It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UAV Airliners.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
The trechnology being put into UCAVs is highly advanced and has the capabiltiy of out witting nearly the most well experienced piolot within the forseeable future, so why has no one shown any interest into using this tech for Airliners where the staff cost could be dramatically reduced by removing the pilot.

This could of course cause a lot of people to fear flying as they do not wish their lives to be in the hands of a computer at 50,000 ft.

However at the same time such a system is no doubt safer, in terms of a hijacking sceanario, than a pilot. A computer cannot be threatened with its life at gun point the same way a human being could.

A computer does not feel tired after a long flight, and finnally a computer is not likely to be distracted in such a way that it could endanger the passengers ro crew.

Just my crazy idea. However I was wondering if any company had considered implementing this into future aircraft designs.

Jensy




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:40 AM
link   
2001 Space Odysee

I, Robot

Windows

Hackers

The list goes on.

But, really - would you trust a machine to fly you through the air and land at a base before a human?

For all of the errors we are capable of - we do have a face, someone to see, to talk to, and to recognize as an authority. Being human... or alive, maybe - is that you are not driven by the pure logical gears of boolean logic.

That, and I swear to God I'll never fly in a plane willingly that is 100% controled by computer with no human backup who is able to demonstrate to me that they can take control of the aircraft based on written communication visible only to the individual in question.

Otherwise, I will fly my eroneous self wherever it is I want to go.

Edit to add:

Actually - most commercial jet liners today are capable of fully autonomous flight from landing to takeoff....... taxi is a little different... but...

Really - the only times the pilot can be distracted in a potentially dangerous manner is durring takeoff and landing. And if anyone is going to disobey the 'fasten seatbelts' sign - there's a good chance that there will be an even larger threat than pilot distraction.

And the reason pilots are still used on takeoffs and landings is FAA regulations.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by Aim64C]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I was going to say that most airliners only need the pilot for takeoff and taxiing, but then I noticed your edit.


But aren't most landings autonomous? I mean, all that ILS stuff and other whatnot technical abbreviations that I continually forget can quite easily fly the plane to the ground, while the pilot makes throttle controls and watches speed. I'm sure a computer can do that . . . or am I wrong here?

What is the computers role in the A-380?



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Back in the 1980s - a computer could land an airliner on an area roughly 2 feet 'deep' along the runway based on GPS data.

That's all without any input from the pilot.

However, the FAA still has, to my knowledge, not yet allowed fully computerized takeoffs and landings.

As for the A-380 - I would assume a rather similar role - although I'm not really into such aircraft. Fighters, bombers, and strike aircraft are my strongest area..... anything else is just slow moving and worth emptying what cannon rounds I have left into. Although I admit that's not the best conception of those aircraft.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Tests have already been done with transport size air craft with no pilot on board. These tests were closely monitored by the cargo companies. It is safe to say that the first transport size UAV will be for cargo.

Todays auto pilots do have the full capability for automated take off, landing, as well as in flight. In fact today most transport flights are done on full autopilot. That is required for reduced vertical seperation by the FAA.

There is more the one company doing research for transport size UAV. That will big bunsiss before to long, and the time is comeing when passanger air liners will be done with out pilots. I just dont know how long that will be.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Hear is some infor from the FAA on UAV operating in the US.

www.uavforum.com...

It is not a short file but it does have some info.

Hear are a few more links.

www.uavworld.com...

www.uavforum.com...

[edit on 10-8-2006 by RedGolem]



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Most modern planes already have the technology in their autopilot to fly a flight from beginning to end without human intervention.

I had never thought of UAVs being used for cargo flights but now I see why that would be useful.


Originally posted by jensy
A computer does not feel tired after a long flight


Try telling that to my office computer when it freezes at half 4 every day!!



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
UAV Airliner: No thanks.

The main advantage of UAV-type aircraft is that you don't need to make any accomodations for people onboard. In an airliner... well, carrying people is the point. And adding two more seats + controls up front isn't too much of a drag vs. the overall weight of the aircraft.

The other advantage of UAVs is that should a glitch send the plane tumbling out of the sky, no one dies (unless your on the ground and it lands on you). But again, passenger planes are inherrently full of people, so extra precautions need to be taken.

That might mean two pilots up front babysitting the flight computer which makes most of the decisions... given the number of misatkes people have made (wrong runway, smacking into other planes, overunning on landing) I'd rather have a computer keeping an eye on things. But I'd still want a human right there keeping an eye on the computer/aircraft, too.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedMatt
UAV Airliner: No thanks.

The main advantage of UAV-type aircraft is that you don't need to make any accomodations for people onboard. In an airliner... well, carrying people is the point. And adding two more seats + controls up front isn't too much of a drag vs. the overall weight of the aircraft.


Actually I think the main advantage of the UAV air liner is you dont half to pay any, or as many pilots. Which makes the point, I think the first UAV air liners we are going to see will be controled by one or two pilots on the ground with a joy stick at a computer in a nice and confortable box some where. One pilot might be able to do all the take off and landings for the flights out of and into one city while letting the auto pilot do all the work at cruse altitude.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Sugar cote it all you want to..... no thanks.

Unless I can take control of it myself and fly it should something go wrong (or I am not inside of it), then I have to have a human person I can affiliate with the control and responsibility of that plane. Otherwise, I won't take it. Depending upon other circumstances, there is the potential I would react violently against it, also.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Edit to add:

Actually - most commercial jet liners today are capable of fully autonomous flight from landing to takeoff....... taxi is a little different... but...



Uhm, the newer aircraft can taxi around the major airports.

I continually wind up my pilot buddys with their entire work routine...

upon entering aircraft => autopilot on

just before leaving aircraft => autopilot off




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Aim64C
Edit to add:

Actually - most commercial jet liners today are capable of fully autonomous flight from landing to takeoff....... taxi is a little different... but...



Uhm, the newer aircraft can taxi around the major airports.

I continually wind up my pilot buddys with their entire work routine...

upon entering aircraft => autopilot on

just before leaving aircraft => autopilot off



Now you know why I want to fly fighters...... at least when my 'job' of making other planes 'land' faster than they've ever landed before (whether or not they are ready to), there is deviation from a set flightpath at least some.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Sugar cote it all you want to..... no thanks.

Unless I can take control of it myself and fly it should something go wrong (or I am not inside of it), then I have to have a human person I can affiliate with the control and responsibility of that plane. Otherwise, I won't take it. Depending upon other circumstances, there is the potential I would react violently against it, also.


Its conservative people like you who refuse to change with the times and technology - sticks in the mud - who prevent the take up of new inventions which can prevent loss of life and bring about better conditions for all.

If you dont like the way aviation is going, and you cant deny that it its heading in direction of UAVs, then you can always leave your job. Is getting violent really the right way to go?



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

Originally posted by Aim64C
Sugar cote it all you want to..... no thanks.

Unless I can take control of it myself and fly it should something go wrong (or I am not inside of it), then I have to have a human person I can affiliate with the control and responsibility of that plane. Otherwise, I won't take it. Depending upon other circumstances, there is the potential I would react violently against it, also.


Its conservative people like you who refuse to change with the times and technology - sticks in the mud - who prevent the take up of new inventions which can prevent loss of life and bring about better conditions for all.

If you dont like the way aviation is going, and you cant deny that it its heading in direction of UAVs, then you can always leave your job. Is getting violent really the right way to go?


And also conservative people such as myself that keep frivolous ideas in check to ensure that we don't run off to work without our pants.

There are some things one should never turn over to the likes or job of someone/thing else completely. Those who attempt to force me to will find me very difficult - if not impossible, to work with in such situations. I have my space - you have your space. Start forcing pills down my mouth or early morning Calestenics with "uni" - and you'll find important structures continually fall apart despite your most sincere efforts.

Change is change. Things will change - no matter how much we do or don't want them do. Some things will never change quite the way we expect them to. I never expected my mom and grandma to come down with cancer within 6 months of each other. And at that same time - I didn't want that change at all. But it's something I have to live with and adapt to (although my mom has recently had her treatments suspended with no relapse as of yet - so that is good).

Rapid change is often harmful. We see that in nature all of the time. The sudden introduction of a new species with no predator. The sudden introduction of water, the sudden removal of water. Radical changes in temperature. All of which are harmful and hard to adjust to. Just like getting woken up in the middle of the night - going from sound asleep to wide awake trying to figure out what just happened.

Change needs to be gradual and thought out. The concerning part for me is the sudden disregard of the 'old' way.

How many of you can cook without a microwave? How many of you can cook without a durn oven? How many of you know enough to not eat toxic plants or berries?

The Radio hasn't changed. We've added a cathode ray tube and diode displays to produce a picture in conjunction with the audio...... but it's still a radio.

Why throw out the pilot when you never know when you might need them again? Because the # really hits the fan when you have a piece of technology or equipment that no one knows how to use, maintain, or anything else.

It's a colapse induced by the rapid growth of an idea or technology with no established base. In short - a one-night stand.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I figure by 2040 the majority of passenger airliners will
be fully autonomous, meaning no pilot anywhere.


For now I think we should have a pilot on board, just in case,
but as computers get even better, than pilots should be phased
out completely.

I would'nt mind flying on a UAV airliner, honestly I'd feel safer
knowing a precise computer using exact measurements and
up-tp-date info was flying rathger than a person who can make a
great amount of errors.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Too much faith in technology, my friend.

Never phase out your basics. It's a self-destructive progression that will ensure the colapse of the technology.

I put a lot of faith in technology - but I would never trust it to the point where we eliminate our own ability to perform actions and our own necessity to perform them.

I don't care if that thing can fly a plane so level that you could dig tunnels based on its contrails - it will do so at my command and not otherwise - and I will have the option to make it do something different if need be.

You listen to me talk about my projects - and it sounds almost contradictory to what I'm saying here - but I include a natural balance.

And, yes, I would trust the machines I make over the machines of anyone else, because I know how they work.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Too much faith in technology, my friend.

Never phase out your basics. It's a self-destructive progression that will ensure the colapse of the technology.

I put a lot of faith in technology - but I would never trust it to the point where we eliminate our own ability to perform actions and our own necessity to perform them.


Aim,
Currently in the US planes are allowed to fly closer together when they are on auto pilot then they can when there is no auto pilot. It really does go deeper then the auto pilot though. It does not take the auto pilot to go bad on a plane with or with out a pilot. Any number of hundreds of things could cause a catastrophic failer. Because the pilot has not had direct control of large planes almost ever since they came into being.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I agree with Aim64C here, I’m all for improving Auto Pilot systems and for making such systems very sophisticated BUT from what I have seen so far I will NOT support taking a pilot completely out of the cockpit. Even if he only presses two buttons the entire flight I still want a human being in that cockpit with the ability to MANUALLY intervene just incase something goes wrong. Murphy ensures that he will be necessary.



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I belive nasa's space shutle lands by it's self with out interferece from the pilots, they cant land it by them self, it's a flying brick, and it lands just fine with out any one pressing any buttons .



posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I think the first step of UAV implimentation in airliners will probably be semi-autonomous. I would expect that usually it would be fully auto, but the plane would be able to have its auto control overriden by a remote signal from a registered airport/flight centre. The idea that if something should go wrong with the aircraft's autonomity (man, I'm getting tired of that word) that a qualified pilot (or video gamer such as myself
heh) could override it and control it from the ground would probably put some people's minds at ease.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join