No-Pilot Aircraft Go Vertical & Hover

At a fundamental level I understand the technology that makes no-pilot, remotely controlled aircraft work. And it seems to work well in fixed-wing aircraft that fly high in the controlled airspace (see UAV Pilot Shortage & Military Intelligence   and UND Plants Seeds of No-Pilot Airliners ). But down in the dirt and among the trees with the rotorheads, who must have 360-degree free-gimbal vision and hands and feet that play different instruments but must make precise music? No way.

Way. A billion bucks way. That’s what United Technologies is putting in Sikorsky Innovations, the effort to create a no-pilot H-60 Black Hawk and other projects to make helos fly faster, simulate vision, and monitor their own performance. The Houston Chronicle headline of the AP story was clear: Sikorsky Helicopter Will Need No Pilot.  

Kaman Aerospace and Lockheed-Martin beat them to it, according to an AP article in the Washington Post a week later: "Lockheed, Kaman Unmanned Helicopter Test a Success.” Fulfilling a Marine contract, the heavy-lift K-Max demonstrated programmed and remote-control flight, hovered at 12,000 feet, and delivered 3,000 pounds of cargo within the time limit. 

For an encore demonstration, with its four-hook carousel the unmanned K-MAX lifted loads with a combined weight of 3,450 pounds. On the single flight it delivered three of the four sling loads to preprogrammed delivery coordinates. A ground operator controlled the final delivery. 

Each demo mimicked the confined area challenges of Afghanistan. If technology can safely meet this challenge, say what you want, but it seems clear that the cockpit of the not too distant future will be a cubicle in some office building.

The article on the Sikorsky Innovations effort succinctly summarized what’s motivating UAV activity on all fronts: “Steven Zaloga, a senior analyst at Teal Group Corp. in Fairfax, Va., said unmanned aerial vehicles represent “one of the few dynamic markets’ in the aerospace industry hit hard in the recession.”

In its 2009 market survey, the Teal Group predicts the worldwide UAV market will be $62 billion over the next decade, growing from $4.4 billion a year to $8.7 billion. Naturally, the military will be the initial customer, but as they have since the brothers Wright first flew, military innovations soon become things civilians take for granted, like jet engines.

People never welcome with open arms new ideas contrary to the status quo, which is why the feds  still spends millions trying to get people to buckle up when they get into their cars. Flying in no-pilot aircraft is no different, and whether we like it or not, it may become the norm, just like the seatbelts people buckle up 73 percent of the time.

Consider the safety benefits: cubicle cockpits could run like a factory or hospital, where one shift relieves another to provide round-the-clock coverage. Working a regular shift and living near the control center, pilots would not start work impaired by the dilatory effects of rotating shifts or lengthy cross-country commute. With corporate czars and bottom-line bean counters calling the shots, most likely a single pilot would remotely control one aircraft. To maintain safety’s checks and balances they would report to a manager called captain, to preserve tradition.

To pilots flying today, this future doesn’t sound like a lot of fun, and I’m right there with ya! Please don’t think that I’m promoting this cockpit cubicle future; I’m just sharing what I see on the horizon. It occurs to me that this change is really no different than the relocation of an airplane’s third wheel, from tail to nose, about a half century ago. Taildraggers called  nosewheel-pilots posers and lamented the certain decline in safety. How is that any different than moving the cockpit from the pointy end of the airplane to an office park off the airport? — Scott Spangler