What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Prozac]

I know certain captains who fall asleep on every single flight. No shit. Good luck with single pilot ops. 

[Guardian]

I totally disagree, I don't think RPA airline ops are anywhere feasible within the next 30 years.  

Based on what knowledge?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[tac airlifter]

1 minute ago, Guardian said:

Based on what knowledge?

Based on opinion, not knowledge.  Technically it is feasible now.  In my opinion, "should we do it" and "will we invest in it" discussions will surmount any pure technical capability discussion.  As mentioned previously, if we are moving toward more autonomy there are easier and cheaper targets I'd expect to be prosecuted before going straight to the most difficult.  What do you think?

[Guardian]

I agree. But I think they will be put in a difficult position. Maybe at fed ex or ups without passengers to get that going. And once that happens then the airlines will probably adopt it. And I'm not saying autonomy but the pilot in control is on the ground and in charge of 3 or 4 airplanes instead of having a bunch of crews. I just don't think 30 years is realistic but it's all subjective conjecture and my guess. Then we have another pilot crisis because we won't be needed on the scale we think we should be. And then we won't have nearly as many options or ones that pay well.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Buddy Spike]

1 minute ago, Guardian said:

I agree. But I think they will be put in a difficult position. Maybe at fed ex or ups without passengers to get that going. And once that happens then the airlines will probably adopt it. And I'm not saying autonomy but the pilot in control is on the ground and in charge of 3 or 4 airplanes instead of having a bunch of crews. I just don't think 30 years is realistic but it's all subjective conjecture and my guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

That would be awesome.  No crappy layovers. No droning on autopilot while listening to a Captain's sob story about his 3rd divorce. No dealing with the entitled cattle in the back.  Just show up, fly a few takeoffs and landings, and go home to your super model wife and Cadillac-a-month paycheck.

Where do I sign up?  

[MooseAg03]

I agree. But I think they will be put in a difficult position. Maybe at fed ex or ups without passengers to get that going. And once that happens then the airlines will probably adopt it. And I'm not saying autonomy but the pilot in control is on the ground and in charge of 3 or 4 airplanes instead of having a bunch of crews. I just don't think 30 years is realistic but it's all subjective conjecture and my guess. Then we have another pilot crisis because we won't be needed on the scale we think we should be. And then we won't have nearly as many options or ones that pay well.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

There is a reason why the AF calls them RPAs instead of UAVs. We couldn't even figure out how to have a pilot control multiple Predators, I don't think having a single pilot control multiple airliners will happen anytime soon. However, the profit motive is a powerful force and when it is private enterprise driving the innovation it could be developed at a much faster pace. I just hope it's after I hit 65.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Polar Bear]

I'd still go back and fly the U-2, in peacetime.  
Unfortunately, if things escalated (wartime) to the point where they needed me back even more, I have zero faith that the ing AFPC bureaucracy could make it happen... even if the squadron was BEGGING for pilots.   Honestly, AFPC simply couldn't get through the mountains of paperwork and levels of coordination.  You'd be back in your Viper and I'd be back in the Deuce after it was all said and done.  
I think Maj Gen Poore is still the AFPC/CC.  If so, she and the Executive Director need to be thrown out personally by Gen Goldfein.  AFPC has failed, and how they do business needs to be re-thought.   
edit:  I looked and the E.D. is fairly new, so I'd give her another 9 months to prove her worth before I shitcanned her.  

Is the Deuce that insulated from the rest of the AF? Or you just like the community that it's easier to deal with the BS?

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[DirtyFlightSuit]

Until we get some serious AI (not the b.s that is currently being passed off as AI) with problem solving capabilities I don't see dual cockpits going any where.  Single pilot Airlines are a non starter due to the Lufthansa/German Wings issue, and any automation that cannot deal with complicated multiple system failure / conflicting information is going to fail even with reliability rates as high as we have seen them(Allegiant aka Single Engine Airline?).  I also don't see the military going that direction to the extreme because so long as it has any kind of "remote" piece within its operation it will be hackable / jammed and rendered inop. 

[TreeA10]

The FAA is going to allow single pilot ops?  You mean the same FAA that just recently allowed WiFi to be used forward of the cockpit door despite it's common use for how many years?  The same FAA that required the iPad to withstand a FL600 decompression?  I wish I could remember the iPad G load requirement but I don't recall the number.  I do recall thinking that the iPad surviving if we encounter such a G load would be the least of my worries.  Never say never but I'm doubtful.  Odds favor cargo, if at all.

[Guest LumberjackAxe]

Wasn't there another thread discussing the whole remotely piloted airline thing? 

I think the end result was this:

- the airplane still needs life support so the drastic savings we see in AF drones wouldn't happen 

- it'll be more like "the pilot is the flight attendant" or vice versa

- any airline who keeps pilots has a great marketing point and will drive the other pilotless airlines out of business ("Come fly Delta! We actually have pilots so you won't crash and die in a fireball!")

- it's obviously gonna happen at some point in the future, but I'm going to be walking with a cane by the time it does

[dream big]

9 hours ago, Guardian said:

 

I think right this second you are right. Until the airlines fix the pilot shortage with drone and remotely operated options to their problem. Then we will have a pilot job crisis just like 9/11. It's coming. And if you don't think so just check out how much research is being done and funded by who. Necessity is the mother of invention. Both airlines and the Air Force need right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

 

Not happening anytime soon.  Where is the cost savings? You aren't getting rid of the pilot, they are just no longer in the cockpit.  Single pilot, for airlines? Way too much liability, maybe for cargo.  Look at what the airlines are investing in for the next 10-20 years, none of it is remote technology. 

[Guardian]

And if you don't have to have x number of crews on standby how much do they save on that?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guardian]

And I would wager flying an RPA airline is much less intensive than an RPA military plane. Fly from A to B with some wx contingencies. Killing people from an RPA I would imagine isn't as easy as that.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[dream big]

17 minutes ago, Justonethought said:

What exactly are the airlines investing in for the next 10-20 years?  In 10 years if they can replace an FO with an algorithm they will.  The plane itself is the investment in capital, not the control of the plane.  Do you use uber?  If you do, would you use it just as much when it shows up to your door without a person and ferries you off to your destination without a driver and at 1/4 the cost?  This is a sincerely honest series of questions.  Technology is shifting the landscape awfully quickly.

If an Uber showed up to my house without a driver, I wouldn't get into it for free.  You honestly think passengers would get into a pilot-less airline? Okay even single pilot, what happens when one of those crash with 300 souls on board? Why on earth would airlines accept that capital risk? I didn't say it will never happen, just that it's not happening in our lifetime.  

[Guardian]

People would for half price


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Karl Hungus]

1 hour ago, Justonethought said:

 Do you use uber?  If you do, would you use it just as much when it shows up to your door without a person and ferries you off to your destination without a driver and at 1/4 the cost?

You really think Uber (or FedEx, Delta, Vanguard's automated financial analyst, the Mayo Clinic's automated neurosurgeon, etc) will just lower their prices by 1/4 and pass that cost savings on to a consumer, long term?  You think the automated Wall Street robots and their shareholders will be ok with that?  LOL.

[flyusaf83]

At my base, aircrew are now required to operate the high lift trucks instead of AFE. That means I have to get pilots and navs to take a course on how to drive the stupid truck, and then have them take it on as an additional duty.  It means when I have a TDY departing or arriving on weekend, someone has to come in just to drive the damn truck.  Also, I had to assign a young copilot to watch other chicks piss in cups for a solid week, 0700-1600.  

I get sitting SOF (kind of). I get sitting Sup.  But what in the bloody hell are we doing? Aside from the insanity of having a pilot, who has millions of dollars invested in their training, not fly in order to drive a truck or watch people urinate... this kind of crap just kills morale.  My Lt copilots are all jaded.  How can you blame them? It's about unmet expectations.  They worked and sacrificed more than their peers to become military pilots. Then we have them do things an E-1 should be doing.

The Air Force is insane.  What they are doing with additional duties is like having a neurosurgeon do less surgeries so he can help the janitors (who get paid the same as the neurosurgeons).

Edited May 13, 2017 by flyusaf83

[Longhorn15]

I think a lot of the cost savings you're assuming aren't as much as some think. The cost of high bandwidth, secure and not jammable satellite time is very expensive. Remember the news about hackers getting into cars computers while they're driving? Imagine that hysteria times 1000. If the cost savings isn't there, why would they spend the money to develop a very expensive infrastructure of satellites, that customers may not go for?

It will take genuine AI to be able to replace us, and we're not there yet. Someday probably, but not yet, and as mentioned before, the FAA will slow roll this big time.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SocialD]

13 hours ago, Justonethought said:

 Do you use uber?  If you do, would you use it just as much when it shows up to your door without a person and ferries you off to your destination without a driver and at 1/4 the cost?  

Yes I use uber.  No, I would not use an Uber without a driver in the car.  

 

 

10 hours ago, Justonethought said:

It is not about lowering price it is about lowering operational costs. I emphasize operational.  The price can stay the same, if the cost to deliver is lowered that equals greater margin, profit, dividend, share price etc. Price is what one will pay, it is independent of cost.  This is coming from a pilot.  It doesn't matter that I am a pilot, the math is the same.

You're right, we need to ensure all our contracts say that all planes will be piloted by 2 human pilots (or 3/4 depending on length of flight). If they want us to fly single pilot, our pay would have to more than doubled and our hours worked per day would need to be slashed significantly.  

I can't see this even starting to happen for a few decades.  Have you guys every worked with the FAA?  Fuck, we've been trying to get a new arrival into our Guard base, for like 4 or 5 years and we still have no end in sight.      

[HeloDude]

13 hours ago, Karl Hungus said:

You really think Uber (or FedEx, Delta, Vanguard's automated financial analyst, the Mayo Clinic's automated neurosurgeon, etc) will just lower their prices by 1/4 and pass that cost savings on to a consumer, long term?  You think the automated Wall Street robots and their shareholders will be ok with that?  LOL.

I know, right!?  I mean, DVD players are more expensive than ever these days...

[Inertia17]

There is no way they would be able to offer flights for half the price just by removing a pilot. Call it a couple hundred dollars and hour per crew and then divide it across each passenger, you won't save any more than $20 per ticket (conservative napkin math, 150pax $500 an hour for 2 crew, 4 hour flight...$13.33 saving per seat).

Then you have incidents like QF72 (QF72). Where the autopilot is out to lunch and tries to fight the pilot. How do you think that would have gone down with no crew on board, and the pilot monitoring was in the middle of an approach on one of his 3-4 other aircraft?

RPA or single pilot ops are a fair way off, not because of technology necessarily, but the risk mitigation that has to take place to even consider it. Cargo would likely be first, and even that would be a battle with the FAA I'm guessing.

[dream big]

13 hours ago, flyusaf83 said:

At my base, aircrew are now required to operate the high lift trucks instead of AFE. That means I have to get pilots and navs to take a course on how to drive the stupid truck, and then have them take it on as an additional duty.  It means when I have a TDY departing or arriving on weekend, someone has to come in just to drive the damn truck.  Also, I had to assign a young copilot to watch other chicks piss in cups for a solid week, 0700-1600.  

I get sitting SOF (kind of). I get sitting Sup.  But what in the bloody hell are we doing? Aside from the insanity of having a pilot, who has millions of dollars invested in their training, not fly in order to drive a truck or watch people urinate... this kind of crap just kills morale.  My Lt copilots are all jaded.  How can you blame them? It's about unmet expectations.  They worked and sacrificed more than their peers to become military pilots. Then we have them do things an E-1 should be doing.

The Air Force is insane.  What they are doing with additional duties is like having a neurosurgeon do less surgeries so he can help the janitors (who get paid the same as the neurosurgeons).

Nailed it.  A lot of this boils down to having a SQ commander who has some balls to tell the shoe clerks running the base: "NO"... No, we aren't using a line flying pilot to watch a piss test.  No, we aren't participating in your g-$ morale run.  And no, we aren't going to have half the squadron sit through LRS's worthless mobility line all day when we have lines to fly.  

[Guest]

Cargo would likely be first, and even that would be a battle with the FAA I'm guessing.

I don't even see cargo happening anytime soon. Imagine instead of the RQ-170 getting hacked, jammed, lost-link, whatever, it happening to an automated MD-11 or 747 over a populated area.

Also, how well is a guy in a GCS going to be able to diagnose and handle something like a wing or fuselage fire? Shit happens and there's no replacement for having a couple pink butts in the seats to exercise judgement and ingenuity to avert crisis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Inertia17]

1 minute ago, ihtfp06 said:

I don't even see cargo happening anytime soon. Imagine instead of the RQ-170 getting hacked, jammed, lost-link, whatever, it happening to an automated MD-11 or 747 over a populated area.

I definitely agree. It wouldn't be for a very long time, even for single pilot ops. But that would be the first place they would likely consider RPA/single pilot.

[Duck]

Maybe this is what senior leadership meant when they said we were all replaceable... lol


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums