New UK plan "could spell end of throwaway culture" (BBC News)

[tooki]

It is possible to eliminate pilots now, and has been for at least 20 years.  General practice is for pilots to take off, then the autopilot is activated after about 20 seconds, the plane then flies on autopilot until it is well into the glide path to landing.  However, the autopilot could do the whole thing without problem. The biggest problem in civilian aviation today is pilot boredom and consequent fatigue, because they have nothing to do in flight, this causes human error.  So, it's a psychlogical problem,  would passengers feel safe if they knew the aircraft was being flown entirely by computer with no flight crew onboard?  Even knowing that this would probably be safer than being flown by a human pilot, because, most aviation accidents are caused by pilot error.  Quite a dilemma.

Not even close to a dilemma.

Look at the crash stats for military drones: they’re terrible compared to commercial aviation. (Twice a month according to here. And there are vastly fewer drones than commercial aircraft. Consider that there are 1200 Boeing 737s in the sky at any given moment! And then consider how many other models of planes are in use, cumulatively outnumbering the 737.) We are nowhere close to ready to have pilotless passenger aircraft.

What people don’t understand is that “autopilot” isn’t a Google Maps that can control the flight and react dynamically to situations. “Autopilot” is a broad collection of different automatic settings that are enabled selectively. Think cruise control, but for various settings, not just speed. Yes, you can program in a flight path, but again, it must be programmed.

Please, stop promulgating the myth that planes fly themselves. They don’t. I mean, they do, if you consider ONLY the act of keeping the aircraft aloft under non-special circumstances. But pilots do far more than that. Even if you moved those tasks out of the cockpit and into a control room on the ground, those tasks do not go away, and doing them remotely is far less effective.

[tooki]

There is no question that humans can sometimes deal with cases that the computers can't currently handle.  But we are nearing the point (or perhaps already past) where the failures that humans introduce to the system outnumber and out weigh the cases where the computer would fail.  Even if you only count cases where it is indisputably pilot error instead of just a case of throwing the pilot under the bus.

It really shouldn't be a situation where personal feelings or preference is the deciding factor.  Just the facts, maam.  Just the facts.

The number of crashes today is already minuscule. Yes, they’re now mostly “due to human error”, but this doesn’t tell you ANYTHING about the number of incidents pilots were able to resolve without incident, but which a computer would not have been able to resolve. I think those are FAR more numerous than you think.

[MK14]

When have you ever known government regs to be well thought out?!
There is an old piece of car safety advice, said to be very effective and very cost efficient.  Place a rigid 6" long steel spike in the centre of car steering wheels and remove seatbelts, then every one would be very careful how they drove!

The intentions and concepts are good. They just seem to get carried away, and end up with crazy levels of feature creep. Hence resulting in what at least some others, think are overly onerous regulations!

Analogy: Someone here, just needs a £20, used analogue crt Oscilloscope. For general hobby work.

They then start a thread somewhere, saying, don't worry about budget, what scope should I get.

Then someone says, you should get at least 100 MHz bandwidth.
Then someone else (also without checking your usage, which is only for audio work, to a maximum of 20 KHz), Hence 500 MHz bandwidth, hence someone insists digital are better.
Then someone says you should get isolated inputs.
4 Input channels (just in case).
Future proof it and get a 2 GHz bandwidth model.
Etc etc.

The £20 used model, has to now be a £75,000 oscilloscope, which ends up being taken out of its box twice. Once for checking an AA battery is 1.5V, the other time is for a 2 KHz signal.

Yes, by all means, get a scope. But a £300 digital Rigol/Siglent etc. Not a super expensive one.
But it would apply to whatever someone wants to buy or achieve.

China (less so India/Others), are apparently doing very well, financially, and selling tons of stuff round the world. Yet, as regards western rules and regulations. They seem to have much less.
These rules and regulations, could price the West out of too many markets.
Quality and safety are good, but is the price too high ?

tl;dr
Make things of reasonable/good quality and safe, but DON'T go overboard.
Specify a Toyota/Ford/Hyundai type of regulation, NOT a Rolls Royce/Lexus/Top Mercedes S class/BMW/Ferrari etc
'Good enough', not 'Gold plated, excessive opulence'.

[MK14]

When have you ever known government regs to be well thought out?!
There is an old piece of car safety advice, said to be very effective and very cost efficient.  Place a rigid 6" long steel spike in the centre of car steering wheels and remove seatbelts, then every one would be very careful how they drove!

I don't like DISAGREEING with people. But, I heard/read some research about it, and they discovered that is a completely nonsensical method. All you really need to do is check the nut that holds the steering wheel on, is tight.

Because extensive research discovered, that almost all accidents, are caused by the NUT, between the steering wheel, and the drivers seat.   

Or, in other words (via internet search) 'A car's weakest part is the nut holding the steering wheel'.

[Cubdriver]

There is no question that humans can sometimes deal with cases that the computers can't currently handle.  But we are nearing the point (or perhaps already past) where the failures that humans introduce to the system outnumber and out weigh the cases where the computer would fail.  Even if you only count cases where it is indisputably pilot error instead of just a case of throwing the pilot under the bus.

It really shouldn't be a situation where personal feelings or preference is the deciding factor.  Just the facts, maam.  Just the facts.

It's not always the computer that fails.  It's often something else.  An unusual engine failure.  A totally unforeseen weather incident.  Fuel contamination.



You can't program a computer for all the things that can go wrong - there are just too many possibilities.  Some are caused by humans, but it's not always the humans on the plane.  Very few crashes are caused by the pilots.

-Pat

[MK14]

It's not always the computer that fails.  It's often something else.  An unusual engine failure.  A totally unforeseen weather incident.  Fuel contamination.
You can't program a computer for all the things that can go wrong - there are just too many possibilities. -Pat

That is very true!
That is why a real human pilot, is reassuring and useful, in emergencies.

Very few crashes are caused by the pilots.

I could be misunderstanding your post. I couldn't easily find a link, which detailed ONLY the mistakes the pilots made (Pilot Error), rather than also including all human error.

By vary few, do you mean 80% (Pilots + other humans making errors) ?

In the early days of flight, approximately 80 percent of accidents were caused by the machine and 20�percent were caused by human error. Today that statistic has reversed. Approximately 80 percent of airplane accidents are due to human error (pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, etc.) and 20�percent are due to machine (equipment) failures.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_03_2.html

[Stray Electron]

E.g. Rules insisting on having tyre pressure monitoring in cars, means each tyre sensor has a battery (4, one for each wheel), which can cost a small fortune, to get replaced, every e.g. 5 years.

Tyre pressure monitoring doesnt have to be done with active sensors in the wheels. It can also be done using existing sensors such as those used for ABS, although I have seen it done with some little doodad boxes that mount somewhere around the wheels.

The ones on my car use indirect TPMS ie by measuring relative axle rotation.  It does go loopy every 500 or so miles and tell you that you have a flat tyre but it worked very quickly when I did have one. Not much to go wrong on that!

   I have a vehicle that has the TPMS.  A new sensor cost me about $80. I've had to replace two of them so far. Installation was free since I waiting until the tires had to be replaced. If I lived in a state that had mandatory inspection then I would have had to have also paid to have the tire removed and installed (if they will even let you do that now) before it would pass inspection.  My TPMS only gives you a Go-No Go indication and not the actual tire pressure.  I've also found that on long trips, if it rains it will cause the system to indicate that it has a system failure. No one has any idea why. The circuits for the TPMS are built into the same CPU board that controls MOST of the electronic functions in the vehicle and it costs multi thousands of dollars to replace it. IMO these systems are of LITTLE practical use and as always, the politicians mandated them with no concern of what it would cost consumers. At the very least major functions such as the TPMS needs to be built on it's own board so that it can be accessed without taking the entire vehicle apart and it can be troubleshoot and replaced is necessary without having to replace thousands of dollars worth of other circuits.

[SilverSolder]

E.g. Rules insisting on having tyre pressure monitoring in cars, means each tyre sensor has a battery (4, one for each wheel), which can cost a small fortune, to get replaced, every e.g. 5 years.

Tyre pressure monitoring doesnt have to be done with active sensors in the wheels. It can also be done using existing sensors such as those used for ABS, although I have seen it done with some little doodad boxes that mount somewhere around the wheels.

The ones on my car use indirect TPMS ie by measuring relative axle rotation.  It does go loopy every 500 or so miles and tell you that you have a flat tyre but it worked very quickly when I did have one. Not much to go wrong on that!

   I have a vehicle that has the TPMS.  A new sensor cost me about $80. I've had to replace two of them so far. Installation was free since I waiting until the tires had to be replaced. If I lived in a state that had mandatory inspection then I would have had to have also paid to have the tire removed and installed (if they will even let you do that now) before it would pass inspection.  My TPMS only gives you a Go-No Go indication and not the actual tire pressure.  I've also found that on long trips, if it rains it will cause the system to indicate that it has a system failure. No one has any idea why. The circuits for the TPMS are built into the same CPU board that controls MOST of the electronic functions in the vehicle and it costs multi thousands of dollars to replace it. IMO these systems are of LITTLE practical use and as always, the politicians mandated them with no concern of what it would cost consumers. At the very least major functions such as the TPMS needs to be built on it's own board so that it can be accessed without taking the entire vehicle apart and it can be troubleshoot and replaced is necessary without having to replace thousands of dollars worth of other circuits.

TPMS is a good idea and solves a real problem -  it just doesn't seem to be "done right" yet.

[Cubdriver]

Very few crashes are caused by the pilots.

By vary few, do you mean 80% (Pilots + other humans making errors) ?

In the early days of flight, approximately 80 percent of accidents were caused by the machine and 20�percent were caused by human error. Today that statistic has reversed. Approximately 80 percent of airplane accidents are due to human error (pilots, air traffic controllers, mechanics, etc.) and 20�percent are due to machine (equipment) failures.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_2_07/article_03_2.html

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of FATAL crashes.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airlines-safety/major-commercial-plane-crash-deaths-worldwide-fell-by-more-than-50-in-2019-group-idUSKBN1Z0242  (86 accidents, with 8 of them fatals.)

Let me change tack a little - do you think an on-board computer system could have gotten the passenger planes in the incidents in the videos I've linked to in earlier replies down as safely and with as little loss of life as the pilots involved did?  Remember - those were not caused by pilot error, but by other, external things.  They were failures that could easily have caused the planes to crash with NO survivors, and potentially a lot of collateral damage and death on the ground when they hit - New York City, for instance, and only creative thinking on the spot and very skilled hands and minds prevented that.  Think someone could program a computer to do what Captain Sullenberger did in getting the Airbus glider down into the Hudson River?  The Qantas A380 pilots with the grenaded engine that took out many of the computer's sensors?  Or Al Haynes in Sioux City?  The latter crew were literally making things up as they went along, as the scenario they found themselves in had never been thought possible so no procedures had been developed for it.

Could a computer handle routine stuff?  Yeah, at this point, it probably could.  It's when stuff goes off into the weeds that the pilots earn their money, and are worth every penny they make and more.

I still want a human brain up front.  Certainly those flying for the major carriers have excellent safety records.

-Pat

[Stray Electron]

E.g. Rules insisting on having tyre pressure monitoring in cars, means each tyre sensor has a battery (4, one for each wheel), which can cost a small fortune, to get replaced, every e.g. 5 years.

Tyre pressure monitoring doesnt have to be done with active sensors in the wheels. It can also be done using existing sensors such as those used for ABS, although I have seen it done with some little doodad boxes that mount somewhere around the wheels.

The ones on my car use indirect TPMS ie by measuring relative axle rotation.  It does go loopy every 500 or so miles and tell you that you have a flat tyre but it worked very quickly when I did have one. Not much to go wrong on that!

   I have a vehicle that has the TPMS.  A new sensor cost me about $80. I've had to replace two of them so far. Installation was free since I waiting until the tires had to be replaced. If I lived in a state that had mandatory inspection then I would have had to have also paid to have the tire removed and installed (if they will even let you do that now) before it would pass inspection.  My TPMS only gives you a Go-No Go indication and not the actual tire pressure.  I've also found that on long trips, if it rains it will cause the system to indicate that it has a system failure. No one has any idea why. The circuits for the TPMS are built into the same CPU board that controls MOST of the electronic functions in the vehicle and it costs multi thousands of dollars to replace it. IMO these systems are of LITTLE practical use and as always, the politicians mandated them with no concern of what it would cost consumers. At the very least major functions such as the TPMS needs to be built on it's own board so that it can be accessed without taking the entire vehicle apart and it can be troubleshoot and replaced is necessary without having to replace thousands of dollars worth of other circuits.

TPMS is a good idea and solves a real problem -  it just doesn't seem to be "done right" yet.

   TPMS is just one more system that allows lazy ignorant people to ignore basic maintenance. Those never end well, the more you cover up for stupidity and laziness, the more stupid and lazy people become.

[MK14]

I guess I'm thinking more along the lines of FATAL crashes.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airlines-safety/major-commercial-plane-crash-deaths-worldwide-fell-by-more-than-50-in-2019-group-idUSKBN1Z0242  (86 accidents, with 8 of them fatals.)

Let me change tack a little - do you think an on-board computer system could have gotten the passenger planes in the incidents in the videos I've linked to in earlier replies down as safely and with as little loss of life as the pilots involved did?  Remember - those were not caused by pilot error, but by other, external things.  They were failures that could easily have caused the planes to crash with NO survivors, and potentially a lot of collateral damage and death on the ground when they hit - New York City, for instance, and only creative thinking on the spot and very skilled hands and minds prevented that.  Think someone could program a computer to do what Captain Sullenberger did in getting the Airbus glider down into the Hudson River?  The Qantas A380 pilots with the grenaded engine that took out many of the computer's sensors?  Or Al Haynes in Sioux City?  The latter crew were literally making things up as they went along, as the scenario they found themselves in had never been thought possible so no procedures had been developed for it.

Could a computer handle routine stuff?  Yeah, at this point, it probably could.  It's when stuff goes off into the weeds that the pilots earn their money, and are worth every penny they make and more.

I still want a human brain up front.  Certainly those flying for the major carriers have excellent safety records.

-Pat

I've tidied up my original post, to make it clearer.

I didn't look at the videos, because I've already seen many videos like that, and am well aware, that pilots have often done an amazing job.
I completely agree with you. Pilots, have often done an amazing job, at saving aircraft. Which have been badly damaged, by all sorts of things, such as an engine mechanical failure, causing it to catch on fire and stop working.

I need to differentiate between, pilots who do amazing work, saving aircraft, that have got into difficulties for an amazingly wide range of reasons, and pure Pilot Error, causing the aircraft to crash, in the first place.

Things like pilots who let their children take control, the plane then unfortunately crashed (Russian).
Pilots who run out of fuel (their human error, e.g. mixed up between Gallons and ibs or Kilograms etc, putting the wrong amount of fuel into the plane).
Pilots who are drunk or fall asleep.
Pilots who, due to the mechanical failure on the left hand engine, accidentally (human error), switch off the working right hand engine.

It's tricky. On the one hand pilots can be very useful in an emergency. But on the other hand, pilot error, sometimes leads to tragedy. Sadly, you can't have one, without the other.

[Zucca]

Enjoy the discussion,

I even saw a system based on RFID so trigger impulse on LF  and respond on HF.

It is possible to get enough energy to send the pressure values with a piezo in the tires.
The problem was to get all the tires OEM to agree to stick that sensor on the surface and to guarantee it will not fall down on with all the rubber compound.

Also the tire change situation would be a mess for our customers, they must only buy tires compatible with the sensor on it.
I even saw tires with a pocket to hold the sensors in place, but everytime somebody asked:"what if the nail pierce the sensors?"

I had so many nice ideas, but all of them were crushed in the industrialization process. Frustrating.

that's why a not run flat tires, with indirect TPMS and some regular pressure check interval is the best of the best.

PS: I do not know in UK, but the gas stations in USA are absolutely the worst to get tires correctly inflated. 

[SilverSolder]

E.g. Rules insisting on having tyre pressure monitoring in cars, means each tyre sensor has a battery (4, one for each wheel), which can cost a small fortune, to get replaced, every e.g. 5 years.

Tyre pressure monitoring doesnt have to be done with active sensors in the wheels. It can also be done using existing sensors such as those used for ABS, although I have seen it done with some little doodad boxes that mount somewhere around the wheels.

The ones on my car use indirect TPMS ie by measuring relative axle rotation.  It does go loopy every 500 or so miles and tell you that you have a flat tyre but it worked very quickly when I did have one. Not much to go wrong on that!

   I have a vehicle that has the TPMS.  A new sensor cost me about $80. I've had to replace two of them so far. Installation was free since I waiting until the tires had to be replaced. If I lived in a state that had mandatory inspection then I would have had to have also paid to have the tire removed and installed (if they will even let you do that now) before it would pass inspection.  My TPMS only gives you a Go-No Go indication and not the actual tire pressure.  I've also found that on long trips, if it rains it will cause the system to indicate that it has a system failure. No one has any idea why. The circuits for the TPMS are built into the same CPU board that controls MOST of the electronic functions in the vehicle and it costs multi thousands of dollars to replace it. IMO these systems are of LITTLE practical use and as always, the politicians mandated them with no concern of what it would cost consumers. At the very least major functions such as the TPMS needs to be built on it's own board so that it can be accessed without taking the entire vehicle apart and it can be troubleshoot and replaced is necessary without having to replace thousands of dollars worth of other circuits.

TPMS is a good idea and solves a real problem -  it just doesn't seem to be "done right" yet.

   TPMS is just one more system that allows lazy ignorant people to ignore basic maintenance. Those never end well, the more you cover up for stupidity and laziness, the more stupid and lazy people become.

Do you feel the same about oil pressure warning lights, temperature gauges, etc.?  -  Personally, I find the tire pressure information useful...   if I could have the tire pressures displayed on the dash, I'd take it...  as long as it doesn't add a $100 per year running cost! 

[SilverSolder]

Enjoy the discussion,

I even saw a system based on RFID so trigger impulse on LF  and respond on HF.

It is possible to get enough energy to send the pressure values with a piezo in the tires.
The problem was to get all the tires OEM to agree to stick that sensor on the surface and to guarantee it will not fall down on with all the rubber compound.

Also the tire change situation would be a mess for our customers, they must only buy tires compatible with the sensor on it.
I even saw tires with a pocket to hold the sensors in place, but everytime somebody asked:"what if the nail pierce the sensors?"

I had so many nice ideas, but all of them were crushed in the industrialization process. Frustrating.

that's why a not run flat tires, with indirect TPMS and some regular pressure check interval is the best of the best.

PS: I do not know in UK, but the gas stations in USA are absolutely the worst to get tires correctly inflated.

Why not have a piezo with a small weight attached, sitting in the rim itself?  Vibrations would charge a supercap or something...   Putting them in the tire seems a potentially bad idea for all the reasons you gave, and then some.

Gas station tire pressure:  you should have a gauge with you in the car, that way any gas station will work fine!

[MK14]

Enjoy the discussion,

I even saw a system based on RFID so trigger impulse on LF  and respond on HF.

It is possible to get enough energy to send the pressure values with a piezo in the tires.
The problem was to get all the tires OEM to agree to stick that sensor on the surface and to guarantee it will not fall down on with all the rubber compound.

Also the tire change situation would be a mess for our customers, they must only buy tires compatible with the sensor on it.
I even saw tires with a pocket to hold the sensors in place, but everytime somebody asked:"what if the nail pierce the sensors?"

I had so many nice ideas, but all of them were crushed in the industrialization process. Frustrating.

that's why a not run flat tires, with indirect TPMS and some regular pressure check interval is the best of the best.

PS: I do not know in UK, but the gas stations in USA are absolutely the worst to get tires correctly inflated.

I understand. There are all sorts of real life practicalities, which stop all sorts of clever ideas. Being implemented on cars.
It must be an extremely tough environment, being inside a car tyre. I dread to think of the vibrations/shocks/temperatures/pressures/contamination/chemicals/etc.

You then have to meet so many, sometimes contradictory requirements.
You have limited or very little influence/control/detailed-information on anything, outside of the device you are actually designing/supplying.
Whatever you do, has to be approved by the customer, who may say no, and/or give you various requirements.

The parts you ideally want, may be too expensive/unreliable or unavailable in the desired timescales.
You have to listen to all the current and upcoming regulations.
Other team members or bosses, may disagree or not allow, the proposed method/solution.

Then there are budget limits and cost targets and stuff.
It might simply be that it is a good idea/method, but would take too long to develop and/or be too risky (of it not working or being accurate/reliable enough).