Would You Fly In A Pilotless Plane?

SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
I personally wouldn't, not that crazy about self-driving cars either. Would you fly in a pilotless plane? More HERE.

Jet setters could soon be flying off to holiday destinations or island hopping on a pilotless passenger aircraft.

Online travel agency Kiwi.com has partnered with Czech aero technology company Zuri to develop a concept that could fly completely unmanned.

Developers hope the prototype will be able to fly up to 434 miles (698 km)- the equivalent of flying from London to Germany.

Similar to drones, it would use vertical take off and landing (VTOL) technology, and be powered using eight electromotors.

The concept craft is expected to carry up to four passengers, according to Zuri which is looking to produce a functional prototype with the initial investment.
Autonomous aircraft and technologies could help cut costs for airlines by reducing the number of crew and opening up the potential option of a single pilot operation.

Plane manufacturers including Airbus and Boeing are racing to develop artificial intelligence that will one day enable computers to fly planes.

12755590-6963769-Jet_setters_could_soon_be_flying_off_to_holiday_destinations_on_-m-38_1556291631329.jpg
Click to expand...
 

Me three. Last time I flew was in early 2000s for a family wedding. I might fly again if I really need to, but I'd be content to never set foot on another plane again.
 
I won't fly in a plane WITH a pilot, so I'm certainly not flying in one without a pilot. It's a simple matter: You either trust the technology, the people operating the same, the people maintaining it AND your fellow travelers. In this day and age, I trust NONE of the above! I should note, here, that I used to fly, for business, three to six times a week. No problems, whatsoever. I've flown into the Arctic Circle, on twin-engine prop planes, and flown abroad, on jumbo jets. Thing is, we live in a more dangerous world, these days, and it's only going to get worse.
 
Where Any form of transportation is concerned, I am leery about not having a responsible human in charge. Technology and automation is good, but not, IMO, where human lives may be at stake. Self driving cars seem to be just over the horizon, but in today's crazy world, I can see some nitwit "hacking" the system, and causing a series of massive wrecks on the highway. Imagine what some hacker could do with a sky full of airplanes.
 
When Captain Sully guided that plan on to the Hudson Bay saving everyone on board I wonder how a pilotless plane would have handled it.
 
You gotta' be kidding!

There's a false notion among the public that as it stands now with aviation and technology, most pilots don't do a lot of the flying once the plane has gone airborne. I have flown with pilots that once the plane has lifted off from the runway and gained approximately 1200 feet, they turn on the autopilot. Some have even turned it on sooner than that. I liked to hand fly the play to at least 2500 feet before turning on the AP, just to give me a sense of the aircraft and how it's behaving. A pilot can learn a lot about his plane by hand flying. Once airborne above 2500 feet and if all feels well, I would turn on the AP and allow the computer to follow the flight plan.

When we begin the descent into the airport, the pilots need to keep adjusting their altitude and speed on the AP according to instructions from the traffic controllers. Once the pilot flying the plane has locked onto the airport's ILS, (Instrument Landing System), with the AP, the ILS will guide the plane down to the center of the runway. At about 500 feet, I turned off the AP and set the plane down on the runway ever so gently. Just a few seconds before touchdown, the pilot has to idle the throttles and just after touchdown, the pilot will need to deploy the thrust reversers and the speed brakes or what we call the spoilers.

Of course, weather conditions have a lot to do as to when pilots will turn on and off the autopilot.

As you can see, the pilots still play a very large role even in today's modern aviation even with all of the technology included. Someone has to flip the buttons.
 
Last edited:
I _might_ try a train with an "autopilot" (RR wired completely for remote control sounds doable). But a plane? Just wait till the wrong house gets bombed by an Amazon drone!
 
Pappy said:
Nada, nope, no......I don’t fly at all anymore, unless they bring back the TWA Constellation from the fifties, I would reconsider.
Click to expand...

Pappy....I liked the Constellation. That particular plane was immediately recognizable by its triple tail. The Constellation had many advances over the present day aircraft back in its time and even some of those advances are still used today, just improved. It was also used by the military and was a very reliable aircraft.
 
I wonder, why would the airlines even bother with such a thing? They would save on the pilots' salaries, but think how much that technology would cost to develop and maintain!

So, if the incentive isn't financial, what is it? Is there any evidence that a pilotless plane would make fewer errors? And how many errors are there to begin with?

I just don't see the reason for it.
 
Given the statistics on intoxicated pilots and sleep-deprived pilots....planes would probably be much safer pilotless. Not to mention the same statistics for air-traffic controllers!
 
This has been talked about for a long time. Planes today are mostly automated by technology and are equipped with several sensors that are integrated into almost every function performed by the plane.

If the weather was clear and the air was smooth, a pilot could turn on the autopilot just after lift off from the runway and then not have to touch the controls again until after landing. After landing, the pilot’s only job would be to taxi to the gate.

But, there have been many instances when the technology has not worked or operated as required. With no pilot onboard, then what would happen? As things stand at this time, I will go with having a pilot to fly the plane.
 
Lara said:
Given the statistics on intoxicated pilots and sleep-deprived pilots....planes would probably be much safer pilotless. Not to mention the same statistics for air-traffic controllers!
Click to expand...

Fatigue is still an issue. Normally, pilots will fly anywhere from 6-12 hours per day. It just depends on what time of day the pilot starts and how many legs he flies in a day. This is more of a concern with regional pilots that fly short trips than pilots that fly international or longer trips.

My normal day day was from 6-10 hours. When I flew Regional for Air Wisconsin, my day was usually around 12 hours and I was tired by the end of the day. As for drinking and taking drugs, with all the random testing the airlines now do, I had seldom heard of a pilot getting caught doing these substances.
 
Pilotless is the key here and I would trust my chances to a plane versus knowing there are thousands of cars around me with no one driving!!
 
But farmdog, the skies and runways are crowded too and getting even moreso as time goes on. Not as much as roads but the stakes are high when you've got 250 people in one "vehicle". An Airbus A380 has 520 passengers!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top