A bleak future for Aviation?

[Croozin]

Danny, in case you think this thread is inappropriate for a Rumours and News forum, I agree it doesn’t constitute a ‘rumour’, but for so-called professional aviators, the subject it refers to should be in bright red banner sized headlines, and if that isn’t ‘news’, I don’t know what is.

After reading the ‘Joining Qatar Airways as an FO’ thread (see here) (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=100895) on the Middle East forum regarding pilots offering to pay for their endorsements to get a job, I’m really disturbed at the lack of response to this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99750) thought-provoking post from Wiley on the Aircrew Notices forum. Compare it with the response to the same post here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=99600) on the D & G forum.

Could it be that not very many people read the Aircrew Notices forum, or do most people not really care? If you haven’t seen Wiley’s post, do yourself a favour and take a look at it and make your thoughts known, whichever side of the argument you’re on.

IMHO, if you’re one of the ‘pragmatists’ God help this industry… and I’m off to buy shares in a blue singlet factory.

[Carruthers]

No one owes you status, respect or a copy of an ancient mariners uniform. Professional standing, remuneration etc cannot be demanded but will inevitably be dependant upon the rarity and value of your skills. They are not restricted to the western world! The skills of engineers and tradesmen of the past are now performed by Chinese girls with computer-controlled machinery. You cannot stop progress, you cannot demand that your trade is preserved in a time warp and to suggest that the events of 89 in Aus are in any way to blame for the apparent decline in status and standing are absurd. History is littered with attempts to stop the clock from the Luddites to Scargill et al.

[7x7]

I think Carruthers makes some very good points, but I will disagree with him on one point <<“to suggest that the events of 89 in Aus are in any way to blame for the apparent decline in status and standing are absurd”.>>

By 1989, maybe things had already reached the stage within the aviation industry in Europe where an event like the Australian dispute would not be seen as a sea change, but in Australia, it was a ginormous ‘own goal’ against pilots for what little the status they still enjoyed. Judging by the number of pilots from the UK charter airlines who eagerly flocked to Australia to participate in converting that ‘own goal’ for the profession, it would seem Carruthers was right.)

While agreeing with most of the other points Carruthers made in his post, I think he’s missing the most important point from the original post, (see link), and that is, if we allow the skills of this profession to be lost by automation, it will be irredeemable and we’ll have allowed the ‘clever’ managers (now with a very few exceptions, there’s an oxymoron if ever I saw one) to make the very same mistake the shipping companies made thirty years before – with the same dire results.

Croozin, I think you should re-title the thread to “A self-inflicted bleak future for Aviation”.

In closing, anyone who hasn’t read the original post, highly recommend you do so.

[loaded1]

You are right, Carruthers, you can't stop "progress". But you can do something about it. I have read this entire thread as suggested, including the D&G section, and offer the following thoughts as someone with over 15 years in the business with a "flag carrier".

"Progress" means locating your airline in a weaker regulatory environment, just like the Merchant Navy. Our main lo cost rival "enjoys" an FTL advantage thereby. No-one's been killed by it.........yet, so Flight Ops Director says we should be pushing to adopt their rules. Conversion courses are cut to the bone, and I know from personal experience that the safeguards our airline builds into the system, from flight data monitoring of every sector to our world-leading computer database and analysis system of safety material, are not used by our competitors. Nor are Training Standardisation Captains to check the conformity of trained output to training syllabus, manuals that accurately reflect every type variant operated, generic Flight Crew Orders that cross refer where appropriate to the aircraft type manuals etc etc etc. They all add cost, and cost kills the business in the new "regulation lite" environment, where a Company's safety processes are largely left to itself as long as a semblance of a safety audit per JAR-OPS is evident. (And I do mean a semblance....what constitutes "audit" has some amazing interpretations).

I am NOT knocking in ANY WAY AT ALL the pilots who fly for those airlines. Fact is, they are winning: just look at that Irish airline's financials and its as clear as day.

As to the financial side: I fully realise that we are well paid by industry standards in my airline. I also know after my years in it that without BALPA that would UTTERLY NOT be the case. But it is relative; relative to my uni peer group I have been on the lowest wage for the longest time of that group, Doctors and Solicitors in the main. I enjoy flying, but they enjoy their work too. In the long term their prospects expand as the years go by, whilst mine darken. Our firm will have to cut and go on cutting in a cycle of decline to stay in business, and the cuts in our pride, self-esteem and conditions that have been sought have only been held in some abeyance by the union. The threat to the pension is accute throughout.

To those who say "tough luck" and launch into the stale debate about the independants versus the state carrier I would offer the following:

The United States lead where we follow. Valuejet and the Florida Everglades crash was the nadir of the low-cost phenomenon and I fear the way standards are being eroded here in Europe may lead us down that path, thats ALL of us in professional aviation. We need a common, objective, clear-cut set of minimum standards enforced by rigerous inspection with no opportunity for evasion or "corporate interpretation". Until that is brought about I fear for the industry here very much

As to rewards versus lifestyle versus personal satisfaction, I would argue that the way things are going, it just isn't worth it. I've had a very lucky run at it, but I wouldnt want my son to give it a go.

You can't eat enthusiasm, nor house yourself with it.

I am well aware that the world does not owe you a living.
If you are motivated and driven enough to climb the enourmous hill that is getting into the professional airline industry at all you can do a million other things and do them well enough to lead a very good financial life. It's not all gloom out there. Take a look at the wealth around you. Last time I went to Sydney, for example, it was there in abundance, and it's certainly here in London.

I think the thing is, Carruthers, for those of us in the profession, to accept that, in the current airline market, true value just can not be paid for. It's only when we leave that it might be. And leave we will. My mates at our leading independant competitor at LHR are doing just that: disheartened and demoralised. I am not crowing at all - it is a damning indictment of the industry as it stands when a jet base training captain gives up the job and joins us a junior FO to get away, and his colleagues who paid to get into the industry through being IT professionals are going back to it, as they see no future in aviation apart from cuts and denigration of working conditions and the belittlement of their job. That's progress though.

Two final thoughts. The Merchant Marine:

A friend is a River Thames Pilot guiding large vessels in to the Port of London. The standards he sees beggar belief. Some ships have crossed the ocean using little more than an Atlas and the autopilot. He, a highly skilled practitioner, left the sea as the Foreign Flag phenomenon took hold: BP were amongst the first to do it.

He would never go back.

Like many of his colleagues he also has a "portfolio" income from business ventures he's set up since, and he has a good life.

The "modern aircraft are so easy to fly that the crews aren't true professionals any more so dont deserve the pay" argument:

I can honestly say, having operated very old design technology to the latest fly by wire products from both manufacturers in my career, that this argument can only be espoused by those who don't know what they are talking about.

Modern aircraft operating in the RVSM environment with contemporary traffic levels and the usual european winter are ferociously complex pieces of equipment. A failure to fully comprehend the aircraft's complex interactions and modes in such a dynamic environment can be catastrophic within a blisteringly short period of time. There has never been a greater need for total professionalism on all flight decks.

I think most Flight Ops Directors are accutely aware of this and yet are caught in the downward cost/price spiral afflicting aviation wordwide.

Where will it all end? I dont know, but I've only got my one little life to lead, and seeing what I do ahead I am planning accordingly and I suspect the more far-sighted amongst us are doing like-wise.

[Airbrake]

Excellent post Loaded. You should submit it as a letter to Flight.

[Iron City]

Seconded, Airbrake.

Aviation has always been a tough place to make any money for companies. The advice that the best way to make amillion in aviation is to start off with 2 million is still true, though inflation has changed the numbers.

So why do people get into the business? Because they think they can beat the odds? I know why pilots generally get into the business and it is because they love to fly. The way the industry has gone in deregulation is to put a lot of pressure on the financials but by the same token opened air travel to very much larger numbers of people (whether that is a benefit or not is a value judgement, but what would life, for example, in the UK be like with no package holidays to someplace warm and sunny all year)

As loaded1 observes nothing ever stays the same.

[johnpilot]

Loaded, excellent post.
I agree with you 100%. I love flying, and enjoy what i do, but I see no reason to do it for less when I can do it for more. I do not see the argument rich-or happy, how about both. What is wrong with enjoying your job and getting well paid for it. The problem is that people tend to compare pilot jobs with office suport jobs. How about comparing it with stock brokers, or consultants, or even doctors or lawyers. If you look at the high achievers in each industry one realizes a common theme. They love what they do, but they get paid a hell of alot of money, more than they diserve maybe. It is very easy to go down the road in any industry and say that they should not be charging the amount of money they are. Why should we pay doctors, its their responsibility and duty to look after us and make their services available to everyone. How about football players, why should they get paid so much money.
I think it is wrong to look at the industry and say I am making more than so and so in such a company. I say look at them, the get more us and fly less. I do not want them to loose their status, I would rather be on par with them on an upward movement rather than a down movement.
Looking at medium term goals is not the answer, we all need to look at the big picture, because the future is just around the corner, and when the new EU pilots start coming in to our jobs with less money and we end up on the street it will not be management's fault, but rather our own apathy. It is not far away when you will see Polish, and Check pilots working in the UK. I have nothing against that as long as it is done on par with the same terms and conditions and not because they are cheap.
JP:D

[46Driver]

Didn't the ValuJet crash happen because an outside vendor loaded mis-labeled (and illegal) Oxygen canisters aboard in the cargo hold?

[arcniz]

Johnpilot - your concept that pilots should be paid much the same as: stock brokers, or consultants, or even doctors or lawyers. really hits the nail on the side.

The ones among those professionals who most significantly prosper are the ones who operate proactively to find and develop business. After they have done this for some while, they become highly employable - - on premium terms - as "rainmakers" who bring in much more gross revenue than they take out in pay and perks.

If you look at brokers, consultants, doctors, and lawyers who are mere employees, with all the requisite production skills but situated so they are making an indistinct contribution or benefit to revenues. you will often find they are generally underpaid, under-loved, and terribly insecure, if not completely miserable.

So the correlation here is that job prestige, security, and high pay typically come from the stakeholder and executive perception that the individual strongly affects the future of the enterprise in a positive manner.

Merely grousing about 'the way things should be' will not have this effect.


So what's to be done? The classic medieval system of limiting entry through 'guild' techniques works somewhat for lawyers and doctors, but probably isn't suited to the inherently cyclical airline industry, which prospers when good times produce marginal resources for consumption in the business and consumer economies, and sucks when economic constriction takes that away.


Pilots need airlines and v.v. Seems to me the only two real options are a) figure out how to help sell more tix for your current or prospective employer, or b) hunker down and wait it out.

[Carruthers]

7X7, how do you propose stopping the relentless march of automation from eroding your skills? Already fly by wire aircraft are much simpler to operate and ‘fly’ and are getting more so. We can look forward to three-dimensional systems that will be safer more efficient and fully automated. The majority of accidents are crew induced, very often because they decide to ‘fly’ the aircraft. You cannot stop the world and that applies to the 89ers.

[Chocks Away]

Didn't the ValuJet crash happen because an outside vendor loaded mis-labeled (and illegal) Oxygen canisters aboard in the cargo hold?

Quite right, 46Driver.
The drop-down mask, oxygen generators were incorrectly tagged and packed and not recognised as a dangerous good.

This all happened with the ground crew and loadmasters etc... the flight crew were the last "hole in the swiss cheese" (Professor Reasons model)

[411A]

All started a lot longer ago than many realise.

Recall a long time ago was choosen to fly a Lockheed Electra (a very nice aeroplane by the way) and several of the other applicants suggested that they would 'fly nearly for free' in order to gain advancement.
They weren't hired because the operator recognised that this was a very bad idea.

Still is.

Oh, forgot the date....1971.

[arcniz]

Carruthers - With respect, as one who flies less and less but actively drives certain aspects of aircraft automation, I feel a need to take some issue with the philosophy behind your rhetorical question: how do you propose stopping the relentless march of automation from eroding your skills?

The skill of cajoling a particular revenue aircraft aloft and back to terra firma is partly intellectual, partly mechanical. It is true that 21st century automation is likely to take over increasing amounts of the mechanical aspect as technology and supporting investment advance. At some point in aircraft systems evolution, the controls will become so squoggy that you can no longer find those sweet spots where everything works just right in a certain case. Sad, but probably inevitable. After the techies realize that controls skill still plays a useful part, they may start putting real manual discretion back in.. about anno 2250, methinks.

The bright side, from p.o.v. of aviation employment, is that the need for competent aircrew will be stable or increase in regard to the intellectual skills of putting all the pieces of flight operations together, making sense of them, and still having some reserve capacity to handle all the possible contingencies that can arise along the way. The smarter the machine, the more valuable the person who makes it work. It will continue for a long while to be a formidable challenge. with ongoing changes in the necessary skill set. From a technological viewpoint, it seems unlikely this will lead to an overall decline in Pilot compensation or openings as much as the trend to ever larger aircraft is doing. Smarter aircraft wll require greater intelligence, better systems knowledge, and more extensive skills from the crew. Not exactly the march to obsolescence.

[Carruthers]

How useful are your control skills when flying CAT3B, deploying the flaps? We are on the verge of total automation, of on board precision approaches everywhere, terrain avoidance, sequencing, separation etc etc. demands for greater intellectual and intelligent operators, dream on. As has been pointed out already, at one time train drivers were at the fore front of technology, we now have driverless trains.

[MTOW]

arcniz, judging by your optimistic final paragraph, I’m assuming you haven’t taken the time to read Wiley’s original post (the one in the linked thread that lead to Croozin opening this thread).

I’m afraid I have to agree with Wiley – the skills, or at least enough people with the required skills, simply won’t be available by the time ‘the experts’ realise they’ve thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

I have to agree that loaded1’s post was excellent. David Learmont, I’m told you troll the pages of PPrUNe. loaded1’s letter along with Wiley’s, would form the basis of a very interesting article in FI.

[Neo]

Carruthers -

Still digging those huge holes for yourself?

How useful are my skills when "flying cat3b, deploying the flaps?" Very useful. Besides, how often do we fly to Cat3B limits? Most of us find ourselves flying to airfields which simply do not have that facility, and many airfields have far from ideal facilities. Then our skills are essential.

We are having to consider more and more factors whilst flying - security for example has taken on a much higher profile - so our skills are more necessary than ever. Now they may be less pure stcik'n'rudder skills and more flight and operations management skills, but they are still essential.

Besides, how is the world's first automated airliner going to cope with angry passengers facing a 12 hour delay? What decision will it take if the catering is 12 meals short?

Most uf us enjoy flying and enjoy the challenges that come with it. We enjoy exercising our skills to ensure that our operations proceed punctually and reliably. It is perhaps a measure of our success that management and passengers alike have become utterly complacent about it, and now fail to appreciate the service they receive.

[Dogma]

Carruthers,

Strikes me that the depth off your knowledge on the subject of automation and flight safety is about as deep as Australia's history is long.

I do not fly an aircraft with the level of automation you allude to but I know that being a good operator of an A330 for example requires an immense amount of dedication and professionalism.

In my short career, my actions have directly contributed in successfully salvaging five or six major failures of aircraft systems and engines and countless other "unforeseen" conflicts and problems. Net result: over a thousand pax were delivered safe and well to their loved ones.

Pilots are here to stay, it is a great way to make a good living!:ok:

P.S A European survey recently discovered that pilots are regarded as the most respected group of professionals, above Doctors, judges, etc. Long may it last!

[Bucking Bronco]

RE Automation.

Yes aircraft are continually getting more automated but this has resulted in 2 pilots taking over the roles of navigator, engineer and radio operator. So nowadays pilots must be able to monitor all the systems and make decisions with the aid of the plethora of systems. However when the sh1t hits the fan and systems fail I believe that we have to be better pilots since we need a breadth and depth of knowledge to deal with the non-normals.

RE CAT3B.

Can't say I do many of these, just about the legal minimum once or twice every 6 months. But AWOPs itself is a huge can of worms, have a look at the Penta hotel incident. AWOPs is another string to our bow over yesteryear pilots who just diverted to CAT 1 conditions.

RE Professional Pay

With Doctors, solicitors, stockbrokers etc. These professions have strict centralised qualifying exams which are set by prfoessional institutes (law society, ACCA etc) which look after the interests of their professional membership. They set tough exams and entry requirements and make it very difficult for half wits to get in.

Imagine an incompetent heart surgeon who got into the position by paying his way through, getting his qualifications in some third world country and performing on your loved one? Would you say, "That's the way of the world, there's a demand for cheaper heart surgeons and this guy has always wanted to be one, as long as there are no complications he'll be alright lets pass him the scalpel!"

In the UK we have the JAA/CAA taking control of standards, setting standards whose enforcement cannot be pragmatically policed. For example a low cost airline who hires someone from Tim-buck-two because he's willing to work for peanuts; now he's not the best flyer (having failed plenty of aptitiude tests he's effectively paid a company to take him on) and is performing at minimum standards. Will the company training capt fail him?

So you see that although we have a free market system wrt Labour in our industry, it is skewed. This is because people who are below par are allowed a licence and there are many companies out there who are willing to drop standards in order to get someone in the seat, this enables more "supply" and thus the free market price of the good (our labour/labor" falls.

The only way IMHO to address this is to have centralised standards. The CAA must be able to chose which pilots within a company are checked by CAA inspectors, take their sim detail and pass or fail them. If a particular company is found to be hiring below the grade pilots then more CAA sims will be conducted on their workforce. This of course would never happen since the CAA will answer to the £££'s of the company rather than protect the standards (hence Ts and Cs) of the pilot community.


:ok:

[hungry_flygal]

Hey all - I'd just like to quickly say that not every newbie's attitude to an aviation career is what has been mentioned in the linked thread - working for nothing and trained to 'minimal' standards. There are a number of people like myself who go through a very reputable university where we are pretty much taught to be well-rounders - For example, Human Factors, engineering, risk management, economics, marketing, etc...
Some of our lecturers have a great breath of experience in the aviation industry spanning decades, some of them pilots and some from the management side of things.

While Automation has surely taken a toll on the opinions of people, industry included, I think that the amount of work / experience / expertise required is the same, if not greater.. It's really just part of the "changing nature of work".

As a newbie aspiring to *hopefully* get to the airlines one day, I certainly hope that there will be a job out there for me that i will love, with the respect that people give you as an acknowledgement of your hard work and certainly enough money to live on (because like it or not, the needs of our modern society cannot be met without it).

As mentioned on the now closed thread, there is a broad cross-section of the aviation community on this site, perhaps one of them would be kind enough to set up a thread where they may feel like sharing some of that knowledge .. ;)

Anyway - just my 2c ... if anyone disagrees - try to be civil about the reply ... just not liking the way most of the posts on PPRuNe tend to disintegrate into mud-slinging matches :uhoh: :sad: :( :ouch: :{

[Raw Data]

Bucking Bronco

There are several gaping holes in your argument- for example-

This is because people who are below par are allowed a licence

Not really. We all have to meet the standard, which involves manipulating the aircraft controls to acceptable standards of accuracy, assessing weather, etc. As all initial issue tests are performed by the regulatory authority, the implication of your statement is that these authorities deliberately lower the bar- no evidence exists for this.

...is performing at minimum standards. Will the company training capt fail him?

No, because the training captains job is to ensure that he meets the minimum standard. Anything above that is icing on the cake.

If a particular company is found to be hiring below the grade pilots then more CAA sims will be conducted on their workforce. This of course would never happen since the CAA will answer to the £££'s of the company rather than protect the standards (hence Ts and Cs) of the pilot community.

Leaving aside for a minute the illogic of your last statement, The CAA takes a keen interest in the overall skill and experience levels within a company- ask anyone who has been through a routine CAA audit.

Back to the main topic.

My take on all this is that the job has fundamentally changed in the 20 years I have been doing it. It is no longer nearly as much fun, and the drive towards low-cost is widening the gap between short-haul and long-haul T&C's.

I no longer need the same skills I needed twenty years ago, and the CAA/JAA has recognised this by changing the content of the skills test- no longer requiring NDB approaches and allowing the use of autopilots etc. I am extremely glad that I fly a smallish, but very interesting and capable aircraft (146), which still has many quaint systems and rewards accurate hand flying. I am also glad that I get to fly into interesting and challenging places such as Innsbruck, Chambery, etc. To me, flying an automated aircraft between large, unobstructed runways would be like dying a thousand deaths- particularly if my every control input was monitored and recorded at Head Office, and every manouevre was required to be completely standard and inch-perfect.

Pilots no longer command the respect they once did, and automation is partly to blame for this as it allows the perception that anyone can do the job. We thus find ourselves regarded as an inconvenient commodity by the more cynical operators- who tend to be, as others have said, more interested in the bottom line that the nature of the business.

Pilots have historically made enormous sacrifices to get a start in their careers. This makes them very reluctant to ever consider leaving the industry, so many become bitter and disillusioned whilst feeling compelled to continue. It is perhaps time for many to "think outside the box" and assess the job for what it now is.

Whilst I don't believe that the airlines will go the way of the Merchant Marine (for many reasons, from insurance requirements to public perception), it remains clear that the job is changing. It is no wonder that many non-western airlines have trouble recruiting staff- the golden days of aviation are long gone now. Neither the rewards or recognition are there for highly skilled and motivated entrants to the work force, and the the pilot community will continue to be populated by those who, in the main, simply love to fly. This is simultaneously their greatest strength- and their greatest weakness. A weakness that some airlines exploit ruthlessly.

Enjoy you flying for as long as you can.

[Bucking Bronco]

Raw Data



<We all have to meet the standard, which involves manipulating the aircraft controls to acceptable standards of accuracy, assessing weather, etc. As all initial issue tests are performed by the regulatory authority, the implication of your statement is that these authorities deliberately lower the bar- no evidence exists for this.>

Would you say that standards are exactly the same across the whole of the EU/JAA? I would say that they vary from examiner to examiner in this country, we had 2 CAA IR examiners at the airfield I trained at, one was like Capt Christmas the other was like Capt Scrooge.


<No, because the training captains job is to ensure that he meets the minimum standard. Anything above that is icing on the cake.>

In my company in our past we had another airline integrated into ours, a friend of mine is a trainer and was responsible for converting some of the new arrivals onto one of our types. Although there were many capable pilots brought into the company he found the general standards of flying and airmanship to be well below par and began failing people. He was called into the office to explain himself and when he stated he wasn't prepared to sign some of these guys off, he was withdrawn from training and checking the new guys. This illustrates how company management can apply pressure to trainers to "get the lads through."


<Leaving aside for a minute the illogic of your last statement, The CAA takes a keen interest in the overall skill and experience levels within a company- ask anyone who has been through a routine CAA audit.>

My idea of CAA examiners/instructors conducting checks on pilots within a company would ensure that the standards are being applied to anyone within the company - not just a selected few. In my company the CAA only come in and assess the current/new TREs, they are not put in with random Joe "Line Pilot" Bloggs anymore. Thus they may only see the best guys within a company.

My comment wrt to the CAA answering to the £££'s of the company was a little indirect to the point I was trying to make. That is the CAA are answerable to the Government, the Government are answerable to the people, people want cheap flights, low cost operators will provide cheap flights by cutting corners - one of these being pilots.

My point about the heart surgeon was supposed to ask the question, "If someone hasn't got the skills and attributes to get hired by a number of companies and has to pay to fly for an operator - should he get the job?" You set a dangerous precedent whereby people with money (or those willing to get into further debt) are the ones taken on by airlines, rather than the guys with the right stuff.


<I no longer need the same skills I needed twenty years ago, and the CAA/JAA has recognised this by changing the content of the skills test- no longer requiring NDB approaches and allowing the use of autopilots etc. I am extremely glad that I fly a smallish, but very interesting and capable aircraft (146), which still has many quaint systems and rewards accurate hand flying.>

True the one man band IR has gone (a shame I enjoyed it), but the new system of checking your performance within a multi crew
environment is much more pragmatic to what we do day in day out. I don't know about handling a 146 but last count I've flown 11 different types of aircraft from little Chipmunks to 400 tonne 747-400 and all of them reward accurate hand flying.


<I am also glad that I get to fly into interesting and challenging places such as Innsbruck, Chambery, etc. To me, flying an automated aircraft between large, unobstructed runways would be like dying a thousand deaths- particularly if my every control input was monitored and recorded at Head Office, and every manouevre was required to be completely standard and inch-perfect.>

Flying into the old Kai Tak was fairly interesting, that along with Bogota at 8400 ft amsl surrounded by peaks up to 20,000 ft with oxygen critical paths along your route. As for Big Brother in the cockpit - I'd prefer it wasn't there but at the end of the day safety is the priority, not me having fun.

The rest of your post I agree with, whole heartedly.

Cheers

BB

:D :ok:

[Rananim]

Interesting thread long overdue.
Aviation has been in decline since the late 80's and there are 3 major reasons for this IMHO:CRM,the arrival of Airbus fly-by-wire products and the explosion of low-cost travel which has gone largely unchecked by the governing authorities.
All three have slowly but surely turned aviation on its head and reduced the pilot to a emasculated bystander.
Ironically,the 3 factors are not intrinsically without merit.There was a need for CRM,and taken in small measured doses,it is undoubtedly benficial.Instead we were all subject to a rigorous overdose and now we have the "modern" flightdeck where democracy and political correctness rule.If CRM had replaced autocracy with quiet assertion,then it would have worked.What we have today are Captains running scared.Scared to make a decision lest it upset the guy in the right seat or the purser,and the inevitable "grassing",one of CRM's most damning legacies.This blurring of the hierarchial pyramid has left us very vulnerable.We lost the respect of the FA's;afterall,we're all the same now arent we?They started thinking it really was their ship,and then they got their own union,and pretty soon any decision about a problem in the cabin was theirs to make.Its the old divide and rule.If the bean counters can divide us,we're easy pickings.
The arrival of the A320 was a revolution.The use of fly-by-wire in a commercial airliner was Gallic bravado at its best,a real coup d'etat for the French,despite the fact that Uncle Sam invented the damn thing.More sinister was the software programming contained in the plane's computers.For the first time in the history of aviation,the pilot no longer had complete control of the aircraft he was flying.Bank angle,angle of attack et al were now monitored by computers.Pilot actions could be overridden.The inability to firewall remains controversial.The autothrust and autoflight system that arrogantly keeps the pilot out of the loop is indicative of the mindset of the people who designed this thing.WE KNOW BEST.Problem is they dont,and A320's started crashing.Mode confusion caught their own chief pilot out and Air France's star pilot nearly died when he took to the skies at Habsheim.I ask if a thing is ambiguous,even to its staunch supporters,then it is unsafe.Time has passed and bugs have been ironed out now,but the fact remains that the Airbus has encroached heavily on the pilot's traditional role.The Airbus is not flown,it is programmed to fly.In the sixteen years that have elapsed since its inception,Boeing have never gone down the same garden path,and I believe they never will.
Low-cost travel had a great start with Southwest and some like Jet Blue continue in that tradition;cheap tickets but no compromise on maintenance,customer service,and employer-employee relations.Others have jumped on the bandwagon and totally watered down the high standards that were initially set.We lost Valujet but only when people died.Ample evidence of their criminal behavior was available prior to 592,but the FAA looked the other way.And now I hear stories of pilots starting their careers laden with debt because they're so desperate to get a job,even if it means being screwed by the unscrupulous.Of pilots being made to pay for their uniforms,the sandwiches and the candy bars on board.Of passengers being shouted at by rude and abusive FA's who hate their job so much they can only stick it for 10 months.FA's used to take pride in their job and some worked for twenty years.Of passengers being stranded at airports and told nothing and given no compensation.And all of it being done under the convenient umbrella of "Low-cost".ie.you get what you pay for.Flag-carriers are finding it hard to compete and so pretty soon all we'll have left is....crud.
Great future isnt it?

[hungry_flygal]

Can't ANYONE do something about this downwards spiral ??

Suggestions anyone ?

[acmi48]

from a non flying side..no.. best is to take the stick right now,the carrot will surely come

but right now supply exceeds demand,but in 5-10 years unless progress towards automation is rapid then i see the return of sponsorships and entry level students as the supply of qualified aviators dries up and the community & governing bodies impose every more restrictive timetables on the operators

meanwhile, the more complex the system,the more careful you have to be..nothing designed by humans is perfect

[hungry_flygal]

human factors 101 ... ;)

[Neo]

Rananim -

You trying to provoke an argument?

1. CRM, generally a good thing, but I don't feel the need to prostrate myself. If I have signed for c. $80m of aircraft and $astronomic of passenger liability then for sure I'm having the final say in what I do with it. However, I'm not so stupid as to think that F/Os and Cabin Crew have nothing useful to say, so if CRM helps us get on and understand each other that's OK by me. Just as long as they all understand where the buck stops.

2. Airbus FBW. On this subject you are talking the most arrant nonsense. a) It's got wings. b) It's got jet engines. c) It flies. d) It has a stick and throttles. Not suprisingly you fly it just like any other aircraft. If you find the autothrust and autopilot keep you out of the loop, then what in the nether hell are you doing in the flight deck of one?

3. LoCost Airlines. Inclined to agree, but the jury is still out on them. Mind you, Mike O'Leary: Guilty as Charged M'Lud!

[unwiseowl]

I think Airbus FBW computers will let you do anything permitted by the Flight Manual. CARRUTHERS - What do you think about Airbus FBW architecture? What do you think about Airbus vs. Boeing autothrust?

[Carruthers]

I don’t fly Airbus. I think they took a step to far initially and it took some time for pilots to adjust but now they work very well.
Most of the points raised so far are really concerned with management of both systems and personnel. The question is what is the future for pilots as we know them?
Most understand the impact of low cost airlines on the cushy establishment of ‘traditional’ airlines. Well folks, they are here to stay, no one is going to pay £300 to go to Paris anymore. The low cost guys have discovered that pilots are plentiful and cheap and the old airlines now have to cut their costs to compete. Ultimately market forces will inevitably decide what our trade is worth and wishing for the old days will not work. As for operating the aircraft, they will become more automated; it will not be necessary to have cat3 capability at airfields it will all be done on board. Already the technology exists to use pilot less aircraft that can deliver weapons to within a metre anywhere, setting up a typical commercial flight profile is simplicity itself. These systems will be developed and used in the near future; we cannot have pilots flying into the ground any longer. You cannot stop progress. Giving us tales of daring do and sending 1000 pax safely home is irrelevant, facing irate pax is nonsense your managers can do it, they simply have to leave the flight deck foe a while.
You've got to look ahead chaps, Airbus and Boeing FBW systems are only a start, lot of development to come and it will demand and require fewer and fewer traditional skills. As for standards, only us white chaps can do it Heh!! Don't be silly.

[Neo]

Unwiseowl -

Was that really necessary? I thought we had seen the back of that moron Carruthers for a while!

Carruthers -

You're quite entitled to your opinions of course, even if they are utter bilge not fit for exposure to the light of day.

Who charges £300 to go to Paris these days? Well, depends who you book with and when. Book early with BA and you can go as cheap as if you book at the same time with easyJet. Book on the day of travel and you'll be stung for a lot more, whichever airline. Just because the LoCos introduce a new business model doesn't mean that the traditional carriers will stand still. In fact BA have dropped their prices on routes where they compete with easyJet; if it makes a loss then they can support it with profits from their long haul, first and business class revenue. That's something the LoCos can't do. Their busess model is vulnerable to competition from airlines with other sources of revenue. This includes the traditional carriers and the charters. The former have premium traffic to boost revenue and the charters have a low cost base and their charter work. So don't bank on the LoCos being around for ever, particularly if Jo Public gets fed up with being told "What part of no refund don't you understand" and being given poor service, even if it is for only pennies. Of course, some will survive, but all of them now springing up out of the woodwork - I don't think so.

Pilots are cheap and plentiful? They certainly aren't cheap. Whilst they may well be paying for their own courses while employment prospects are thin, they are paying up to £100k for the privilege. Of course, airline managements are smiling because this cost does not fall on their airline. However, easyJet have signed a very large contract for pilot training recently, so they don't think that the supply of trained pilots is oversubscribed. Mind you, with 120 A319's on order thay will soak up a lot of trained pilots. They maight even start offering £30k golden hellos for type rated pilots as they did for the B737-300 a while ago. The cheap and plentiful air travel introduced by the LoCos is driving growth in the industry which will soak up a lot of pilots, particularly as the LoCos are acquiring larger numbers of smaller airliners. You may crow at the thought of pilots facing poor employment prospects and reduced terms and conditions, but remember that the market forces you fondly talk about have always been present in our industry and the demand for pilots is very cyclical. How will you control your apoplexy when pilots are getting £50k golden hellos and salaries of £150k+ for a junior LoCo Captain?

But then, you could try to fly on an automated aircraft that you rave about so much. Trouble is, they won't appear until long after you and I are dead. Why? You are right when you say it is relatively simple to set up a commercial flight profile. After all we arrogant, redundant pilots use computers to do it all the time. The problem comes when you try to fly the profile. How many lines of computer code would a fully automatic aircraft require to cope with all the unforseen events that occur in flight? It may not matter if an AGM-109B goes off course and crashes away from its intended target, but I don't think the same can be said of a passenger carrying aircraft.

And you think that managers can cope with irate pax etc. etc. What, you mean like Michael O'Leary? And how would desk-bound management cope with terrorists on board, or a SAM attack? They simply have to leave the flight deck for a while? What planet are you on! September the 11th. mean anything to you at all?

The vast majority of pilots who have passengers in their care take pride in getting them home safely and punctually. In the face of increasing demands and threats, skilled pilots are needed more than ever. And they're worth paying for. If you don't think so, then you need a check up from the neck up!

[Raw Data]

Bucking Bronco

Would you say that standards are exactly the same across the whole of the EU/JAA? I would say that they vary from examiner to examiner in this country, we had 2 CAA IR examiners at the airfield I trained at, one was like Capt Christmas the other was like Capt Scrooge.

Without wishing to be pointlessly pedantic, the standard is exactly the same, although the application of the standard my vary- this is something that the system should (eventually) sort out, but of course I take your point.

In my company in our past we had another airline integrated into ours, a friend of mine is a trainer and was responsible for converting some of the new arrivals onto one of our types. Although there were many capable pilots brought into the company he found the general standards of flying and airmanship to be well below par and began failing people. He was called into the office to explain himself and when he stated he wasn't prepared to sign some of these guys off, he was withdrawn from training and checking the new guys. This illustrates how company management can apply pressure to trainers to "get the lads through."

It's difficult to comment on specific incidents like this. It could be that your friend had higher standards than the minimum laid down by the JAA- this often happens and conflict is then inevitable. The question is, could your friend point to a clear failure to meet the minimum standard laid down by law? If so, he was right. If, on the other hand, he felt that the new hires didn't meet his somewhat higher standards (or those of the company), that is a different matter.

I have seen many a young, relatively inexperienced trainer raise the bar in an attempt to improve standards, and end up in conflict with management. It all comes down to your company training philosophy- do you accept the legal minimum, or do you insist on a higher standard?

My idea of CAA examiners/instructors conducting checks on pilots within a company would ensure that the standards are being applied to anyone within the company - not just a selected few.

I doubt that would ever fly unless the CAA suspected wholesale deceit on the part of the trainers in a particular company. Part of being a TRTO is the element of trust that goes with it. Besides, it would cost the CAA a lot of money to implement, they would pass that on to to the airlines who would object.

I once worked for a small regional UK carrier where abuse was common, for example two IRE/TREs signing each other off in the pub without actually flying. The CAA spotted it quickly and very nearly shut the company down (perhaps they should have).

That is the CAA are answerable to the Government, the Government are answerable to the people, people want cheap flights, low cost operators will provide cheap flights by cutting corners - one of these being pilots.

That doesn't follow- it implies that the government would direct the CAA to lower standards for political reasons. Not likely, methinks.

My point about the heart surgeon was supposed to ask the question, "If someone hasn't got the skills and attributes to get hired by a number of companies and has to pay to fly for an operator - should he get the job?" You set a dangerous precedent whereby people with money (or those willing to get into further debt) are the ones taken on by airlines, rather than the guys with the right stuff.

That doesn't follow either. Irrespective of the amount of money one has, you still have to pass the exams/flight tests etc. Airlines are more than happy to reduce their costs by not spending money on type ratings, but it doesn't follow that they deliberately compromise safety by hiring wealthy incompetents.

I don't know about handling a 146 but last count I've flown 11 different types of aircraft from little Chipmunks to 400 tonne 747-400 and all of them reward accurate hand flying.

Perhaps I put that badly. I have flown 8 air transport types, plus a WWII bomber and some high performance single engine types. They were great fun, in the main, but some were simply more fun than others. I have flown an A321 (on a ferry flight, not in this country), and found it sterile and unresponsive, and not particularly well harmonised. YMMV of course.

I'd prefer it wasn't there but at the end of the day safety is the priority, not me having fun.

Which is what I meant by "Enjoy you flying for as long as you can." I still believe that the commander of an aircraft should be allowed to get on with it, use his judgement skill as he sees fit, as long as it is all safe and SOP. All Big Brother does is erode the exercise of good judgement as it removes the need to exercise it as often. If all that is necessary is a set of clearly defined standard manouevers, you are well on the way to completely automated flight using systems managers instead of pilots. Great until it all goes wrong.

If that is where we are headed, I think I need a new career. However, I don't think it is- I don't believe for a minute we will see pilotless airliners. I, for one, wouldn't get on one. You simply cannot replace (completely) a wise, skilled and innovative human to help the computers out when they need to think "outside the box". The recent pock-marked Easy aircraft found elsewhere on these pages being a shining example.

Neo

Not suprisingly you fly it just like any other aircraft.

You patently do NOT fly it just like any other aircraft, that's the whole point. From the sidestick to the software, it's very different, as many have found out for themselves. I seem to recall somebody saying that almost all of the "whats it doing now" incidents are a result of pilots not understanding the systems they are using.

Final point on airline selection. We have recently lost quite few folk to a certain low-cost operator. Some of those they took were real problem children- glad to see the back of a few of them- some had real problems with their flying. They were employed anyway by the Low Cost operator, and some have subsequently failed their conversions of line training. Tells you a lot about the efficacy of their selection methods!!!

[unwiseowl]

Sorry Neo, but I was just trying to confirm what a review of previous posts by Carruthers has already revealed - He is not a pilot i.e. he has only superficial knowledge of our industry. Nor is he a manager. Managers tend to be able to spell. Draw your own conclusions!

[Ignition Override]

Those changing conditions must include many differences from the US industry, yet there seem to be many similarities.

And if so, now pilots over there see what the US has gone through since about 1982. Pilots abroad might now understand why the names Frank Lorenzo and Carl Icahn are still so infamous over here, except among many of our younger civilian pilots who are still ignorant of the recent past, or among those younger guys/gals who are still flying in the military, who also never read about the blood, sweat and tears during the 80s and early 90s. Unemployment checks here are apparently tiny when compared with what people receive in the socialized countries.

After all these many years, sadly, some of the appalling changes are happening in Britain and Europe. As I told a passenger at the gate a few weeks ago, after signing the flight release, "it is not a service industry anymore, it is a commodity business".:ouch:

[Neo]

RawData -

Well, like Carruthers you're entitled to your opinion. Personally I find A320 and A321 a pleasure to operate. And YES you do fly it like any other aircraft. You push the stick forward and the cows get bigger, you pull it back they get smaller. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! If was too different from conventional handling aircraft then the authorities would not have certificated it.

Having a constant sidestick feel provided by springs and dampers may not be to everyone's taste, but I don't miss the Heath Robinson nature of the flight controls in the B737. Or the throttle stagger of not quite perfectly rigged throttles, or autothrottle clutch slip etc.etc.

[Carruthers]

30 tears in aviation Neo / Unwise owl and you're both wishing the past will stay, dream on. The Airbus 320 series is OLD technology. Look closely at the salaries in aviation now, the golden years have gone and that includes BA, they are also, as you have pointed out, low cost themselves now. Soon your services will be hired by the hour.

[Raw Data]

A little simplistic there Neo . Yes, the controls operate in the same sense... but thats about it. Tell me, what happens in a 737 if you pull the control column back all the way and hold it there? Now what happens in a A3xx when you apply a rearward force to the sidestick and keep doing so? Two completely different things, of course.

The differences result in a different set of motor skills on the part of the pilot. They do, in effect, fly differently to a 737 pilot.

It's a bit like the old days, flying aircraft like the F27. you operate a Dart engine by pushing the power levers all the way forward and then using fuel trim. Try doing that with any modern engine that doesn't actually prevent you from doing so in software, and the result is a fried engine. You fly an F27 differently to a Dash 8 (for example).

[Carruthers]

But why discuss the finer points of flying these things? If you want to do that go get an Extra 300. You don't need to 'fly' the current Airbus no matter the future ones. Automatic application of yaw etc, indeed on the occasions that the pilot has interfered things usually end in tears. Soon you will engage the automatics on the pre take off checks and disengage them after landing. Certainly when this is the case I will feel much safer as a passenger.

[Neo]

Carruthers -

Now I know you're not a pilot. You can't be if you spout such nonsense.

[unwiseowl]

Come on Carruthers, don't be shy, tell us about your thirty years in aviation. What do you do?

[BIGMACH]

Carruthers,

As you have obviously never flown an aircraft commercially and have no knowledge of what is required to obtain and maintain a commercial pilot's license, please take your uninformed opinions elsewhere.

[ZFT]

Interestingly, every time the topic of automated/pilotless commercial aircraft pops up there is an assumption that this would achieved in a single step.

Surely before any such radical changes are even considered, a protracted period of single pilot operation would be required to validate the viability and safety of pilotless operation.

Whilst I am sure that even today’s technology could indeed support automated flight, aviation authority acceptance and more importantly passenger acceptance is a long, long way away.

Whether people such as Carruthers like it or not, thankfully pilots are here to stay for at least our lifetimes.

[I. M. Esperto]

The way I see it, the glory days of airline piloting are fading, and may not return. That's a real shame.

However, "Aviation" will continue to thrive. The adjustments will be painful, I'm afraid, for airline pilots. The prestige is slipping, along with the salary.

There are endless suckers who will work for little more than bus drivers just to fly anything for any body, for the sake of being a pilot.

[Carruthers]

Yes of course it will, but you won't need 'pilots' up front as you did in days of yore. Have as many as you like in the flight deck, but the simple fact is that they will not be required to 'handle' the thing, that is to risky. The vast majority of accidents are caused by pilots and the industry is looking to get them out of the loop. The point of this thread was to discuss the future in aviation, it is already obvious both from the experiences of us in it and the trend in design and automation of aircraft that the future for those who feel it necessary to 'pole' the thing is limited. After all it is no longer necessary to 'fly' in the simulator, apart from a ILS and G/A the whole thing is done with the autopilot, the old instrument rating is long gone replaced by a more realistic test using the aircrafts automatics and things will continue to develop. As for being a pilot, well it's not that big a deal, it's the size of some of the ego's that produces the Neos et al in this business. Problem for you boys is that the 'managers' in the business who employ you don't share your inflated opinions of yourselves.

[Maximum]

:( wow, Carruthers, your posting style only succeeds in making you sound bitter and envious.

Even if what you say was to be proved true, why do you have to make it so :mad: personal?

Flying is something we do professionally because we love it - it's a vocation. So quite naturally we will fight to remain pilots.

I'm sure you'd be exactly the same about something you love.

:hmm:

[unwiseowl]

Carruthers has, in previous posts, implied that he IS a pilot. Now he seems to be saying he isn't. Probably best to ignore this sad looser.

[Neo]

Carruthers (or perhaps we should call you Gollum) -

Tell you what, whenever next you fly, mention your PPRUNE handle to the flight crew. They might just take a day off and leave you to attempt to program your beloved automatics to try to fly the aircraft to destination. The pilots can leave (you know, the dangerous, irrelevant, egotistical and overpaid people at the front) followed closely by all the rest of the passengers. They can all watch your laughable efforts from the comfort of the departure lounge Starbucks from now until my retirement in about 20 years time.

Or you could try blagging a ringside seat in a simulator. Last time I was obliged to fly in the box, ooooh let me see now, at least 3, yes count 'em, 3 manually flown approaches on 2 and 1 engines, and you know what, some of those ended in manually flown go-arounds. Even more amazing, I didn't crash!

And even more amazing is the fact that professional airline pilots do this week in week out. Compare that with the number of times your computer fails, and you put your faith in the latter?

Meanwhile, back at Starbucks, I'll have another expresso......


(They stole it, those filthy thieving airline pilots, my precious, my job, my self-esteem, those horrible, filthy pilots, they stole my PRECIOUSSSSS..... (on ad nauseam))

[Carruthers]

Obviously the only thing that matters is whether or not one is a PILOT. It is of course this arrogant belief that we and only we are of any relevance or importance that causes others to perceive us with contempt. But of course you are right boys, in twenty years time you’ll still be ‘flying’ your aeroplanes with the bean counters falling at your feet, dream on.

[Maximum]

ermm.......you're the one who keeps ranting on about pilots....:confused:

and in case you hadn't noticed, this is the pilots' rumour network, so you would tend to find pilots here, talking about things which affect pilots , now wouldn't you?

Anyway...whatever.........

[Chocks Away]

It's sad how people like C.... , try to simplify and belittle what is a complex, technically advanced and skilled position... I don't care what you say... landing 20 tonne or 200 tonne safely, in monsoons/fowl wx or just big crosswinds takes expertise!

:ok:

It's also sad how the equation has been stuffed up.
It takes 4 key ingredients to run an airline:
1) Airframes
2) Crew to operate ( PILOTS& F/As)
3) Fuel to go
4) Pax

Just so many people are riding the coat tails, that the water has been muddied and the simple equation lost .

[hungry_flygal]

IMHO - if software stuffs up, the guy who designed it / okayed it may be halfway around the world sleeping or having a coffee .... They may not have the same motivation as a pilot in making sure the aircraft gets from A to B as safely as possible because, yes, they may find it was their fault, but they can go oops and be alive to say it ......... The Pilot on the other hand, definately has a personal interest in ensuring the survival of the aircraft and its contenets ........
Just my 2c ...... :8

[Kaptin M]

There's also a thread running on the D & G forum along similar lines to this one, interestingly enough.

Perhaps as the thread starter there, Oz Ocker, has suggested in his latest post, one major contributing factor to the reason for pilots' salaries going the way they are, is because of the "Global Village" in which we all now supposedly reside.
The work that was once the domain of only white Anglo-Saxons is now extended to just about every race world-wide.
I am not basing my thoughts on racism, but on the REALITY of the situation - so no abuse please.
As we are well aware, pilots salaries varied markedly until the last 10 or 15 years. Pilots in Western countries were paid reasonably good salaries, achieved by their united (unionised) efforts, whereas pilots in developing countries took what they were dished out - but in general enjoyed salaries higher than the average in their own countries.

Pilots from Eastern Europe made some impact on salaries in many parts of the world when they migrated - for them a BIG salary increase, but for incumbent pilots it meant a substantial drop in earnings to compete.

Technology of new aircraft means that traditionally required skills of pilots, and training time required to learn new aircraft have been lessened. And so - for example - China now has thousands of pilots flying the SAME aircraft types as are flown in Western countries for around 1/10th of the pay.
The employers are well aware of this and would replace ALL of us today if that were possible, I'm sure.

One of the biggest obstacles that stands in their way are the unions, which is why we are constantly seeing them chipped away and busted.
Labour laws in many countries have been dramatically changed over the past decade or so, facilitating the influx of cheaper foreign labour as airlines of Western countries try to compete against former Eastern European and Asian airlines operating on a far lesser labour cost base. As these airlines grow, the Western world's companies - and their employees - will come under even further pressure to trim down their costs, or alternatively go bust.
The money that non-Western airlines must be stashing away in profits for future expansion must be phenomenal, and a worry to Western world companies.

IMHO, that is the reality of the situation - the future for ALL airline employees, in the west, will be lower wages until the situation stabilises, and increasing salaries for employees of the up-and-coming airlines in the developing countries.

I've had my differences with Carruthers before, however he also speaks a lot of truth - although we mightn't like hearing it. :(

[Wiley]

Carruthers, you seem to have adopted the role of ‘resident 411A’ on this thread. As the person who might be said to have instigated this thread (through having started the original thread on D & G that got this discussing going), allow me to explain where I, and I think many other pilots, are coming from on this issue.

We see the seemingly unstoppable march towards total automation as counterproductive to what used to be the overall aim of this business - getting the bums, once they’ve been placed on seats by the very capable efforts of people within the industry with skills very different to those we possess, safely to their destination. I probably should add to that ’…by all possible means available’ - the magic word being ‘all’.

That one seemingly simple sentence actually encapsulates tomes and tomes of learned script and decades of many-faceted experience, with specialists from widely disparate fields lending their hard-won expertise towards achieving (what used to be) the primary aim of aviation – getting fare-paying passengers from point A to Point B in one piece.

There’d be some who’d say that that primary aim seems to have been replaced by another over the last ten to fifteen years, and that is squeezing as much profit out of the system for the minimum amount of input. Anyone with an even passing knowledge of the history of early commercial aviation would agree that that aim was as close to the hearts of 1920’s airline management as it is to the Michael O’Learys of today – and they were just as single-minded in attempting to achieve it as any of today’s crop of ‘wunderkinder’.

Gawd, I’ve descended into waffle mode… (It’s been said of me before today that I’m not one to say in one hundred words what could be said in a (couple of) thousand!) The above wasn’t the point I started out trying to make. Trying to get back to said point: the only difference between the O’Learys of today and the Rikenbaker’s of the 1920’s is that modern technology and automation are allowing today’s airline managers to cut costs (some would say corners) in pilot training and standards that would have quickly proven commercially fatal to an airline (as well as physically fatal to its passengers!) back in the 20s or even the 60’s.

But today, redundant automation systems have removed one word from that last sentence – ‘quickly’. However, without the ‘quickly’, I think, (although many like Carruthers would disagree with me), that the latter part of that sentence remains true today in the long term. As costly as it may seem to managers whose only (or major) concern is a short term black bottom line, by their current seemingly inexorable push to ‘dumb down’ the flying side of industry, they risk throwing away the very thing that has made it the uniquely safe mode of transport it has been to date.

(Finally getting to my point…)
My prime example of where the engineers got it wrong and the pilots got it right was the first moon landing by the Apollo astronauts. From Day One of the project, the engineers wanted the operation to be fully automated and the astronauts to be ‘hands off’ passengers – ‘spam in a can’ was the term sued at the time. They didn’t even want them to have windows. (It may be an urban myth, but I believe the same argument was tried by the engineers in the early design stages of the 1960’s Trident – as an aircraft built around a fully automatic landing system, the designers wanted the pilots sitting down the back under their engines, because they wouldn’t need a forward view on landing.)

Back to the moon landing: the astronauts (=pilots) won the argument for a window on the lunar lander and a manual override capability (causing enormous extra costs in TRAINING said astronauts in manipulating the unwieldy machine and manually handling it under a series of malfunction scenarios that the engineers knew could be better (and more cheaply) handled by the automatics.

Just in case there’s someone out there who isn’t aware of it, on the big day in July 1969, Neil Armstrong had to override the automatics in the last vital seconds before the first manned touchdown on the moon when he saw – out the ‘unnecessary’ window – that the craft was going to touch down on a crater rim. But for this manual override by the astronaut using a skill that was deemed by the experts to be ‘no longer necessary’, the landing would have resulted in disaster, with enormous, some would say unthinkable implications for the United States space program and the USA as a whole.

Long-windedly, I’m just trying to say that current thinking by ‘save another cent by any means’ management, (aided to a large degree by the apparent design philosophy of the engineers at Airbus), is leading our industry inexorably towards a future – and possibly massive – ‘moon crater landing’. And if things continue going the way they’re going, there won’t be enough men remaining within the industry with the kind of ‘unnecessary’ training Neil Armstrong was given who might be in a position to avoid that ‘crater’ when, not if, the industry as a whole confronts it.

[Raw Data]

The only point of being in business is to make money- it is now as it was in the twenties. Most businesses will take any steps they can to reduce costs and overheads and maximise profit. If they don't, their management team is failing them and should be replaced.

The main question is, what does that company then do with its profits- does it pay its shareholders, invest in new equipment, invest in its people? If it does all three, it is probably a good company to work for. If it doesn't, it is like some airlines today- profits to the managers/owners, lots of new kit, not much for the employees.

In any event, the question driving this thread is automation and the elimination of the flight crew from the flight deck (or a reduction in status to observers).

The technology is not yet mature enough to allow this to happen. Even if it were, the regulatory framework doesn't exist to allow it to be implemented. Such a uses of technology almost certainly contravenes a lot of existing legislation (certainly in Europe); the sort of legislation that protects the rights of the consumer. Getting to an automated airliner that flies with no human intervention is almost certainly not possible in the forseeable future for these reasons.

Even if it were, the chances of it being accepted quickly by the travelling public are remote. There is no precedent for fully automated flight; the few other forms of transport that are "driverless" (such as elevators, some trains, airport shuttles etc) are also failsafe- the brakes come on and you stop. An aircraft can never be failsafe.

Even if you could get over the hurdles of technology, regulation, consumer rights, and public acceptance, this technology is unlikely to be cheap. It would almost certainly cost the modern equivalent of Concorde to develop to a satisfactory level. As we all know, few manufacturers can stump up the development costs, and few airlines can afford the end result. The cost saving you achieve by eliminating the pilots is simply not that big.

For certain, none of the second-tier airlines could afford to participate.

And finally, the first time one of these pilotless aircraft crashes, the whole programme will be thrown into chaos (and there will be accidents, as there have been (spectacularly) with FBW aircraft.

Yes, the pilot is not foolproof from an ultimate safety point of view (which is why there are two of them, after all), but there is still a way to go yet in the quest to eliminate pilot-induced accidents (which are, by the way, extremely rare in any case- especially in the West). If the primary purpose of technological advance was safety, we would be doing something about the carnage on the roads. We don't, because it isn't profitable.

I really do believe there is life in the old wetware yet. Automation may come- especially as the rise of nanotechnology and biocomputing continues- but not in my lifetime (than God).

[Carruthers]

Just about every accident we have had over the last decade has been pilot error. We are developing terrain mapping, automatic weather radars (because the 'pilots' cannot be relied upon to turn them on or use them effectively) automatic landing systems, navigation, TCAS, three dimensional sattelite systems etc, etc. All to get the pilot out of the loop as much as possible. So the moon lander needed some help 34 yrs ago, well there you go. Presumably then we can't trust Cat 3 landings where the pilots are passengers? No one is talking about a pilot less flight deck, but what will be his role and what will he be worth. The 'cock ups' we witness in training are invariably because the pilots decide to fly it rather than manage it, mostly because most of them don't effectively use the systems available now. At the moment they are a necessary but very fallible requirement, but the writing is on the wall.

[Kaptin M]

You're getting a little carried away with yourself there, Carruthers, when you write,We are developing terrain mapping, automatic weather radars (because the 'pilots' cannot be relied upon to turn them on or use them effectively) automatic landing systems, navigation, TCAS, three dimensional sattelite systems etc, etc. All to get the pilot out of the loop as much as possible.
Not to mention that old adage that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", or today's version, "All you need in Life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure"!
The systems you describe were developed to bring the pilot more INTO the loop by supplying him with the maximum information available, thereby enabling him to make a more accurate assessment of his available options at all times.

Just about every accident we have had over the last decade has been pilot error. Just about every accident since aviation-time immemorial, has been due to pilot error.
Admittedly the pilot's role has now become one who is more of a monitor of the equipment he has elected to use - or not use - depending upon prevailing conditions, than as solely a skilled airman.
With all of the information provided, he is then able to combine that with his own appreciation of prevailing conditions and make any necessary modifications he considers necessary.

It's fine to believe the "blurb" of manufacturers promoting their fail safe, automatic equipment, one of the better examples being the driverless train that the Malaysians introduced in Kuala Lumpur about 6 years ago. On one of its early runs, it failed to stop at the final station and crashed into the buffer at the end of the track.
I wonder what sort of "buffer" the airlines are going to be able to use as their last fail safe - apart from the pilot! (The one with the gold belt buckle, Ray Bans, and shiney wings on his neatly pressed shirt, Carruthers :cool: )

[nexeuk]

Carruthers
Your envy obsessed rants are becoming a real bore! You have lost any semblance of rational argument by your wasteful, windup inspired drivle. The last time i came on and said much the same thing the guy ended up in prison (aka the guvnor!).
People like yourself make this site an irrevelent bore! Please go and get a life - that's it, rant over, next posting in a couple of years.

[Raw Data]

Carruthers

You either need to define your terms, or stop making sweeping generalisations. "Pilot Error" (or human factors as we call it these days) can include just about anything. You could justfiably say that Sept 11 was "pilot error" if you wanted to (in the sense that they made an error in allowing access to the flight deck).

All that automation will do is create a new class of error. You could call this "engineer error" (as in software engineer).

You also need to get out a bit and actually talk to some pilots and development engineers. The truth is that the technologies you mention are not intended to get the pilot out of the loop, rather they are intended to get the pilot further into the loop- by providing him with more and/or better information, and relieving him of some tasks that allow him to better monitor and manage the flight.

The "cock ups" you mention are more down to the fact that training is designed to allow pilots to safely explore their, and their aircrafts, limits- so that the same errors won't be repeated in real life. We call this "learning" and it isn't a sign of pilots being unable to handle their aircraft properly, or not understanding their systems.

In the end, the pilot is there to not only achieve a safe routine operation, but to cope with the (rare) situations that automation couldn't resolve. Any experienced pilot will tell you about those...

[unwiseowl]

More tea please Carruthers.....

[jmc-man]

Chocks Away,

you said above
It's also sad how the equation has been stuffed up.
It takes 4 key ingredients to run an airline:
1) Airframes
2) Crew to operate ( PILOTS& F/As)
3) Fuel to go
4) Pax



I think you have some of that arse about face. Pax (no.4) should in fact be No.1. They, after all, pay the dosh to cover the cost of the other three. Having said that, Freight will do just as well ( or perhaps even better)

We forget something in all this discussion. Our industry is driven by the number of people who will pay to travel, and how much they will pay to travel. Everything derives from that. Whether we, as a profession, like it or not, significantly more people want to fly these days because they can do so by paying significantly less. And while we, in our noble profession, with our finely honed skills, might feel that we are unloved and underpaid, bear in mind that there are significantly more pilots in employment these days then ther ever were before. And ultimately it is the PASSENGER who decides how much you will be paid, by deciding how much your services are worth to him in his ticket price.


The profit margin of a "successful" airline is in the order of 3% of revenue. Go figure

[Neo]

We're all still in the departure lounge Starbucks waiting for Gollum to get his act together.......

I've now tried all of Starbucks fare apart from the Venti Mocha with a shot of almond essence, so I'll have one of those and then mosey on over to Costa and start on their stuff.

Still no sign of movement from Carruthers new auto-airliner, but then I'm not expecting anything on that score for at least 50 years.

Oi Gollum, turn the lights out when you're done....

[loaded1]

Hello Carruthers.

Just back from another day at the coal face.

Not sure what your motives are, but WE CAN GUESS, and, as with every day at work, I'm reminded that you are talking a load of old codswallop. Too tired to rehash all the previous + more.

You know it, whatever your motive, and so do we.

Chinese pilots over here in Europe, someone said too?! Sure.

They need to live and eat too. Whats the plan? Stick 'em in the company dormitory and pay them with food stamps for the company store like miners in the nineteenth century goldrush?

Right.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Pilots are dirt cheap and thats a fact.

Per passenger the co-pilot costs about 80p per sector and the Skipper about £1.40 (using a low cost airline model).

Now, you tell me, how much is the infrastructure, the development and the maintenance going to cost to replace the two bods at the front? Clearly more. Therefore:

Total automation of commercial airliners is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in response to a question that was never asked.

WWW

[Carruthers]

We have had aircraft fly through CB's causing serious damage and injuries. Aircraft colliding despite TCAS warnings. Aircraft crashing into runways because the lights went out. Aircraft hitting the ground on airfield approaches. Aircraft hitting mountains. All avoidable through automation. It doesn't matter what it costs, safety will demand that crew error incidents are minimised.Yes weasly, pilots are cheap, but the consequences of their mistakes aren't. Yes there will be pilots up front, someone has to taxi the thing, but the point of this thread is what does the future hold. The job will change with the introduction of new technology, low cost is here to stay, already the terms and conditions are changing rapidly, short term contracts, part time, hire by the hour. It is getting very difficult to find worthwhile contracts in this business. You can claim all the skill in the world but ultimately you are only worth what the market will pay.

[Kaptin M]

All very good examples that you cite, Carruthers - incidents and accidents that occurred IN SPITE of having all of the lights, bells, and whistles on board (in some cases), and which also help to highlight the ADDED responsibilities the position of pilot carries because the vehicle which he controls moves around several different axes as opposed to land and sea craft, and at speeds far in excess of them as well.

As you aptly point out, there are far, far more possibilities for screw-ups in an aircraft than any other form of transportation.
That was the point you were making - wasn't it? :cool:

Yes, the job has - and shall continue to change. However, in case you weren't aware, we are ALREADY paid by the hour. I'm employed to fly xx hours per month - if I fly less, I still get my xx hours worth of dollars - after all, I don't make the schedules or the rosters, however I am available as my employer wishes me to be be.
More than xx hours per month, and I get "overtime" - just like any other job.

Skill in aviation has traditionally been measured by a pilot's flight time, and that is what is the usual criteria when jobs are advertised.
Certainly there are far more pilots available with lesser skill/hours for all jobs - but it's the EMPLOYERS who won't touch them, even though they could, and pay them less.
But they don't!

[Chocks Away]

Copied that JMC-Man... you got me. :D The list wasn't really in any particular order, though I agree with you on the freight!

Carruthers... you may be forgetting that all this "fantastic" AUTOMATION, you're on about, is derived from PROGRAMMERs... :eek:

Programmer, Pilot, it all still comes back to Human input... the pilot being on the spot and in a better position to evaluate all the stats. No computer (to my knowledge) has been able to be substituted for this pilot/(human) decision making and logic.

Sure we have EGPWS developed and a "Windshear Radar" (sensing temp dev.s) being developed and other amazing technology but this is all TO AID THE PILOTS in THEIR decision making process.

It shall remain that way for some time... (i hope :} )

[prospector]

I do believe that the point to be made is not as you have assumed. I for one would not agree that there is far more opportunity for screw ups in aircraft. After all the Air Traffic Control system is there to avoid midair collisions, among other tasks. All RPT aircraft have a minimum of two drivers, a requirement for continuation training and checking, a tough medical to pass, and flight and duty time limitations to comply with. Compare that to a driver of a big trucking rig, sharing the road with a lot of for the most part semi trained car drivers, many not even licensed, closing speeds of over 200k's, passing distances at time measured in centimetres, if one hits a bus full of pax the casualty rate approaching that of many RPT aircraft loads.
No, I would not agree that there are far more possibilities for screw ups in aircraft. Many skills required for both tasks, different, agreed, but in the scheme of things the chances for screw ups, due to numbers involved for a starter, would have to be with other modes of transport.

Prospector

[Maximum]

Yes there will be pilots up front, someone has to taxi the thing,

why?.......you seem to be contradicting yourself there C.

I may have missed it, but in the interests of a level playing field, may I ask what you do for a living Carruthers?

It'd be interesting to hear your views on how your own occupation will develop in the future.

[cargo boy]

Perhaps Carruthers would like to explain to us how his glorious automation would have handled the recent incident with a BA aircraft missing the ground by only a few feet thanks to the crew spotting that the approach aid was giving out an erroneous signal. The human element realised there was something wrong and initiated a go-around. Had the a/c been left to follow the signals using all it's automatics there would have been a lot of bits of aluminium and human remains for the likes of Carruthers to blame on pilot error.

Even allowing for the latest technology used in remotely piloted vehicles and cruise missiles there are regularly 'incidents' where these devices lose the plot and leave a smoking hole in the ground far from any intended arrival point. I am fairly confident that we are secure from being replaced in our jobs by automatics for the forseeable future. I'm also fairly sure we'd see a lot more automation with 2D transportation such as shipping and rail, possibly even road before we see public confidence in the pilotless aircraft. Carruthers speaks from a position of abject ignorance when he states that we are all doomed. Sounds more like the wishfull thinking of a desperate manager who has exhausted all the tricks he was taught at the Harvard School of Business Management to reduce costs.

Like most managers, he knows the price of everything but the value of nothing! :hmm:

[AtlPax]

...(Raw Data) Even if it were, the chances of it being accepted quickly by the travelling public are remote. There is no precedent for fully automated flight; the few other forms of transport that are "driverless" (such as elevators, some trains, airport shuttles etc) are also failsafe- the brakes come on and you stop. An aircraft can never be failsafe.

Actually, even elevators aren't fail-safe.

Read here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ibsys/20030828/lo_kprc/1761433)

Quote from above article:

The hospital's elevators have four separate safety systems built in. All four had to fail at the same time for the accident to happen, officials said.

And you think people would fly on an automated airplane? Ha!

[Ignition Override]

Wow! There are many well thought-out, eloquent points made on this topic by Kaptin M, Wiley and many others.

As for automation, I read that the A-320 etc required an interesting redundancy in each primary control axis, i.e. the elevators, ailerons, rudder (for some of the laymen). Anyway, an article in either "Business and Commercial Aviation" or "Professional Pilot" (US magazines) claimed that each axis had two or three different components, and each component is produced by a different software company.

Automation requires an awareness of more issues than the older technology requires, at least at specific times and in certain phases of flight. An FO on a recent trip stated that a particular very popular series of modern airliners has an FMC and other aspects of automation, which in general are worshiped by many pilots today, but which are less logical to use than is the case with a very popular competing product, and it demanded much more time to be familiar and comfortable with it. Those are his words, not mine.

If the highest levels of cockpit automation are without a doubt the best solution for flight safety's problems, then how can operational "mode confusion", partial automation, lack of adequate training aids (for years no desktop computer available, with which to prepare for any very fast-paced, fixed-base sim period at 0600-oops!) and insufficient operational line training (bean-counter limitation$ or not...) support this automation mantra which has been chanted for years? Wasn't some motivation for all this mostly to get rid of the Flight Engineer expense and allow the ultra-modern aircraft to be operated by airlines where the crewmembers had not much line experience, never mind the much better payload-range and (not always)thrust/weight ratios etc? Pardon me if this stepped on anyone's toes or pride.:)

[Carruthers]

What do I do, training Capt Boeing, 14500 hrs. What alarms me most, watching pilots screw up. Cargo boy, the BA incident would have been avoided with Sat Nav, it should be compulsory, hopefully, soon. But 90% of smoking holes are crew induced and thus avoidable. Even with existing technology you can sit and watch it all be done for you from rotate to touch down, well some can, the intricacies of the FMC are beyond most in my experience.
Kapt M, ability/ competence is not directly related to how long you have sat in the seat. Employers, as you have pointed out will go for the cheapest option, and that doesn't automatically mean unsafe. Some very expensive 'western' pilots have screwed up on many occasions, TFN springs to mind. I'm not saying we are all about to be put out of a job, it's the nature of it that will change and the rewards. I would not advise a career in aviation now.Oh and Atlpax, don't get on a Airbus, there is nothing between the pilot and the controls but computers!

[Fubaar]

With respect, fellow posters, I think most of you have been dragged off on a red herring hunt by the esteemed 'Carruthers'.

'Wiley', in his excellent post that started this long thread wasn't bemoaning the advent of a crewless airliner - he was trying to sound a timely warning that the way things are going, the airline flight crew will become more and more merely monitors, untrained or not kept current in the skills required to manually override the automatics. (I just remembered that "Wiley's" original post is on another thread and that 'Croozin' linked this thread to in his original post.)

If we got back to that argument, I for one agree with "Wiley" that that day is far closer than I'm comfortable with.

[Maximum]

Carruthers, many thanks for the information. However, it has left me somewhat confused. I understand many of the points you make, but it is the apparent glee with which you make them that seems rather at odds with your position. For someone in a position of responsibility and dare I say it power over your fellow pilots, in your capacity as a training Captain, you do give the impression of holding the majority of them in contempt. Yet I assume you're not contemptuous of your own abilities.......

Coming back to the original thread, as WWW has said, because of the cost of developing a pilotless aircraft, in the medium future the problem doesn't exist.

However, I do think increasing levels of automation represent a huge threat to the job in terms of sheer boredom. If we do become 100% systems monitors, then I believe the job will attract a different sort of person, and for the rest of us will become intolerable.

[OldAg84]

As SLF- I fly the low-cost carriers 60-80% of the time. Why? I typically get better service for my money. They are friendlier and more flexible. Just this week I flew AirTran (nee Valujet). The A/C are new, the cabin crew courteous, and I'm not disappointed in not getting a meal- I wouldn't get one on a major anyway. As a matter of fact, I changed my itinerary and they didn't charge the change fee and they bumped me up to Business "First" Class (although the cast on my leg and the light 9/10 travel load may have helped. I later noticed the counter agent working the pushback. This is compared to Delta where the get you for every change and standby fee they can. So why would I fly Delta if I don't need too? Requisite Caveat- I know a lot of good Delta people- I know it's the management.

Second issue-safety. The Valuject crash was a chain of events- possibly due to low paid poorly trained people- but it certainly doesn't happen at the lower-fare airlines alone. There are plenty of incident reports tagging everybody-if you know where to look.

[unwiseowl]

training capt? Carruthers? Must be a deeply wierd personality.

[Neo]

Unwiseowl -

Personally I think Carruthers is "being economical with the truth" when he claims he is a Training Captain wtih 14,500 hours. I would not expect such garbage from a 100 NPPL as I've heard from him.

He sure doesn't know jack sh1t about the Airbus.

AltPax -

Rest assured about the Airbus FBW system. There are a number of levels of redundancy in the system, and to my knowledge there has only been one case of Airbus FBW landing in line service in one of these redundant modes.

If Carruthers thinks Boeings are safer, ask him about rudder hardovers in the B737. On second thoughts, best not as he isn't a pilot despite his claims to the contrary.

[willbav8r]

Haven't read all the pages, so forgive me if this has been mentioned;

Here in the US one can visit a supermarket, and check out ones' goods via a scanner. All by yourself. Insert credit card. Leave.

That don't get much usage in these parts (although is slowly catching on....)

As a punter, I have two choices: an automated a/c, or one with a coupla drivers up front. Ticket costs no more than 25% difference.

I know what choice I'd be making.

It might be possible, and it might be better, but it will take several generations to get over the fact of wanting human intervention.

Just an innocent bystanders 0.2.

[Chocks Away]

...point taken Will but I think you'd better read the previous 6 pages as well.
:ok:

[FU24-950M]

Guys & Gals,

Auto all you like. But no computer will every replace an Ag ( thats agricultural -for those who have never done an honest days work in their life!) pilot. Terrain data bases may be good but they cannot see power or tel phone lines, trees at the end or in the centre of paddocks (fields) or account for the winds in valleys that are opposite and random in strenght.

So BUS drivers - because that is all you/we are, automation will some day see the end of you all.

How many trains do you ride WITHOUT DRIVERS?

Enjoy the good life while it lasts.

Me, I'd rather sow a 100 tons off a hill strip 500 m long with a 30deg slope and a cross wind.

NO computer will EVER replace the FLETCHER.

Back to Lala land kiddies.:ok:

[Neo]

FU24-950M -

No, but a guy in a dirty great big tractor and spray gear might replace you sooner than a computer replaces an airline pilot!

[Raw Data]

Actually, ag aircraft would probably be the first to be automated. Differential GPS nav and forward-looking anti-collision radar are relatively easy, and in the event of a catastrophe, in all probability the only victims would be a pilotless aircraft and part of a field. Given that the aircraft could be a lot smaller without the pilot (no requirement for a cockpit or a seat!), it would be the ideal candidate. In fact, a development of currently available pilotless aircraft could fulfill this role.

It is the human factor (ie passengers) which make the difference to the argument.

Paradoxically, Mr Fletcher himself was an advocate of such things. Of course, he never intended his creation to be an ag aircraft, it was originally designed for passengers.

Mind you, who would want a Fletcher when you could have a Cresco... ;)

[FU24-950M]

The BAe146 WILL be REPLACED BEFORE ANY FLETCHER OR CRESCO is replaced.

Long live the FLETCHER::ok:

[currawong]

Stop hitting the key board so hard FU24, we hear you.

No computer will ever replace a Fletcher - because no one is dumb enough to make one that looks like a wheelbarrow:E

As long as you/we are cheaper, we will keep a seat.

BTW, RPV's already in use in Ag - in Japan of all places...:yuk:

[Carruthers]

Going of on tangents folks. The question is not whether there will be someone up front, for the foreseeable future there will be. The point is what will be his / her role, to what extent will traditional piloting skills be required, to what extent will the job become that of a systems manager and what will it be worth?

[Raw Data]

Oh, is that what the question is...

Simple. Pilots will become, more and more, systems managers. Their traditional piloting skills will become eroded, but they will still be required to demonstrate the same skill level (more or less) as they do now- for the same reason that the CAA seem to like examining for equipment and techniques long since retired.

Despite attempts to cut salaries by cost-conscious airlines, they will remain relatively high- the main reason being that the pilots are still responsible for the lives of their pax. A secondary reason will be the ease with which a poor pilot can close down a company by crashing.

Interesting to note that, in the main, the low-cost operators actually seem to pay very well. They also seem to have high training standards, according to those I know who fly for them.

Bottom line- who would do the job, along with all the crap that goes with it, for a low salary?

Who would want the job if all they got to do was manage a computer?

Glad we got that sorted out.

And, for FU24, I seem to recall, not so many years ago, vast numbers of ag aircraft being laid up indefinitely in NZ. This at a time when the 146 was in full production... at lest you can use the Pawnees and Agwagons for towing gliders.

Have to say, though, that its a great utility aircraft- hope I get the chance to fly one one day, although I suspect the days of ag aviation are numbered...