Who's Really Flying The Plane?

[albertschu]

Stuff. What you apparently choose not to consider are the astronomical start up costs to develop the technology and infrastructure to support your plan. Those costs are unbelievable and are absolutely unaffordable from the government's end (air traffic control system revolution), the airline industry's end, and the manufacturers' end. Who is fronting the money for that?

False. The government is fronting it.

Announced 5 Apr. Defense Engineering Corp., Beavercreek, Ohio, is being awarded a $24,125,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to procure the Collision Threat Warning Program. This program is designed to conduct electro-optical threat warning research primarily in the area of sense and avoid. The Collision Threat Warning Program will also address other future needs in electro optical situational awareness. The location of the performance is Beavercreek, Ohio. Work is to be completed April 6, 2018. AFRL/PKSE, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8650-12-D-1376 and 0001)

[BQZip01]

http://travel.yahoo....nding-gear.html

Yet another reason for automation along with the guy who was BFMing Venus (and bouncing passengers around like a well hit three wood in a tile bathroom.) Sorry but I found this thread entertaining and a good break from reality and would like to see more energetic thoughts from the highly enlightened technically savy yournger generation who want to ride around in UAV/RPA objects knowing that HAL will never fail..never..fail..fail...

So what's their excuse...

Edited April 20, 2012 by BQZip01

[guineapigfury]

Must have thought it was a C-17.

[Mark1]

http://travel.yahoo....nding-gear.html

Yet another reason for automation along with the guy who was BFMing Venus (and bouncing passengers around like a well hit three wood in a tile bathroom.) Sorry but I found this thread entertaining and a good break from reality and would like to see more energetic thoughts from the highly enlightened technically savy yournger generation who want to ride around in UAV/RPA objects knowing that HAL will never fail..never..fail..fail...

With the exception of the flight attendants, the only people that got hurt were those that didn't have their seat belts on despite the seat belt sign being on. As far as I'm concerned, it should be a standard maneuver on every flight 10 min into cruise. Probably all the same people who can't turn their damn cell phones off for 10min at the direction of the PIC. They deserve it.

[Hueypilot]

Obviously the idiots proposing this have never flown in the busy airspace in the NE, or flown single-pilot IFR anywhere. It can be done, but the workload (even on automated flight decks) can get very high.

[billy pilgrim]

What happens when the 64 year old captain has a heart attack and the flight deck door is locked?

What happens when someone figures out how to control your airliner via remote control?

I can't imagine the cost of two pilots on board is all that significant with respect to fuel and maintenance costs on a large jet aircraft.

This quote made me laugh: "If the pilot has an emergency, he rings the bell, he calls her in. She could take over."

[Hueypilot]

The quote above misses the target...copilots are not there to "monitor the other pilot", they are there to monitor the flight. It may be semantics, but having one person on the flight deck sets up a single point of failure in decision-making and judgement. They acknowledge the workload sharing but pay lip service to it...many times the workload is low, but routinely the workload can be very high even for a two-pilot crew on an automated flight deck.

This was posted on APC regarding taking people out of the cockpit...it was specifically referencing UAV airliners, but it applies to the single-pilot idea too...

Had a passenger, a school teacher, query me on "why do we even have pilots" as we talked while waiting for equipment to arrive.

Had a bleeds off take off to clear ships in the harbor, then a couple of rapidly changing clearances to get us around an arriving American 757 they did not have radar coverage on and some VFR traffic not talking to anyone. Flying back, across an ocean, solar storms were effecting HF. There was a lot of blow off which had light turbulence (doesn't paint on radar) and as we got closer to our destination more and more weather to work around. Mostly we were able to keep the seat belt sign off, but, we had to suspend cabin service once. The cabin temperature controllers were doing their usual game of getting cold when fed with a lot of bleed and warming up as the throttles came back. ATC wanted everything from 330 to 150 as they tried to sequence traffic into JFK for the VOR DME to 13L, changed to 22, back to 13L, can you take the right? ... instead of an 8 quartering headwind we had about a 19 knot quartering tailwind, but the tail wind component was within limits. Runway was a little wet. Glad we used autobrakes 3 to get stopping early & flaps 40 to slow for the RJ that threw out the brakes once he cleared the VOR (nothing wrong with that, esp with the slight tail wind). Then the taxi in was fouled up by a foreign carrier who had a difficult time getting their taxi worked out after a gate change.

Uneventful day at work for a professional airline crew, but a nearly impossible task for a drone operator. How does a drone operator have the situational awareness to work around weather that they've not flown in? How does the drone operator know that row 11 gets cold, or feel the relationship between temperature and bleed air output. When does the drone operator suspend cabin service, or know to drop flaps 40 and swing wide to give the guys ahead a bit more time and thus avoid a go around? What does the drone operator do when traffic in front of him suddenly swings back out of the ramp without calling ground because there is no gate available?

IMHO there are too many variables in the environment to make a drone operation successful, either from a safety standpoint or a passenger comfort standpoint.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Hueypilot

[10percenttruth]

I had a conversation with a lady in the seat next to me on a flight not long ago who asked a similar question (why can't a robot fly this?). My response was: "would you get into a taxi or a bus driven by a robot? Would you want a complicated surgical procedure performed by a robot? Flying is a highly variable, fluid environment & the state of technology (not to mention our trust in that level of technology) isn't up to the level where an AI could make the necessary decisions to fly this airplane."

Now in 20-30 years, it may be a different discussion. The issue isn't if a robot could fly the plane (sure it could), but a robot cannot operate in the NAS. There are still waaaay too many human variables in the system.

[Gravedigger]

What happens when the 64 year old captain has a heart attack and the flight deck door is locked?

This.

Are they proposing some sort of auto-recovery for these aircraft? The plane will handle it's own approach/landing if the pilot is somehow incapacitated? I don't like this idea at all.

[TreeA10]

What happens when the 64 year old captain has a heart attack and the flight deck door is locked?

Depends, is he above me on the seniority list?

[HuggyU2]

I can't imagine the cost of two pilots on board is all that significant with respect to fuel and maintenance costs on a large jet aircraft.

Salaries are the #2 cost for major airlines, right behind fuel.

About 3 years ago, Ryan Air was making noise about wanting to move toward an airplane with no pilot on board.

I would speculate that many in airline managment want to go to this single-pilot paradigm.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Huggyu2

[Homestar]

Ryan Air was also considering "standing room only" tickets.

[Hueypilot]

Salaries are the #2 cost for major airlines, right behind fuel.

About 3 years ago, Ryan Air was making noise about wanting to move toward an airplane with no pilot on board.

I would speculate that many in airline managment want to go to this single-pilot paradigm.

So...on that Boeing 777 flight, the airline is paying the crew something like $350 per hour, plus benefits...so maybe this is pushed to $500 per hour. And it costs less than $500 per hour to maintain the 777?

I know labor costs are a major expense for the airlines, but one would think there might be a few other expenses that exceed the pilot salaries for each hour of operation, to include the acquisition/lease costs.

[Gravedigger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe many airlines include pensions when determining labor costs. Pensions for the major carriers are hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

[Hueypilot]

You would be sort of correct. Most airlines do not have pensions anymore. Most have funds that the employee and employer pay into, at rates that differ between airlines.

Based on the employer's contribution to that fund, and the costs they share in paying for your insurance and other benefits, I figured the nearly double hourly pay cost. Even if you tripled it to $900 an hour, I don't imagine that comes real close to the hourly mx/insurance/acquisition costs borne by the airline.

And including all other non-flying employee costs is moot because those costs are unchanged by taking pilots out of the mix.

[HuggyU2]

Salaries are the #2 cost for major airlines, ...

I did not narrow it to "pilots".

And including all other non-flying employee costs is moot because those costs are unchanged by taking pilots out of the mix.

Maybe,... but realize that "management" also wants to cut the number of flight attendants, gate agents and maintenance folks. Their trimming of employee costs is not limited to pilots.

In the same way that some feel that technology allows fewer pilots to be required, the same is being said for the other employee jobs.

Pilot & flight attendant costs: don't forget hotels, taxi/limo, meals/catering, pubs, recurrent training, retirement/medical benefits, etc...

According to United,... whom I flew with for 2 years,... it is significant.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Huggyu2

[Hueypilot]

Overall, yes, it's a significant cost, but I was discussing it in the context of going from two to one-pilot flight decks. Costs would be reduced but I'm not sure by how far.

[Ram]

Overall, yes, it's a significant cost, but I was discussing it in the context of going from two to one-pilot flight decks. Costs would be reduced but I'm not sure by how far.

I suspect that costs would initially drop, then rise sharply as aircraft start impacting the ground at high rates of speed.

[Left_turn]

Another issue that came to mind: how are they going to build seniority, experience, and a pilot base other than getting pilots from the military? Seems like the requirements for getting an ATP and such would keep going up.

[HuggyU2]

..., but I was discussing it in the context of going from two to one-pilot flight decks.

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".

Edited May 24, 2013 by Huggyu2

[morenoj135]

I suspect that costs would initially drop, then rise sharply as aircraft start impacting the ground at high rates of speed.

Is this a new law of aerodynamics, all heavies require more than one pilot to remain aloft? I agree with Huggy, you may be able to fly with only one pilot but that will only make it easier to cut personnel in other areas as well.

This change would also require that airlines fly with at least a few novice (no time) pilots unless they only took ex[erienced military pilots. So overall, probably not a practical yet possible move. Oh and if they do, the major expense will shift to insurance coverage.

[SurelySerious]

Is this a new law of aerodynamics, all heavies require a FE to remain aloft?

Or is that the question from a different thread?

[Butters]

I suspect that costs would initially drop, then rise sharply as aircraft start impacting the ground at high rates of speed.

So did planes start crashing when the took radio operators off? Engineers? Navigators? Nope . I am just pissed that this was my idea and some fuckers from Boeing Flight Deck Engineering stole it from me when I got drunk at a retirement party. This is what I did my masters thesis on. The feasibility if single pilot large passenger and cargo aircraft. It can work. All you need is a flight deck specifically designed to reduce the workload of the single pilot. (all you dumb asses are looking at this like the are flying by themselves in a 2 pilot flight deck). You need an interactive "dead man's switch" to know if the pilot is alert/awake/alive (most freight trains have this now, it is similar to a "Simon Says" game.. the dead man's switch used to be a pedal but guys were setting the tool box on it a going to sleep. The interactive one requires random inputs). You need the ability to remote pilot the aircraft and then you need the ability for the aircraft to land itself.

[afnav]

I would think single-pilot ops would be fine for a regional, but what would the crew duty day of a transatlantic or transpacific flight do to one guy?

The Brits flew their bombers with a single pilot during WWII. I'd like to see their accident stats and compare them to ours.

[Prozac]

I did not narrow it to "pilots".

...

Pilot & flight attendant costs: don't forget ... pubs, ...etc...

According to United,... whom I flew with for 2 years,... it is significant.

If my company had to pay for my tabs at all the pubs I visit they'd be fucked.