Word list

abort отменять

accommodation жилье

airborne [7BEbO:n] находящийся в воздухе

application применение

associated with sth связанный, действующий совместно с

available доступный

avoid collision избегать столкновения

be in control управлять, контролировать

capacity [kE7pXsiti] способность

complete overhaul [7EuvEhO:l] полный пересмотр

consider рассматривать, учитывать

conversely [7kOnvEsli] наоборот, обратно

costly дорогой

current [7kVrEnt] текущий, современный

cut down сокращать (расходы)

design проектировать, конструировать

development развитие, разработка, усовершенствование

empty пустой, свободный

engine failure [7feiljE] отказ двигателя

environment окружение, обстановка

establish устанавливать, учреждать

expenditure [iks7penditSE] трата, расход

extremely [ik7stri:mli] чрезвычайно, крайне

force changes вынуждать, потребовать изменения

freight [freit] transport грузовой транспорт

in isolation отдельно

in summary [7sVmEri] вкратце

insist настаивать

instantly [7instEntli] немедленно, тотчас

interact взаимодействовать, вести связь

investigate исследовать, изучать

judge приходить к выводу, решать, оценивать

major главный, важный

meet standards соответствовать стандартам

navigate управлять

overcome преодолевать

pilotless [7pailEtlis] беспилотный

pose ставить, предлагать

queue [kju:] организовывать очередь

relay [7ri:lei] смена, переключатель

remotely [ri7mEutli] отдаленно

require [ri7kwaiE] требовать

routine [6ru:7ti:n] рутина, шаблон, установившаяся практика

satellite [7sXtElait] спутниковый

set up a research [ri7sE:tS] учреждать, выдвигать исследование

similar to sth подобно чему-либо

solution решение

staff служебный персонал, кадры

sufficient [sE7fiSnt] достаточный

thus так, таким образом

visibility видимость

wage bill счет заработной платы

QUESTIONS:

1. What is the technical side of automating large civilian aircraft?

2. What is the routine procedure for large modern airliners when visibility is poor, due to fog or bad weather?

3. Is it safer to let the computer or the pilot land the plane in these situations?

4. Do commercial aircraft have the capacity for automated take-off? Is it technically possible?

5. What is the other factor to consider except the cost of the extra equipment?

6. What is one of the most dangerous situations during takeoff?

7. Is it possible to design a take-off autopilot under current safety standards?

8. What are pilots required to do except flying their planes in isolation?

9. What does the Global Hawk use to allow the operators to talk to traffic controllers directly?

10. Can the operators avoid collisions and bad weather while airborne, even though they may be physically located thousands of kilometers from their plane?

11. Where does the Global Hawk operate? What altitude does it fly at?

12. Does the Global Hawk pose any threat to commercial flight paths, flying in war zones?

13. Why do many experts argue that a complete overhaul of air-traffic-control procedures would be a positive development?

14. What would these pilotless planes require? And what changes to airport procedures would they force?

15. How massive could the savings for airlines be with the development of pilotless commercial flight?

16. What are the advantages of autopilots if to consider the side of expenditure?

17. What is the trend in aviation at present?

18. Are the first steps toward this new age of aviation already being taken or not? What are they?

T9.9

Part Three

Gaining Public Acceptance

The second major issue for automated passenger flight is gaining acceptance by the flying public, and on analysis, this may be the biggest barrier.

The major problems concern the psychology of flying. In order to convince the public that UAVs are safe, it would be necessary to compare their performance with that of piloted aircraft. To do this, airlines and manufacturers would have to admit the real risks in air travel today, and this is not something most travellers want to know about.

For example, pilot and controller errors are responsible for more than 50% of air-travel deaths. Many accidents occur even though the technology has provided a warning, which humans have then ignored. Autopilots could also fail, but it is likely that several years of unpiloted freight flights would demonstrate the ability of automation to reduce the impact of human error.

However, arguing that automation would reduce pilot error also means talking about other issues in air safety—a subject both the industry and passengers are happy to ignore. For example, passengers take great comfort from having life jackets aboard, but the reality is that an emergency landing on water is almost impossible given the design of airliners. Similarly, it is widely accepted that rear-facing seats are safer in an emergency landing, but again the reality is that most passengers prefer to face forward. So, both airlines and passengers seem happy to pretend that safety has been maximised, whereas there is obviously a difference between feeling and being safe.

Clearly, convincing the public that pilotless planes are safer is a difficult task. However, one possibility is to phase in automated flights, using a single human pilot and an autopilot until the public accepted this as normal and safe. Gradual changes seem to work well, as shown by the steady replacement in recent years of four-engined aircraft with twin-engined aircraft on long routes. Once considered risky, most passengers are now comfortable with this. At first twin-engined aircraft were required to stay within 60 minutes flying time of an airport in the event of an engine failure. This restriction has been eased as the twin-engined safety record has grown, first to180 and then to 207 minutes.

A final factor affecting automated flight is political. One result of the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington is that a number of aviation experts believe future designs should allow a direct "master" control of aircraft from the ground in the event of a hijacking. Passengers might be happy at first to accept an autopilot to prevent terrorism, and soon enough they would come to accept automated flight as normal.

Overall then, the pilotless passenger aircraft will soon be technically possible and will continue to be economically attractive for airlines. However, the real issue is gaining acceptance of such a change by the travelling public. It will take time and education for most people to feel comfortable hurtling through the air at more than 400 knots in an aluminium tube with no "driver".