Would you travel on a plane with no pilots?

pgj2015

Definite no for me, I know they more or less fly themselves these days but there are still 2 pilots in charge. If pilotless planes became the norm, I would never fly again.

Baba Yaga

No

not a hope,no way...want at least 2 fully qualified pilots up front and maybe even a third stashed somewhere if possible just in case...yes correct,im not fond of flying!

Timfy

not sure

Pilotless wouldn't be an issue for me but I would want a flight engineer onboard. The actual mechanics of autonomous flight are pretty much mastered but there is always a breaker needs resetting or an alarm to check or cancel.

Strumms

Yes

Meant to hit NO What happens in the event of a technical problem ? A serious one ?

a perfect example is miracle on the Hudson… Without two pilots everyone is dead. With two pilots, teamwork, experience and expertise everyone survived. The aircraft for a time had no power.

The crew worked as a team, went through the relevant checklists, attempted to restart the engines, failed, they were given options and as I remember proceeding to Teterboro for an emergency landing was offered.

on evaluating the aircraft’s altitude, speed, lack of thrust the captain decided that wouldn’t be possible…. “ we are going to be in the Hudson “ was his evaluation… they had experienced pilots in the aftermath in simulators recreating the exact failures, with the exact weather conditions and each one determined a safe landing on land was unlikely all be it not impossible given all of the variables and everything happening…

No, ‘no pilot’ scenario would I’d imagine be smart enough, intuitive enough to bring about such a perfect guaranteed escape…. proof …. The captain started the APU early and proved vital in the later stages of the ditching, as it maintained power for all systems. Sullengerber did this immediately, whereas it was a later task in the checklist for dual engine failure. So human experience, intelligence, intuition to say… to hell with the checklists, training, legal procedure… this is my priority given the absolute myriad of challenges facing us….im going on experience, pure gut instinct and keeping people alive…

id take that over a computer… that wouldn’t have been capable of that, it would just have been following the flow of checklist actions….

Pilotless planes will not make flying anyway significantly cheaper for the consumer . The cost of pilots are a tiny cost for airlines when compared to jet fuel, maintenance, procurement of aircraft….and so on….

artanevilla

No

No, and even if they were just there to observe and not fly the critical phases of flight I would be concerned about the long term degradation of flying skills through lack of experience.

pgj2015

No

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608090#Comment_120608090

That is always the case I think of as well, which makes me think pilotless plane's is a crazy idea. If it ever did become a reality, you would imagine the first crash would put a hault to pilotless planes for a long time.

kneemos

Leading cause of aircraft accidents is human error.

Cordell

Yes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608090#Comment_120608090

Actually, and if we assume they got the facts right in the Sully film, the pilots needed about 30 seconds to recognize the situation and initiate the emergency landing procedures. With a capable AI pilot system and with those 30 seconds being used to glide the plane it would have made it either back to the runway they took off or to an alternative airport, instead of ditching on water.

kneemos

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609035#Comment_120609035

He turned on the APU straight off rather than going through several procedural steps. Another pilot might not have even made the Hudson.

AI could possibly have made all calculations in a fraction.

nachouser

AI could possibly have made all calculations in a fraction of a second and decided the most logical move was to eject itself and leave the screaming meat-bags to their fates.

kneemos

Sullenberger was also a glider pilot. Definitely added to his ability to land without power.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609035#Comment_120609035

If you look at this video

https://youtu.be/P6uybdkI3SQ

you will see that the expert believes that AI would not land in the Hudson because it could only do what is in its memory and therefore it would not attempt to land on the river.

Fritzbox

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609035#Comment_120609035

With a capable AI pilot system and with those 30 seconds being used to glide the plane it would have made it either back to the runway they took off or to an alternative airport, instead of ditching on water.

How do you know this? What is a  "capable AI pilot system" and how would it work? How would the AI know where to land in the event that the plane could not make it back to the airport - how would its decision-making process work?  

JupiterKid

No

Nope, I would feel much safer on board knowing a human pilot can take the controls if the AI pilot goes kaput.

Long Sean Silver

No

Not a chance!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjKEXxO2KNE

Shauna677

No

not a hope 😯

Back Home

AI radar would have seen the birds and and avoided the collision in the first place.

WhiteMemento9

Yes

Yes

If it is statistically shown over a large sample of flights that completely autonomous planes perform just as well if not better than those with pilots on board then of course I would.

The real question is when all those saying no here are faced with the choice of paying half the price for a fully autonomous flight will they still choose to pay for the human comfort blanket?

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609868#Comment_120609868

Two human comfort blankets, yes please.

I really like the idea that there are two people up front who are well trained and well paid.

I like to think they have nice lives to go home to and they will do everything in their power to get us all there in one piece.

kneemos

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609985#Comment_120609985

I'll repeat myself and say human error is the leading cause of aviation accidents.

elperello

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120610001#Comment_120610001

No disrespect intended but you can repeat yourself till you are blue in the face I still want two nice middle class people up front who have a nice life to get back to.

It might be illogical but if pilot - less planes are my only choice I'll give up flying.

Cordell

Yes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120609174#Comment_120609174

Look, I'm not trying to take any merit away from him, he is a legend, any other pilot would probably either attempt to land on a runway and crash short, or try the river and crash in the river. But simulations have shown that if those 30 seconds were not used for evaluation and decision making a landing on a runway was possible.

In any case, even if AI would have botched this one, it wouldn't have caused the rest of the pilot errors which resulted in crashes with no survivor. Human error alone, and technical problems made worse by additional human errors, these are the causes behind virtually any serious accident.

bucketybuck

No

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120610001#Comment_120610001

Human input is the leading preventer of aviation accidents.

You just don't hear about the thousands of times that a pilot spotted an issue and actioned it before it became a problem.

Jim2007

Yes

Yes, provided none of the other planes had pilots either.

Raysin

Yes

No problem. Human error is negated. It's a brave new world out there and there'll be no option but to embrace it.

Will I fill on the first unpiloted flight? Not a chance.

pgj2015

No

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120616065#Comment_120616065

There will be an option of not embracing it. Most people fly for leisure, they don't have to, so I'd imagine a lot of people will choose not to fly, if the only option is pilotless planes.

Emblematic

Not yet. I think there's still an advantage to having trained experts onboard that have a personal interest in landing the plane safely.

Eventually planes will be pilotless and potentially safer than piloted planes but we are not there yet.

Tony EH

No

There's not a single chance in hell I'd get onto an aircraft that had no pilot at the helm. For sure, most of a trip you take on a modern aircraft is handled by the autopilot these days once you get over 5000ft, but a pilot is an absolute necessity for monitoring and overseeing how the aircraft is handling and a good pilot can feel when something is wrong with the plane. I love aircraft, I love flying, but the very idea of putting my life in the hands of some inhuman AI for an entire flight is not something I'd take lightly.

My old maths teacher's brother was a pilot for Aer Lingus and he once told me if people knew just how many things could go wrong on even a routine flight, they've never set foot onto a plane. It's the pilot that regulates and remedies all of that if and when a problem occurs.

murpho999

Yes

All the stuff people say i.e. monitoring the place could be done remotely.

ATC could also take over the plane remotely if required.

It's coming and will be a lot safer as most plane crashes are caused by human error. ie the pilots.

troyzer

No

Don't think pilotless planes will ever happen.

But single pilot planes will and I'd be fine with that.

murpho999

Yes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120643271#Comment_120643271

Already have them with drones so in time it will go to commercial flights too.

Cars will be the same too.

I think people who think otherwise are not understanding the tech and also using dated thinking.

Victor

"Insert credit card to not crash."

troyzer

No

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120643295#Comment_120643295

Passenger planes are way more complicated than drones and cars. And in both cases, you're not risking the life of up to 600 people on a single point of failure with zero chance of recovery.

The only reason fully autonomous planes would happen is because they're safer and cheaper. It's possible that they're safer on a rate basis given that most accidents are pilot error. But given the stringent requirements for multiple layers of redundancy from the various regulators if there were no pilot, the best overall balance from a cost and safety perspective might actually be a semi-autonomous plane which flies itself but has a pilot on standby ready for recovery. Which is not a million miles away from where we are now anyway.

TL;DR is that it's not just a technology issue. We could do it today if we wanted.

WhiteMemento9

Yes

Meet 'Pibot,' the humanoid robot that can safely pilot an airplane better than a human | Euronews

kneemos

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120987090#Comment_120987090

Curious why they made an Android? All you need is a box of tricks.

AMKC

Yes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120643319#Comment_120643319

Passenger planes are way more complicated than drones and cars. And in both cases, you're not risking the life of up to 600 people on a single point of failure with zero chance of recovery.

Where are you getting 690 from. There is currently no Commercial plane flying that can carry 600 hundred people. The Airbus A380 had the possibility of carrying that many and more but no Airline ever went for that option and sadly most A380s are retired now.

Francis McM

Knowing an Aer L**gus pilot who was ...eh...fond of a tipple, I would have more confidence in a machine than humans. He never crashed all the same.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120643157#Comment_120643157

That's what I was thinking. You could have human pilots monitoring it remotely.

Cordell

Yes

Human pilots monitoring will be pilots with near zero flight hours who probably never faced a serious emergency before, so what's the point?

raspberrypi67

No

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120643295#Comment_120643295

What tech are they not understanding???

AMKC

Yes

Anyone know when the first commercial pilot less planes are supposed to start flying, is it in the next 5 years or in a decade or two or more?

Beta Ray Bill

not sure

Would depend if there there was a data link for a remote pilot to take over in the event there was an issue (kinda like an MQ-9A)

troyzer

No

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120989793#Comment_120989793

I did say UP to 600. I'm aware there are no A380s currently configured that way.

You're probably right though, I doubt we'll see 600 passenger planes anytime soon. Especially since the A380 has literally no secondary market.

teediddlyeye

No

Wasn't it software overriding the pilots that caused the 737 Max to crash?

Thats a no from me.

Cordell

Yes

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120991440#Comment_120991440

The main reason was that pilots were not aware that the software exists, hence they didn't react to turn the affected system off, because they didn't know what was happening. The reason that software existed in the first place was to avoid requirements for pilot training on the new airplane, basically the software was hiding the fact that the plane flies differently.

So basically the software was a rushed patch for human pilots, AI pilots wouldn't have needed it in the first place.

El_Duderino 09

I'd go with the stats. If AI aircraft (or cars for that matter) got to the stage that they were equally likely to crash as a human, then I'd just go with it.

Why some people would be so much more comfortable with being killed by a human error over AI error is baffling.