|
|
Thread Tools |
05-22-2011, 05:45 AM | #16301 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 1,230
|
I do think we'll see automated flight eventually (with a backup pilot on the ground, or some such, but to begin with by having the physical pilots simply not fly at all but be present on the flightdeck). I imagine it will start with cargo, and possibly stop there, and then perhaps move to the military (who are happier to take probabilities into account and who don't have customers per-se).
|
05-22-2011, 02:05 PM | #16302 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Yes, I imagine some form of personnel or cargo transport (commercial or military) using unmanned aircraft will be in service within the next few decades. At least conceptually, I think it can be sold to a tax-paying public as being no different from, say, having "unmanned" trains, which is nothing new: large, multi-city, urban centers like the Greater Vancouver Area have been using remotely operated trains for public transit within and between cities with no major incidents for several years now. The challenge will be in developing a remote navigation and operation system that is so responsive and reliable that people (both the people riding the aircraft, and the people bankrolling the venture) will feel comfortable enough getting on the aircraft. I think it's do-able... I mean, geez, we already have the technology to remotely operate robots, in real-time, on Mars. And I think we'll see something like unmanned personnel and cargo air transports before we ever see mass autonomous car travel (like say, what was shown in the futuristic sci-fi manga Appleseed), because there's far less clutter and traffic in the air to take into account. Still, I wouldn't be an early adopter if this ever happens within our lifetimes.
|
05-22-2011, 03:31 PM | #16303 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,224
|
I really don't think you'll see it in commercial travel in the next two decades. That's not far away, and there are simply too many things that need to be done that a remote pilot can't do. What's the benefit? Less weight? The performance perk from an aircraft designed without a flight deck and crew would be nominal. But w/out pilots, now you have to assign ground personnel to do the pre- and post-flights. Mechanics are overworked as it is and they're not going to volunteer. And do you want some ten-dollar-an-hour bag-thrower doing it? And who's going to inspect the wings for icing after you've de-iced and the holdover time has elasped due to a long taxi? Plus, complacency behind the controls is a real risk in aviation.
You probably heard about pilots overshooting their destination because "they're working on their laptops" (which isn't a valid excuse, but sounds better than "we were sleeping"). Just imagine some guy at a cubicle flying the aircraft on autopilot, bored out of his mind. Now he can just check his email or surf the auto trader or play Warcraft VIII or watch porn or shoot the shit with his buddy at the water cooler while he occassionaly glances at his office monitor to see that the plane is still upright. That would be the biggest concern for me. Sure I'd love to sit down at the computer (perhaps even my home computer) and fly four legs w/out having to cart my bags from plane to plane and get drenched during a preflight in a storm and go through security and have to do a 20-hour layover in some crappy place like Moline, IL or Killeen, TX, but there's only so many things that a remote pilot can do. Last edited by Tanksmasher; 05-22-2011 at 03:38 PM.. |
05-22-2011, 05:53 PM | #16304 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Well, when you put it that way, yeah, it does seem like the unmanned transport is something that will be more of a military thing, at least within the foreseeable future because of things like a higher ground-crew to aircraft ratio, a less risk-averse management philosophy, etc.
Of course, and this is looking much further into the future, the cognitive and behavioral issues you mention that will surely hinder the remote human pilot won't be problems with an actual autonomous AI (for a truly unmanned aircraft). Then again, AI that is advanced enough that it can learn to improvise and respond to changing conditions in flight just as fast as (and more precisely and consistently than) a trained human pilot might be advanced enough that it can also "learn" to get bored and sloppy (that is, it might self-organize algorithms to streamline and standardize its reactions in "normal" flying conditions, and these algorithms might end up interfering with its adaptive behavior capabilities when faced with novel situations like emergencies and such). Last edited by zuludelta; 05-22-2011 at 05:56 PM.. |
05-23-2011, 04:33 AM | #16305 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 1,230
|
Quote:
I really don't think you'll see it in commercial travel in the next two decades. That's not far away, and there are simply too many things that need to be done that a remote pilot can't do. What's the benefit? Less weight? The performance perk from an aircraft designed without a flight deck and crew would be nominal. But w/out pilots, now you have to assign ground personnel to do the pre- and post-flights. Mechanics are overworked as it is and they're not going to volunteer. And do you want some ten-dollar-an-hour bag-thrower doing it? And who's going to inspect the wings for icing after you've de-iced and the holdover time has elasped due to a long taxi? Plus, complacency behind the controls is a real risk in aviation.
You probably heard about pilots overshooting their destination because "they're working on their laptops" (which isn't a valid excuse, but sounds better than "we were sleeping"). Just imagine some guy at a cubicle flying the aircraft on autopilot, bored out of his mind. Now he can just check his email or surf the auto trader or play Warcraft VIII or watch porn or shoot the shit with his buddy at the water cooler while he occassionaly glances at his office monitor to see that the plane is still upright. That would be the biggest concern for me. Sure I'd love to sit down at the computer (perhaps even my home computer) and fly four legs w/out having to cart my bags from plane to plane and get drenched during a preflight in a storm and go through security and have to do a 20-hour layover in some crappy place like Moline, IL or Killeen, TX, but there's only so many things that a remote pilot can do. I do agree completely that it's not going to happen on commercial passenger flights though, but I could see it happening for cargo, though ideally one would want a dedicated airport so that you could take advantage of computerised scheduling (in time and space) on both the ground and in the approach and departure patterns (without any bothersome pilots involved ;)) If you were flying from a pair of dedicated airports (for example) then the cost savings of removing the pilots and using dedicated ground staff to perform the checks, etc., ought to produce some sort of saving (though probably not huge compared with the setup costs). I think more important would be the potential fuel/time savings from being able to use closer approach stacking and less separation between flight paths during the flight, but that's not going to be something that will be implemented very easily and especially not while there are still real pilots in the air too. |
05-23-2011, 04:45 AM | #16306 |
Crimson Guard
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 1,230
|
Quote:
Of course, and this is looking much further into the future, the cognitive and behavioral issues you mention that will surely hinder the remote human pilot won't be problems with an actual autonomous AI (for a truly unmanned aircraft). Then again, AI that is advanced enough that it can learn to improvise and respond to changing conditions in flight just as fast as (and more precisely and consistently than) a trained human pilot might be advanced enough that it can also "learn" to get bored and sloppy (that is, it might self-organize algorithms to streamline and standardize its reactions in "normal" flying conditions, and these algorithms might end up interfering with its adaptive behavior capabilities when faced with novel situations like emergencies and such).
Adaptivity for failures of controls and the like can be provided by decoupling the autopilot's demands (e.g. altitude change, speed change) from the commands one would usually use to implement these (pitch change, throttle change) and then allowing the autopilot to use whatever control inputs are necessary to achieve the desired demands. This way learning isn't strictly necessary (though would probably still be used to tune the control usage), but the autopilot is still adaptive. Also I imagine one could happily switch out state machines such that any adaptation used for normal flight to damp out turbulence and the like would be switched out to a vanilla model if a failure mode were encountered. Interesting research topic, but testing failure modes of the sw would be painful! |
05-23-2011, 04:57 AM | #16307 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
|
05-23-2011, 09:33 AM | #16308 |
Cobra Viper
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Grand Junction,Colorado
Posts: 201
|
In Scarlett`s 1983 Filecard,it says she graduated from two Ivy League Universities,before joining the Service and becoming a G.I.Joe. In her 1997 Fulecard,it says that when the G.I.Joe program shut down,she and Snake Eyes retired to his mountain cabin. In her spare time she taught women self defense seminars.
In Deep Six first Filecard,he started out as a Petty Officer 2 and when his second filecard came out,he was a Chief Petty Officer. In his 2008 & 2009 Filecards,his pay grade is a E-5 Navy Diver 2nd Class. Back when he was a Chief Petty Officer,he liked to study whale-songs and supported Public Television. |
05-23-2011, 10:43 AM | #16309 |
W.O.R.M.S. Commander
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Back in the US of A! (NoVA)
Posts: 10,649
|
It doesn't mention Ivy league school in her 83 filecard but it does in her 1993 filecard. Good catch. I have thay figure lying around here somewhere. Hate it. So I never paid attention to that filecard. The kick action is just a terrible Idea. but then again so was the rest of ninja force. Terrible filecard too, but I wonder what two ivy league schools they had in mind? There aren't that many Ivy League educated Joes.
__________________
Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome. |
05-23-2011, 11:38 AM | #16310 |
Hog Driver
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 12,224
|
Quote:
I don't think a pilot on the ground would be the norm, but rather that there'd be a pilot on the ground, or a group of them, ready to take control (or at least see what's going on) in case the automatic pilot encounters any problems (and that it would tell him about it to take him away from WoW or pron or whatever ;)).
If you were flying from a pair of dedicated airports (for example) then the cost savings of removing the pilots and using dedicated ground staff to perform the checks, etc., ought to produce some sort of saving (though probably not huge compared with the setup costs). I think more important would be the potential fuel/time savings from being able to use closer approach stacking and less separation between flight paths during the flight, but that's not going to be something that will be implemented very easily and especially not while there are still real pilots in the air too. And remote flying will not likely reduce separation between aircraft, thus saving time, since separation distances are mainly designed for wake turbulence avoidance and evasive maneuvering in case of an impending collision. I just don't see the immediate benefits in cost or safety for commercial aviation, although certain fatigue issues might be mitigated more easily. For military pilots, the two greatest and obvious benefits of having unmanned aircraft are pilot protection from anti-aircraft weapon systems and less restrictive performance when evading those systems. You won't have to worry about pilots getting shot down and captured or the risks of attempting a rescue, and secondly, the aircraft can pull Gs that the average pilot with a G-suit could never withstand. Commercial aviation is simply a different animal. Plus, I kinda like the view from 37,000 feet! Last edited by Tanksmasher; 05-23-2011 at 11:50 AM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Please Help! Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 2 | 10-26-2008 06:14 PM |
Need filecards! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 18 | 10-24-2008 09:17 PM |
Filecards Wanted!!!! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-17-2008 10:25 PM |
Filecards Wanted! | RockinHard | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 5 | 10-05-2008 04:15 PM |
Quaid Spills Secrets on "G.I. Joe" | HissCommander | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 108 | 10-01-2008 11:23 AM |
|
|
Recent Off Topic Threads |
JazWares 18th Halo |
Star Wars 3 3/4 discussion thread |
Self Checkout apocalypse 3/26/24 |
What song are you listening to? |
G.I. Joe March Madness 2024 Round 2 Night Viper vs... |