, and an airplane driver.
Further I doubt it will ever happen unless there is some kind of total control of the airspace which to date there is not. The gift of flying in the U.S. is that anyone with a license (and many with out) can jump in a plane and go fly pretty much where and when they want. Which means some little guy with his little plane flying along at 4,000 feet and not registering on any data base will cause an unacceptable risk. (ie. see lawyers above)
I would like to think that it may never come to pilotless planes, but one day it will happen. I do not believe that it will happen when this man whoever he is has predicted it. The technology is around to make this kind of idea a reality, but I do not think it is a safe and viable option when you are dealing with 450 + lives, you would have to spend billions of Dollars to create such a system, a system that may beflawed because the means to test every varible the software can create is not avalible. There is also the stability of the platform (system) that the software is running on.
There is also natural forces to conside like freak mangnetic hot spots.
Plus flying a plane is like any other vehicle, you feel it as you are in control, the bumps the vibrations all tell the pilot what is happening or if there is a poblem.
Any way there is to much reliance on technology and there is one easy way to bring the whole system down, admittingly it would cost billions but it would be effective. Relience on technology can have devistating results such as the airbus crash at that airshow where it failed to pull up from a flypast with the landing gear down, the plane wanted to land and the pilot did not. It was a software glich which cost lives. The software was modified and now works. This was because when the analysis was done that situation was not fore seen.
The technolgy we create is as stable as the people who produce it and the environment varibles it operates in. The most advanced tecnology is provided by mother nature and as can been seen in humans and any species that exists, even when the machine reproduces itself (us) there are still situation that can not be fore seen, things that the machine is not in control of.
Even for safer transport systems like trains, boats, buses were tests already have been made with computer pilots, goverments dont even think of risking a computer pilot. For airplanes then??? oooo...think in the year 2200
Remember: Predators use computer pilots ONLY because there
are no humans aboard.
The underpinnings of a technology that can fly planes much more safely and efficiently than a human pilot are already well under development, and such a feat will almost certainly be possible well before the expiration of this bet. The reason why this technology may never be implemented -or will be delayed until well into the future -is far more vulgar than technological challenges: pilots unions will never accept it.
It seems not merely probable but nearly inevitable that computer systems capable of routinely flying passenger planes, without help from human pilots, directors, or control tower agents, will be installed in commercial aircraft within the next twenty years.
Could be sooner, could be later, but within twenty years, no doubt. I'd guess, in fact, that it'll be within ten, and maybe within five.
Moreover, these systems, also within twenty years, tops, will be considerably better than human pilots -- more skilled, more reliable, more consistent. Probably even quite a bit better at handling unexpected and emergency situations, except for some extremely rare types. These systems will likely be robust and redundant, and less likely to experience a fatal error than a human pilot, too.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that those systems will be used to replace pilots.
Further, even if they *are* routinely used to do the work of human pilots, it doesn't follow that human pilots will not be on board. A pilot's salary can't be that significant to an airline, and no co-pilot or navigator would be needed (the "pilot" would actually be the co-pilot).
The human pilot would not need to stay focussed on flying the plane but only to be available in the highly unlikely event of a major malfunction. The cockpit would be more like a private apartment, complete with a bed, and the human pilot would live on the plane for an extended shift, allowing the plane to make faster turnaround flights.
But the airlines would keep that human pilot, for reasons of public relations and reasons of liability. So the plane would not be pilot-less, in terms of a human pilot, but merely unpiloted. However, the bet specifies "pilotless", and therefore I would bet against the proposition.
The engineers on today's passenger trains are present to do little more than hold down an accelerator pedal- 99% of the time. Technology capable of replacing humans for that task has been around for decades. It's that other 1% of the time that's the problem...
(And airplanes have a lot more controls than trains.)
Actually
a) several of the recent [UK] train accidents could have been prevented by implementation of the more advanced automatic train safety system.
b) I believe there are some driverless trains in the London Docklands development area.
The space shuttle is nearly completely automated, and I understand that it could be entirely automated, except that the pilots want something to do. But that's not the reason the pilots train like crazy to fly it. They train like crazy because Things Go Wrong.
In the case of flight 232, which crashed in Sioux City Iowa after a total hydraulic failure, the survivors owe their lives not only to the pilots, but to the extra pilot on board who had been riding in first class. It took four people, total, crowded in the cockpit, to improvise a strategy to get the plane down.
In 1996, an Aeroperu 757 crashed when the static ports were accidentally covered with tape. This disabled all autopilot systems, since no reliable altitude or speed information was available. The pilots could have flown the plane had they been able to see the horizon, but it was nighttime, and it was pitch black outside.
Compared to a train, an airplane is a very tightly coupled system. To fly a plane safely requires that many systems work perfectly. If the systems stop working, the thing doesn't just coast to a stop. One thing I've found very instructive is to read NTSB reports and black box voice recorder transcripts. You get a feel for the role of pilots when the machines misbehave.
Astute statistical thinkers might point out that human error may account for more fatalities than mechanical error. But that's not how social risk calculations are made. Socially, we're more willing to be killed by mistakes humans make than by mistakes machines make that might conceivably have been averted by a human.
NASA has been working on a decentralized air system. Pilots would have a heads-up display that would show a virtual road of dotted lines for the pilot to follow. The idea would make air travel a combination somewhere between a rental car and a chartered bus. You would call (or more likely look on the internet) and tell the airport that you wanted to go from NYC to Washington DC, and you and a few other passengers (as few as 4-6 I think) would leave a message with a time window you could leave in. The computer would put together a flight, and off you'd sail, either with one of the passengers driving, or on computer auto-pilot.
Small planes can be kind of scarry/bumpy to ride in, but I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually move this way. It would take a lot of Beachcraft to bring down a skyscraper, but it might also be a better method to distribute chemical
/biological weapons, since even one terrorist could take over such a small craft. Ultimately, the biggest hurdle may be just human relations. It's bad enough when the guy sitting next to you is a bore, but if you end up with an anoying family as the only other passengers you might just hope there are parachutes onboard.
Will the technology exist by the end of this bet? Oh ya. This technology already exists to a large extent. Most commercial airliners could go from take off to landing without the intervention of a pilot. I have flown planes since several years before I could get a learner¡¦s permit to drive. One thing I have learned is that the aviation industry is almost as archaic as the patent office. Eric is right ¡V if the technology were here today it would be at least 2 decades before the FAA allowed a pilot-less aircraft to take flight with passengers, and another 2 decades before they could be used commercially. Take a look at the EAA and home built aircraft. I challenge anyone to put a factory built Cessna 172 against a home built Lancair IVP. Home built/kit built aircraft have long since surpassed the performance, safety and technology of factory built aircraft. Try to buy a commercial built canard short of the Beechcraft StarShip though... ƒº Simply put ¡V this one isn¡¦t about technology capabilities ¡V it is about legal restrictions and a false perception that a pilot makes an airplane safe. More likely you will see personal jets, HITS (highway in the sky) systems and aircraft that can be piloted, mostly automatically, by an average person with little training.
A lot of people have pointed out the pilot is invaluable in emergencies and unforseen circumstances. This is true, but the pilot does not need to be on the plane if the communications are good enough. If done well, this might be safer than having a pilot on board because:
- You can transfer control to a specialist in the particular kind of emergency, or at the very least an expert and cool headed pilot chosen for this particular job.
- You can gather a team to help fly the plane, not just two people.
- The emergency control room will have everyday practice at handling emergencies, unlike a normal pilot.
- The pilot on the ground does not have to cope with some of the environmental problems - smoke inhalation, temperature and pressure changes, and so on.
- The emergency control center could have very specialized software and skills that are never called upon in normal flight and hence not available on every plane. Examples might be software to re-characterize control authority of damaged planes, or specialized software to control the flgith of a plane with just the engines and no flight surfaces.
- A control center on the ground has access to more data than the pilot on the plane. For example, they could use the radar returns of ground radars to navigate the plane.
Right now, the pilotless planes used by the military are significantly less reliable than the piloted ones. When they become more reliable, as they eventually will (through the reduction in pilot error, if nothing else), it will be time for a rational person to decide to switch. Some years after this, after a few crashes where the pilot screwed up, the FAA might actually switch. I'd guess this second part of the delay will push this past 2030.
I still think that long after it becomes practical to operate pilotless commercial planes, it will remain very rare, at best.
Passengers, as a group, are likely to show resistance to such a change, and insurers will probably throw up even bigger hurdles. Beyond that, pilot salaries really aren't such a large percentage of airline costs.
I'd say a much more likely scenario, if this sort of thing is going to happen at all, would be like so:
- Private aircraft become much more common.
- Self-driving automobiles become common. (Several systems already exist that drive considerably better than human drivers for all kinds of maneuvers.)
- Self-piloting private aircraft become common.
- Then self-piloting commercial aircraft become common.
But, really, there would probably always be a pilot on board, if only to keep the passengers happy, so I wouldn't really consider these "pilotless" aircraft.
Ageed the technology etc exists but the most important fact is being overlooked.
Will any common man prefer to travel with no one sitting in the cockpit ?
Peaple keep talking about comps not handling crashes or rether evoding them. Look at it this way. There is a set number of ways a pilot can move the airplane ( rudder, flaps etc. ) And we know what the controls will do. i see no resion that this info could not be put in a computer and in the case of a mishap it could go threw all its opions - with the speed of the computers inthe futer the comp would have time to run simulations on all its opions- and respond with the very best way to bring the airplane under control. Or at lest make the crash as survible as it can.
It would be able to do this so fast it would be reponding before a human would even know there was a problom.
It would never get tired.
It would never panic and hesitate.
With the right firewalls it would be less likly to be hijacked. and if it was it would not be for fear of its life.
As a personal note i would rether be in a comp controled aircraft then in a aircraft piloded by a human in 2030.
Eric Schmidt is obviously right. The issue isn't whether pilotless aircraft are or will be technologically feasible. The pilot needs to be there because the ultimate flight decision-maker needs to be someone whose own life is on the line. If the plane were entirely remote-controlled, someone on the ground (from the airline, or maybe the government) could decide to sacrifice the plane for any number of reasons (e.g., a perceived threat of crashing into a building). The pilot, in a sense, is a hostage held by the passengers against such calculations. We will still want the pilot to be there because we anticipate that any sane pilot will use his own survival instinct to preserve the safety of everyone on board.
Denver International Airport just opened a runway designed and instrumented specifically for wide and large body aircraft, and for automated landings and takeoffs.
Given the hazard posed by microshear on approach and takeoff, a computerized system which can data link to the airport's weather radar and compensate for shear in the vicinity sounds like a Good Thing. But I, for one, would feel better knowing there's a live, trained pilot in the loop.
One advantage of a fully-automated plane would be the ability of the pilots, or perhaps a ground controller, to decompress the passenger area or even the cockpit temporarily - just long enough to induce sleep - when terrorists take a plane over.
I don't know enough about knockout "gasses" to talk about them, but it seems that with pharmacology being as advanced as it is these days, a quick, short-acting sedative that could be administered through the breathing air of an airliner would be ideal for subduing potential terrorists. A plane automated enough to either land itself or accept instructions from a remote pilot (say, in a NORAD control center) could then set down at a nearby airport where emergency teams would be waiting to take down any wakeful skyjackers and take care of the other occupants of the aircraft.
Actually, there are applications now in which fully or mostly automated flight is very practical - example would be the C-17 tactical transport aircraft - in "nap of the earth" mode, the C-17 routinely flies itself, because it's actually safer to let the autopilot handle the maneuvers involved than to have it done by human hands.
Since many military transport jet pilots are reservists whose "day jobs" are flying civilian airliners and cargo planes, I expect that eventually acceptance of at least automated take-offs and landings will happen. Especially when flights featuring planes such as Airbus' new double-decker airlner become common (the new Airbus was cited as one reason for the new, 3-mile long, heavily automated runway at Denver International Airport, even though the new plane won't be introduced for a couple of years).
I for one dont think thi will happen by 2030, the military havnt got around to this yet, the civil avation industry normally follows what the military does.
So I for one cant see this happening until around the 2050 mark.
I guess there is need to have cars on the roads - which can take elderly people and those who may have lost their driving licenses - without any driver.
This is highly unlikley as being a pilot myself i know that pilots will have to at least be IN THE PLANE untill we can trust computers to police our street and drive and crew ambulances its the same care for life but on a much larger scale.
Scenario
A fully loaded automated PILOTlESS airbs A380 is on final approach to LAX in bad weather and the computer that tells the fuel pumps to pump fuel to the engines fails and all 4 engines flameout the planes computer tells the engines to go around but theres no fuel so the plane with no power and not enought speed left to climb is at the mercy of the wind which there is crosswinds at 150 feet the plane veers sharply to the left the left wing making contact with the ground ripping the wing off the nose then hits the tarmac and the planes turns into a fireball hitting the LAX terminal building horends loss of life and compleatly avoidable if there was a pilot at the controls he would have been able to make the split second judgement that the engine had no power and pushed the nose down to gain speed and pulled back again to make a relativly normal landing
The 21ST Century Aviation System can reduce the cost of flying, while substantially increasing the safety & security of cargo and carrier aircraft with an onboard pilot/s and a remote copilot residing in a secure ground-based simulator. This paper is a condensed version of the paper and presentation that won the Best Session Paper in the 26th DASC (Digital Avionics System Conference) on Oct. 25, 2007.
2. Introduction
Aviation in the 21st century can drastically reduce the cost of flying and yet enhance passenger safety and homeland security. This has been brought about by improvements in the cost, size and capability of avionics and communication systems along with the system expertise gleaned from the analysis and experience gained in flying over the last fifty years. When a plane substantially deviates from its approved flight plan, it is presently possible to have a remote copilot located in a secure simulator fly the plane to a safe landing at a sparsely populated airfield.
The majority of all fatal air crashes are readily preventable if handled correctly. The astronauts were guided back from the moon because the data was telemetered to the ground in real-time. Once the data got to the ground it was analyzed by a concerted effort of experts using simulations. From this analysis the proper and safe way to handle a life-threatening situation was successfully accomplished. In the 21st Century, using modern communication, this proven technique for providing safety can readily be applied to carrier and cargo aircraft. Furthermore, decompression crashes and hijacking fatalities can be minimized. By having topography, weather, aircraft data and the ground Air Traffic Management (ATM) data available, and shared in real-time, we now have expanded our visibility and situation awareness of the airspace. The beautiful part of these safety and security enhancements is that they will also make flying more economical. For example, the benefits of a Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) program will essentially be a free byproduct of the new system since data gathering will be automated. Also, the Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) information will be telemetered to the ground in real-time and stored there. By so doing, any onboard DFDR will only be used to provide redundancy. This minimizes the maintenance of the recorders, the frequency of crashes where essential data was unable to be recovered, and the concomitant cost of recorder recovery. Using the DFDR data in real-time also prevents in-air crashes, ground incursions and hijacking by greatly improving both visibility and usage of timely data. The real-time use of the DFDR data merged with ATM data enhances the visibility, navigation and control of vehicles on the tarmac, increases safety and minimizes costly and unnecessary airport expansion costs by decreasing the need for new runways.
The 21st Century Aviation System reduces aircraft onboard weight, avionics, the cost of flying and serves as a bridge to the expanded use of unmanned air vehicles. This paper also uses examples to discuss the synergistic safety, security and cost benefits derived from the piloting of transport aircraft with an onboard pilot and a remote copilot.
The 21st Century Aviation System increases:
• aircraft payload and fuel economy by reducing aircraft weight and avionics;
• homeland security of the public and its edifices;
o prevents the recurrence of 9/11 type disasters and unauthorized aircraft from flying into restricted airspace;
• airport efficiency, utilization and automation by automatically providing all of the data necessary for enhanced safe visibility;
• through-put (the number of daily takeoffs and landings an airport can safely accommodate);
o prevents ground incursions;
• safety of flight;
o prevents decompression disasters and pilot error crashes;
• allows for the use of simulations and expert systems to prevent aircraft problems from turning into fatal crashes;
• situation awareness to the pilot/s and controllers using simple unified displays that show all of the necessary data required for aircraft safety;
• ADS-B utility and economical justification;
• the real-time digital-data required for safe and secure 4-dimensional ATC/M and free-flight;
and decreases:
• the cost of flying;
• the need for expensive runway expansion programs;
o provides enhanced tarmac visibility;
• aircraft crashes;
• hijacking;
• piloting and maintenance personnel costs;
• aircraft avionics costs;
• aircraft weight;
• aircraft purchase by eliminating items unrelated to payload:
• insurance costs and liability claims;
• the number of aircraft that fly unauthorized into restricted airspace;
• the need to recover flight data recorders;
o reduces the time and money spent on flight recorder recovery and recorder maintenance;
• FOQA costs and its latency period;
o data is automatically telemetered to the ground in real-time for processing and distribution;
• the number of and the ambiguity of the avionics and ATC/M displays;
o yet position, heading, attitude, breaking status, engine status, landing gear status, fuel remaining, etc. are now available & clearly displayed;
• voice communication ambiguities that have led to crashes by providing a good portion of the safety related data automatically in usable display and alert forms;
• flight delays by safely decreasing aircraft separation;
• aircraft turn around time and flight delays by providing the maintenance crew with real-time in-flight and on-ground visibility, functionality and status of much of the aircraft’s avionics;
o speeds up the availability of Line Replaceable Units (LRUs);
• aircraft fuel cost per pound of payload by eliminating items unrelated to payload; and
• maintenance costs for aircraft avionics and mechanical systems by having less of them.
For more info visit: www.safelander.com
or contact us at: sylevine1@sbcglobal.net
You know, almost no one makes a living as a stage coach driver in this country any longer. Technology overtook that job. But I'll bet that if 150 years ago you had asked a stage coach driver how long those jobs would last he (she, maybe) would have told you those jobs would last forever. But technology overtook the stage coach driver and it will eventually overtake airline pilots. The airline pilot of the future will work in what to us today would appear to be a simulator facility or maybe even from their home computer. Those "pilots" will be given several passenger flights to monitior throughout the work period. Should something go wrong, the "pilot" will sit down in a simulator "box" (maybe even a virtual reality helmet device) that will be equiped with touch screens. After a few key strokes the touch screens will light up with a representation of the aircraft to be "flown" (747, MD-11, 737, Canadair RJ, whatever) and the "pilot" will be satelite data-linked to the actual airborne aircraft and "fly" it to a safe landing. Trust me, as an airline pilot, I can tell you that the Company (i.e.: management) would get rid of us tomorrow if they could.
Please sign in to comment.