
Would Air Travel Be Safer Without Pilots? - markmassie
http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/11/21/would-air-travel-be-safer-without-pilots-steve-jurvetson-thinks-so/
======
jpatokal
"Planes are mostly already flown on autopilot already."

Well, yes, the easy bits. The problem is that you still need pilots when
things don't go _exactly_ to plan, and they never do:
[http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-
myths/](http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/)

This is not to say that passenger planes can't be automated someday, but we're
nowhere near there yet.

------
clueless123
As a pilot who loves flying, I am sad to say I must agree with the article.
Computers are ideally suited to fly planes, statistically will be safer and we
like it or not, will be flying most large aircrafts in a future not to
distant. (My guess.. 20 years tops)

------
coldcode
Air travel is already safe. Statistics show 1.27 deaths per 100,000 flight
hours, or another stat in a single year you have the odds of dying as 1 in 4
million or so. You are more likely to die driving to the airport. How would
having no pilots decrease those odds significantly? I would think that any
decrease due to a computer doing it better would be offset by bugs in the
software or unanticipated situations.

~~~
userbinator
_would be offset by bugs in the software or unanticipated situations_

Indeed, it's always the "unanticipated situations" that cause problems both
for humans and computers - and in the case of flying, I think it's better to
have some level of automation to reduce human error, but there must always be
a manual override. Completely replacing the pilot with innumerable lines of
code executed by a computer would be even more dangerous as it's far more
likely that a pilot can react intelligently to assess the situation and take
manual control of the plane than someone be able to immediately find the bug
and fix it, without introducing any new ones, then update the software "on-
the-fly" (literally).

It's similar to the issues that abstractions cause in software: the more we
rely on them to hide details, and the more complex the systems we build as a
result, the harder it is to reason about the problems that arise due to
something lower down in the stack. "Out of sight, out of mind."

Here is a related article about this:
[http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-
dea...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-death)

------
WalterBright
> When you look at airplane crashes, it’s not equipment failure. It’s human
> error.

A lot of the crashes are due to equipment failure. Take a look at the series
"Aviation Disasters". A pilot is needed to figure out what is wrong, and to
compensate to bring the airplane back. A computer program can't do that.

Such is far, far more complex and nuanced than dealing with a failure on a
car. Just take Sully's landing on the Hudson after a flock of geese took out
his engines. What computer program could have figured out why the engines
failed, and what was possible for the airplane to do? Evaluate the weather
conditions, and make the best choice of landing spot? Phooey.

~~~
alooPotato
Do the pilots need to be in the plane?

~~~
brandonmenc
If they're in the plane, they have a greater incentive to land it safely -
which is why I want a pilot on board with me.

~~~
potatolicious
What about the gigantic incentive to live resulting in _poorer_ performance?

We saw this on Air France - where the pilots' panic caused them to ignore
readily available information that would have saved their lives.

On the whole of it, I'd rather the plane be flown by a computer, with a remote
pilot jumping in for extreme edge cases.

~~~
brandonmenc
How about all three? Computer, with a pilot on board monitoring things, and a
remote pilot for extreme emergencies.

Someone should be able to physically take some kind of control when the
computer pilot breaks and the comm link to the remote pilot doesn't work.

~~~
nemanja
Well, that's more or less how it works today. Airline pilot's job is basically
hours of boredom punctuated by minutes of terror. Computers do most of the
work, pilots are there for takeoffs and landings (which could be automated)
but more importantly for when things really go wrong. Airline pilots flying
scheduled flights (Part 121) are in constant communication with the dispatcher
on the ground. Dispatcher is trained to pretty much the same standard as
pilots and helps with the planning, safety and can help with workload during
flight. Having all three in place is probably why airline flying is so safe
these days.

On the other hand, I could see freighters (e.g. likes of FedEx fleet) fully
automated in the near future (5 years? less?)

------
speeq
Steve Jurvetson wants to disband the TSA. The following text is copied from
his post:
[https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/315439026](https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/315439026)

\---

I focused on scenarios for removing all security checkpoints and delays from a
customer perspective.

Imagine checking in at a kiosk to get your boarding pass, and going though no
security lines to board the plane. Bring anything you want with you, but know
that the flight is under video surveillance, like retail stores today.

I assumed technologies that work in rudimentary form today and will benefit
from Moore’s Law. (The only 12-year forecast that I felt confident about is
the continuation of the 100-year abstraction of Moore’s Law, bringing a 256x
computational advance by 2018).

So, I started with the assumption that computer-controlled flight would be
possible. It’s a pretty safe assumption given what we already have today.

With no cockpit, everything changes. The potential for harm is greatly reduced
if the plane cannot be navigated from within. No hijacking. No use of the
plane as a weapon.

Bombs become the only threat, and a reduced one.

Personal weapons? A gun or knife-fight could do more damage in a restaurant,
or many large group gatherings. Why bother with a plane where criminal
activity will be recorded, and the only people harmed are on board?

As for bombs, passive sniffers in a free flowing airport gateway are more
plausible than detecting improvised weapons than could be used against a
pilot.

At the airport, a quick fingerprint biometric would be a natural way to get a
boarding pass (as 12 million people have already done in Florida to get access
to an amusement park). So even smuggled bombs would have more capture and
downside risk for a terrorist cell than other targets.

Pie-in-sky ideas: hardening a UAV to bombs should be easier than current
planes; smaller planes could lower risk; luggage could fly separately;
biologic weapon sensors could trigger a flight path to quarantine, etc.

~~~
robertmrangel
then somehow someone hacks you

f __kd

------
ghshephard
I've always wondered why we don't have more sophisticated autopilots for
trains. I recognize the importance of having staff on a train to deal with a
lot of the engineering, break, track and other equipment issues, but It's
unclear to me why the actual driving (braking/acceleration) of the trains is
still done by (often bored out of their skulls) train operators.

I'm guessing the big element that was missing was sensing track obstacles and
braking accordingly - in Singapore/Dubai they have doors limiting access to
the track, and in vancouver they have (tending to failure in the winter) track
sensors to see if anyone has hopped onto the track.

------
Animats
Not yet, but a decade or two out, maybe. It requires much better sensors. For
one thing, you need all the gear for automatic driving to get from the runway
to the gate. Landing on an airport without ground aids may be necessary in an
emergency.

What we'll probably see first is larger one-pilot aircraft, able to land
themselves in case of pilot failure. Also, unpiloted fighter jets are almost
inevitable, simply because modern airframes can pull more Gs than pilots can
stand. Boeing is modifying old F-16 aircraft into the QF-16, which is
unmanned. These were originally intended for target practice, but DARPA is
interested in using them for other purposes.

~~~
Evolved
The QF-16s are unmanned but they are not computer-controlled. I believe the
argument here is for computer-controlled airliners not remotely piloted ones.
After what happened to one of our Scan Eagle UAVs[1], the last thing we need
is the tragic loss of life and PR nightmare of an unmanned commercial airliner
getting hacked and crashed.

[1][http://rt.com/news/iran-drone-hacked-downed-353/](http://rt.com/news/iran-
drone-hacked-downed-353/)

------
DigitalSea
I do not know how I feel about this. I realise that a modern day plane
basically flies itself once it reaches cruise altitude what is referred to as
fly-by-wire. However, the notion that pilots are not needed or do nothing on
planes is ridiculous.

Are we forgetting that it was a pilot in 2009 on US Airways Flight 1549 that
safely landed the plane after striking a flock of geese during its initial
climbout only to be ditched into the Hudson River shortly after. If a pilot
was not in the plane at the time, no computer would have been able to save the
plane.

Typically a pilot will turn off the autopilot around 1000 feet and then do the
rest for descent and subsequent landing. On takeoff, most pilots will fly to
around 10,000 feet, some to cruise altitude before turning on the autopilot.
There are some tasks on modern day planes that cannot be currently done
without a pilot (at least not safely).

We have to remember things like autopilot still require manual input from the
pilot and cockpit crew to get from its departure point to its destination. A
pilot doesn't just fly a plane out of an airport, press a couple of buttons
and then do nothing for the rest of the flight, this is a misconception
perpetrated by the media and so-called experts who have never flown a plane in
their life. Autopilot is merely a tool, much like a machine keeping a patient
breathing and their blood flowing in the operating theatre is a tool for
surgeons. The machines need to be calibrated, have their data input and be
closely monitored much like a pilot does on a plane, even with autopilot
engaged.

While I applaud the forward thinking from people like Steve Jurvetson,
statements like " _Planes are mostly already flown on autopilot already_ "
would be strongly disagreed with any pilot you ask. No two flights are the
same and all flights are made up of individual and manual decisions from the
pilot and crew. If a pilotless plane were something that could be a reality,
the airline industry which has been struggling for years now to keep costs
down amidst rising fuel costs would have already partially integrated this or
started to cut down on the number of pilots they hire.

I would like to see a pilotless plane decide what to do when the landing gear
fails and an emergency landing needs to be made. I would like to see what
happens when a tire blows on a high-speed take off and the plane has to make
an emergency landing, or what happens when a plane has to make an emergency
detour over rocky terrain.

You would still need people to operate these planes remotely, what happens
when contact is lost with a plane and it finds itself flying without a pilot
at 35,000 feet who can manually take control of the plane and land it? Is
Steve forgetting that a pilot would effectively be replaced with someone in a
call centre type building sitting at a computer terminal remotely programming
commands and programming things like runway codes and other things into the
plane?

Some things just can't and should never be replaced. Is modern day technology
meant to replace doctors? Every time a new device intended to help keep a
patient alive is created, is its intent to aide or replace a doctor? Of course
not. People would never agree with replacing doctors with machines completely.

Looking to eliminate drivers on the ground is one thing, because ground
transportation is far more dangerous than air transportation. I agree with
driverless cars because we already have the data and vehicle trips thanks to
mapping data and technology mean they are predictable to a certain degree. Air
travel is the safest kind of travel there is, fatalities and accidents have
been consistently going down year after year, the number of accidents with
fatalities in the last 10 years on Western commercial airlines can be counted
with both hands.

Replacing pilots in commercial aircraft is something that will not happen in
my lifetime, or perhaps ever. It is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.
Not everything can or should be automated for the sake of automating them.

~~~
wbond
This comment sounds a lot like the writing at
[http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-
myths/](http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/).

~~~
Sorgam
He doesn't have a strong argument. Perhaps he knows more than he's saying but
most of those tasks could be done in advance or by remote (not time critical,
like navigating around storms), or by suitably trained flight attendants
(medical emergencies and miscellaneous busy work he alludes to).

If 1% of landings are on autopilot, why not all of them? He doesn't answer
this except "setting it up is hard". But setup can be done remotely, if not in
advance, by someone who's also controlling several other aircraft, so there
are efficiency gains.

We have had driverless trains for decades - see London's DLR. The ticket
inspectors can ask the passenger sitting at the front to please change seats
so they can unlock the control panel and handle abnormal situations.

~~~
joshvm
Rail systems aren't really comparable because, well, they're on rails. You
have five more degrees of freedom when flying an aircraft.

A train driver's main job is to have good reflexes. Aside from opening the
doors in case of fire, I can't think of a railway accident that couldn't have
been prevented by simply stopping the train(s) in time. A driverless train
simply needs an emergency stop button and a way for passengers to get out in
an emergency.

~~~
fulafel
You can reduce most things to not stopping when you should, but...
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_train_disaste...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Bernardino_train_disaster)

~~~
joshvm
In that particular case there were faulty brakes on one of the cars. Had they
been working (or the fault communicated properly) and the train not been
overloaded, the derailment would likely not have happened. There was no other
alternative - if no braking had happened, the disaster would almost certainly
have been worse.

In a computerised system, the brakes would most likely have fault reporting.
Actually in this case they did - the logs indicated that the dynamic braking
system wasn't producing any current. This should have been indicated to the
driver.

There's also plenty of human error there in not reporting the brake failure
and 'eyeballing' weights. Passenger trains are presumably designed such that
even with severe overcrowding and lots of luggage there is small chance of the
brakes being underpowered. I have no idea why an emergency brake system
wouldn't activate all possible means to slow things down.

I agree that in this instance braking actually worsened the problem, but the
solution was still that the train should have been braked properly. A
computerised system would likely have performed similar steps although it
would know the braking force provided by each technique and respond
accordingly.

------
mpweiher
Obligatory reference to "Children of the Magenta Line"

[http://independentflightinstructors.com/instructors/2011/11/...](http://independentflightinstructors.com/instructors/2011/11/children-
of-the-magenta-line/)

(Automation systems typically tell the pilot where to go with a magenta line,
on the G1000 systems I am used to it's an indicator of GPS navigation)

From the opening line: "as we look at this accident history, we find that in
68% of these accidents, Automation Dependency played a significant part".

So automation certainly _is_ not the solution currently, at least not by
itself. It handles a lot of the routine very well, but not non-routine
situations, which happen frequently enough. Big events like Captain
Sullenberger's Hudson landing have been mentioned, but there are many other
smaller situations that occur on a regular basis.

On the other hand, automation has been a crucial part of making commercial
aviation so incredibly safe and accidents so rare that we no longer really
have a statistically relevant sample base. That's an enormous achievement, but
automation is only part of the story.

The current amazing safety record has been achieved with the current
consensus/compromise setup: humans + machines.

Most of the problems that happen nowadays seem to happen due to problems at
the man+machine interface. Asiana 214 for example would have been fine as a
fully automated approach just as much as a fully hand-flown approach, but
confusions between the automation and the pilots caused a crash.

However, looking at those statistics and saying "we must remove one element"
is fallacious, simply because the statistics do not show how many crashes were
_prevented_ by having that element aboard.

So while these sorts of radical proposals sound good and appear to make a lot
of sense when not examined too closely, I would be very surprised if the
objectively best solution is not the combination that we have, refined further
to smooth out problems at the computer/human interface.

Automated trains and cars have been mentioned as examples. Planes are
fundamentally different, because with any surface bound vehicle you can, in an
emergency, just stop and wait for help. For a train, that's literally it. For
a car, you'd probably want to pull over somewhere safe, but if worse comes to
worse you can stop in place and hope everyone around you stops as well or
avoids you.

If you "stop" a plane in flight, everyone on board dies. You have to actively
land the plane on a suitable surface at suitable speed and orientation,
arguably the hardest part of flying. That's also one reason why requirements
for airplane engines are so different than for cars: if a car engine dies, you
pull over. If a plane engine dies, you also die unless you find a good place
to land in the next couple of seconds or minutes.

