Unpiloted Passenger Jet Tests 243
spacepingu writes "The UK military recently tested a remote-controlled passenger jet over south-west England. Although the pilot was sitting in the back of the aging BAC 1-11, he controlled it entirely using the 'UAV Command and Control Interface (UAVCCI)'. This also allowed him to operate several virtual UAVs in a simulated attack scenario. The ultimate goal is for a fighter pilot to control a swarm of attack UAVs alongside his own plane. Next March, a Tornado fighter pilot will use the UAVCCI to fly the unpiloted BAC1-11 as well as several simulated UAVs, all from the cockpit of his own jet."
somebody call orson scott card (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
just remember, the enemy's gate is down...ank
A Pilot and His Dog (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for letting us know. (Score:2)
I'm sick of these #$%^ing dogs on this ... nvm... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please specify male or female, and age range. Default is Male, 73-85.
Ultimate R/C (Score:2)
R/C? Cool. R/C with guns? Cooler. (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously you hang out with a different kind of R/C geeks than I do.
I've seen a lot of planes that are built with an extra servo for use as a bomb release (also good for clicking the shutter of a camera). And I know some guys that tried to put CO2-powered BB cannons [ircwcc.org] on R/C aircraft, but they ended up just being too hard to use and too heavy to be practical. The gas systems required limit them to rather large aircraft and helis, the vibration causes them to jam a lot, and the obvious safety issues keep you from flying them in most places. Plus unless you have full-auto guns (they do exist) you can't do a whole lot with them, even in ground attack or against targets.
However, they're pretty cool when mounted on balsa-wood ships [ausbg.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In our contest, any repairs you could make with duct tape were allowed. We flew on a ridge, using the updraft of wind blowing up the mountain - more fun than legally allowed!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, should you want to make a rocket engine fly more or less straight sans fins (like, say, it's in a barrel as a launcher) you can carefully, carefully drill a tangential hole through the casing about 1/3 of the way up from the nozzle, to make it spin. If it launches straight it'll stay straight once that begins venting.
Re: (Score:2)
The hard part as another poster said is that model airplanes aren't fire resistant. Though they do have film Aluminum, though I don't know how well that owuld work. If you got a field I can fly in and a two grand down payment i will get started though. yes it would be that expensive to setup initial
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they put guns on them. Adding explosive chemicals is a sure way to get funding!
Personally, I think this is one of the more disturbing elements of the 21st century. The only thing that stops us western powers invading the next oil-rich country is the fact that body-bags equals votes for your opposition. If you can fight a war where no people* die, then fighting war just became politically cheaper.
*People as in the "there are only 3000 deaths in Iraq" form of the word. You know, the racist "our
Re: (Score:2)
So, yeah, I entirely agree with you. It's a really bad idea, but I don't think it's avoidable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From Starship Troopers: There are a dozen different ways of delivering destruction in impersonal wholesale, via ships or missiles of one sort or another, catastrophes so widespread, so unselective that the war is over because that nation or planet has ceased to exist. What we do is entirely different. We make war as personal as a punch in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly though. a jet pilot, in the fur-ball of combat, not only flying HIS craft but controlling pilotless drones alongside? That is crazy!. Combat already uses 110% of the pilot's concentration, adding an aditional plane(s) to his work load will tip him to overload. The enmey need not worry; the pilot will probably run into his own..
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds complicated... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hijacker hackers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hijacker hackers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They want a company well respected in the auditing and security aspects of controlled government computing.
Diebold have already put in a tender.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
he he... debt is slavery.
Re: (Score:2)
Unpiloted? (Score:2)
The real benefit of fly-by-radio (Score:5, Insightful)
*Does anyone have a link to that study where people were asked to press a button to "electrocute" other people, and how many were willing to do it as long as they were told by an authority figure it was ok? Were there also results regarding whether or not the subject could see the person being "electrocuted?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Milgram Experiment [wikipedia.org]
YA article... [findarticles.com]
Seems to me more like an exercise in stupidity (Score:2)
What's wrong with it?
- When the range of "punishments" is as stupidly large as 450V, which is _far_ into the lethal range, few people would assume this to be anything but a bulshitting experiment. Everyone knows that 110V can be deadly, and 220V usually _is_ deadly, by simple virtu
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just for future reference, its current that's deadly, not voltage. For example you get zapped by way more than 450 volts from a static spark like you get from scuffing your feet on some carpet.
True, but only to some extent (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Either when you're getting an extremely short pulse from a spark, or when you're connected to thick wires and with your arms on metal plates (as in at least one version of the experiment), then U = I * R, or I = U / R. There's a direct and linear proportionality between the two, so "it's current that kills" vs "it's voltage that kills" is just splitting hairs.
2. In practice, neither kills you as such. In practice you need both
Re:The real benefit of fly-by-radio (Score:5, Interesting)
No, but that's one of the best episodes of the original Twilight Zone... guy going around door-to-door, with a mysterious box and a dilemma: will you, miss, push the button, with the understanding that someone you don't know will die? She struggles through the idea until she gives in to her curiosity. Nothing appears to happen. Then he packs it up, and assures her that he's off to see someone else, someone who doesn't know her.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have a link to that study where people were asked to press a button to "electrocute" other people, and how many were willing to do it as long as they were told by an authority figure it was ok?
I saw that experiment conducted on youtube. Turns out the cops will push the button [slashdot.org] at least 5 times.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine you could design the control protocol such that it would be arbitrarily difficult for an unauthorized person to fly the plane, but I can't think of an obvious way to prevent someone from preventing you from flying it.
Here's hoping somone mods you up for this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, building a bigger transmitter won't do it. (I.E. as usual, the people who do things for a living have, unsurprisingly, actually thought about these issues - they actually do know more than the average Slashdot poster.)
It's easy to put an encoding scheme in place that has t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so.
While the *people on board* are powerless to give in to a hijackers, all the hijackers would have to do instead is radio some ATC station and tell *t
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, as another poster replied to me, while it might be harder from a personal interaction standpoint to hijack a remote-control
Re: (Score:2)
They could take it a step farther than that: the hijackers could kidnap people from a bus, or standing in line at McDonald's, or some other place without security at all, and then call up ATC and tell them to land the plane in Beirut or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
At which point the ATC station apologizes that they aren't authorized to negotiate with terrorists and tell them they will contact the people that do. At which point, they notify Homeland security who in turn orders an F22 already in flight to prepare its air to air missiles for lau
Re: (Score:2)
You mean easier, since the ground control transmitter can be overpowered if you know the appropriate frequencies and encryption codes? No need to even be on board the plane to turn it into a missile.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
I read your idea. The first thing that popped into my mind is having an airport command station with 20-30 pilots flying planes. Why try to hi-jack a plane as a weapo
No Pilot is Better (Score:2)
It's even easier than that - have an "Emergency Land" button. At the first whiff of trouble, the pilot, behind his hardened door, presses a button that completely removes human input from the process. The flight computers land at the nearest suitable airfield, and there's no giant missile problem.
If the Navy can land a plane on a mov
It's already done routinely (Score:2)
What most people don't realize is that the commercial airliners have had auto-pilot and auto-land for years. (yes, auto-land) Pilots use the auto-land about 1/2 of th
What would Spock think? (Score:3, Interesting)
It was impressive.
It might even be practical.
Practical, Captain?
Perhaps
but not desirable.
Computers make excellent and efficient servants,
but I have no wish to serve under them.
Captain
the starship also runs on loyalty
to one man,
and nothing can replace it or him.
Call me old-fashioned... (Score:5, Funny)
The Bravery of Being Out of Range (Score:5, Insightful)
I want those risks to be as low as possible. We should put these drone navigation/steering controls into planes with pilots. Let the pilots steer for 15 minutes an hour, to keep them engaged. Let them analyze the air traffic data, with visual confirmations, for their airspace, shared with each other and on the ground. Keep all the telemetry streamed to the global network in realtime, instead of trapped in mysterious black boxes on the endangered planes. Put their bodies on the line, and their minds to work on keeping everyone safe.
We can use these automations and networks to completely revolutionize air safety. From accidents, collisions, hijackings, onboard sickness and other other incidents. Don't just put pilots out of work: make the investments in the crew return many times more, with more effective use of their skills and motivations.
"The Bravery of Being Out of Range" [rogerwatersonline.com] by Roger Waters
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Larger planes are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hardly surprising, big sky,small planes, large clearances between planes giving plenty of ability to move out of the way and noone trying to shoot you down. All you have to do is keep the plane stable, follow waypoints and move out of the way if anything else comes too close.
takeoff and landing is somewhat trickier (its done a lot because it can land safely in thick fog, thus reducing diverts) and i belive requires special ground eq
Re: (Score:2)
Pilots control the plane through turbulence, and probably course corrections - for the fun of it, mostly. I'm proposing that they spend their time engaged in air traffic control, which scales up the AT controller population exactly when there are more planes to control. Distributed around the world, in a network.
Really, your arguments are like compla
Re: (Score:2)
A system like this, once evolved, could solve the biggest problem with flying cars, safe navigation. Which I'm not waiting for anyone else to tell me how to do, especially in the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Computers can sometimes route around trouble. But only trouble that they're designed for and that can be forseen by their human designers.
Case in point, United Flight 232. In 1989, over Iowa, a United DC-10's rear engine failed catastro
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since I don't believe any pilot has repeated the feat in simulation.
Bad Idea, Period (Score:2)
Most flights today are pretty much done by just button pushing. Most FMS in aircraft enable the pilots to just enter the flight and the airplane basically flies itself. If you get an amended clearance from ATC, you just change the flight plan and let it fly the
Re:Bad Idea, Period (Score:4, Funny)
What about a pilot sitting in the pilot's seat?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On an aircraft, there is usually a large, clear thing near the front. The pilot sits behind this. If the instruments stop working for whatever reason, he can look out the window.
Trans-Oceanic Cargo. (Score:4, Insightful)
Such a plane could fly low and slow to save fuel, because it wouldn't have to worry about pilots or passengers getting tired. And if the plane started to deviate course and fly towards a populated area, you'd shoot it down or self-destruct it up while it's still somewhere safe, just like a Range Safety Officer does for satellite/rocket launches.
The lower cost of these flights could bring air cargo to parts of the world where it's currently not economically feasible (basically anyplace outside the First World or its major manufacturing centers), or bring goods that currently aren't economical to ship by air. Anything that lowers the cost of transportation can have wide-ranging effects.
I think there's a definite market for self-piloted aircraft for cargo duty, on long-haul flights over unpopulated areas.
Re:Trans-Oceanic Cargo. (Score:4, Informative)
Sort of like an Ekranoplan [wikipedia.org]? Cool idea - you can get a lot of lifting capacity with less fuel usage. The only problem is more vulnerability to weather effects than current high-level jets, but I could still see a use in situations that aren't extremely time sensitive - if the weather's bad today, they'll simply fly tomorrow or route around trouble spots. Still probably faster than a 6-day ocean crossing by cargo ship.
-b.
We got ourselves a convoy... (Score:2)
It's a nice transitio
Not to be facetious or anything (Score:3, Interesting)
Just seems like some serious overload to me.
Re:Not to be facetious or anything (Score:5, Funny)
You shut off the navigation system, close your eyes, and let your feelings guide you. Or you tank up on Arrakis spice before flying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Airport 20xx (Score:2)
Imagine this... (Score:2)
In other words, a single adaptive AI controlling multiple networked drones. That would be a difficult force to stop.
Pity they don't still have BattleBots...I'd love to see someone try that.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA (Score:4, Funny)
and later...
The remote pilot has pushbutton commands for each UAV, telling it to loiter, undertake a search pattern, or attack a target," Williams explains.
If this is the kind of game we're playing, we have NO chance against the Koreans.
Poll: was that the best Starcraft joke I could have chosen? What other jokes could I have used?
Might be usable commercially as a back up system (Score:2)
Not to take over for the pilot, but I can see it's potential as a safety.
Ah, I see! (Score:2)
Starring Otto as himself (Score:3, Funny)
This is just liek pizza! order one, get a bunch! (Score:2)
If someone shoots one plane down, they get credit for shooting down 6 or more? Wow! What a great way to ensure victory!
Call me narrow-minded but when a pilot gets busy when things are going wrong, he's not going to have a lot of time to control anything but what he's sitting in, right?
Typically crappy slashdot title (Score:2)
I blame television.
Didn't Stealth teach them anything?!?! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Still paddling the old knew (Score:2)
Evening news spin... (Score:3, Funny)
Passenger? (Score:2)
Oh, wait. The original article had NOTHING TO DO with PASSENGER jets. This is military technology folks, not something you're going to see on the next Boeing or Airbus being flown out of Heathrow.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Dr. Daystrom called (Score:2)
WTC??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually much harder of a problem. Automobiles are seperated from other traffic by feet or even inches. Aircraft normally fly hundreds of feet apart (more for passenger planes). Furthermore, autos only have two degrees of freedom in which to move - aircraft can move in 3-D. You also don't usually have small children, deer, and other such things jumping out in front of planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Or (d) brake instantly.
If you are that close to hitting the child, then swerving won't help them, and directly causes (b) and/or (c). Absolutely the most definite way to lose control of a vehicle is to change direction at speed under braking.
The best way would be to use a radar syst
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely to work as long as you have people parking where they live and unwilling to walk out of town just to pick up their cars.
Or (d) brake instantly.
That falls under "hit the child," since even at 30 mph you're not going to be able to stop if something jumps out 10 feet ahead of you.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming a fatal collision can't be stopped any other way you should throw the points and kill the person/people on the track.
presumablly the
Re: (Score:2)
But what if both trains happened to be empty but you didn't know it? Maybe the motorman jumped from train 1 and train 2 was a runaway train? (Neither has passengers) :D
Is it better to kill by overt action because of the *possiblity* of saving lives?
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)