life after people got it facts right?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ But the fact remains, if communications DO break down and/or are jammed/hacked (or there's any other kind of mechanical failure), there would be no one left to take over in an emergency.

And what about bad weather? Can a pilotless aircraft plan for THAT? How could a computer program account for weather?

 

[Jadzia]

It could have a little web cam or something, and then add these three lines of logic to the program:

If the sky ahead looks blue, then carry on.
If it looks a bit grey, steer towards a blue bit.
If there is no blue bit, climb higher.

It'll be fine

 

[Lindley]

And what about bad weather? Can a pilotless aircraft plan for THAT? How could a computer program account for weather?

Well, there are actually quite a few computer-based weather tools available to pilots now, so there's no reason the computer itself couldn't interpret the data directly.

The problem has always been that the NEXRAD or other tool typically can't give you immediately-valid information; they're typically at least 15 minutes in the past. And they're dependent on a data uplink, so in theory jamming could pose a problem for them as well.

Now, commercial airliners are big enough that they can usually shrug off weather which would be a major problem for a general aviation flight. And the odds of severe icing conditions or a squall line developing out of nowhere within 15 minutes are miniscule. So I'm going to say, theoretically, an onboard computer could automatically account for weather, yes.

I still don't think that going pilot-less is a good idea, but there's no harm in improving automation in the event of pilot incapacitation.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And what happens if the systems on board the plane itself malfunction? Such as engine trouble? If there's a computer flying the plane, how would it deal with that?

 

[Lindley]

There are checklists established for most anticipated emergencies, and checklists are easily programmed into a machine.

But one would not normally expect the autopilot to need to handle that. Such eventualities would be the entire point of having a pilot along for the ride.

 

[RedShirt]

And what happens if the systems on board the plane itself malfunction? Such as engine trouble? If there's a computer flying the plane, how would it deal with that?

It would deal with it by being a multiple redundant system similar to what we currently use: independently operational flight control programs cross-talking to each other attempting to reach a consensus. If all systems are in agreement within a certain margin then an "average" output will be used for control. If one system "disagrees" with the others then it may be temporarily ignored... if it continuously disagrees it can be deemed to be malfunctioning by the other systems and shut down.

Such a system could eventually be robust enough to handle all aspects of flight operation - including a wide variety of "unscheduled events," but I seriously doubt human beings will ever be removed from the process as the ultimate decision maker and fail-safe back-up.

 

[Jadzia]

What if there's a pilot's strike? (Do pilot's have the means to do that??)

Imagine the inconvenience and the economic consequences from loss of business.

Would that at least motivate a rethink of policy? Authorising new and improved pilotless flight control computers as part of the contingency? Double score as a security feature too: So that if a plane is ever compromised by terrorists, the flight computer can be handed codes remotely from fly-by Air Force jets to force it into an autopilot mode, to irreversibly lock out it's cockpit controls.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ At which point the terrorists would no doubt start threatening to execute passengers if the ground control didn't release the plane's controls.

If all systems are in agreement within a certain margin then an "average" output will be used for control. If one system "disagrees" with the others then it may be temporarily ignored...

I am just a bit skittish about concepts like "average" and "temporarily ignored" being in any way connected with a huge metal object I am riding inside.

Here's a thought. Do you agree with my view that passengers would have the right to know if the plane they are riding in, has a pilot or not? And, if they so chose, to refuse to fly on that plane if they're not comfortable with the lack of a pilot?

 

[RoJoHen]

^ At which point the terrorists would no doubt start threatening to execute passengers if the ground control didn't release the plane's controls.

Clearly, Flight Attendants would need to be trained with anti-terrorist ninja skills.

 

[Jadzia]

It wouldn't be a realistic demand if the controls were unable to be unlocked from the air. If it was made public knowledge that the cockpit will be locked out if the plane is compromised, it serves as a deterrent, because there would only be two possible outcomes:

(1) let it follow it's autopilot, or
(2) the terrorists try to destroy the plane.

The lockout removes option three :

(3) using the plane to do something more terrible.


I would say that's better security.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I'm not following. I wasn't talking about the terrorists themselves trying to unlock the plane. Assuming they could communicate with the people on the ground, the terrorists could threaten to execute the passengers unless the ground control people unlocked the plane *for* them.

 

[Jadzia]

I know. The lockout would be impossible to reverse. Think burned out circuit. It's irreversible. A terrorist cannot make threats against the autopilot. There is nobody to threaten at that stage because nobody can do anything. The plane is in control of itself.

edit: Autopilot isn't remote control. There is an initial injection of data (destination), and then it is control of itself, using sat-nav and sensor readings to guide itself. That's how autopilot's already work. They're not remote control.

 

[RoJoHen]

I know. The lockout would be impossible to reverse. Think burned out circuit. It's irreversible. A terrorist cannot make threats against the autopilot. There is nobody to threaten at that stage because nobody can do anything. The plane is in control of itself.

At which point the terrorist murders everyone on board.

I think that's the point he's trying to make.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I know. The lockout would be impossible to reverse. Think burned out circuit. It's irreversible. A terrorist cannot make threats against the autopilot. There is nobody to threaten at that stage because nobody can do anything. The plane is in control of itself.

No, no, you're misunderstanding me. I am here assuming that the terrorists could communicate WITH THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND. And thus, force *them* to unlock the plane. Surely you're not suggesting that a plane's autopilot should always be impossible to override?

 

[RoJoHen]

Indeed. Ground Control should almost certainly have the power to override the autopilot.

 

[Jadzia]

Surely you're not suggesting that a plane's autopilot should always be impossible to override?

Not always, but in a lock out situation, that IS what I'm suggesting... at least as far as public knowledge goes. Secretly, there can always be an override, but it would be completely off the record, and only be hearsay as far as you and I and anyone else knows.

 

[RoJoHen]

That really doesn't solve the terrorist problem, unless we just decide that it's okay for him to murder the occupants of the plane.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ The terrorists would probably assume (in their desperation) that there must always be an override.

In general, I don't see the public putting up with any kind of computer controlled plane that they thought did not have an override. No one would ever fly on a plane like that. I sure wouldn't. Talk about your Blue Screen of Death...

 

[Jadzia]

That really doesn't solve the terrorist problem, unless we just decide that it's okay for him to murder the occupants of the plane.

It wouldn't be about the plane at that stage -- if it's controls are locked out, the plane becomes a non issue. The plane and it's destination are no longer bargaining chips.

If that becomes standard protocol, the plane becomes irrelevant.

It's just a straight forward hostage situation/mass murder then, that could happen just as easily (if not easier) on the ground if said persons had that intent.

It would be a strong deterrent against hijacking planes because there would be nothing to gain over a ground based hostage situation.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

if it's controls are locked out, the plane becomes a non issue. The plane and it's destination are no longer bargaining chips.

But that won't be possible. When the computer flies the plane, there will - there must - always be a ground-based override. No one will want to fly on a plane without one (I would also not even fly on a plane WITH one), and the FAA would never allow it in any case.