好英语网无人驾驶飞机难以广泛投入使用的三大原因
Forget standing seats, in-flight VR or luggage-tracking apps. It’s unmanned flight that could be aviation’s next big transformation.
忘掉站立式座椅、飞机上的虚拟现实或行李追踪应用吧，无人驾驶飞机可能是航空领域的下一个重大转变。
At this year’s Paris Air Show, Airbus said it’s trying to attract aviation regulators to the idea of pilotless commercial travel. So is rival Boeing.
在今年的巴黎空展上，空中客车公司表示，正在说服航空监管机构接受无人驾驶商业旅行的理念，其竞争对手波音公司也是如此。
这是一个再好不过的时机。随着航空旅行需求的飙升，未来20年可能需要雇佣超过80万名新飞行员，这显然是供不应求的，波音也将其称之为航空业面临的“最大挑战之一”。
But while pilotless technology offers relief, it poses challenges of its own that could ultimately stand in the way of autonomous airlines taking to the skies. Here are three of them.
虽然无人驾驶技术让人类变得轻松，但同时也带来了不少挑战，最终可能导致无人驾驶飞机无法上天飞行。这篇文章就简要论述其中的三点挑战：
Politics
政治
Innovation invariably creates winners and losers. The introduction of the automobile shifted consumer demand away from trains much like the railways had, in decades prior, displaced canals and waterways as major forms of transportation. The result was job offers for some workers and pink slips for others. This reality is best summed up by Nicholas Carr, in his book, The Glass Cage, Automation and Us: “There is no economic law that says that everyone, or even most people, automatically benefit from technological progress.”
创新总是会产生赢家和输家。汽车的普及使人们远离了火车，就像之前铁路取代船运作为主要的运输方式一样。结果是，一些人得到了工作机会，而另一些人却被解雇了。尼古拉斯·卡尔（Nicholas Carr）在他的著作《玻璃笼子、自动化和我们》（the glass cage，automation and us）中对这一现象进行了最好的总结：“没有任何经济规律表明每个人（或者说大多数人）都会从技术进步中受益。”
Pilotless planes are a prime example of this. While the technology promises to revolutionise travel, its asking price is jobs – specifically, piloting jobs. The airline industry employs tens of thousands of aviators worldwide – skilled professionals who ferry billions of passengers across trillions of kilometers. Delegating this task to machines would produce widespread unemployment among pilots, culminating in a struggle to ply their skills to a new trade. That's hardly an easy task considering the unique skillset flying demands.
无人驾驶飞机就是一个很好的例子。虽然这项技术有望给旅行带来革命性的变化，但它的代价却是许多人的工作——具体来说，就是飞行员的工作。航空业在全球范围内雇佣了数以万计的飞行员，他们都是熟练的专业人员，可以运送数十亿乘客跨越数万亿公里。如果将飞行任务交给机器，会导致大量飞行员失业，而他们独特的飞行技能也很难被应用在其他行业中，这就很难办了。
That’s where politics come in. Airline pilots are backed by powerful labour unions, organisations that use collective bargaining, campaign contributions and political lobbying to influence issues affecting their members.
这时政治就有了用武之地。强大的工会、利用集体谈判、造势工程和政治游说来为他们的会员发声。
Take the Air Line Pilots Association (Alpa). Representing over 63,000 aviators worldwide, a compelling example of Alpa’s influence dates back to the 1960s. In decades prior, airplanes required a third crew member in the cockpit. This flight engineer monitored airplane instruments and assisted pilots with troubleshooting. However, technological advances made flight engineers obsolete and manufacturers started producing airplanes with only two crew in mind.
以航空公司飞行员协会（ALPA）为例，该协会代表着全球63000多名飞行员，其影响力可以追溯到20世纪60年代。在此之前的几十年里，飞机需要第三名机组人员进入驾驶舱，这名飞行工程师监控飞机仪表并协助飞行员排除故障。然而，技术进步使得飞行工程师过时了，飞机制造商在生产飞机时只考虑有两名机组人员。
However, given the inevitability of job losses among its members, Alpa resisted the adoption of these craft, waging what was by one account "a long struggle, contractually to get management to give (flight engineers) meaningful duties”. Similar tactics are likely should pilotless technology reach maturity. Alpa has already voiced opposition to further reducing crew numbers.
然而，由于这会导致其成员不可避免地失去工作，ALPA反对启用这些飞机，并开展了“一场漫长的斗争，让航空公司管理层通过合同给予（飞行工程师）有意义的职责”。如果无人驾驶技术发展到成熟阶段，ALPA可能会采取类似的策略，他们现在已经明确表示反对进一步减少机组人员了。
Labour unions have allies in their fight against algorithms. That’s because automating flying doesn’t just threaten commercial airline jobs. Corporate flight academies train an increasing number of today’s aviators. So do universities, colleges and small flight schools. These institutions employ tens of thousands of personnel – like flight instructors, ground lecturers and simulation experts – to run pilot training programs worldwide. Pilotless technology also threatens these professions.
在反对算法的斗争中，工会还有不少盟友。这是因为无人驾驶飞行不仅会威胁到商业航空公司雇员的工作。不仅企业的飞行学院在培养越来越多的飞行员，大学和小型飞行学校也是如此。这些机构雇佣了数以万计的人员——比如飞行教官、地面控制讲师和飞行模拟专家在全球范围内展开培训，无人驾驶技术也在威胁着这些职业。
Insurance
保险
Aircraft aren’t cheap. The Boeing 737 – a small, single-aisle passenger jet – costs upwards of $100m (£80m) apiece. Its larger, twin-aisle counterpart – the Boeing 777 – costs over $300m (£240m). Though airlines get discounts for bulk orders, the final bill can still be substantial. In 2011, American Airlines spent over $30bn (£24bn) on revamping its fleet. Indigo Airlines – an Indian start-up carrier – forked out an equally hefty amount for its fleet. Recovering those costs means putting airplanes to work and that can be risky. Though crashes are rare, they do happen and when they do, airline balance sheets take a hit.
飞机并不便宜。波音737是一款小型单通道客机，每架售价就高达1亿美元（合8000万英镑），而更大的双通道客机波音777的造价则超过3亿美元（合2.4亿英镑）。虽然航空公司在大批量订单上会有折扣，但最终的购买金额仍然会很大。2011年，美国的航空公司的支出超过300亿美元（240亿英镑），印度新兴航空公司Indigo Airlines也为其机队提供了同样数额的资金。收回这些成本意味着要让飞机开始工作，而这可能是有风险的，尽管坠机事件很少发生，但它们确实会发生，而且一旦发生，航空公司的资产负债表就会受到影响。
That’s where insurance comes in. Airlines buy policies to cover losses if an aircraft is damaged or destroyed. These policies also protect carriers against claims stemming from crash-related injuries and property damage. Exactly how much airlines pay for insurance coverage is anyone’s guess – insurers guard their rates to maintain a competitive edge. However, premiums collectively cost the industry billions annually, making this expense a key determinant of an airline’s potential profit (or loss).
这就是保险的用武之地。航空公司购买保单就是为了在飞机受损或被毁时弥补损失，这些保单还会覆盖因航空事故而造成的索偿。所有人都在猜测，航空公司到底为这些保险支付了多少钱——保险公司维持他们的费率以保持竞争优势，然而每年的保费总额也高达数十亿美元，这是航空公司潜在利润（或亏损）的关键决定因素。
An important question facing pilotless technology is how its introduction will affect premiums. Conventional wisdom suggests premiums should drop. After all, pilotless planes – powered by a sophisticated array of sensors and software – eliminates the culprit implicated in most airplane accidents: humans. This means that while crashes today are rare, they will – in the era of pilotless flight – be rarer. Fewer crashes will mean fewer payouts by insurers and the ensuing savings should be passed along to airlines in the form of lower premiums.
无人驾驶技术面临的一个重要问题是——它的引入将会如何影响保费。按照传统思路，保费应该下降，毕竟无人驾驶飞机是由一系列精密的传感器和软件驱动——这消除了大多数飞机事故的罪魁祸首：人类。这就意味着，尽管今天的坠机事故已经很少，但在无人驾驶飞行的时代它们将更加罕见。这也意味着保险公司的赔付数额会更少，由此节省下来的费用将以更低的保费形式返利给航空公司。
At least, that’s the idea. The reality may be more complicated.
至少，这是个想法，当然现实可能更复杂。
Today’s airliners are already algorithmic heavyweights. Unlike their predecessors that relied on mental muscle to fly, modern jets count on software. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner – a staple of fleets worldwide and state-of-the-art aircraft – is powered by millions of lines of code. More code allows for more safety-enhancing features – things like turbulence detectors that pre-emptively sense rough air, diagnostic systems that monitor an aircraft’s health and smart sensors that automatically stabilise an airplane if the cabin depressurises.
今天算法已经在客机中被广泛使用了。不同于老一辈依靠脑力来飞行，现在的飞行员很多也是依靠软件。「波音787梦想飞机」是世界范围内的主流机型，也是如今最先进的飞机，它由数百万行代码驱动。更多的代码让飞机具有了更高的安全性功能——比如能够预先感知气流的湍流探测器、监测飞机健康状况的诊断系统，以及在机舱减压时自动稳定飞机的智能传感器。
But more code, while used in the interests of improving safety, also creates a new type of risk, replacing one type of human frailty for another. In 2015, government regulators warned that the Dreamliner could experience failures of its electrical system. The reason? A software glitch – undetected by engineers – that could lead to a “loss of control of the airplane”. Airbus recently faced similar issues with its flagship jet, the A350. The plane was found prone to a “partial or total loss of some avionics systems or functions, possibly resulting in an unsafe condition”. The culprit, once again, was software bugs that engineers failed to catch.
但更多的代码在提供更高安全性的同时也会产生更多安全隐患，就像人类用一种弱点来替代另一种。2015年，政府监管机构警告称，梦想飞机的电力系统可能会出现故障。原因是什么？一个工程师没有发现的软件故，它可能导致“飞机失控”。空客的旗舰机型A350最近也面临类似的问题，这架飞机被发现有可能“部分或完全失去一些航空电子系统或功能，可能导致不安全状况出现”，而这一次的罪魁祸首也是工程师们没能抓住的软件缺陷。
A related algorithmic risk is hacking. As code becomes more complex, thoroughly testing it for weaknesses becomes harder. This opens the door to exploitation by hackers. In 2008, government regulators warned that the Dreamliner’s flight control system could be accessed via the airplane’s entertainment system, allowing passengers to override pilot commands.
还有一个风险是黑客攻击。随着代码变得更加复杂，彻底测试其弱点变得更加困难。这为黑客的攻击打开了大门。2008年，政府监管机构警告称，梦想飞机的飞行控制系统可以通过飞机娱乐系统访问到，这样乘客就可以篡改飞行员的指令。
According to a government document, the airplane’s design allowed for “new kinds of passenger connectivity to previously isolated data networks connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe operation of the airplane”. More recently, a team of professionals managed to remotely hack a Boeing 757 using radio waves.
根据一份政府文件，这架飞机的设计考虑到了“新的乘客连接方式，将以前孤立的数据网络连接到执行飞机安全运行所需功能的系统上”。最近，一组专业人员成功地利用无线电波远程入侵了一架波音757。
These risks are set to rise with pilotless planes. As software’s influence becomes absolute, the number (and danger) posed by coding follies will grow. This doesn’t mean the pilotless planes won’t be insured. There is a saying amongst underwriters: there’s no bad risk, only a bad rate.
随着无人驾驶飞机的出现，这些风险将会增加。因为飞机是依靠软件驾驶，编码错误所带来的危险也会随之增加。这并不意味着无人驾驶飞机不能投保，保险业有句行话：没有糟糕的风险，只有糟糕的损坏率。
Put simply, anything is insurable if the price is right. But what is that price and is it one airlines are willing, or are even able, to pay?
简单地说，只要价格合适，任何东西都是可以投保的。但是这个价格是多少呢？航空公司愿意或有能力支付这个价格吗？
Salaries
薪金
Pilots pocket much of an airline’s earnings. The average pay for flying a jetliner – assuming at least five years of experience – starts at $147,000 (£117,630) annually. Senior pilots can make nearly $300,000 (£240,000). Such hefty figures reflect the reality facing an industry keen to control costs: pilots are in short supply and learning to fly is both arduous and pricy. These factors push salaries up making them a key influencer of an airline’s labour cost and – along with fuel – among an airline’s biggest expenditures.
航空公司大部分的收入都流入了飞行员的口袋。一架喷气式客机的飞行员平均年薪是14.7万美元（约合11.763万英镑），这还是在假设他/她只有5年飞行经验的情况下。高级飞行员可以赚到近30万美元（24万英镑）/年。如此高昂的薪酬反映了一个热衷于控制成本的行业所面临的现实问题：飞行员供不应求，学习驾驶飞机既困难又昂贵。这些因素推动了飞行员工资上涨，使其成为航空公司劳动力成本的主要来源，同时也是航空公司最大的支出。
Pilotless technology should of course change this. Swiss bank UBS estimates that removing humans from the commercial cockpit could produce savings upwards of $35bn (£28bn) annually. That figure would boost profits in an industry that has often struggled to make money.
无人驾驶技术当然会改变这一现状。瑞士银行（UBS）估计，将人类从客机的驾驶舱中移出，每年可以节省350亿美元（280亿英镑），这将会提高给这个经常难以盈利的行业带来些利润。
Algorithms’ cash-saving virtues are well-known. From energy to retail to defence, software is widely credited with slashing costs by automating tasks once delegated to humans. Why can’t the same approach be adopted in commercial aviation?
透过算法来节约开支的优点是众所周知的。从能源、零售再到国防，人们普遍认为将那些曾经人类做的工作分给机器就能大幅削减成本，为什么在航空业就不能采用同样的方法呢？
Aerospace manufacturers seem to think it can. In 2017, a Boeing executive embraced the idea of pilotless airplanes, saying, “the basic building blocks of the technology are clearly available”. Similar sentiments were voiced by his Airbus counterpart earlier this year. The company’s chief commercial officer said Airbus already has “the technology for autonomous flying”.
飞机制造商似乎认为这是可行的。2017年，波音的一位高管接受了无人驾驶飞机的想法，他说：「这项技术的基本结构显然是靠谱的。」今年早些时候，他的空客同行也表达了类似的观点，空客的首席商务官表示，空客已经拥有了「自主飞行的技术」。
Yet autonomous does not mean humanless. While sensors and software curb the need for manual labor, that need isn’t – contrary to we’re told – purged entirely. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find one industry where algorithms work without any human involvement or oversight whatsoever. The reason? Automation is imperfect. It errs just like humans do, and when that happens the results can – depending on the industry – be catastrophic.
然而，自主并不意味着无人。虽然传感器和软件抑制了对人力的需求，但人力介入不可能完全没有。事实上，你很难找到一个算法在没有任何人类参与或监督的情况下自行工作的。原因是什么？自动化是不完美的，它和人类一样会出错，而当出现这种情况时，结果可能是灾难性的。
Take the airplane autopilot. First introduced in 1912, “George”, as it is colloquially known, has become a staple of the modern cockpit. When engaged, its algorithms can crunch data faster and more reliably than a human pilot ever could, ultimately producing a safer, smoother flying experience.
以飞机自动驾驶仪为例——从它在1912年首次推出开始，已经成为驾驶舱最主要的部件。它在运作时，算法可以比人类飞行员更快、更可靠地处理数据，最终达到更安全、更顺畅的飞行体验。
But autopilot failures have also been implicated in several air incidents and crashes. That’s why its use is only approved under the watchful eye of a human pilot. Regulators know that George can’t – for all his virtual virtues – be trusted to get it right all the time, every time. You’d be hard pressed to find an aerospace manufacturer who disagrees with such reasoning.
但自动驾驶故障会引发空难，这就是为什么自动驾驶只有在人类飞行员的密切监控下才会被批准。监管机构知道，尽管自动驾驶仪有很多优点，但它不可能每次都能判断正确。基本所有飞机制造商都同意这个结论。
Manufacturers could try curbing the number of crew on board. UBS estimates that going from two to one pilot in the cockpit would still produce some savings (though $20bn (£16bn) less than going fully pilotless). According to UBS analyst Celine Fornaro, so-called “single-pilot operations”, could become a reality as early as 2022.
飞机制造商可以尝试控制机上人员数量。瑞银（UBS）估计，驾驶舱内两名飞行员换成一名飞行员仍将节省一些开支（尽管会比无人驾驶少节省200亿美元）。瑞银分析师席琳·福尔纳罗表示，所谓的“单人驾驶飞机”最早可能在2022年成为现实。
But this proposition is equally problematic. That’s because it assumes the sole human pilot will intervene on time, every time automation fails. Manufacturers are wary. This explains why the single-pilot cockpits – being developed by the likes of Boeing and Airbus – includes remote supervision.
但这一做法同样存在问题。因为它假设在每一次自动化失败时，唯一的人类飞行员都会及时介入。制造商们对此很谨慎——这也是为什么波音和空客等公司正在开发的单飞行员驾驶舱内包括一个远程监控系统。
The idea is simple. With one pilot behind the controls, a second always stands ready to provide additional support. However, rather than being in the cockpit, the second aviator monitors the aircraft from the ground. It’s a nice idea, but it is one which raises an important question – how many airplanes should the second pilot watch? After all, paying this individual to just monitor one aircraft wipes out the $15bn (£12bn) cost advantage offered by a single-pilot cockpit. Under these conditions, airlines are better off keeping two aviators on the flight deck. But if remote monitoring costs can be distributed over multiple aircraft, the idea becomes economically more feasible.
这个想法很简单，一个飞行员在飞行时，另一个飞行员随时准备提供额外的支持。然而，地点不是在驾驶舱，而是从地面监测飞机。这是个好主意，但它也也产生了另一个重要的问题——第二个飞行员应该同时监测多少架飞机？毕竟，为监测一架飞机而支付的费用可能会和配备两名飞行员打平。在这种情况下，航空公司可能最好还是配备两名飞行员。但是，如果同一个飞行员可以远程监控多架飞机，那么这个想法在经济上就变得非常可行。
It also becomes riskier. After all, can one remote pilot really be expected to help a distressed aircraft while keeping an eye on several others? What happens when multiple aircraft need help? Can aerospace manufacturers and airlines guarantee this setup – one that tests the limits of human attention and memory – won’t compromise passenger safety?
当然，风险也就变得更大了。毕竟，一个远程监测飞行员真的可以在帮助一架遇险飞机的同时关注其他几架飞机吗？当多架飞机都需要帮助时怎么办？飞机制造商和航空公司能否保证这种设置——一种考研人类注意力和记忆力极限的设置——不会危及乘客安全？
Until they can, the concept is unlikely to fly.
在他们能保证这点之前，单人驾驶飞机可能还不会普及。
