Unmanned flight across UK airspace

[AndyNetwork]

Just seen this, it might be a repost, but can't see it in the search.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22511395

Don't know if I'd be happy to be sharing airspace without a bit of squishy organic matter up there with the plane.

I understand the reasons in a war zone, and the benefits it can bring, but in civil airspace, not so sure. I believe that others will be of a similar point of view, given they will not allow London tube trains to run without a driver. (Although I understand this to be a union issue, who use the fact that people don't trust automated trains as a reason not to go automated.)

Over to you, what are your feelings? Would you be happy to travel in a plane without a pilot up front, or share airspace with a plane without a pilot on the flight deck?

[Fittster]

What percentage of crashes are pilot error as opposed to mechanical failure?

[Eric Mc]

Not so much crashes as mid air collisions.

[OldJohnnyYen]

Just seen this and one of the guys onboard, Rod something had a PH sticker on his overalls.

[RichB]

I saw this on the BBC web site and as a glider pilot I wondered how controllers on the ground are aware of aircraft like these and other such craft which do carry radios and are not fitted with transponders?

[anonymous-user]

Fittster said:

What percentage of crashes are pilot error as opposed to mechanical failure?

Pilot error is often a glib phrase for the media and hard of thinking. Is the "error" because they failed to sort out a mechanical problem? Is the "pilot error" due to a design fault, or training deficiency or fatigue or one of many other factors that could lead to an accident.

[Hooli]

el stovey said:

Fittster said:

What percentage of crashes are pilot error as opposed to mechanical failure?

Pilot error is often a glib phrase for the media and hard of thinking. Is the "error" because they failed to sort out a mechanical problem? Is the "pilot error" due to a design fault, or training deficiency or fatigue or one of many other factors that could lead to an accident.

All that would happen is it'd become a crash due to a software glitch.

[Pothole]

AndyNetwork said:

Just seen this, it might be a repost, but can't see it in the search.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22511395

Don't know if I'd be happy to be sharing airspace without a bit of squishy organic matter up there with the plane.

I understand the reasons in a war zone, and the benefits it can bring, but in civil airspace, not so sure. I believe that others will be of a similar point of view, given they will not allow London tube trains to run without a driver. (Although I understand this to be a union issue, who use the fact that people don't trust automated trains as a reason not to go automated.)

Over to you, what are your feelings? Would you be happy to travel in a plane without a pilot up front, or share airspace with a plane without a pilot on the flight deck?

DLR runs perfectly well without drivers.

[silverfoxcc]

Agreed, but the DLR conductors can take over if reqd

[mcdjl]

silverfoxcc said:

Agreed, but the DLR conductors can take over if reqdwhen they're bored/ want to block the view of a child/ want to feel more important

[alangla]

silverfoxcc said:

Agreed, but the DLR conductors can take over if reqd

A lot of tube drivers are basically conductors anyway, most of the deep tube is automated, as is the Glasgow subway. I think it's only really the London lines that share with National Rail and the Newcastle Metro that have real drivers these days. Anyway, this is OT. Back on topic, I don't see why this wouldn't work, if it could cope with some of the gusts etc you get on landing then it could allow planes to tailgate more effectively on the way into busy places like Heathrow (yes, I realise that wake turbulence, especially from heavies, limits how closely you can follow) but it might increase capacity a bit.

[Shuvi McTupya]

What about hijacking, Would there be concerns that it could be hijacked remotely and then crashed into whatever, at zero risk to the hijacker?

[bashful]

Shuvi McTupya said:

What about hijacking, Would there be concerns that it could be hijacked remotely and then crashed into whatever, at zero risk to the hijacker?

As there are sadly plenty of potential hijackers out there who are willing to die already, nothing changes - personal risk to the hijacker isn't an issue.