Who's Really Flying The Plane?

[Butters]

Although you may not understand this, you cannot separate it to "just the pilots". There are second and third order effects that will take place: if you convince the unwashed masses that they can do without a second pilot, it is very easy to then justify fewer flight attendants, mechanics, and so on.

Cutting pilots is a "holy grail" for reducing ALL employee numbers and costs.

Is it a mistake? That's up to you to debate. Just realize it is not "just the pilots".

This is where you are missing the point. They are not getting rid of the second pilot. They are replacing him with technology. Just like they replaced the radio operator, engineer, and Nav. They can not at this point replace sexy flight attendants and mechanics with solid state radios and GPS. If the workload can be reduced that one pilot can handle it then it is not a problem. Believe it or not there are some single seat aircraft in the inventory that operate perfectly without a crew.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Butters

[Prozac]

I can fly and handle the radios myself just fine. Hell, I can even reach just about all of the switches on the other guy's side of the cockpit. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea to keep 2 crewmembers up there. What do you think would happen to GNEs over the NATs with single pilot ops?

[Butters]

What do you think would happen to GNEs over the NATs with single pilot ops?

Well they would go down. Who causes most of the GNEs anyway? It is AMC flying old aircraft... the single pilot aircraft would not be C-5 with all but one of the seats removed. They would be new aircraft with lots of cool bells and whistles that would take you across the ocean with ease. It's called data link, a lot of aircraft have it and they get bored crossing the ocean never talking to anyone.

[moosepileit]

Butters,

GNEs come from manual input/edit mistakes crossing clearance changes, also. Yes, if uplinked, fewer of those errors should happen. In my present experience, few changes near coast out are uplinked, so far. Ops procedures and training should prevent all of the GNEs. IF the USAF was the "company" then all of us in all airframes and commands would have been using the same procedures over the years. It's gotten better in the last 6-9 years. Flying it both civilian and military were eye opening differences, regardless of the technology installed and used.

Any pilot union that hasn't inked 2 pilots now, when it's cheaper and easier than it will be when the aircraft are for sale are missing out. I don't see the benefit with aging aircrew and lots of paying passengers and customers, myself. You don't gain payload, you just cut overhead. But, once you can balance paying for the technology, game on.

With the growth in technology, I bet the same, "on the drawing board" single pilot jets can flip a switch and become UAVs. May just need a pilot to handle the taxiing for a while longer than the flying.

Doesn't the 777 already have the deadman installed? on the ND there will be a pop up saying "Pilot Response" and to make that go away the pilots usually twist the heading bug a few degrees. If there is no response a loud alarm is set off. Even on data link, South Africa had me checking in every 30 minutes or so via voice last year, seeming just to prove we were awake.

Edited May 31, 2013 by moosepileit

[Prozac]

Well they would go down. Who causes most of the GNEs anyway? It is AMC flying old aircraft... the single pilot aircraft would not be C-5 with all but one of the seats removed. They would be new aircraft with lots of cool bells and whistles that would take you across the ocean with ease. It's called data link, a lot of aircraft have it and they get bored crossing the ocean never talking to anyone.

Wrongo. As moose stated, GNEs happen because of procedure, not lack of technology. Airlines and the FAA enforce a strict crosschecking regime when it comes to class II navigation. The USAF is miles behind implementing these procedures yet continues to hammer crews for GNEs. Believe it or not, most of the nav and communications equipment in the KC-135 is as good or better than what we have at my company, so it's not case where technology solves all. At the current time, there is still no replacement for a spare brain and set of eyes in the cockpit. That may change at some point but I doubt it will be anytime soon. I am unaware of any airliner in development thatbis being designed for single pilot ops.

[Jaded]

I'm sure it will just take the multi-billion dollar industry a couple of years to fully grasp and implement Butters' TUI masters thesis concepts.

[Butters]

I'm sure it will just take the multi-billion dollar industry a couple of years to fully grasp and implement Butters' TUI masters thesis concepts.

It was Embry Ridiculous jack ass. Get your facts straight.

Funny that you guys saying technology does not fix everything is counter to Airbus's business plan.

[Clark Griswold]

Inevitable I guess.

Remote-controlled passenger flights 5 years away, CEO says

[BFM this]

Inevitable I guess.

Remote-controlled passenger flights 5 years away, CEO says

If we want to go someplace, you'll have an app like Uber. The plane can come to you.

That sounds really convenient. Good thing too, because that prediction of a flying car in every garage from, what, 50 years ago(?) worked out real well. Keep shuckin that snake oil, Mr. CEO.

Edited June 28, 2015 by BFM this

[Clark Griswold]

That sounds really convenient. Good thing too, because that prediction of a flying car in every garage from, what, 50 years ago(?) worked out real well. Keep shuckin that snake oil, Mr. CEO.

I am doubtful of the timeline also but this not so technically ambitious that I can't see it happening in 10 years maybe. Look at the K-MAX UAV cargo helicopter, the initial steps are underway. Don't like it but don't find it unlikely.

[GrndPndr]

I am doubtful of the timeline also but this not so technically ambitious that I can't see it happening in 10 years maybe. Look at the K-MAX UAV cargo helicopter, the initial steps are underway. Don't like it but don't find it unlikely.

Surely you have some pics?

[Clark Griswold]

Surely you have some pics?

[xcraftllc]

Imagine how easy it would be to make a remote-controlled or even fully autonomous train or monorail, but that isn't ever going to happen.

The technology already exists to make fully automated passenger airliner flight (far simpler than the tech that goes into making that K-MAX work too), the issue isn't a technological one, it's a moral one. Two pilots checking each other and the aircraft systems, with their lives just as much at stake as everyone else's is the point.

Even if you had a significant enough portion of the population who was willing to fly on such a jet, could you imagine the outcry and lawsuits that would take place in the event of an incident? It wouldn't even have to be a total-loss crash. A similar argument could be made for cargo planes, since they endanger other peoples lives even if the jet has no one on board. This is the same argument for rail freight. Exceptions like the K-Max are simple; the threat of the chopper crashing into something or someone is pretty low, and the extent of the damage would be limited. It also mostly only effects the military anyway.

Just like flying cars and autonomous cars, it really makes my laugh to see companies throw tons of money at these projects. People can afford to have flying cars, they're called helicopters, you don't see many people flying them because of the safety, financial, and legal limits, not the technology. Watching Dr. Moller and his going-nowhere skycar project is pretty sad. Now seeing Google working on their no-one-is-gonna-buy-those-things-anyway car is just as sad (but also a bit funny).

[Dupe]

Now seeing Google working on their no-one-is-gonna-buy-those-things-anyway car is just as sad (but also a bit funny).

My view: Google is using their self-driving cars to create a very large pile of intellectual property for which they will then use to make a common auto OS. Google isn't dumb.