Possible remote controls for passenger planes

On September 11, 2001 impossible maneuvers happened with three airplanes. Noted commentators on the internet have championed the view that remote control was installed, while overrides to fail safes were evident by intense G-forces described. Now pilotless planes are at the forefront of recent news as for safety concerns and other issues.



It looks as if cheap labor is not enough for many areas of commerce, now airline pilots may count themselves among those replaced by pilotless aircraft. Do you feel more secure without a pilot operating your airplane?

Related News Links:
www.newscientist.com
economist.com
www.msnbc.msn.com
cnews.canoe.ca

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The Hard Truth Of September Eleventh.
US drones flying over north korea!
Surveillance Drones To Patrol US Cities
Report: Flight 77 Exceeded its Software Limits

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

[edit on 10-4-2006 by asala]

I don't think any expert has come out and said that the manouvers done were impossible. They were abnormal, and not within normal flight specs. They were possible, as the evidence shows.

Personally, I think pilotless planes will be a hard sell to the flying consumer, especially those who are uncomfortable being in the air anyway.
I like to fly, but I like the idea of a crew aboard.

I know the airlines would like to cut costs and staff, but I don't think airline unions will like this much either.

Personally I think it's a great idea to have remote controls as backups in the event that the regular pilots loose control of the plane.

However I personally don't think that it's right to fly aircraft with people inside unless the pilot is in the same plane. It might sound barbaric to some, but personally I think the pilots would do a much better job if their lives are at risk. That's how it is today, and pilots are almost always up to very high standards.

So I feel we should keep live pilots in the cockpits, but use remote control in the event of an emergancy such as hijacking.

SO what happens when the terrorists find away to hack the system and get hold of the controls, potentially downing 1000's of 747's at will ?

It will be a long time if ever before you see unmanned passenger planes. I didn't see ANYTHING in the article about ever having unmanned passenger planes. Just that they want to fly more drones over the US for monitoring the borders, and weather monitoring and other missions along those lines. We should have had Predators and Global Hawks over the borders years ago.

If and when we see pilotless passenger airliners, does this mean that airline pilots' jobs will be outsourced to call centre workers in Dehli/Hyderabad/Chennai?

Even scarier - will future call centre worker/pilots be using Microsoft Flight Simulator to guide these flights?

I doubt there ever will be a day when there are no pilots on commercial aircraft simply because computers cannot handle all emergencies.


Example the DC10 that crashed in Sioux City, had it not been for the pilot, copilot and the third off duty pilot the plane never would have made it to the airport let alone crash with some survivors. The third pilot in that case manually controlled the throttles to steer/maneuver the aircraft in flight, something a computer could not have done.

Next is the Aloha airlines 737 that lost a portion of the cabin in flight, then subsequently lost an engine and had landing gear problems. Only humans could have handled that situation since it had never happened before.

Yes computers can aide in bad weather conditions, but I think those systems will only be used primarily by drones or in space flights simply because computers cannot handle each and every situation, especially those that never happened before; or those that require a manual operation if and when the primary/secondary systems fail.

I have to admit though computers do make smooth landings. I was on a Republic DC 9 from Minot to Milwaukee where the pilot used a computer to land. It was the best landing I have ever made, yet the pilot made it very clear while the computer controlled the landing they still had their hands on the controls just in case and that was back in the mid 80's when airlines first started to install them as back ups.

Yes the manuevers on 911 were "implausible," and even "impossible," if you will, due to at least two criteria, collision avoidance systems, and G-Force avionics. Of course "impossible," means that a normal functioning pilot would not ignore collision avoidance warnings, nor suspend G-Force compensating computers that keep the plane passenger comfortable and safe. Bias is not evident here, just the facts. Such an introduction appears for the purpose of opening the pilotless data information into accustomed channels, since most people are familiar with it due to hypotheses of it related to 1.) Global Hawk 2.) September 11, 2001 discussions from every perspective.

The point of the articles looks like it refers to extensive preprogrammed auto-piloting, with the benefit of remote control monitoring as necessary. The article in the Economist looks pertinent to this overall thought.

[edit on 4-4-2006 by SkipShipman]

I was thinking same about possible remote controls for air planes. However My thinking was every plane should have remote control but it should be used only if you think plane is missing or something is wrong with plane or like 9/11.