Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

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

[GingisK]

Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

The real beauty is that it also removes the need for anyone to fly. Why, can can go anywhere and do anything from our own livingroom.

Not only that, technology has even made it unnecessary, or perhaps impossible for anyone to hold a job, including pilots someday.

Yes, technology has done so much for our lives. Without technology, why, we could even have ... a life?

[Archangelsk]

Computer-controlled aircraft? I hope it's not Windows-based. The thing will lock up and kill you.

Actually, the Flight Control Computers are all Wintel-based. The other day I was in our CRJ trainer when they booted the system and sure as sugar the Microsoft logo came up. I suspect that's why there's triple redundancy on all the systems.

[buccaneer81]

I was thinking more of "The Ultimate Computer". How long until a remotely piloted vehicle is controlled by "M5"? That's frightening.

[Archangelsk]

Ping.

[Modernman]

"Much to the chagrin of fighter pilots in the Pentagon (news - web sites), UAVs are here to stay,"

The Air Force seems to have the same romantic view of manned fighters as the world's navies had of battleships before WWII. Sure, manned jetfighters are reaching the pinnacle of their development, but the future of combat aviation is probably going to involve cheap UAVs flown by kids who played a lot of X-Box or PS2 growing up.

[dighton]

'scuse me but when the heck did Unmanned Aerial Vehicles become Uninhabited?

Good catch.

[chickenlips]

Do you realize the potential?????

With remote piloting we can eliminate an expensive part of our Air Force and Navy by outsourcing it to India!

[Physicist]

Yes, technology has done so much for our lives. Without technology, why, we could even have ... a life?

So...why didn't you go out and talk to somebody, instead of typing at the web?

[Pukin Dog]

In the early 60's technologists were certain that these new fangled missiles would remove dogfighting from Air to Air combat. The things were supposed to be so smart that a pilot could fire at a target, turn around and go home. You probably know how that turned out, right? The missiles proved ineffective, touchy, flaky, and almost worthless. The Navy started TopGun, while the Air Force continued on relying on the missiles and left Vietnam with a 1 to 1 kill ratio. The Navy raised theirs to 12 to 1 after going back to teaching advanced dogfighting skills to their pilots.

That lesson having been learned, It is going to be a very long time before you remove a man from the pilot seat. Technology will never replace judgment, guile and situational awareness to the point of becoming an advantage against a worthy adversary. Maybe you could use this technology for bombers and recce, but not likely in fighters for a very long time.

[Physicist]

Air to Air Combat will likely always require a man, because you could probably never duplicate SA (Situational Awareness) with a computer.

Prediction: inside of 15 years, there will be no more fighter pilots. The machines will be too cheap and too lethal. Whether or not machine pilots are the "equal" of human pilots by that time (they will be eventually), the survivability of a combat mission will drop to something very low.

[Doc On The Bay]

ALAS!!-- for SOME 'Perverted Reason,'--the "Real World" just seems to DIFFER FROM the predictions of our Best mathematicians!!

So--despite our Best efforts to avoid It--a "Real'Life Human Pilot" is Often the "Difference Between" Success & Failure!!"

Despite the "Hubris" of our BEST "Theoretic Mathematicians," a Well-Trained Human, "On The Spot," is OFTEN the difference between Success & Failure!

Doc

[gatorbait]

Technology will never replace judgment, guile and situational awareness to the point of becoming an advantage against a worthy adversary. Maybe you could use this technology for bombers and recce, but not likely in fighters for a very long time.

Your quote is spot on. Machines can be spoofed much more easily than an experienced human being.Think about the MacNamera Line as an example of this kind of wizardry gone awry.

I doubt anyone on the ground would be too thrilled with a robot flying close air support. I do think an armed drone is a great force multiplier and terific in areas that need deniability or ,frankly are worthwhile targets , but not worth the life of an aircrew.

[Poohbah]

I don't think you're going to have 100%-computer-flown fighters any time soon, but we will get to the point where hauling meatware around in the airplane, instead of leaving it in a trailer on the ground, is a tactical liability.

[Pukin Dog]

15 years? Not a chance. The machines will be too expensive, have too many problems mechanically, be found to be subject to jamming of their control signals by the smarter nations, and so on. Survivability of a combat mission rarely has anything to do with the vehicle used, but of the men using it. The only aircraft with technology proven in combat to enhance survivability are Steath aircraft.

When I got hold of my first fighter, it was considered to be the most dangerous aircraft to go against ever built. 23 years later, that same aircraft is still the most dangerous, (although the F-22 is promising) though soon to be phased out of service. If in 23 years, the Services have yet to build an weapon that can defeat the Tomcat/Phoenix, I doubt fighter pilots have anything to worry about for the next 30-35 years, when the next generation fighters are retired.

[Pukin Dog]

hauling meatware around in the airplane, instead of leaving it in a trailer on the ground, is a tactical liability.

Air Force = Meatware.

Navy = FiletMignonware.

[Archangelsk]

When I got hold of my first fighter, it was considered to be the most dangerous aircraft to go against ever built.

Harrier or F-4 (which I once saw go to pieces during a video on PIO)?

[Physicist]

15 years? Not a chance.

Yeah, that's what Gary Kasparov said. What he forgot is that computers double their capabilities every 18 months.

There's no reason why the robot-piloted plane itself needs to be any more expensive, less mechanically sound, or worse in communication than any human-piloted aircraft; the worst-case scenario is that you simply replace the pilots of existing aircraft. But that's already a winner: computers are capable of executing much higher-g turns than humans. Also, they're much better at taking calculated risks, because they know to several decimal places how much leeway they have...and they are only as risk-averse as they're told to be.

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

[Revolting cat!]

Dog is my co-pilot!

[Archangelsk]

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

I don't see that happening anytime soon. My posit for this opinion is that it takes an equal competitor to move technology forward. Thus, aerospace science and aeronautical engineering (along with automation) only moved forward during WWI, II, Korea, the Cold War and Vietnam. Since we have no competitors in this realm at this time (China is still 10 years away) I suspect we will rely on stagnant technology until something earth shattering hits us. (My bet is China landing on the moon).

[The_Media_never_lie]

Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots

Maybe so, but can a computer service the stewardesses? I think not.