Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

Yahoo! News - Technology -m Reuters ^ | Sun Nov 23, 9:43 AM ET | By Chelsea Emery

[Archangelsk]

Absolutely. I was responding to someone who mentioned that number of hours. I am sure you can, as can I, figger a driver in the office from his demeanor and from his attitude and have him strap the aircraft on his back just to confim what we already know.

Really. Then please explain to the rest of the audience one Bob Hammond, the best, damn B-52 pilot ever, who drove Czar 52 nose first into the runway of Fairchild AFB as he attempted to barrel roll the plane at 500' AGL. Afterall, he was the epitome of a right stuff pilot. (Incidentally, one of the crewmembers was on his flight fini).

[Criminal Number 18F]

Lotsa flaky stuff being posted here.

1. Nobody's flight control computer runs windows -- FAA won't certify it. Maybe a sim does, but the reason that AVidyne had to develop a RTOS is because they wanted to sell their stuff in the certified market. You have to make a really insane reliability/MTBF gateway for a PFD to be certified. Windows can't do it (no consumer OS can). I've discussed this at some length with their project managers. There are people who run GPS stuff and secondary flight instruments on WinCE -- Control Data's AnywhereMap is good, if you're a tinkerer.
2. The Proteus is not unmanned. By the way, its computers do run a consumer OS, but they can because it is certified experimental/R&D. Not windows, though. The designer's own personal plane, the Boomerang, uses a TiBook in place of many flight instruments. He just plugs it into the onboard network and goes. His son designed most of the software. That's trusting your kid, flying IFR on stuff he designed that the FAA won't certify.
3. Archangelsk and Pukin Dog are disagreeing about "dangerous". Dog means dangerous to the enemy. The problem with Dog's Tomcat is getting that big OK to fire BVR. The politicians (many of whom wear uniforms) have dealt away that advantage -- and stuff like the USAF creaming two Army helicopters, under AWACS control, doesn't help build that trust in technology.
4. It's probably a trade-union thing, but the USAF has required that the pilots of RPVs like the Global Hawk and the USAF Predators must be rated pilots. How would you like to catch that assignment? "The good news is, we looked at your dream sheet, and you don't wanna be assigned to a plane with a big crew..."
5. Stuff like recon and SEAD that currently has an element of suicide in it might be a place for RPV and robotic technology -- but that assumes that the enemy is too stupid/low tech to counter that technology. What happens if we wind up against China (median IQ six points higher than USA) instead of Arab countries (median IQ fifteen points lower)?
6. In some past USAF ships the pilot has had to sit on his hands for much of the flight -- notably the SR-71A and U-2R, which often flew very, very precise profiles that would be programmed in advance. Still -- there were things the machines couldn't be programmed for: emergencies, reacting to hostile action, and (something very common in military ops) inflight refueling.
7. "Dogfighting is a thing of the past." Sounds just like Mr Duncan Sandys, who presided over the issuance of a White Paper that said the era of the manned airplane was over. Accordingly, the UK Government more or less dismantled the national aeronautical industry, at the time competitive with the USA's. In 1957. He was, of course, wrong. Smarter people knew that 45 years ago, but even fools know it now. Of course, now the fools are saying it's true now.
8. "Our own UAV didn't fare so well..." An incredible piece of tape; I've seen it from soup to nuts. Iraqi Flogger (not -25) busted the NFZ, zeroed in on a Predator, locked on and fired. All the time the Pred eyeball was watching. The Pred remote-pilot launched the Hellfire over the shoulder at the Iraqi, who broke off and scooted -- the Pred was killed (inevitably) but at least the Iraqi got a nice scare and a laundry bill. If they had an AIM-9L (or up) on there, it would have been mutual destruction. But there's a limit to what you can load on a Predator. It's got skinny little wings and 115 HP.
9. " I have seen a gradual decline in standards and in flying abilities and consequential all-around competence." I dunno. I think that today's pilots are better at some things than the old guys (you wanna see how old-style Ernest Gann guys fly, look at some of the Asian flag carriers). Definitely stuff like CRM is a big plus, IMHO. I think basic stick and rudder skills have suffered some. I was looking at a couple accidents recently where transport category aircraft were not recovered from stalls by professional aircrews. They fly so much in one little corner of the box, put them in the other end... think overall, though, the net result is better. You see relatively few airmanship related mishaps in the transport world any more... the few mishaps there are seem to be increasingly freakish mechanical malfunctions.
10. "Bob Hammond" was a pseudonym that Tony Kern used in his book. The guy's real name was Bud Holland. Tony used the real name earlier in stuff meant for an Air Force audience. For anyone unaware of the mishap we're talking about, here's Kern's take on it. Kern was an experienced B-52 and B-1 pilot, he retired from the USAF a couple of years ago.

Gee, I wasted too much time on this. But I'm still pissed off at Duncan Sandys.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Kozak]

And what happens if the remote control (or the computers controlling it) fail?

Same thing that happens in modern fighters where the flight controls depend on computers to work, they crash. Only there's no pilot to get killed. In a modern fighter if the computers go Tango Unifrom, so do the flight controls.

[Criminal Number 18F]

I dont recall anyone getting 300 hours in a Cat who was no good before I had flushed him.

He's talking 300 hours TT. (incidentally, that's the point at which civilians trained as private pilots are over the greatest risk of splatting themselves).

Of course, time as a measure of skill is bogus. It stands in as a proxy because we haven't got a better metric in the industry.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F.

[Archangelsk]

Thanks CN 18F for a much needed reality check to this discussion.

[Bobby777]

Nobody's flight control computer runs windows

umm, guy, thanks for the info but the Windows thing was a JOKE ... see THROTTLE.DLL ... LOL

SR-71's were flown by the astro-tracker / computer on photo / intel runs ... they were flown by hand for take-off, inflight refueling, ingress, egress, and landing ...

yes, I personally was aware that ROV pilots are certified military pilots ... and no, they're not too happy from the comments I've seen ... can't blame 'em ...

[Bobby777]

p.s., PD means a Harrier is dangerous to the Harrier's pilot ... it's his sense of humor ...

[Pukin Dog]

Really. Then please explain to the rest of the audience one Bob Hammond, the best, damn B-52 pilot ever, who drove Czar 52 nose first into the runway of Fairchild AFB as he attempted to barrel roll the plane at 500' AGL. Afterall, he was the epitome of a right stuff pilot. (Incidentally, one of the crewmembers was on his flight fini).

Bob Hammond = Bud Holland.

In no way, did Bud Holland have "the right stuff". He had Bomber disease, which appears two or three times during the course of a pilot's career. First in Basic-Flight, where you hope it is caught, because later it sometimes kills.

Bomber disease is what pilots have who are not good enough to be handed a fighter, but still believe they are. These are pilots who usually fly well enough to qualify, but have problems in other areas or are undisciplined and careless. These are good stick and rudder men, who cant manage to master emergency procedures, or they cant remember safefy procedures on the ground, or radio calls, things they see as less important, but enough to move them down on the selection list.

A lot of guys end up bitter and angry when the guy who they outflew in training ends up in a Hornet, while they themselves is handed the keys to a S-3 or even a COD. They get an attitude and try to use the rest of their career to prove their instructors wrong about them. So they fly the hell out of whatever crappy bird they were given, and some still manage to become good officers.

Bud Holland probably lived a nightmare whenever he saw old flight school buddies from F-15 squadrons living it up, while he, stuck in a old battleaxe of an airplane, having no real fun at all. Most of these guys get out as soon as they can, but those that stay in are a timebomb waiting to blow. They never accept their limitations, and some even die trying to prove what great pilots they really are.

[Pukin Dog]

I actually meant both. At first, I was reffering to the Tomcat as the plane most dangerous to the enemy, but later, as you stated, I was refering to the Harrier as dangerous only to it's pilot.

[Cogadh na Sith]

I trust pilots. I know what kind of training they go through. They are occasionally considered reckless for their attitude of "I'll do anything once!"

I've met software developers. I work with software developers. They don't have to fly on their creations. You do.

Of the two groups, the latter is far more arrogant with far less reason to be.

See that kidult with the Cheetos ring around his mouth and the 'No War' sticker? He just programmed the Automated Fault Manager for the next generation of passenger jets.

How does that make you feel?

[Pukin Dog]

See that kidult with the Cheetos ring around his mouth and the 'No War' sticker? He just programmed the Automated Fault Manager for the next generation of passenger jets.

Doubtful.

Even if Boeing or Airbus, or associated contractors hired such an individual, I doubt that very many dangerous faults could make it through a comprehensive acceptance test and QA at Boeing. I recently attended a tour with other future 777 pilots at Boeing's Everett facility. I think their software is very sound.

[Cogadh na Sith]

Even if Boeing or Airbus, or associated contractors hired such an individual, I doubt that very many dangerous faults could make it through a comprehensive acceptance test and QA at Boeing.

Perhaps not on the passenger side, but on the Defense side, they don't give a f***... This is first hand. I should have specified 'defense'. I agree with you more on the passenger side... It's awful, just shameful.

I just heard today: "Why slow the coders down with safety and analysis, we can catch all that in testing!" OBTW, we are only going to test good day, go path scenarios... Besides, testing is 3 times more expensive and if they screw the pooch the first time, the gov punishes them with more time and money.

I recently attended a tour with other future 777 pilots at Boeing's Everett facility. I think their software is very sound.

Not on the defense side. No lawsuits, ya know...

[Bobby777]

yeah I got ya ... got a good chuckle outta that too ... I will say this, I've been to a few shows where they were using the Harrier II on some simulated bombing runs and I was impressed at the dive speed and how quickly they rolled out ... I was amazed ...

of course the fun was watching the F-16's and F-18's go by on speed runs ... obviously not too fast since there was a crowd ... watched the Blue Angels in F-18's a couple days in a row and then a couple years in a row ... positioned myself so the F-18 that came in alone made a bank by a hangar on the runway and then he hit the throttles ... it was always amazing to watch that plane go by totally silent ... and THEN the sound ... I thought, did I not experience that right? ... so I went back to the same spot the next day and awaited the same turn / accel ... awesome ... he made a slow, sharp right turn, and laid on the throttles ...

the 'cat guy executed a bunch of tight turns ... very impressive ...

[JETDRVR]

As one who has flown ACFT with Sh**ters realize this .....The PAX on those types of ACFT are the ones who get the taxpayer funding to allow the the various DEF contractor types...uhhh BOEING/Lockheed to have the mullah to fund the toys for your steely eyed missile men to play with.

[Moonman62]

What I expect, though, is that the "fighter planes" of the future will essentially be intelligent missiles. Extremely intelligent missiles.

"Open the pod bay doors, HAL!"

[RadioAstronomer]

I have to agree with Physicist on this one. With 360-degree millimeter radar (skin mounted antennas), IFF, visual cameras and voting computers, I think aircraft could be designed to operate autonomously.

One of the big rubs is the control law theory required for aircraft attitude control and orientation. This branch of science is taking off in leaps and bounds. I deal with spacecraft and satellites. They are getting far more robust and autonomous all the time. What used to take an army of flight controllers and engineers now is being accomplished with two guys and a computer. Much of the work has been delegated to the spacecraft.

I don't se any difference with aircraft. Think of a fighter that did not need the "life support", visual instrumentation, manual "stick and rudder" equipment, oxygen, canopies, ejection seats, etc. If you build the airframe light and strong, G loading could be tremendous and not exceed the design criteria.

As far as battlefield awareness, all you would need was a signature/lookup table for enemy platforms and IFF to determine hostiles from friendlies. If you had a squadron of these all data linked together, it would be a powerful force indeed. Again, think of a plane with no human life (friendly) in the equation. The plane could take maximum risk to "get the job done".

As far as decisions on targeting and thread acquisitions, a computer could be taught to accomplish these very things. Another nicety would be that if the plane was in trouble, it could have a mode where it would keep doing maximum damage until destruction. Even outside of its flight envelopes.

I am not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, however, I do believe it is a distinct possibility for the future of aviation warfare.