Airbus is ready for pilotless jets - are you?

[brooklynite]

Daily Mail

The chief salesman for Airbus says his company already has the technology to fly passenger planes without pilots at all - and is working on winning over regulators and travelers to the idea.

Christian Scherer also said in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday that Airbus hopes to be selling hybrid or electric passenger jets by around 2035.

While the company is still far from ready to churn out battery-operated jumbo jets, Scherer said Airbus already has 'the technology for autonomous flying' and for planes flown by just one pilot.

'This is not a matter of technology - it's a matter of interaction with the regulators, the perception in the traveling public,' he told The Associated Press.

[MicaelS]

1. Fuck no!!!!!!!

Not ever. I am a nerd, and love technoogy, but that is one step I will never take.

[Blue Owl]

2. But are they ready for passenger-less planes?

n/t

[fescuerescue]

4. You joke but that's probably the first application for it

pilotless cargo planes.

I can see Amazon being an early adopter. Boxes don't complain.

[sarisataka]

3. I'm sure technology

Has developed to the point we can trust sensors and software to fly planes without fault

[jberryhill]

5. Well, let's see...

Four planes on 9/11 - highjackers take over human controls in cockpit.

German Wings Flight 9325 - deliberately crashed into the ground by pilot.

Egypt Air 990 - deliberately crashed into ocean by pilot.

Malaysian Airlines 370 - deliberately flown on wrong course and crashed into ocean by pilot.

[madinmaryland]

11. Well, from the other side, what about the 737 Max 8's?

Faulty code causing the pilots to lose control. One software tweak on a pilotless plane and there could be hundreds of planes falling out the sky.

[Blue_true]

14. Millions of flights flown, passengers landed safely.

You pick the handful that were exceptions to a very hard and fast outcome.

[jberryhill]

16. The bulk of those flights using auto pilot and autoland

[Blue_true]

23. Commercial flying is safer that is driving our cars. nt

[fescuerescue]

7. But that's not the bar

"without fault". Right now, pilot error still causes more deaths than equipment malfunction.


If we could reduce pilot error down to the level of equipment malfunction, that would be a huge jump in safety. Pilot error accounts for 50% of all crashes, 20% mechanical failure.

http://theconversation.com/the-five-most-common-reasons-for-airliner-disasters-50100

"without fault" is a dream utopia, for both man and machine.

[cpamomfromtexas]

9. Manufacturers always want to claim pilot error. Did you

See testimonies yesterday regarding Boeing who jumped to conclusions claiming pilot error before the recording was released of Allied Pilots meeting with Boeing execs?

[fescuerescue]

12. of course they do

But in the US the NTSB makes that determination, not the manufacturers.

Boeing would claim that 90% of all crashes are human error. The NTSB puts it about 50%. The rest being all other causes including weather, mechanical, sabotage, etc.

[sarisataka]

17. Pilotless planes

Would reduce the pilot error crash rate to 0%

The question is how many crashes due to equipment failure are averted by pilot intervention?

How many 737s would have obediently flown into the ground because the computers said the plane was stalling?

[fescuerescue]

20. That's a really good point

United 232 in 1989 is probably the best example of good pilots intervening where the plane suffered a huge failure. It was still a deadly accident, but the actions of the pilots saved many lives.

In that case the failure was unpredictable. Loss of center engine which destroyed controls to the remain two. The pilots abandoned traditional methods of controlling the plane and relied soley on throttle to steer.

Highly unlikely than an AI pilot would have been programed for that once ever event, and it's likely that ALL onboard would have died rather than about 1/3.

The data to answer your question is out there. Such an event would be documented and the NTSB files are very open, but I don't know the answer.

We can apply some educated guesses though. Right now it's 50% human and 30% mechanical for causes of crashes. In order for the safety rate to decline, that would mean that for every fatal mechanical issue, that about 3 times as many "near misses" occurred, and are just being ignored by airlines and the NTSB. That seems unlikely.

[sarisataka]

25. I agree

It is difficult to believe that such a rate of serious mechanical issues exist.

I am greedy and want the best of both. Technology aided planes to assist and warn pilots of issues along with humans who can take charge when the is a failure of the technology or unforeseen situation that was never programmed into the software.

[cpamomfromtexas]

6. Operative word is "salesman". Any questions?

[Tipperary]

8. Reminds me of the old joke.

Loudspeaker comes on to announce to pax that they are in a computer controlled plane. Please relax and enjoy the flight. Nothing can go wrong.

Then the announcement repeats. Again. And again. And again.

[Blue_true]

15. Good one. nt

[Lheurch]

10. Yes

I am very much ready for driverless trucks and pilotless planes. It will save over one million lives a year.

[sarisataka]

26. One million?

Can you provide a citation?

[Lheurch]

28. Worldwide, yes

https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/

[Blue_true]

13. No!!!!!! nt

[Grammy23]

18. Another occupation bites the dust.

Better get busy thinking about what jobs our grand and great grandchildren will do.

[ananda]

19. No! and HELL NO !!!!

Look at what's already happened with cars!

This is one insane society !!!!!

[Initech]

21. HELL NO!!!

I mean shit you saw how easily they crashed the pilotless plane in Spiderman: Homecoming. Can you imagine if there were any passengers on it?

[Codeine]

22. Of course.

Isn’t a fair portion of many flights already conducted that way? Railing against change is rarely a successful plan.

[USALiberal]

24. How much per passenger is the cost of the pilots? nt

[dem4decades]

27. Well I'd rather an Airbus than a 737 Max but just put a pilot in the cockpit.

[keithbvadu2]

29. Would the computer think out-of-the-box to land in the Hudson River like Sully did?

Would the computer think out-of-the-box to land in the Hudson River like Sully did?

That was a judgement call rather than pure logic.