
Planes Without Pilots - carlchenet
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/science/planes-without-pilots.html
======
infinotize
This topic resurfaces every so often, usually with no particular context, but
now as a knee-jerk after the horrible and preventable Germanwings incident.

Here is Patrick Smith's (formerly of Salon's Ask the Pilot column) comment
from the NYT article:

>>> I'm an airline pilot, air travel blogger and author. This pilotless planes
discussion is something that comes up all the time, and it never fails to
raise my blood pressure.

One of the main issues is that people greatly misunderstand the capabilities
of EXISTING cockpit automation, and have a vastly exaggerated sense of what it
can do -- the result of articles similar to this one, which take at face value
the claims of researchers, aerospace academics and tech aficionados who often
have little sense of the operational realities of commercial flying.

Over and over and over we hear about how "automatic" planes are. Yet in truth
flying remains a very hands-on operation subject to tremendous amounts of
pilot input. It's perhaps a different KIND of input than in the old days:
instead of gripping the steering yoke as would've been the case in the 1930s,
you're working the various autoflight components, flight management system,
etc. But the automation only does what the pilots TELL it to do: what, when,
where and how. The other day I worked a flight up from the Caribbean. We had
bad weather the whole way, a holding pattern, and had to fly a low-visibility
Cat-2 approach. The cockpit was so busy that after we landed my voice was
hoarse. Now imagine somebody dealing with the complexities of such a flight
from a room thousands of miles away, with dozens of other planes stacked up.

Patrick Smith Boston

~~~
belorn
Replacing all airplanes with pilotless planes is likely as a bad plan as
replacing all car with driverless cars. Its not the a single step, nor has all
situations which a driver/pilot has to deal with been automated to the point
in which a computer can do all the work successfully.

It is however a great goal, one which spells safer, faster, and consecutive
safer technology with every step. Modern cars already has some forms of brake
systems which can take control away from the driver during a crash-like
situation, so the same concept for planes could be applied if it can be made
safe enough. We also have kill-switches in cars which can be triggered
remotely, so I could easily see a similar system be implemented which locks a
plane into auto-pilot with a per-determined height and GPS direction.

Neither will replace pilots overnight, so they continue having low blood
pressure and know that they still got a job tomorrow. Flying in bad weather,
imperfect position technology, security, and complex traffic is going to take
a long time to solve.

~~~
frenchman_in_ny
Not to pick on you, but hearing "per-determined height and GPS direction"
makes me a bit nervous with anything related to human life. People follow GPS
blindly and that's OK on roads with a driver, but in other applications it can
lead to tragic results due to Dilution of Precision. The Flinders Islet crash
is a prime example. [0][1]

[0] [http://www.sailingmates.com/your-gps-can-kill-
you/](http://www.sailingmates.com/your-gps-can-kill-you/)

[1] [http://www.yachting.org.au/sport-services/safety/major-
incid...](http://www.yachting.org.au/sport-services/safety/major-incident-
reports/flinders-islet/)

~~~
belorn
If it is used only in emergency situations, akin to the use case for kill
switches, I think problems with Dilution of Precision and GPS hacking then
become a lesser problem. As with any lock-out mechanism, the use of such
restriction need to be done with human safety in mind depending on the
situation.

------
socialist_coder
Wow, for being on HN this thread sure is filled with Luddites.

Humans are inherently more error prone than computers, once properly
programmed and designed. AI and machines might not be better now, but they
will be eventually. And the only way to get there is to start small and work
our way up.

In my opinion, right now we're at the limit of safety provided by letting
humans run things. We can't really make those systems more safe than they are
right now. We need a paradigm shift.

Letting computers run the show is uncharted territory. Right now, AI
pilots/drivers are in their infancy. Comparing an infant to a mature system is
a short sighted comparison. You need to take the long view- what would these
systems look like after a decade or two of iteration?

It's like not anyone is saying we should do this RIGHT NOW WITH NO GOING BACK!
Of course not. Let's try it in drones. Let's try it in cargo planes. Let's try
it in military planes. If it ever seems like it won't work, we can always
change course.

But not even wanting to try??? Come on, that isn't in our DNA.

~~~
6stringmerc
Cargo planes? Really? There is some innate arrogance that seems to deny the
prospects of the true dangerous nature of human flight.

Let me put it this way: How about frame the comment around UAVs / drones -
once the genuis-level programmers and designers can get a drone carry a raw
chicken egg from Atlanta to Boston without breaking it, then we can talk about
what long-view implications might be.

I mean, there have been decades of development trying to advance safety.
People are already trying. It's not being a Luddite to put forward that the
human brain is still a better pilot than a program.

~~~
socialist_coder
> It's not being a Luddite to put forward that the human brain is still a
> better pilot than a program.

So, because a human brain is better _now_ , we should ignore the possibilities
of any other path? We should simply give up working on flying/driving AI
because in its current state, in its infancy, it isn't as good? That is an
absurd view and that is what I would describe as Luddite.

------
ghostberry
Some of you seem to be worrying this would allow terrorists to crash a
thousand aircraft at once. I don't think that's likely.

Why would you even make this software accessible from the ground?

On the plane, you replace the pilot with software that does the pilot's job.
Built into it, you have a bunch of rules, such as don't fly out of range of a
place to land, don't fly into terrain, don't fly into other aircraft, etc..
All these safety rules are fixed and can only be modified by engineers on the
ground.

The only orders that the plane receives from the ground are fly from here, to
there at altitude X. If terrorists hack air traffic control and send all
aircraft out to sea, the planes will detect they don't have sufficient fuel
for the journey, and will turn back. If the planes detect they're flying too
close to other aircraft, they will turn away. All terrorists would be able to
do in this situation, is cost a lot of time and money.

~~~
melling
I don't think it's likely that a pilot would commit suicide by crashing a
plane either.

~~~
happyscrappy
He should have never been in a position to execute such a mass murder. The EU
has now changed their rules on cockpit safety.

~~~
uptown
I'm convinced a determined pilot or co-pilot could crash most planes, even
with another person in the cockpit. Their rule is better, but I don't believe
it eliminates the problem.

~~~
happyscrappy
The copilot specifically researched and exploited a weakness in EU cockpit
access controls. It is good that they have adopted US style protocols but
sadly a little too late.

~~~
uptown
I realize that. I'm just convinced that keeping an aircraft aloft is a
delicate-enough procedure that someone at he controls has the ability to cause
mass death regardless of who else is in the cockpit.

------
rlpb
So instead of an environment where terrorists have to individually hijack
individual aircraft and overpower the pilots, we're going to have an
environment where terrorists can crash multiple planes at once with a single
hack?

I get the impression that we'll be swapping low frequency incidents that kill
hundreds with even lower frequency incidents that kill magnitudes more
instead. But the frequency will be so low that we'll pretend it doesn't exist
and slowly cut down on safeguards and failsafe mechanisms until the first
corresponding catastrophic incident occurs.

~~~
Shivetya
depends on how paranoid we want to get, still I think it is easier to hack a
pilot than a computer. with a computer system you could have 3 or more systems
all getting a vote before action is taken and each of those 3 could be written
by 3 separate companies using unique security and code. all sorts of fun could
be had trying to make a system unassailable by bad guys but in the end, if
someone wants to cause harm they will.

if they wanted to kill more people the plane would never leave the ground,
likely you don't need a plane at all, those luggage areas are very crowded at
peak hours

~~~
rlpb
> ...with a computer system you could have 3 or more systems all getting a
> vote before action is taken and each of those 3 could be written by 3
> separate companies using unique security and code.

You could have this. But what are the chances that this will happen in
practice, instead of a general reduction in this kind of measure in the
interests of cost-cutting? Humans are notoriously bad in assessing risk for
unlikely events. If an accident hasn't happened, then this tends to become a
justification to compromise and cut costs even when the sample size is too
small.

------
javindo
Whilst I am a huge advocate of advancing research in AI, I think we are a very
long way off it being safely feasible in flight. Flight is a process so
insanely complex and susceptible to random change and failure that we simply
don't have the requisite provable AI in place yet to support it.

A good example of where, even the highest level of automation in an aircraft,
failed to assist in an emergency was Qantas Flight 32 [1]. A physical failure
on the plane caused sensor and control failures, something rendering AI almost
completely useless. Admittedly, humans can also have failures and this has
lead to many crashes before, however humans have also used exemplary skill,
experience, and abstract problem solving to correct mechanical failures in
aeroplanes countless other times.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_32)

~~~
DennisP
How about this: every crew member has a wireless button. If two of them push
the button, the AI irrevocably takes over and lands the plane at the nearest
airport. Pilot locks self in cockpit and heads for the mountain? Push the
button.

If the AI would crash the plane one time in a thousand, and the pilot would
intentionally crash the plane one time in a million, then this system reduces
risk to one in a billion.

It helps against terrorists too. They have to disable almost the entire crew
at once, or they'll have a nice leisurely ride to a waiting SWAT team.

~~~
aaronem
> they'll have a nice leisurely ride to a waiting SWAT team

...and no reason not to murder the entire passsenger load on the way there,
save possibly to have hostages once the aircraft's on the ground. I really
don't think you have thought this all the way through.

~~~
DennisP
I don't see how it gives them any extra incentive to murder. I'd say it gives
them less, since there's nothing to gain.

It's also a better situation by far than letting them crash the plane into a
building, and if the system is known to exist it's a deterrent against
hijacking planes in the first place. And if there's a struggle on board, it's
less likely that the struggle will cause a crash.

~~~
aaronem
> I don't see how it gives them any extra incentive to murder.

 _Schrecklichkeit_ , maybe?

------
jkot
Great, now single person will crash thousands of airplanes. I will trust pilot
over agency, because his ass is in the airplane.

------
mcguire
" _NASA is exploring a related possibility: moving the co-pilot out of the
cockpit on commercial flights, and instead using a single remote operator to
serve as co-pilot for multiple aircraft._

" _In this scenario, a ground controller might operate as a dispatcher
managing a dozen or more flights simultaneously. It would be possible for the
ground controller to 'beam' into individual planes when needed and to land a
plane remotely in the event that the pilot became incapacitated — or worse._"

As I currently understand the procedures, the pilot and co-pilot of commercial
aircraft alternate responsibility for the aircraft during their work-day. For
example, if the pilot takes off on one flight, the co-pilot will perform the
take-off on the next.

Removing the co-pilot from that alternation would significantly increase the
workload of the pilot.

~~~
TrevorJ
Seems like that would open up the attack surface a whole heck of a lot since
ill-doers wouldn't need physical access.

------
omegant
Commercial pilot here. I´m currently flying A320 like the Germanwings one.
I´ve also flown B737-800 and MD-80. Every time there is an accident or a
tragedy the human factor steps in. Everybody thinks that replacing the human
factor with technology will improve safety hugely.

I can understand the point, but I don´t see that happening in some decades.
Airplanes have a problem that automatic cars or trains don't have, you can not
failsafe them with a "STOP EVERYTHING NOW & HERE" system. In a case of fire or
any other big emergency or computer failure, you simply perform an emergency
stop to a side and you are out of your self driving car in 10 sec (the worst
could be that your bricked car is now creating a traffic jam), unfortunately
that's not the case with an A320.

It´s true that we don´t manually fly the airplane most of the time, and that
80 or 90% of flights are mostly routine that could be automatized somehow. But
there are certain days, certain flights, certain airports (and this can be the
same Airport that yesterday was perfectly standard) were you need to make
decisions that a computer can not make. When you start encountering big
thunderstorms in the radar, and not a possible way out, short final wind-shear
or other limit edge operation, strange behavior or malfunction of the on board
computers, systems or instruments, corrupted or missing navigation or
performance data (or flying to Russia were you can not trust , in other words,
unexpected situations were there are not clear rules to apply, just your
experience an understanding of the basics, and a bit of that Capt. Kirk
essence somebody named in other comment.

You need a really powerful and independent AI to face the fuzzy decisions that
need to be made in a weekly basis. This AI needs to have independent control
over the flight computers and controls, independent artificial vision,
independent navigation skills not related to the normal rute computer, and a
way to know when to skip safety rules completely.

If you try to substitute it with a simple AI, you end with problems like the
one that didn't make the general media but could have ended with a Lufthansa
crashing on the Pyrenees this last November, if it hadn't been pilot
intervention ( [http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-
sensors-s...](http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558483-iced-aoa-sensors-
send-a321-into-deep-dive.html) ). The failure was of a system that exists
purely to prevent pilot error. This system almost sent the A320 in to the
ground. Just because the pilots were at the cabin and disconnected the air
data computers a tragedy was averted.

Unfortunately this happens often enough, but doesn't make the news. The A320
model is 30 years old, it had at the beginning a number of fatal accidents due
to the same computers that were intended to improve safety (like
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296)
or
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Inter_Flight_148](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Inter_Flight_148)
), but we are still dealing with automatic errors like the one of the
Lufthansa ( the angle of attack fins get locked and the computers think that
you are in a stall, the auto correct the stall with a dive that you can not
correct manually, you need to disconnect 2 of the 3 air data computers to
disable this saving behavior). Of course there is also a whole lot of money to
be lost in sales if a model is declared dangerous, so complex accidents tend
to be attributed mainly to the pilots, after all they can no longer give their
opinion after the crash.

If something, the tendency has gone too far in to automatizing the flight.
Flying manually tends to be less and less part of the requirements of big
carriers, getting to a dangerous point: in some countries in Asia piloting
skills are almost non existent (Korea, Vietnam, China). In China for example
(at least in a couple of Airlines where a number of friends are flying) flight
officers are not even allowed to land or take off the airplane, that means
that if the captain has a heart attack there is a hight probability of the
plane crashing. Once this flight officers are promoted to captain, they'll
have almost no manual skills for flying the airplane.

This doesn't mean that safety systems are not useful or necessary, they really
are, and they must be improved and to help the safety of the operation, but
they can not be an end in themselves.

Returning to making a plane pilot free, you may remove humans from the inside
of the plane, but they are going to be designed, build, programed, operated
and maintained by humans in a human environment. I don´t see how you are going
to get rid of the human error factor any time soon even if you had the perfect
AI right now. Remotely controlling or even assisting pilots is a big no no,
way too easy to perform a huge attack of docens of planes at a time, using
just a laptop and some human engineering.

~~~
nextw33k
> Remotely controlling or even assisting pilots is a big no no, way too easy
> to perform a huge attack of docens of planes at a time, using just a laptop
> and some human engineering.

This is hyperbole, automation that is being discussed is about how we can
design a system that would in these circumstances. Retrofitting planes
probably isn't going to work. However a whole new approach to sensors and
global communications might provide the added information that's required for
automated flights.

Each pilot that has commented seems to be against automation, just because
their current work practices are too complex. However that is an engineering
problem. Hacking a set of planes to crash is an engineering problem. Its not
one that is going to be solved tomorrow, but perhaps in 10 to 15 years when a
new generation of planes comes along.

My biggest beef isn't with flight automation but with trains. Surely that's
the lowest hanging fruit on the automation tree and we seem to be aiming for
the hardest with personal cars and commercial planes.

------
mdekkers
Bring on the robot pilot overlords! I, for one, would feel significantly safer
with a computer flying a modern large capacity aircraft, linked with a
computer organising the overall air-space. Accidents can, and will, still
happen, but I am convinced that they will be less frequent, and not due to
stupid reasons, like homicidal pilots. We can always have a team of stand by
remote operators around the clock that could take over a flight if need be.

Queue handwringing pilots complaining that they _cannot_ possible be
replaced...

