Sir Topham Hatt Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Would you fly on a plane that is being remotely controlled? Putting aside all the auto-pilot systems in use, I honestly couldn't bet my life on there being a pilot when I have flown before as I have never actually seen them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+virtorio MVC Posted December 8, 2014 MVC Share Posted December 8, 2014 Pilots seem wasted half the time anyway, so you pretty much are already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Overlord Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I voted no, as you specified, no autopilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lant Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 No I spend my time trying to make unreliable wireless networks more reliable. I'm happy for an autopilot on the plane to be running and then for the pilot to take over if necessary, but would never step on a place that is being remotely controlled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreadPirateRoberts Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Defiantly not. There seems like there would be way too much that could go wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GotBored Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yes when the technology improves enough that its safer than flying now. +John Teacake 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3X4S Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 No I spend my time trying to make unreliable wireless networks more reliable. I'm happy for an autopilot on the plane to be running and then for the pilot to take over if necessary, but would never step on a place that is being remotely controlled. What does that have to do with how you spend your time ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 You'd be insane to. I would never trust a computer to make the right decision in an emergency like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 What does that have to do with how you spend your time ? Lant was talking about remotely flown UAV style aircraft, where they're being controlled from the ground. His concern would be a loss of connection to the base station due to bad wireless network connectivity, as this is his area of expertise. T3X4S 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skiver Veteran Posted December 8, 2014 Veteran Share Posted December 8, 2014 You'd be insane to. I would never trust a computer to make the right decision in an emergency like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 Unless you are replying to someone else I think you're missing the point. The point of a pilotless plane is that the pilot is sat in a nice comfy office somewhere remotely. Right now, you're at the hands of a computer for longer than you're at the hands of a human anyway. I don't here too much about the military losing control of a drone (not that it would make the media if it did happen) at all, so the technology seems to be there to make it possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Unless you are replying to someone else I think you're missing the point. The point of a pilotless plane is that the pilot is sat in a nice comfy office somewhere remotely. Right now, you're at the hands of a computer for longer than you're at the hands of a human anyway. I don't here too much about the military losing control of a drone (not that it would make the media if it did happen) at all, so the technology seems to be there to make it possible. Gotcha, yeah I replied to the title. I wouldn't fly in a remotely controlled aircraft either for the same reasons. In an emergency you need the situational awareness that actually being in the cockpit provides. Here's another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 You'd really want someone trying to control that aircraft from the ground? Anyway, it's one more point of failure that can cause an accident. Radios break all the time, we have a lot of redundancy but it's not always enough. Right now a total electrical failure would be completely survivable, if the plane was remotely controlled then it would be a fatal event. UAV accident rates are actually pretty high, I trust them to do what they're currently being used for but I wouldn't trust them with my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cork1958 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I voted a resounding h**l no!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Frank B. Subscriber² Posted December 8, 2014 Subscriber² Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yes, when the technology has improved enough for it to be 100% safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yes, absolutely. A computer can't get tired, can react almost instantly and with access to telemetry, can't be drunk / distracted, etc. When the technology is sufficiently robust it will offer improved safety and reliability over traditional pilots. One cannot live in the past forever. MikeChipshop 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeChipshop Member Posted December 8, 2014 Member Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yes. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123456789A Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Today, no way. In the future, only if Cortana is the pilot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lant Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 What does that have to do with how you spend your time ? You'd be insane to. I would never trust a computer to make the right decision in an emergency like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549 Lant was talking about remotely flown UAV style aircraft, where they're being controlled from the ground. His concern would be a loss of connection to the base station due to bad wireless network connectivity, as this is his area of expertise. Spot on. The networks I work with typically have a receive rates of about 70%, but often fall in the range of 40-60%. I wouldn't trust those rates for something as real-time and important as flying a plane. T3X4S 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Norris Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 I don't even like flying on regular planes, so my answer would probably lean towards "aw hell no." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Yes, absolutely. A computer can't get tired, can react almost instantly and with access to telemetry, can't be drunk / distracted, etc. When the technology is sufficiently robust it will offer improved safety and reliability over traditional pilots. One cannot live in the past forever. It also can't think outside the box when the situation calls for it. I would never trust a computer's decision making in an emergency. Same reason I would never use a driverless car unless I can override it in an emergency. You think a computer can intelligently decide to land in a river if necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polonium Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Computers in planes now can't deal with some of the weather conditions they face and often throw control back to the human pilot. Those who think pilots don't do much are so very wrong. Source - friends of mine are pilots, and I fly 4 times a week and often speak to the pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Computers in planes now can't deal with some of the weather conditions they face and often throw control back to the human pilot. Those who think pilots don't do much are so very wrong. This is true. There are many situations where even advanced autopilots will turn off automatically, and there are times when pilots are required to take back controls when the autopilot doesn't know how to handle a situation. There's a reason there's 2 people up front and there will be for the rest of my lifetime at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 It also can't think outside the box when the situation calls for it. I would never trust a computer's decision making in an emergency. Same reason I would never use a driverless car unless I can override it in an emergency. You think a computer can intelligently decide to land in a river if necessary? Computers have the potential to do everything better than humans, including landing in a river. Is the technology there yet? No, but it's only a matter of time. As for driverless cars, allowing an override compromises their safety. Human error is responsible for 99% of all crashes and the sooner humans are prevented from driving the safer we'll all be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+E.Worm Jimmy Subscriber¹ Posted December 8, 2014 Subscriber¹ Share Posted December 8, 2014 Human error is responsible for 99% of all crashes and the sooner humans are prevented from driving the safer we'll all be. we don't know the statistics for computer driver error, especially in unpredictable circumstances, and we will most likely to not know it, until they are used exclusively (which might happen one day in future, but until it happens, there will be humans on the road, together with computers! until then, i will surely trust an experienced pilot, with human intelligence and intuition, over a program that analyses certain data inputs only! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siah1214 Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Computers have the potential to do everything better than humans, including landing in a river. Is the technology there yet? No, but it's only a matter of time. As for driverless cars, allowing an override compromises their safety. Human error is responsible for 99% of all crashes and the sooner humans are prevented from driving the safer we'll all be. So in the event of a complete electrical failure, who flies the plane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 So in the event of a complete electrical failure, who flies the plane? Multiple layers of redundancy makes the possibility of that extremely small. Anyway, I don't see any advantage to the plane being remotely controlled. What exactly would that gain us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts