Unnecessary first officer... [Archive]

infrequentflyer789

19th Mar 2010, 14:56

I'll tell you what, my boys. There are about 10 freight trains a day that rumble by my house, on their way to Chattanooga from Birmingham, AL.

They operate in one dimension, they travel 70 mph max and they are worth about one tenth of one O'Leary's jets. And they carry a crew of three. When they get down to one occupant we'll start talking about airliners.....

Bad analogy. Lots of trains around the world run with one driver only, and there are a few systems that are fully automated (including pax handling). Trains are much easier - if there is a driver at all, a "dead mans handle" that simply applies the brakes is for all practical purposes fail-safe. That doesn't work in the pointy end of a jet and I am sure MOL knows it (I think he just likes winding people up whenever he's been out of the papers for a while).

smo-kin-hole

19th Mar 2010, 15:02

Someday there might be a pilot-less plane in big trouble and we will have an inflight video of frantic passengers pounding on the forward cabin wall trying to "reboot" it or something as it plummets down. Something like those stories of nightclub fires where the door only opens inward.

Can technology detect ash plumes, multiple bird-strikes, a bomb? It's a long list.:(

CATIIIBnoDH

19th Mar 2010, 15:07

However, don't forget that in the past those stories also developed in a way that in the end, dispite all the discussions, we lost our navigators and later our beloved Flight-Engineers..... Never say Never....

VH-UFO

19th Mar 2010, 15:12

Human psyche simply wont allow pilotless commercial operations to happen.

Stick two 737's on the tarmac, tell the SLF that aircraft A is pilotless and aircraft B isnt, and i would bet my house i know which one would be filled first.

Go on Mr O'Leary, i dare you to go ahead with it, and watch Ryanair fall of the face of the earth within 3 months.

45989

19th Mar 2010, 15:26

Perhaps dreary o'leery will stick to his horses and not bore us with more of his self serving bullsh1t

Graybeard

19th Mar 2010, 15:36

Dynamite Dean As pilots just moan all the time. Im sure every single boss of an aviation compnay would like that ..

Guess I'll have to be the first to write it: the difference between a jet engine and a pilot? The jet engine stops whining when it arrives at the gate. :)

411A

19th Mar 2010, 16:14

Yup, gotta have that First Officer.
After all...otherwise, who is going to keep the blue side up whilst I'm puffing on my Havana and reading the newspaper?
Never mind....snoozing.:}

Besides, they do all the work...I just sign the tech log and flight release.

Moldioldi

19th Mar 2010, 16:23

Um sorry mif I'm missing something but what do SOPs state for MOLs big silver birds? I am sure the CAA and RAMP Checkers would be well pleased to find one guy up front. Also has anyone tried a single handed take off/landing? I also remember a certain FO catching the Captain before he went for a quick dive through the windscreen hole south of Reading

green granite

19th Mar 2010, 16:27

It's not a new idea from MOL, perhaps he read this paper from NASA published in 2005. : http://human-factors.arc.nasa.gov/ihi/hcsl/publications/Deutsch_SinglePilot_2005.pdf

169west

19th Mar 2010, 16:34

...flying in the atmosphere will require only one pilot but in space?
Virgin Group (http://www.spaceshiptwo.net/index.html) will require 2 pilot with an Astronaut Transport Pilot License!:)
Let's go and get a SpaceShipTwo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Ship_Two) Type Rating!:ok:
http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/07/WK2_cockpit_close.JPG

Nigd3

19th Mar 2010, 16:40

Before the usual knee jerk reaction to anything that MOL states, maybe have a think about it.
As has been said, the technology exists already to fly from A to B without much interaction from the human element. If the human element cannot be removed completely, why not reduced?
What about the Hudson river incident and the other successful landings where the human element saved everyone, whilst this is true, what about what is widely reported as 70% of incidents and accidents being attributable to pilot error.

If systems are becoming too complex for humans to operate easily without having the inside knowledge of a systems designer, then maybe its time for at least one of them to step aside. The other becomes a systems monitor to step in should the programmer have forgotten that line of code that would have covered the one failure case.

I know the above is fraught with difficulty and its own set of problems but before its blindly rejected back up your disagreement with rational arguement.
Maybe if it hadnt been MOL saying it, it would be more credible.

SloppyJoe

19th Mar 2010, 16:51

Yeah what computer could land on the hudson?? What computer could do what eithiopian did recently, what computer could do what lion air did somewhere near ujung airspace, what computer could do what happened in Teneriffe? What computer could do blah blah blah blah blah. There have been far more accidents due to pilot error than there have been remarkable saves due to the human input. The only intervention at present is pretty much down to weather and the takeoff the rest it can do by itself. The takeoff could quite easily be done by a computer and airbus are introducing TCAS that commands the FD and thus the autopilot. It is only a matter of time before we see two crew ultra long haul with systems that monitor the working pilots eye movements in case he falls asleep. It will then go to one pilot for everything and the main reason is just for the pax piece of mind. I think it will be high speed electric trains before we see fully automated passenger aircraft. Hate to say it but I think the beginning of the end has already begun.

Ptimat31

19th Mar 2010, 16:54

What about a captain incapacitation ? That's remind me a story happened to Turkish not so long ago !

Like in Airplanes, the flight attendant will make a PA call to find out if someone has a flight licence ! :)

One Outsider

19th Mar 2010, 16:56

If systems are becoming too complex for humans to operate easily without having the inside knowledge of a systems designer, then maybe its time for at least one of them to step aside. The other becomes a systems monitor to step in should the programmer have forgotten that line of code that would have covered the one failure case.
The Flight Engineer returns!

Nigd3

19th Mar 2010, 17:28

dcbus

Thanks for coming up with an interesting point. However I have the following question that maybe a CEO or accountant could ask:

1 - What training or experience provides the pilot the capability to save the time/fuel on those legs that a computer could not be programmed to also do?

2 - If a single pilot was still in the cockpit, why could he not also do these cost saving measures, if he were to intervene in the running of the flight?

I'm not trying to wind you up or annoy you but that argument wouldnt really stand up as it is

SloppyJoe

19th Mar 2010, 17:53

why couldnt controllers as they pretty much do already give shortcuts and better altitudes when available. It is only the pilot that asks and the controller that approves it so why have a pilot if that is the only argument?

rubberduck

19th Mar 2010, 18:14

well I think its a great idea and, of course, it will require some flight proving to show just how safe a single pilot commercial airplane operation can work !!

First we need a nice shiny 737 from the Ryanair hangar.
Next a suitable pilot !
not one of those wingeing Line Captains though .....
- I know ! .....what about saving a load of dosh and get one of those "pay to fly" ATP cadets ... give him a quick groundschool and a few circuits and I,m sure Mr O,Leary will be eager to fly around Europe for 6 months showing just how safe it is.
(I assume he does passenger in his own aircraft !!)

come on MOL ,show us the way!

Daysleeper

19th Mar 2010, 18:21

There have been far more accidents due to pilot error than there have been remarkable saves due to the human input.

Really? Care to back that up with some statistics? Of course you can't because the vast majority of events where the pilots intervene become non events because the pilot's intervened and thus are not reported outside of MORs and company reports and are not picked up by the media.

The flightcrew are the last line of defence, the goal keepers in the system. The system stretches all the way back from the regulators to designers to manufacturers to operators to maintainers. None of those elements with all their potential human failings change by deleting the pilot. Yes you remove one potential source of error , but you also remove the last line of defence.

When a football team lets a goal in almost every case it is not just the goalkeeper who has "failed" - it's the same in aviation.

Nigd3

19th Mar 2010, 18:22

dcbus

Glad to hear you are not wound up.
However I am still not convinced in your argument.

Do you not think it is/will be possible for a computer to undertake complex routing and fuel burn calculations dynamically and then request via data link flight plan changes?
This also does not answer the single pilot question, who could also intervene and request them.

Desk-pilot

19th Mar 2010, 18:27

In the past two weeks I've had a hydraulic leak I spotted on a walkaround which didn't show up as low quantities or warnings on the flight deck. A computer would have taken off and then suffered a hydraulics failure - a portentially big issue when airborne. I spotted the problem on the ground before the computers even realised anything was wrong...

In a second incident we had an AHARS failure - essentially one of the the computers that drives the on board speed/pressure altimeter etc displays. What would the computer do when a part of itself fails? I know what we did - no problem.

I say sack O'Leary and replace him with a gerbil as Loughborough University did for the president of their student union some years ago - you'd save millions. Two channels 'yes' and 'no' would allow the gerbil to make all the same deicisions O'Leary does - I mean isn't executive management nothing more than a series of yes/no decisions???

I rest my case.

Desk-pilot

Nigd3

19th Mar 2010, 18:41

Desk pilot

Im glad you spotted the hydraulic leak.
What makes you sure there would have been a complete hydraulic failure? Possible yes, definate maybe not, impossible to tell without knowing the how "leaky it was. Presumably it wasnt showing up as a warning, as it wasnt yet one. I would guess the computer would fly the aircraft after hydraulics failure in the same way that you would do, using the emergency procedure.

What makes you think that a single failed AHRS (or ADAHRS) in a dual or triple unit system would be a problem to a computer, or its back up?

Do you have any quantitive evidence of how often computers go wrong?

45989

19th Mar 2010, 18:53

From looking at the last few posts here.......
Spelling is obviously not a requirement or grammar
A Level of English is needed for a licence,though not for spotters evidently!

Nigd3

19th Mar 2010, 19:01

45989

Don't worry, a computer spell check would have corrected your own post for its grammatical errors.

Now back to the subject........

DIA74

19th Mar 2010, 19:11

I think all the speculation about "is it technically possible or isn't it", sidelines the major commercial issue. Would your bog standard pax WANT to fly on an aircraft with ONE or NO pilot? Regardless of how well travelled they may be, people still have that "how does it stay up in the air" feeling at the back of their minds. Okay, a train takes the control away from the pax, but I think at 38000 there is a more acute sense that their lives are in someone's else' hands, because coming down to earth makes a bigger bone crunching bump than coming off the railway line. I think few people would be willing to fly without the reassurance of pilots up front, so it would take a braver man than MOL to actually put this into practice.
The argument that pilot error is responsible for XX per cent of accidents is spurious. As with all news reportage, it is only disaster that makes headlines. How many times a day across the world is a potentially nasty situation averted by good pilots?

45989

19th Mar 2010, 19:19

Bugger!
Not a fan of computers, or dumbed down aircraft. Cheers.
In the real world we say
"A" is for Awful
"B" is for Better

ZeBedie

19th Mar 2010, 19:27

Don't give him the oxygen of publicity - arseh0les thrive on methane, not oxygen.

45989

19th Mar 2010, 19:36

Good laugh at that!
I do hope you are a spotter rather than another pay to fly wannabee?

fly_antonov

19th Mar 2010, 19:38

The general flying public, unlike what pilots and aviation-guru' s think, is ready to accept a crewless cockpit.
Pilots are the major cause of deadly accidents in aviation.

Pilots solve problems everyday and prevent events from developping into incidents and accidents. With today' s UAV and IT technologies unfortunately, most of these issues can be solved by a computer or a remote pilot assisted by hundreds of camera' s and flight parameters datalinked to him.

Computers can run checklists faster and more reliably than pilots.
They can also be designed to "think" for the right solutions depending on scenario. Computers can land airplanes very accurately and better than CAT 3C standards if they are designed to do it.

There are situations you need pilots for.
Cap. Sullenberger, the BA 777, Ryanair' s birdstrike, etc...
UAV pilots can be trained to deal with such situations.

But I can mention more situations where the pilots were the cause rather than the hero.

There are published articles from major aircraft manufacturers who claim that no-crew cockpits are already possible to achieve, notably Alenia, a major aircraft manufacturer and a 1st tier Airbus and Boeing subcontractor.

Eventually, we will transfer to single pilot on-board, UAV operations. I am convinced that the 2-men cockpit will become a thing of the past starting 2025-2030, with the arrival of the new generation of narrowbodies.

No matter what we stand for, the trend of declining flight deck crew has been pursued over the past 50 years, and will be pursued in the next 50 years. We went from 5 to 2 and I would be very surprised if we don' t at least go from 2 to 1 in the next 50 years.

I agree MOL, those first 5 meters behind the front bulkhead are such a waste of space. :D

Now allow me to get out of the pilot jobs protection committee' s way.

170to5

19th Mar 2010, 19:59

I was told once that if you have humans at the start of a process (designing the aeroplane), you need humans at the end of the process (flying them).

Flying is too unpredictable an activity to be able to rely on a computer which can only react to things that it is programmed to react to...and in the place of the headline about the pilot who screws up, it'll be a headline about the computer program not being able to adapt to the situation it needed to adapt to.

I'd never trust an aeroplane without pilots, not only because I'm one, but because the human mind is able to look at a problem in a completely different way to computers...and as many, if not more, crashes that have been caused by pilots, have been avoided by them.

Why people listen to this cretin ranting on about how he can cut costs further by screwing employees over when he's creamed, from my understanding, 500 million euro off the top of the company, is beyond me. Sadly, plenty of people who fly with them would have difficulty reading a Spot the Dog book, so are unlikely to ever be enlightened about the man himself. Sorry, Himself.

potkettleblack

19th Mar 2010, 20:01

To anyone who is under the illusion that the public will want a pilot well that will last all of a few seconds until MOL offers free flights. Then stand back and watch how many of the great unwashed are willing to fly off to some back of the ar*e destination that they didn't really want to go to anyway with no one up front. Sure there will be a few that will stand by their principles of so called safety and will fly on other carriers. That will last a few years until all the other airline beancounters follow suit. Then there will be an EASA directive to pull the remaining pilots after studies will have shown that it is safer not to have a human behind the sidestick/column.

The savings would be huge. No more pilots/cc going out of hours. Also with an integrated ATC solution aircraft could be held on stand or remotely with engines off until the software had worked out the best time to launch in order to get favourable FL's/airways, avoid slots, holding etc. Minimum fuel will be taken on every flight since holding will become a thing of the past. After mods to nose gear, driverless tugs could take aircraft out to the holds, similar to the robots that they use at the ports. The technology is largely there.

soddim

19th Mar 2010, 20:17

Whilst I sympathise with most of the arguments against flying without pilots, I must point out that was not what O'Leary was contemplating.

The issue was about single pilot operation versus two.

If humans are more reliable than computers why not one pilot?

Flying Mech

19th Mar 2010, 20:33

A lot of intresting theories on MOL's latest publicity rant but what nobody has mentioned so far are some cold economic facts,

1 - FR is only 1 airline allbeit far too large for most airline industry peoples liking-Hence imagine going back to Boeing or Airbus and asking for a single operator or unmanned flightdeck Aircraft, Think of the cost to develop this technology,develop it for a freighter,get the FAA & French DGAC to accept it,etc - min25 years

2 - what cost to insure this new type of A/C against hull loss & other pax & CC Liabilites due to " unforseen events"

3 - As I see it right now the only way you can get pax to fly on it with a Hostie as the most senior onboard in charge of all events is to offer free flights

This is just more media fools preaching unthought through MOL propaganda

4 - When the beancounters do the sums on this complete package there is no way it can stack up on paper . ever mind the real world.

Just my tuppence worth in this theoretical financially unviable nightmare as it is proposed. But if anyone else is better informed I challenge them to prove me wrong.

I think Hell will freeze over due to Inverse global warming side effects before this becoms a reality:ok:

RB311

19th Mar 2010, 20:36

FlyingOfficerKite

19th Mar 2010, 20:49

So a typical day for the 250hr 'Captain' (because they would be Captains straight out of training) would be:

1. Brief the crew (Captain's job)
2. Complete the flight planning (First Officer's job)
3. Check his own calculations (no First Officer)
4. Order the fuel (First Officer's job)
5. Do the pre-flight (maybe Captain's leg)
6. Do the walk-round in the rain (DEFINATELY the First Officer's job)
7. Complete ALL the cockpit checks (partly the Captain's job)
8. Taxy out and do all the R/T (partly First Officer's job)
9. Fly ALL sectors (including reaching the controls he can't reach)
10. Complete PLOG on all legs
11. Handle ALL emergencies single-handed
12. Configure and land the aircraft single-handedly in ALL weather conditions (in spite of the fact he might have only 250hrs)
13. Taxy in and complete ALL checks

After 6 sectors the Captain will drive home and think - S**t I should have taken that job as a 'bean counter' (Chartered Accountant).

My daughter's done that - I always knew she was more clever than me!

KR

FOK

PS: I'm sure MOL is relaxing with a stiff drink, amused at the constenation he has once gain caused by 'off the cuff' remarks! Have one for me - it's all good sport - I'm sure you can't believe how easy it is to wind up these 'steely-eyed knights of the sky' who think so much of themselves, consider themselves so intelligent yet earn only a fraction of your income. It must be satisfying to know that the barrow has well and truly been upset once and for ever!

captplaystation

19th Mar 2010, 20:50

Why is it on PPRuNe that as soon as we get rid of one tw@t (S.F.L.Y. / superman 32 being two recent examples that spring to mind ) up pops another one .

Nigd3 . . well done :D , you are now THE obligatory tw@t that always exists on this forum.

I don't imagine this post will last long, but enough is enough, taking the place of our missing contributor Rainboe I feel it has to be said.
Now kindly p1ss of back to your home pc flightsim :ugh:

Actually, no, I think being a Friday night I am being a bit beligerent, so, for that I apologise, you are not being a tw@t, but you are indeed (if you have any experience of two crew ops) being a little unimaginative.
Sometimes , even when the bod next to you is competent AND speaks the same language well, situations can go "up the creek" remarkably quickly.

If your only means of communication (single crew) are with a computer :eek::ooh: well, I know how frustrating I can find a keyboard sometimes, and I see the problems some guys have already have in communicating with Monsieur Airbus, so I don't think reducing the human/computer ratio in favour of the computer is likely to yield benefits.
And NO pilots, well, feel free to board before me brother, I will wave you Bye Bye from the terminal.
Again, please excuse the abrasive "entree" :oh:

Razoray

19th Mar 2010, 20:54

I have two comments for this most entertaining post...........

1 pilot flights?

Massive Heart Attack!

No pilot flights?

Auto pilot disengage! Lets see what happened with AF447 before we get rid of the pilots.

:\

rubberduck

19th Mar 2010, 20:57

soddim

I think the only thing O,Leary was contemplating was more champagne from the Cheltenham bar this week.
His horse ,War of Attrition,suffered fatigue in the final furlongs ! (sounds familiar!)
Apart from the obvious windup and free pubs in the papers he once again shows his total contempt for his employees and for the pilot community in general.

*Zwitter*

19th Mar 2010, 21:10

How about just one pilot and a dog?

The dog being there to make sure the pilot doesn't touch anything.

(old joke I know)

pcdf

19th Mar 2010, 21:22

Buran (Russian space shuttle) flew to orbit and back without pilots in bad weather conditions (Buran (spacecraft) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29)). The risk was reduced somewhat by having no crew at all and by building a HUGE runway in a remote location.

International Space Station supply ship automation turns out to work reasonably well, although emergency remote control possibilities saved the day in a few cases (e.g. Progress M1 (http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proessm1.htm) - progress M1-4 part)

Of course none of these ships or their technology are cheap in any possible way, but public funding pays for technology development and both Boeing and EADS (Airbus) are big players in the space industry.

I for one would accept pilot-less flying if an independent authority can produce convincing reliability statistics and backup plans.

However, as passengers might object to flight delays of several years, pilots will be in control for some time to come.

Rushed Approach

19th Mar 2010, 21:29

The argument that 70% of aircraft accidents is due to pilot error is one which I have always thought is a great credit to pilots as a whole. If you compare flying with road transport, over 95% of accidents are due to driver error. So road transport ought to be the first mode of transport that gets the driverless treatment.

I think in time there will certainly be one pilot aeroplanes operating large commercial flights - the technology will surely exist to fly the aircraft remotely from the ground in the event the on board pilot keels over - a job for the "duty pilot"?

I don't buy the argument that pilots save the day many times on a daily basis that you never get to hear about. This is true, but the on board computers would do exactly the same, so this is not a deciding factor.

The fact is that computers could probably fly aeroplanes more safely than pilots can (and I say this with a couple of decades of airline experience and a vested interest in this not turning out to be true). Yes there will be the odd occasion (e.g. Hudson) where the computer states that an exception has occurred and everyone dies, but those very few occasions will be countered by it not flying into the side of a hill every so often when it gets confused about the navaids it's supposed to be using, because it won't. Likewise it will not press on in poor weather, but will simply divert when the intended destination weather falls below a pre-determined threshold. It won't be able to even move off the gate with ice on the wings. It knows the recall actions for unreliable airspeed and has all the data in its memory to get safely through the pitot icing incident without getting disorientated, flustered or even slightly worried.

In effect, all the decisions that we make as pilots every day can be programmed into a computer that never has a bad day, is always objective and dispassionate, and never gets tired or runs out of hours to bring the jet back.

There will be pax opposition of course to start with (not to mention pilot opposition), but like all new technology people will simply get used to it in the end.

We're probably talking 15-20 years mind, but it will come.

aguadalte

19th Mar 2010, 21:43

When a Pilot seats on his cockpit and buckles-up his seat-belt he "offers" his own life as a warranty and proof of his proficiency. (A UAV pilot would only do his job when trying to safely land a crippled UAV, full of pax, knowing his own life would never be in danger...which is a completely different thing...).

Any pilot with a minimum of experience knows that flying is a very complex and dynamic task. (I didn't say it was difficult, but there are so many parameters to cope with, millions of them). Its more easy to send a rocket to Mars than to make a self-sustained new generation commercial aircraft able to fly without incidents to every suitable runway on Earth, full of passengers.

Aircraft do loose liability with age and computers do not gain flight experience. There are emergencies that need to be interpreted because the monitoring systems (ECAM on Airbus A/C) are unable to properly identify them and rely on the pilots to cope with. Manufacturers are always finding bugs on their won aircraft systems (we receive hundreds of OEB's per year). Aviation is a dynamic world that will always need human handling. If the technology is there, why then do aircraft manufacturers tend to leave to the pilot the handling of several emergencies which lead to auto-pilot disconnection?

I'd love to see the millions of inputs that would have to be entered into the "new generation pilot-less airliners" each time one of those would have to fly to third world countries like Zaire, Angola, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc, whose facilities are always under-maintained or simply in "maintenance".

I know that pilot error is the main cause of airline accidents but they are also the main obstacle to an accident to happen. Thousands of accidents did not happen because pilots were simply there, and did their job. And the number of accidents that did not happen are hugely compensating the industry for their presence in the cockpits. But pilots are humans and have their weaknesses and needs. Lack of resting can lead to lack of attention or awareness and that is why we do need two in the cockpit.

benjamin.dordoigne

19th Mar 2010, 21:43

MOL is just doing this for publicity, he is constantly causing stirs. I do like to read what he has to say. CEP Chief executive MOL is just doing this for publicity, he is constantly causing stirs. I do like to read what he has to say. CEP Chief executive plonker!

In the Encarta dictionary, plonker means‘ 1, an offensive term that deliberately insults somebody’s intelligence or common sense’ or ‘2 an offensive term for a penis’. I prefer the latter for Mr. O’leary!!

I am only being factious!:O

captplaystation

19th Mar 2010, 21:48

boredcounter

19th Mar 2010, 22:05

I want to enter into a contract with FR to be carried from A to B?

Let see, to give money to FR to buy the contract, I pay a fiver per pax per sector, unless I have the right pre-pay CC.

To check in, also I believe a requirement, I pay a fiver per pax, per sector, if I do it at home on my own PC!

Of course, should I wish to pay and book via a premium phone line, I can at least double this.

Wake up and smell the coffee MOL, a fiver per pax, per sector, per Pilot with a one time minimum quid per annoying cabin announcement per pax per sector.

Simples

fly_antonov

19th Mar 2010, 22:24

Why are you guys talking about MOL?

Read this article about GE already conducting trials for integration into airliners.

Unmanned flight tests to advance airline reduced-crew concepts (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/28/336641/unmanned-flight-tests-to-advance-airline-reduced-crew.html)

During the test flights, Shadow pilots performed lateral path guidance to airways, flew direct to waypoints and issued airspeed and altitude commands during climb, cruise and descent. "The precision of navigation in manoeuvres was much better than can be done by pilots in the cockpit," says Hoover.
Hoover says the technology, which will eventually allow air traffic controllers to perform a real-time trajectory negotiation with an UAS, could also have far reaching consequences for manned aviation.
"The way an FMS is operated on a commercial aircraft is that air traffic control gives information to the pilot, which he finger codes into the FMS," says Hoover. "Once we develop the ability for FMS to control an aircraft without the pilot in the aircraft, and if it [the FMS] also has the ability to negotiate trajectory with the en route ground stations, you could think about having a single pilot in cargo aircraft."

We cried when the flight engineers went, we will cry again when the other 2 go.

pilot82

19th Mar 2010, 22:32

Can't believe that these people are running in aviation business

mercurydancer

19th Mar 2010, 22:42

I'm all for a degree of automation if it prevents an Aeroflot pilot from doing a "Crazy Ivan" into MRV as happened to me recently.

I would trust automation a lot more if things like Vista operating system worked properly. Computers are still at the inherently stupid phase at the moment in that they cannot learn. They cannot handle anything outside of the parameters set. How the parameters get set is in the hands of humans. It is more than conceivable that operational parameters will be set by humans who have a different motive than the safe operation of the aircraft. In short, a bean counter decides the limits of such things as fuel load for a particular flight plan. All well and good but something non-automated happens, such as bad weather, which no computer has ever managed to predict, then it goes pear shaped.

Also, is every aircraft in the world going to be automated at the same time with standard equipment?

fireflybob

19th Mar 2010, 22:56

Well I have asked this one before but here we go again! There are wind limits associated with autoland - typically max 15 kts crosswind.

Will we ever see an autopilot that can autoland on RW 27 when its 310/28 gust 42 kts?

Sorry I think we are decades away from fully automated flight, let alone pilotless a/c on pax flights. Far too many variables! Many of the comments on this thread show total ignorance of the airline pilots task, thinking it's just a question of pushing a few buttons and throwing a few switches. There is a huge amount of planning and revision that goes into every flight which we, as pilots, take for granted,

As for "pilot error" I thought that term had been consigned to the waste bin decades ago. Accidents are a product of the total system. Pilots dont go round making errors deliberately.

Rushed Approach

19th Mar 2010, 22:58

If at 100' on the approach the aircraft has an engine failure due to bird strike the computer will assumedly do what the F/O in Ciampino did , and initiate a go-around. When, several seconds later the second engine calls it a day, will it have the experience to "modify" an approach sufficiently to land on the rapidly vanishing runway ? ? as the Capt did

The statistician would say that even if the computer crashes the aircraft in that (demonstrably very rare) instance, ON AVERAGE it will perform better by not making all the other types of mistakes that are attributable to human error. A programmer would say that his computer can quite easily switch into a different subroutine if the second donk quits, just as the Captain allegedly did in the incident you refer to. It's not rocket science - with no power the aircraft looks for the safest place to land (and is quite capable of landing on a road or in a field if necessary, avoiding the obstructions that the panicked pilot simply hasn't the capacity to account for - it even knows it will miss the power lines or stop before the hedge).

The trick of course will be to convince the public that the aircraft is safe, even though once in a while it will throw its hands up and go "tilt". The fact that it doesn't in the other 95% of cases (whereas human pilots do statistically) in theory will make pilotless aircraft safer. Of course the kit will need to be there on the ground and this will mean that many destinations would be unsuitable at least at first, but certainly on the major European routes between capitals for example it seems a likely scenario in 15-20 years.

There seems to be an inherent line here that computers can't assimilate as many inputs as a human can, but the fact is that they can do this now and have been able to do this for decades. They can also assess situations and review a thousand outcomes from a scenario in a millisecond. All that is missing is the ability to program the code the way a pilot thinks. Once significant resources are directed to this task (if they aren't already being so directed) ALL aircraft will in theory eventually have the brain of the most experienced Captain that ever lived.

Yes it will take time, but to say it won't ever happen is absurd.

18-Wheeler

19th Mar 2010, 23:05

If he just wants to pay the one pilot to be on the aeroplane, wouldn't it be safer and easier to just pay two pilots one-quarter of what they get now?

(runs and hides!)

sweeper

19th Mar 2010, 23:14

the next step is indeed the groung controled pilotless commercial aircraft.
my problem is my memory of evacuating from a very large well run simulater centre in the uk (i think 35 sims) because some idiot in a JCB dug up an underground cable.
the twit was,nt even terrorist motivated let alone trained!
some ideas are just stupid:eek:

greybeard

19th Mar 2010, 23:39

The real problem with this one pilot concept is

If it was actually technically approved there will be someone out there who WILL DO IT on his own for less money than anyone gets now.

Pilots are their own worst enemy.

very glad to be retired

:ok:

mercurydancer

19th Mar 2010, 23:53

Rushed approach

"There seems to be an inherent line here that computers can't assimilate as many inputs as a human can, but the fact is that they can do this now and have been able to do this for decades. They can also assess situations and review a thousand outcomes from a scenario in a millisecond. All that is missing is the ability to program the code the way a pilot thinks. Once significant resources are directed to this task (if they aren't already being so directed) ALL aircraft will in theory eventually have the brain of the most experienced Captain that ever lived."

Computers can only assimilate the inputs that they are programmed to accept. They exclude anything else. A computer is restricted to the sensors which are attached to it. Humans are too, but are far superior in discriminating which sensors are failing and to what extent. Humans make sense of seemingly unrelated observations and sensory inputs.

Computers can also get trapped into logical circles and trap themselves into subroutines if not crash altogether.

As for your comment "all that is missing is the ability to program the code in the way a pilot thinks" is a difficult concept on many levels. Human brains are really cheap to produce and very effective in what they do. (Thanks Mr Clarke for that thought) If you program a computer with the way a pilot thinks then you assume that there is a super pilot without fault which is an absurdity. All pilots of all type ratings and backgrounds have differing views and influences on the aircraft they fly and have flown. To assimilate the knoweldge of a WW1 Sopwith Camel pilot to a F15 pilot is unattainable.

A computer can appreciate what information it is given. It is dependent upon data being current and appicable. A computer-flown aircraft may think it knows where the power lines are but that is dependent on human systems giving that data to the computer. I still believe that a computer flown aircraft will be capable of flying into a power line not because it is not visible but has not been updated with current hazards.

I would also repeat my comment earlier that human influences such as profit margins will never be excluded from flight operations and may actually reduce safety.

galaxy flyer

20th Mar 2010, 00:19

I suspect in twenty years, airliners will have two pilots, but one of them will be at a remote control console, just like UAVs. The one "airborne" pilot will be assisted by the UAV pilot who could land the plane just fine. The USAF is producing a large generation of guys who will fill the positions with lots of experience. The AF is planning on large parts of its operations, even outside of combat vehicles, being unmanned or single-handed.

GF

Huck

20th Mar 2010, 00:29

Checkboard

20th Mar 2010, 00:30

I've flown a 737 single pilot, on passenger carrying commercial airline operations (in effect). It's not difficult, and military pilots have no trouble doing it every day of the week. The only trouble would be staying awake, with the silly locked cockpit door rules in place these days. :rolleyes:

Save a load of cash on CRM training, as well. :p

Bullethead

20th Mar 2010, 00:34

ability to program the code in the way a pilot thinks

Surely if you manage to achieve this level of programming then you are only going to replicate the 'pilot error' rate rather than imrove it.

Regards,
BH.

Nigd3

20th Mar 2010, 00:50

Captplaystation

Well I haven't been called a tw@t for a while, well not to my (virtual or real) face anyway, or even played a PC flightsim, other than a cursory "whats it like then" but I do apreciate the irony in the accusation taking into account your username. The mini rant you had is irrelevant in the end but it gave me a little smile :ouch:.

I wait to read the rest of the thread with interest and see how open minded the pilot profession will be.

cwatters

20th Mar 2010, 08:40

I don't think he was suggesting you only need one pilot. I reckon he was suggesting it might be possible to get away with only paying you when you are actually doing the flying. In his mind one of you is really just on "standby". Likewise when the autopilot is on he can switch both to the standby pay rate :)

paull

20th Mar 2010, 10:08

If we just ask the SLF at time of booking if they have at least a PPL, then at a pinch we should be able to get by with just the one on most flights. Cross training the cabin crew would be another way "Just let me get into the cruise and I'm pop back and serve the coffees in a minute" :)

fly_antonov

20th Mar 2010, 10:19

Funny thing about those UAV pilots, though.

You put them in charge of an aircraft full of people, make them responsible for the lives they hold in their hands, and guess how much you're going to have to pay them? About as much as an onboard pilot....

A single UAV/UAS pilot can be in charge of several aircraft.
Or you can assign UAS pilots for specific tasks like approach and landings, take-off up to 5000ft, and en-route. En-route, computers can do most, UAS pilots could then be made to respond to warnings/cautions.
I imagine that you could manage 30 flights with only 10 UAS pilots.

With GPS, 4D situation data and doppler, a UAS pilot could probably do the same thing as the Hudson ditching but in thick fog.
The same for the Ciampino forced landing.

A computer can be made sensitive enough to land you a B737 in a 50kts, gusts 75kts crosswind automatically.
The presence of pilots in the cockpit has been limiting automation.

WojtekSz

20th Mar 2010, 10:59

@fly antonov
you may be right and maybe not. Automation is helping a lot in all repetitive tasks. Not helping in situations which has not been PREPROGRAMMED before.
All AI (automated Intelligence) efforts are still in preliminar stages only.

if we assume that driving a car in less difficult than flying a plane
and we look around for how long and how many times we have seen experimental cars driving around test plots
and we look around how many automated cars we see on the streets - i haven't seen any recently but maybe i was not looking hard enough :)

so it is good to discuss single pilot flying as it will (possibly) enhance our common knowledge base but there is still some time before it may commercially happen. So even if processors run faster it doesn't make them more intelligent...

Checkboard

20th Mar 2010, 11:29

A computer can be made sensitive enough to land you a B737 in a 50kts, gusts 75kts crosswind automatically.

Rubbish. :hmm:

fly_antonov

20th Mar 2010, 12:07

Rubbish. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

It is not, because a computer can detect and respond to a deviation from GS and LLZ alot faster than a pilot. If it is not being done today on Cat3 systems, it is to give the pilots sufficient time to process and monitor what the autoland system is doing.
The resulting lack of sensitiveness limits its crosswind landing capabilities.

if we assume that driving a car in less difficult than flying a plane

Driving a car is alot more complex than flying an airplane. It is far easier to automate something that has a fixed reference and a path that can be calculated for a long time rather than something that has constantly changing references and paths.

But if you insist and car buyers want to afford it, yes, fully automated, autonomous car technology already exists.

Driverless car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car)

I think that the public will be more reluctant to shift autonomous driving cars because they don' t want to replace their own hands and mind by a computer.
But if the industry decides to replace a pilot' s hand and mind by a computer, people would not mind a second.

Sciolistes

20th Mar 2010, 12:15

It is not, because a computer can detect and respond to a deviation from GS and LLZ alot faster than a pilot.
No it can't mate. Really it can't. The limitations are much lower than for a manual landing and any half decent pilot can do a better job than the the 737 autopilot and auto-throttle, except for the cruise and low vis.

Graybeard

20th Mar 2010, 12:16

I was told that Boeing demonstrated a 767 Cat III autoland in a 35 Kt crosswind - on one engine. That was 15 years ago.

GB

blueloo

20th Mar 2010, 12:24

Really...that would be impressively scary.

I see 767s regularly do autolands on clear days with lightish winds....25% of them are very scary.

fly_antonov

20th Mar 2010, 12:28

Quote:
It is not, because a computer can detect and respond to a deviation from GS and LLZ alot faster than a pilot.
No it can't mate. Really it can't. The limitations are much lower than for a manual landing and any half decent pilot can do a better job than the the 737 autopilot and auto-throttle, except for the cruise and low vis.

Exactly my point. Today' s A/P and A/T' s built-in sensitiveness has been reduced to give the pilots the ability to monitor these systems.
That' s why these systems have an embarassing lag.

In reality they can be made sensitive enough to react to a micrometer deviation but pilots would not be able to monitor such a sensitive system.

It' s matter of philosophy. Do you build the machine to the human' s processing capabilities, or do you build it to go beyond?
The simple calculator is already an example of the machine going beyond the human being. But do you question its reliability when you use it?

sleeper

20th Mar 2010, 12:46

I was told that Boeing demonstrated a 767 Cat III autoland in a 35 Kt crosswind - on one engine. That was 15 years ago.

Did they do this in actual flying conditions in a real aircraft, or was it simulated?

blue up

20th Mar 2010, 12:59

This new Ryanair fleet, will it have autothrottle systems built by Toyota?

DIA74

20th Mar 2010, 13:12

I can see the billboards now. ONE MILLION SEATS FREE on RYANAIR ! use our website, £10, use a card to pay, £20, baggage £50, check in £75, and - oh at the end of the booking you get a new OPTIONAL choice - Iif you want one pilot to fly you add £5, if you would like 2 pilots to fly you, add £200.

MOL and FR's philosophy has always been NO FRILLS. Those who want them, should pay for them, so everyone else gets a lower fare. So - two pilots upfront is a luxury - let those who want to feel safe pay for the privilege. "Ladies and gentlemen, in the case of decompression an oxygen mask will NOT drop from the panel over your head unless you insert a 1 Euro coin"

Oh, interesting thought - would MOL himself be happy fly on an FO free B737? It's all done by computer, programmed by MOL himself (those programmers are far too expensive to employ) so nothing can ever go wrong..go wrong..go wrong.. go wr....

blueloo

20th Mar 2010, 13:23

Huck

20th Mar 2010, 13:27

You folks know the difference between involved and committed?

In a ham and eggs breakfast, the chicken's involved, but the pig's committed....

You may be hire UAV pilots to monitor two or three flights at once. But they will be involved, not committed. If they kill a widebody full of passengers, it will absolutely ruin the rest of their day.

If you want the same level of commitment as pilots sitting in the pointy end, you will pay through the nose for it. Combined with the telemetry, the redundancy, and the extra automation involved, the cost/benefit will never match up.

Going back to my train example. Sure, technology exists to operate unmanned trains. But it costs more than a crew, plain and simple. (If you think it is a union thing you need to study american labor since about 1970.)

I'm a functional test pilot for the world's largest cargo operation. I spend my days testing the very automation you're talking about. I've seen firsthand what an autoland system can do to kill you. Sure, they can be made safer. They can also be made out of cast gold but we're not going to pay for that either.

fireflybob

20th Mar 2010, 14:39

Today' s A/P and A/T' s built-in sensitiveness has been reduced to give the pilots the ability to monitor these systems.
That' s why these systems have an embarassing lag.

Really? Please can we see the written evidence for this?

Checkboard

20th Mar 2010, 14:46

Exactly my point. Today' s A/P and A/T' s built-in sensitiveness has been reduced to give the pilots the ability to monitor these systems.
That' s why these systems have an embarassing lag.

In reality they can be made sensitive enough to react to a micrometer deviation but pilots would not be able to monitor such a sensitive system.

Do you actually read the things you are writing? So a human pilot can monitor a degraded system making slow, large errors, but couldn't monitor a perfect system with "micrometer" accuracy making no errors. :rolleyes:

It's amazing the faith people have in automated systems - and the "sci fi" ideas they have of their capabilities.

Graybeard

20th Mar 2010, 15:15

I was told that Boeing demonstrated a 767 Cat III autoland in a 35 Kt crosswind - on one engine. That was 15 years ago.

Sleeper:
"Did they do this in actual flying conditions in a real aircraft, or was it simulated?"

It was a real approach and landing at Reykjavik, IIRC, demonstrating the newer autoflight computers developed for the 747-4.

GB

Cpt. Sunshine

20th Mar 2010, 16:00

Someone earlier on quoted the example of train services operating using total automation. With a train, this is suprisingly easy. The DLR is a good example of this. You have one train which runs on one track. You can program the train to stop at certain points along the route. Even here, however, there is a trained staff member on board who can stop the train.

However, with aircraft there are far too many variables. For totally automated flight without pilots, we would have to redesign just about everything in our aviation system. Firstly, taxiing from the gate to the runway is difficult. Either every plane would have to be totally automated and interconnected or none at all. Any plane that did not exactly follow the taxi instruction, messes your whole system up. Then there is evaluating issues like Rejected Take Offs etc. The only computer powerful enough is the brain. End of. To be able to compute information in that time requires excellent situational awareness and experience.

Then of course, when airborne, how do you negotiate with weather systems? The TCAS is simple enough but the weather is one of Mother Nature's biggest variables. Then there are fuel issues. The nearest alternate is simple enough, when talking geographically. But you have to evaluate issues like runway length, weather conditions, company facilities, passenger comfort. Again, only a human can make these sorts of decisions.

On approach, how does the computer know when the approach requires aborting and going around. Sure, these occurences would be less common but when you have so many computers interconnected, if something happens to one plane, it will require something else to happen to another to ensure safety. The Artifical Intelligence (AI) involved works off rules. For the flying to measure up to that of a real pilot who may just be operating the systems, the rules would include a hell of a lot of "IF" statements and also quite a few contradictions. There would doubtless be a Catch 22 situation somewhere within the rules.

You cannot phase in AI planes because for it to work, every single aircraft worldwide needs to be interconnected. (For those who doubt this, think about Microsoft Flight Simulator with a traffic add-on. The aircraft are programmed to do specific things but YOU are the unknown in the equation. The amount of mess you cause by not doing everything the computer tells you shows that without every aircraft automated, the whole AI would fail). For a plane to work without pilots, it would have to work without ATCOs (again variables beyond the intelligence of computers). Also, the second anything outside of normal flight happens, the computer is completely stumped.

The immense number of man hours required to create the level of AI required would make any cost saving almost non-existant. You'd also need to replace or upgrade every single aircraft worldwide to ensure that they could all cope with the technology. Imagine the expense.

Even if you just flew with one flight crew member, what if he/she fell ill or needed a second opinion. The idea of having two pilots is to monitor each other. If someone messes something up then someone else is there to rectify it or point it out. If you had one crew member then nothing would happen. You would end up with the error being carried forward therefore detracting from every other decision made until the end of the flight.

I will present my final argument against automated flight which I use all the time. Would YOU let your kids get on a plane without a pilot?

Automation is here to stay and will affect the lives of pilots worldwide but it will never replace us. The unknowns and variables of flying require a human brain to compute them. Sure, the systems will become more advanced and the job of the pilot will be reduced further into the realms of systems monitoring but the pilot must be there to take control. We are now running a skeleton crew of two flight deck crew, it cannot be reduced for safety reasons. The second an idea like this was put infront of the FAA or EASA, no matter the charisma or charm of the Irish Bullyboy presenting it, whoever proposed it would be laughed out of the room.

GunkyTom

20th Mar 2010, 16:30

not a pilot so a simplistic view - without pilots, who will be looking out of the window and see the flock of birds or obstruction that would require a GA?

opherben

20th Mar 2010, 16:47

A second pilot is manning passenger aircraft with 10 seats and more, primarily as medical spare. While onboard and to retain his piloting ability, he alternates as PF. While automation has reduced pilot workload and increased navigation accuracy, a second pilot is still very useful for workload sharing and a watchful eye, due to inherent human error making.
While MOL may be a superb businessman, taxi driver and tax specialist, his flight experience gives him little ability to understand the above so no such nonsense is uttered in public.

Green Guard

20th Mar 2010, 17:07

- without pilots, who will be looking out of the window and see the flock of birds or obstruction that would require a GA?

"Without pilots scenario", may come later.
Here the subject is flight with ONLY one pilot (unnecessary first officer)

PS
When this happens, all studies about the "TEEM", "MultiCrewCockpit" and "CRM", may just be unnecessary as well....

Gus Hansen

20th Mar 2010, 17:16

An excellent and detailed post by Capt Sunshine which explains the situation very well but as usual the KISS principle applies as illustrated by GynkyTom's short but sweet post.

Single crew is allowed on smaller aircraft but I lost count of the number of times my PAX asked me what would happen if I were to die at the controls (I know I worked hard and looked tired sometimes but never thought I looked that bad ;) ).

fly_antonov

20th Mar 2010, 17:49

Do you actually read the things you are writing? So a human pilot can monitor a degraded system making slow, large errors, but couldn't monitor a perfect system with "micrometer" accuracy making no errors. :rolleyes:

It's amazing the faith people have in automated systems - and the "sci fi" ideas they have of their capabilities.

They don' t make slow, large errors.
They wait very long before acting and they act very slow.

The problem is that the system requires it to be like this, because the system is built with the philosophy that the machine is not reliable and that the pilot must remain in full control of the machine and be able to react when the machine goes wrong.
But if you don' t make it that way, the pilot has no perception of what the machine is doing.
That is for instance what happened with that B737-800 in AMS. Because the pilots came in too fast and that the A/T was supposed to be idling, they did not realise that the A/T had entered the autoland flare mode.

That philosophy is why you need double and triple A/P's for CAT3 approaches.

This philosophy comes from the nineties when most of today' s aircraft' s technologies were developped. These machines can be built today with such level of redundancy and low error level that they could fly themselves with immense precision without being monitored by the pilot.

However, with aircraft there are far too many variables. For totally automated flight without pilots, we would have to redesign just about everything in our aviation system. Firstly, taxiing from the gate to the runway is difficult. Either every plane would have to be totally automated and interconnected or none at all. Any plane that did not exactly follow the taxi instruction, messes your whole system up. Then there is evaluating issues like Rejected Take Offs etc. The only computer powerful enough is the brain. End of. To be able to compute information in that time requires excellent situational awareness and experience.

Interestingly, in the article I quoted it was mentionned that ATC would directly control the aircraft FMS. Taxiing from the gate is not an issue.
It' s not easy but you just need to position some lines on the ground and there are already proven systems (see Lexus, Citroen, Opel, etc...) that can optically detect lines and symbols.

Take-off situations can be monitored in operations centers where every aircraft' s systems can be monitored by several UAS pilots who can make the abort call in the event that the computer fails to detect or react to a critical situation (which is very unlikely).

There will be people needed to detect that flock of birds or traffic on the runway. On the other hand, in a fully autonomous and monitored system, accidental runway incursions caused by pilots will become a thing of the past.

If a pilot' s wage is an average $50K per year, the wage saving on each aircraft would be at least ten times or $500K per year, even if UAS pilots will be needed to monitor.
The savings on operations will be at the very least another $1 million per aircraft per year through cheaper insurance, lower operational cost due to increased flexibility in terms of cruise altitudes and climb/descent profiles, increased efficiency through improved aerodynamic design achievable from the removal of a cockpit and increased revenues because the square meters wasted by the cockpit will no longer be.

We' re going through the denial phase, but we must face reality.
How many people were not skeptical about replacing the flight engineer by an EICAS and before that how many people were not skeptical about replacing the navigator by an FMS?

15 to 20 years from now, we will be heading into that direction and 50 years from now we will be there.

Cpt. Sunshine

20th Mar 2010, 18:25

flyantonov,

You make a very good point BUT if we were to go in the direction of piloting aircraft remote you remove the pilots key motivator- fear. Your ability to perform varies depending on your involvement in the situation. A kid answering a question on a piece of homework wouldn't put half the thought into it as they would in an exam- because it affects THEM if they balls it up in the exam. Would the sort of decision making on Cactus 1549/Speedbird 38 etc. be possible if the pilot was not in the aircraft? The human instinct and desire to survive motivates the pilot to do the best job possible. A pilot based remotely will survive (though perhaps not professionally) regardless of his/her actions. Also, being in the aircraft gives you ACTUAL situational awareness and a pilot's feel for the aircraft is difficult to simulate. The split second decisions you make based just on what you can feel from the responsiveness of the aircraft would be impaired by not being on board.

Cpt Sunshine

BarbiesBoyfriend

20th Mar 2010, 18:35

Yesterday, I delayed the 'rotate' call to avoid some seagulls.

Show me a computer that can do that.

aguadalte

20th Mar 2010, 19:04

I'd love to see this spectacular landing of a DHL A300 to be done by a pilotless aircraft, after being hit by a missile in Baghdad.http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/DHL_Airbus_A300B4-203F%2C_BIAP_7.jpg

captplaystation

20th Mar 2010, 19:19

Fly Antonov.
I like your anticipated cost saving due to "lower insurance".

Insurance companies, not surprisingly, tend to be fairly conservative in terms of risk assessment as paying out is not their goal.
Mainly as a result of this, minimum experience levels exist for command positions in most companies, don't think companies like Ryanair wouldn't like to lower the bar (and the salary ) even further for Commanders if they could get it accepted.
What makes you think these self same very conservative insurers are going to rush to accept NO experience in the Flight Deck, Oh and if anyone does (I certainly wouldn't ) subsequently lower the premium.
When the A320 family arrived , it was proclaimed uncrashable by its creators, well, man-machine interface saw that become a bad joke, and even now with the LH X-Wind whoopsy @ Hamburg, it appears the humans at the front end are still discovering new "gotchas".
How many more "gotchas" will there be for your UAV pilots to discover in your "brave new world".
Of course, as a pilot I'll be fine :ok: safe on terra firma, I doubt the pax will find that of much comfort.
Think this will remain in the realms of an accountants/ computer geeks dream for longer than you estimate.

Chronus

20th Mar 2010, 19:25

Ask any left hand seater, did he/she start there. From whom and how does a novice learn and acquire the experience, before sitting on his/her own, speculating his/her navel whilst the gizzmos do it all. I hope no one says the sim.
By the way what about the ANO, and it does not just rest there, what about the rest of the world, will they all go along with such nonsense.

babotika

20th Mar 2010, 20:23

antonov,

I don't know exactly what plane you fly, but the autopilot & auto thrust on the plane I fly are much faster at reacting than I am ... And (without wanting to boast) I'm able to fly all automation off without much difficulty.

But the autothrust doesn't understand things like strong gusts (which I will allow the speed to fluctuate around), or wind shear caused by temperature inversions (which I can see thanks to the haze layer) or even just passing through an adolescent cumulous. One day computers will be able to sense all this, but I think that one day is rather further away than some like to think.

We are, after all, still using turbofan engines which were invented over 30 years ago because they still work and coming up with something radically different would cost too much. As I don't think there is a hugely compelling reason to get rid of pilots I doubt it will happen in the near future... In commercial aviation. Fighter pilots should be much more worried, no one - with the possible exception of the accountants - cares if a hunk of steel carrying bombs suddenly stops reacting.

S.

Piltdown Man

20th Mar 2010, 23:18

Why don't RYR go fully automatic? Think of the saving. No bloody whinging pilots, at least three extra seats for sale. What is the problem? With the savings made on flight crew, RYR could pay passengers to fly on their aircraft and still make money.

PM

Lazy skip

21st Mar 2010, 00:31

Come on be realistic, pilots will always be there because otherwise there will nobody to blame when things go wrong.I'm really looking forward for the first crewless liner to go down, and to see the poor nerd who programmed it to be prosecuted.

p.s: for all the nerds and FS fans, are YOU ready to take this??! This is what we are facing everyday!!

grumpyoldgeek

21st Mar 2010, 00:48

By the same token...he does not need a driver, a secretary, or a wife...it would be interesting if this CEO was asked to implement his ideas by managing British foreign policy,reducing the costs in the civil service and the NHS.

He doesn't need two testicles either.

RetroFire

21st Mar 2010, 03:36

Huck said:

"I'll tell you what, my boys. There are about 10 freight trains a day that rumble by my house, on their way to Chattanooga from Birmingham, AL.

They operate in one dimension, they travel 70 mph max and they are worth about one tenth of one O'Leary's jets. And they carry a crew of three. When they get down to one occupant we'll start talking about airliners....."

Huck- Actually trains operate in all three dimensions, backward/forward, left/right, and up/down would be the third dimension they would operate in due to mountianous terrain. Wouldn't want a runaway train now would we?

The fourth dimension, according to Rod Taylor in "The Time Machine" is, of course, time itself.

But we can save that discussion for some other time (can't believe I said that). :ugh:

blueloo

21st Mar 2010, 05:06

He doesn't need two testicles either

Thats correct...because he can outsource the sex at a cheaper rate....

Taltop

21st Mar 2010, 06:16

don't take this guy serious he is charging 50cent for a piss at his airplanes

kenhughes

21st Mar 2010, 06:21

Until recently, I wrote aviation software and I can assure you, I would be standing in the terminal with Capt Playstation waving any pilotless commercial aircraft farewell.

There is no such thing as truly artificial intelligence - computers cannot think for themselves. Every action they take has to be programmed into their memory cells.

As for single pilot operation of an airliner - yes, it is possible. But I doubt the various civil aviation authorities will ever permit it. (Think back a few months to the CO flight crossing the Atlantic when the unfortunate captain died).

In the spirit of MOL though, I think all are agreed that, apart from take-off and landing, pilots are virtually redundant due to the current state of automation. So, once in the cruise, the single pilot could go back into the cabin and man a trolley, thus saving the salary of a pilot and a flight attendant. :ok:

nishant chander

21st Mar 2010, 06:27

parabellum

21st Mar 2010, 06:43

Fly antanov - sorry, but you are talking tosh. I have said the same on any previous thread here that has suggested the possibility of doing away with pilots, it simply isn't going to happen, if for no other reason than security.

Two obvious scenarios, terrorists attack and take over a controlling ground station, (in a carefully selected location, possibly in a sympathetic area), leaving dozens of uncontrolled aircraft in the air, or, worse still, now being controlled to deliberately crash in various places, they would only need ten minutes and would accept certain death when security forces moved in, or terrorists jam the controlling network and take over control with a more powerful pirate system that has been cloned from the original genuine station, (just to get over the password problem etc.). There are probably several other scenarios too.

(I appreciate that there are several trolls, flite-sim specialists and wind-up merchants on this thread).:)

sharksandwich

21st Mar 2010, 08:19

From todays MailOnline. Perhaps he should have taken command as soon as they realised they had problems?:

[quote]
At times I feel my wife and children would be better off if I'd crashed the plane and died...

By Angella Johnson (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Angella+Johnson)
Last updated at 12:10 AM on 21st March 2010

Former British Airways pilot Peter Burkill is not a man naturally given to displays of emotion.

Keeping calm and controlled is vital when your job is to captain airliners packed with hundreds of passengers.

So he was shocked to find himself in floods of tears while watching television coverage of the British female bobsleigh pair’s terrifying crash during the Winter Olympics last month.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/20/article-1259477-08C3174C000005DC-72_468x353.jpg Peter Birkill with his wife Maria and sons Troy, Logan and Coby: Peter says he feels like a 'broken man' now he can't find work as a pilot

‘I was stunned at just how hard it hit me,’ he says. ‘I felt the athletes’ disappointment as if it were my own. I knew how much training had gone into preparing for the Games.

'It shows how, in just a few seconds, everything you’ve worked hard for can be cruelly snatched away.’
The speeding sleigh’s perilous slide, upside down along the icy track, exposed an emotional fragility over his own brush with death when his stricken Boeing 777 dramatically crash-landed at Heathrow Airport in January 2008.
Only his intervention in the last few seconds – lowering the wing flaps to gain more height – prevented the first major catastrophe at Heathrow and saved the lives of 152 people on board.

He was hailed a hero and, the day after the crash, was greeted by cheers and applause not only from BA staff but from reporters and photographers too.

One commentator summed up the mood: ‘He should be given a medal the size of a frying pan.’ He was even invited to meet the Queen at the opening of Terminal 5.
And yet a few days later all talk was of the heroism of co-pilot John Coward because he had been flying the plane.

And, disastrously for Peter, false rumours began that he had ‘frozen’ at the controls, leaving his co-pilot to land the aircraft. Within months Peter found himself driven out of BA by whispering within the company.
‘There are days when I feel bitter. I’ve lost everything – my job, my home and the secure future I had worked hard to provide for my family. I am a broken man. I feel hung out to dry'
Two official reports into the crash cleared him of any wrong-doing, yet he is now unemployed and unable to find work as a pilot.

Despite applying for more than a dozen jobs to fly 777s in the past 12 months, he has not even had an interview.
Speaking for the first time about how his life has been all but destroyed by the crash, Peter blames BA’s management for allowing the false suspicion to fester that he had done something wrong, damaging his previously unblemished professional reputation.
He says: ‘There are days when I feel bitter. I’ve lost everything – my job, my home and the secure future I had worked hard to provide for my family. I am a broken man. I feel hung out to dry.

'Even though airlines accept that my actions were commendable, they refuse to interview me because the crash was high-profile.
‘It looks like I’ll never get another job as a commercial pilot. I feel cheated. People tell me, “Surely, after what you did, every airline would want you.” Sadly, the opposite is the case.’
Peter, 45, from Worcester, insists: ‘Had I not adjusted the flaps, the plane would have struck a line of Instrument Landing System antennae and probably exploded.

'Yet my colleagues gained the impression that I had done nothing to save the aircraft. They heard that I froze on the flight deck.
‘Despite pleading with BA to issue a statement explaining what happened, they refused. I was told to keep quiet and hide from the media.

Cpt. Sunshine

21st Mar 2010, 08:48

Technically, the track is providing your 3 dimensions and the train with or without driver is following the track. The train will only operate in one dimension forward/back along the track for the entirity of it's journey.

GlueBall

21st Mar 2010, 08:57

The technology is there already to have no pilots..

. . . Yes, as long as it's a normal flight and everything works. No hyd/fuel valve/pump failures; no A/P, A/T snafus; no auto press failures; no bird strikes; no asymetrical/split flaps; no smoke in the cabin . . .

Check with the military and ask how many multi-million-dollar UAVs haven't returned to home base.

As to Captain Birkill: Where is BALPA? Where are his BA colleagues? BA should have him fly right seat for 6 months and let him get his bearings back, then have him resume his captain duties.

Superpilot

21st Mar 2010, 09:43

A truly pilotless commercial jet aircraft is pure fantasy. As has been stated before the complexity required to ensure a safe flight from A to B is immense. It's not a limitation of computers (they can do anything you tell them and very fast). Rather, it's man's inability to be able to program a computer which takes into consideration all known and unknown variables. We can't predict the weather accurately and we can't program unforseen events. Thus no safety expert would ever sign of such a design.

It's a human trait as we advance with technology to achieve more and more with less effort. All industries employ automation and some go to greater lengths then what we see in aviation. However, even with this being the case, every automated system that is responsible for the lives of people or which could cause large scale damage if it fails (dam control, nuclear power plants, train signalling etc etc) usually has a minimum of 2 people monitoring it. Again, the computer is not the limitation, it's man and his capacity to program the computer to get it right in all cases! All the time! This is never going to happen despite the pseudo science field of "artificial intelligence". We can't even create a single living cell, how can we create a computer which "thinks"???

AnthonyGA

21st Mar 2010, 10:04

The technology is there, but the software is not. Unfortunately, human beings have to write the software, because only they understand what the software must do. Or at least they understand in theory—in reality, they typically don't really understand what the software must do, so they write software that fails in catastrophic ways when it comes across situations that it wasn't designed to handle. As a result, even the most heavily vetted software is awash in bugs, even software used for safety-of-life applications. And if you run software like that in a system that has no human override, bad things happen.

That's why you aren't likely to see vehicles with no operators in the near future in most domains of transport.

Sure, there have been a few exceptions: some subway lines are automated now (BART being one of the first, and it had many, many problems). There are UAVs, but they are unmanned mainly because unmanned aircraft don't kill pilots, rather than because unmanned aircraft fly better. And you still don't see unmanned buses, cars, ships, or trains. If a reliable system for running trains without operators still hasn't been put into service, one can assume that unmanned commercial airliners are still a long way off.

I've worked with computers for decades. I trust the hardware … but I do not trust the software. The more experience I've gained, the more I've come to insist on human presence in any system that is used for safety-of-life applications. (That's also why I'd rather fly on a Boeing aircraft than an Airbus aircraft.)

fly_antonov

21st Mar 2010, 10:56

The technology is there.

This is GM' s driverless car:
YouTube - GM's driverless car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG9P8tgR6S8)
YouTube - GM's driverless car (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e32yeI1YSI0&feature=related)

The U.S. DOD holds what' s called the Darpa Grand Challenge where all sorts of driverless cars are exhibited in a competition.

I am not necessarily in favour of removing the pilots out of the cockpit, but with the FAA involved as an interested party, chances are that it' s going to happen anyway.

The technology is there already to have no pilots..

. . . Yes, as long as it's a normal flight and everything works. No hyd/fuel valve/pump failures; no A/P, A/T snafus; no auto press failures; no bird strikes; no asymetrical/split flaps; no smoke in the cabin . . .

When there is a systems malfunction, there is not much a pilot can do.
If you have flaps assymetry, it' s not like pilots take out their toolbox, open the door to go and fix the thing.

All pilots do is they follow a checklist and activate alternate procedures, things that a computer can be programmed to do, even for very complex tasks. You can program a computer to do a single engine failure climb, you can even program it to glide and ditch after an all-engine failure, at the most suitable location according to an integrated database, wind calculations and water surface wave calculation patterns.
During the glide, your computer could do 50 relight attempts where pilots could only do 3.

An airplane, unlike a car, costs several dozens millions, and can afford a full automation. They can afford to pay for the software, and as said before, it is alot more complex to design a software for a driverless car than it is for a pilotless airplane. As a safety back-up you still need people who monitor and can override, at remote locations.

Airbus and Boeing have the same level of automation if you compare same generations of aircraft. The illusion comes from the sidestick vs. control column philosophy, but you can fly an Airbus in direct law without any computer protection.

nicolai

21st Mar 2010, 11:05

As i understand it, the tube trains on the Victoria Line, which were introduced in the late 1960s are able to operate fully automatically without drivers. However the unions never allowed this to happen so ever since there has been a driver on the train making sure it does what it's supposed to do.

Well, the Victoria Line is quite a relevant example, because:
It can drive automatically between stops on the main part of the line,
BUT
Drivers are needed to do some maneuvres in the depot which the automatics can't handle;
Drivers are needed to make sure no passengers have got themselves stuck in the doors as the train is ready to depart, leapt onto the track, or so on;
Drivers are needed to handle any mechanical problems such as having to isolate a faulty system to allow the train to run;
Drivers get the train out of the tunnel if the automatics break down, or direct the passengers' evacuation so they don't kill themselves blundering down a tunnel with live rails and trip hazards;
The Victoria line is a very simple train line, it is almost a straight line except at the depot;
and finally if you are on the Victoria line and you think the train really bumps you around more than the other tube lines, the track seems rougher, etc, that is because drivers on other lines have finer control over speed than the automatics, they slow down over where they know the rough bits of track are, etc - in short, their detailed control of the train is better. That is a comfort issue, not a safety or reliability one.

Some of this is because the train, track, and stations don't have enough safety features to remove some of these risks - such as highly redundant control systems, platform doors to stop people falling onto the track, etc.
Some of this is because the driver is there for exception handling.

Comparisons with flying should be fairly clear:
ILS may allow autoland, but auto-taxi needs a lot more new infrastructure, and it may well be easier to get a pilot to do the taxiing - especially when some prat has left some ground equipment in the taxiway.
It's hard to keep non-automated flying things out of the air anytime soon - and birds will always be there.

cpt_sunshine's comments that rail is easier than air are true; but even rail is not very easy, especially not easy on a large scale in an existing system with existing vehicles that have a long lifetime.

So we may see entirely automated flight, but not in the lifetime of the currently-operating vehicles and infrastructure.

the_stranger

21st Mar 2010, 11:05

And without pilots, the triple7 would have crashed on the highway and the Hudson would have had a wreck on the bottom. There are and will be some situations in which a computer cannot be the one to solve the problem at hand. Flying fully automatic guarantees crashes.

(But, flying with pilots does also...)

Mr A Tis

21st Mar 2010, 11:36

Every now & again, I just need a reminder why I will not fly with Ryanair.
This is one of them days.
Get rid of the CEO & maybe one day I might even think about it for a few seconds.

Huck

21st Mar 2010, 12:27

AS A CAPTAIN , I FEEL FIRST OFFICERS ARE AN ASSET TO ME, and that's what the manufacturer thinks, when he allots specific roles for a PF AND PNF , neither of them is complete without each other, its just my more experience as a captain , that I am more aware and have in the past dealt with the situation before, and my decision making process helps me with that, F/O is equally capable, he has a type rating, he clears his checks every 6 months, he flies with other captain ( good and bad) and is more situationally aware....thats what my feeling is.

Capt. Chander, this is an excellent post, and well worth repeating.

Check with the military and ask how many multi-million-dollar UAVs haven't returned to home base.

A friend of mine at the FAA hints that that number is about 30%.....

LEGAL TENDER

21st Mar 2010, 12:41

AS A CAPTAIN , I FEEL FIRST OFFICERS ARE AN ASSET TO ME

..and they certainly are to the airline, especially when they are paying for the most expensive seat on board. ;)

Sciolistes

21st Mar 2010, 13:18

All, MOL needs to remember the Italian Ryanair incident! ken Hughs, just try flying CRZ in the tropics. Only experience can plot a safe path through the CBs!

widgeon

21st Mar 2010, 14:00

How about the FO sits in the jump seat and only gets paid if the captain gets incapacitated .

742

21st Mar 2010, 14:24

The technology is there.

It just is not very good.

Simply look at the modern UAV accident rate. There are notably more takeoffs than landings, and these are flying fairly simply takeoff/orbit/land missions.

And there is hard data on the value of first officers. A number of the smaller business jets can be operated single pilot, but the insurance costs of doing so are significant. So it would appear that insurance companies, which work on real data and not popular magazine articles and U-Tube videos, have determined the value of a second pilot in even a relatively simple aircraft.

FE Hoppy

21st Mar 2010, 14:38

Quote:
Check with the military and ask how many multi-million-dollar UAVs haven't returned to home base.
A friend of mine at the FAA hints that that number is about 30%.....

absolute rubbish!

http://www.acq.osd.mil/uas/docs/reliabilitystudy.pdf

page 71

aguadalte

21st Mar 2010, 14:54

Not Rubbish its in the document:
Page 23:
Figure 3-1 shows the numbers of Predators, Pioneers, and Hunters lost in Class A
mishaps by year for the period 1986 through 2002. Class A mishaps are those aircraft
accidents resulting in loss of the aircraft (in Naval parlance, “strike”), human life, or
causing over $1,000,000 in damage. These data show a cumulative mishap rate (i.e.,
Class A accidents per 100,000 hours of flight) of 32 for Predator, 334 for Pioneer, and 55
for Hunter (16 since the major reliability improvements in 1996). In comparison to
manned aviation mishap rates, general aviation aircraft suffer about 1 mishap per 100,000
hours, regional/commuter airliners about a tenth that rate, and larger airliners about a
hundredth that rate.

fly_antonov

21st Mar 2010, 15:12

Are you comparing UAV accident rates with airliner accident rates?

What' s the rate of material failure on UAV' s compared to remote pilot error?
Is it anywhere comparable to commercial aviation? What other factors are we forgetting here, like maybe the kind of operations they are flying or even certification, maintenance and operations standards?

There is enough material online to figure that the comparison is irrelevant.

I' m curious, does anyone here honestly, all personal feelings and job protectionism aside, believe that airliners will still have pilots on board in the year 2050?

fly_antonov

21st Mar 2010, 15:40

Proof that I am not inventing this, is that a European consortium lead by Alenia, EADS, Thales, IAI and others have already been doing serious research on this under the IFATS program, similarily to what GE and FAA are doing right now.

ifats-project.org (http://www.ifats-project.org/)

FE Hoppy

21st Mar 2010, 16:44

Not Rubbish its in the document:

My comment was in reply to the made up statistic of the previous poster.

These old statistics show that almost 10 years ago the loss rate was a long way below the 30% rubbish that Huck claimed. The newest has a class a rate of 32 per 100,000 flight hours.

aileron

21st Mar 2010, 16:47

EasyJet/Ryanair F/O's pay to fly anyway.....if the airlines want rid of the F/O....they are cutting of a source of income.

I wouldnt pay to fly Ryanair......Id pay less to fly with them without an F/O.

AnthonyGA

21st Mar 2010, 17:31

I' m curious, does anyone here honestly, all personal feelings and job protectionism aside, believe that airliners will still have pilots on board in the year 2050?

Yes. That's only 40 years away. Changes like this are not driven by advances in technology, they are driven by social and economic change, and these latter factors change with glacial slowness compared to technology.

The technology to fly airplanes without pilots, gate to gate, has existed for a long time. But it isn't really cost-effective, and it carries with it the danger of catastrophic failure that is inherent to all digital systems, and it is socially unacceptable.

Just passenger attitudes alone are enough to prevent pilots from being eliminated. Fear of flying is very prevalent among passengers, and even those not handicapped by fear are still often nervous about flying. Removing the pilots would amplify this feelings by a hundred. Many passengers are nervous enough about not being in control of a flight themselves; knowing that no human being in control would increase their anxiety by orders of magnitude.

And, unfortunately, there might well be a basis for that increased anxiety, because there is currently no way to ensure that software systems are foolproof. There is no way to test them adequately, and any software system of non-trivial complexity will contain bugs that can cause catastrophic failures—failures that could be avoided if a human being is in the loop.

And when and if airplanes ever do fly without pilots, the very last passengers to board will be the software engineers … because they know too much. If superintelligent aliens wrote the software, it might be safe, but as long as human beings are writing it, it's scary.

aguadalte

21st Mar 2010, 17:43

My comment was in reply to the made up statistic of the previous poster.

These old statistics show that almost 10 years ago the loss rate was a long way below the 30% rubbish that Huck claimed. The newest has a class a rate of 32 per 100,000 flight hours.

32 per 100,000 flight hours is faraway from the actual (depicted in the same document) 1 per 100,000 attributed to general and commercial aviation. They do have a long way to run...

I' m curious, does anyone here honestly, all personal feelings and job protectionism aside, believe that airliners will still have pilots on board in the year 2050?

2050...honestly? I really don't care! If it was the discover of some cure to cancer...I would care.

Remember 2001 Space Odyssey? We should have been commercially flying to the moon, but we are already 9 years late...and I still don't care.

Huck

21st Mar 2010, 18:03

My source for the 30% comment is an FAA engineer involved with the integration of UAV flying into U.S. airspace.

The rate loss per 100k hours is irrelevant in refuting said comment.

The actual number is classified.

You got any better data as to total hull loss percentages, post it. But I've known my friend for 20 years, since we were both government flight test engineers.

aviatordom

21st Mar 2010, 20:44

Haha, if this ever went ahead I could predict O'Leary stripping out the right hand side of the cockpit and sticking seats there, with a divider in between to make the CAA happy :}

Shouldn't have said that, don't want to tempt him

fly_antonov

21st Mar 2010, 21:15

How many seats would fit in the front there?
Talk of additional revenue! Cost effective? Absolutely!

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=15934

European Commission's IFATS team unveils unmanned vision of air transport -18/12/2006-Flight International (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2006/12/18/211224/european-commissions-ifats-team-unveils-unmanned-vision-of-air-transport.html)

I' m not in favour of this, but who is going to stop them when they decide to do it?

galaxy flyer

21st Mar 2010, 21:35

The AF UAV rate is high, but these are vehicles aimed for combat, not expendable, but hardly "airline" grade--no backup systems, experimental engines, etc. An airline with one pilot on-board and a virtual co-pilot is quite conceivable, if it can be made cost-effective. We have lost the radio operator, the flight mechanic, the navigator and the flight engineer. In the '60s, the navigator was considered indispensable, paid better than the F/E; then flight engineer was considered necessary. Anyone remember the 3-man commission on the 3-man cockpit? The 737 was designed for a 2-man cockpit, but several US carriers had an engineer anyway. (Yes, union requirement) When companies can show the "virtual" co-pilot saves money, is just as viable and the public wants cheap tickets--the F/O will go the way of his predecessors.

I don't like it, but believe it will happen. Pilotless, no. Hell, I'll bet the marketing spin will make the virtual co-pilot seem safer than having a real one. "Hijackers seize the plane?" "We can take it back!" Both pilots incapacitated due to smoke?" We can land it without them!"

GF

Clandestino

21st Mar 2010, 21:47

I' m not in favour of this, but who is going to stop them when they decide to do it?

Economics, batko.

1) to replace pilots (or train drivers, or bus drivers), you have to build the intelligent computer. AFAIK it's not in the pipeline yet.

2) When (and if ) truly intelligent computers are made, they won't be costing peanuts for first cuople of years (or decades)

3) Even with todays distinctively non-intelligent and allegedly cheap computers, it was cheaper to equip my current type with IRS and HGS and teach me how to play game of circles-caret-column every time RVR goes below 300m than to install proper autoland capable autopilot.

Don't be fooled by HR honchos and rest of MBA gang whining that we pilots are overpaid. Check the actual numbers in airlines' cost analysis. Sobering read, I'd say.

OTOH, if HR honcho has a vested interest in reducing labour cost as it might be linked to size of the bonus, who are we to blame her/him for spouting a bit of propaganda. Innocent fraud, as late JK Galbraith would say.

Legal and technical requirement to deploy a cockpit crew of two limit LCC's respective potential for cost reduction

Writing was on the wall. Seemingly Easyjet has found the way to circumvent the limit for its potential cost reduction.

fireflybob

21st Mar 2010, 22:34

Haha, if this ever went ahead I could predict O'Leary stripping out the right hand side of the cockpit and sticking seats there, with a divider in between to make the CAA happy

And a surcharge for having seats with a forward facing view?

Rushed Approach

21st Mar 2010, 22:49

And, unfortunately, there might well be a basis for that increased anxiety, because there is currently no way to ensure that software systems are foolproof. There is no way to test them adequately, and any software system of non-trivial complexity will contain bugs that can cause catastrophic failures—failures that could be avoided if a human being is in the loop.

This is true, and as someone who used to test military HUD software before becoming a commercial pilot I can tell you that way less than 10% of paths through software are ever tested even once!

However, the point being missed by this poster and others is that the software WON'T make the basic errors that pilots do every day. So yes, the software will encounter situations to which it simply goes "tilt" perhaps 5% of the time there is an incident (your Hudsons, BA 777 at LHR, etc) but the other 95% of the time it WON'T be flying into the hill or going off the end of the runway or taking off iced up etc, etc. In time, even the more miraculous "escapes" from disaster will be built into every airliner's software so that they all have Cpt Sullenberger's "experience". Quite nice to know that your computerised pilot has all the experience of every pilot that ever lived!

So the accident rate attributable to human pilots will be reduced potentially by 95% (hypothetical numbers for the sake of illustration). Most pax faced with this statistic (if proved as the technology is brought in over a couple of decades) will find this a powerful persuader that pilotless aircraft can be very safe.

oxenos

22nd Mar 2010, 14:21

A First Officer is, in effect, serving an apprentice ship. He is supervised by someone more experienced whilst he gains experience, learns valuable lessons and improves his handling skills.
A Captain is a First Officer who has gained enough experience, learnt enough lessons and improved his handling skills to a point where he is considered suitable to take Command
If you do away with First Officers, where will you find your next lot of Captains?
The fact is, gentlemen, that MOL has yet again made a statement which is nonsense, but which brings Ryanair more free publicity.
In the process he has yet again pulled your collective chains.
If he ever suggests launching aircraft from a conveyor belt, I fear Pprune will overload and self-destruct.

silverstrata

22nd Mar 2010, 14:31

Rubberduck
I think the only thing O,Leary was contemplating was more champagne from the Cheltenham bar this week. His horse ,War of Attrition,suffered fatigue in the final furlongs ! (sounds familiar!)

Must have been all those 20 minute turnarounds between races that tired it out.

Mind you, this is very unusual, I thought the nag would do absolute maximum speed to the last furlong, before suddenly slowing down - but not slowing down quickly enough and skidding into the horsebox backwards.

Isn't that the equine SOP?

Norman Stanley Fletcher

22nd Mar 2010, 17:50

oxenos - the most sensible post by far on this debate. Well said

oxenos

22nd Mar 2010, 19:05

Thank you NSF

parabellum

22nd Mar 2010, 19:42

Yes Oxenos, I agree with you 100%, your point and the security issue should ground control fall into terrorist hands are deciding factors.

We humans control automation, it will never be the other way around.

commanchee

22nd Mar 2010, 20:00

Dear Oxenous,
Total agreement with everything you say,people have also
very short memories.Can you remember BA 1950 June 10th 1990 when if
there had been no First Officer ,there would be 94 people less walking
around today and G-BJRT,the beloved BAC 1-11 would be a smoking heap
near Didcott power station in Oxfordshire.Training and professionalism should never be foregotten by management or they do so at their peril !

captplaystation

22nd Mar 2010, 20:20

Sorry, too dumb to post the link via my Mac (technophobe :rolleyes:) but there is a very interesting little news item on www.flightglobal.com about this self same subject, and the possible dangers arising from terrorist/criminal corruption of gps signals (never mind UAV commands :eek: )
Scary stuff.

Chronus

22nd Mar 2010, 20:31

The above title is the acronym for Anti - Submarine Warfare Continous Trail Unmanned Vessel. It is the equivalent, but shall we say the full scale version of the UAV for the high seas. The US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have already invited solicitations for participation. It basically means fully automated, crewless, robot frigates/war ships are to sail the high seas in hunting for submarines. Perhaps it is a matter of time before the technology is adapted and applied in aerial transport, beginning with carriage of freight and eventually extended to carriage of passengers.

See link below:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?id=dd047d79786400fd40b4c14c5a5aeab7

So whilst this thread started with the future fate of the co-pilot, it is correct that it has developed the discussion to the issues of pilotless aircraft.

parabellum

22nd Mar 2010, 20:48

tkazaz - Are you not pulling a rather long bow comparing submarine activity with aviation?

xrba

23rd Mar 2010, 00:35

The thin edge of the wedge is already appearing. A Swearingen SJ-30, and perhaps other types, are already flying with one pilot above the old weight limit for single crew, 12,500lbs I seem to remember, with special FAA approval. It is virtually as complex to operate as an airliner and quicker than most.

So is this the future, and will we go the same way as the old lift operators?

damirc

23rd Mar 2010, 01:43

After thinking about this for some time, here's my 0.02€... The fully automated (0-person crew) airplane gives me the jitters just thinking about it. Yes, there's unmanned trains, there's unmanned submarines - but both of these have the privilege of being able to safely stop when an unpredictable error occurs - quite easily too - stop propulsion, come to a safe stop. The UAV that the armies are also quite a different thing - for one they are a lot slower and a lot more forgiving and also if they're lost the damage is purely financial. Also - if you wish to have them remote controlled from on-the-ground controllers this means each and every airport would need to have a local "remote controlling station" (long distance remote controlling would be a no-go due to high latency issues), which I doubt would ever finance itself. Let's add to that that you would need to have these remote controllers multi-rated for all the different aircraft types (again €/$ issue). Also - since these remote controllers would probably be monitoring several aircrafts at once - their response time to an evolving situation - recognizing, taking control would introduce too much delay to make it practically feasible. Fully automated (not remote controlled) aircraft would need quite a new level of high-availability implemented as compared to the one already implemented. Where you have dual systems now I'd highly suspect you'd have to go triple systems for the most vital elements (the process of arbitration needs to end in the decision of which system is delivering the correct data in case of failure in one of the instruments - where you had the human now to pick the correct data by using his intelligence you'd rely on a pure automaton to pick the right one now - since truly intelligent AI is still in the domain of sci-fi). For true triple system HA you'd need newly developped systems again (just sticking 3 identical systems in will make them both prone to the same system error in case of a bug (which will occur given enough time)) - so again a financial issue. Without babbling too much - I really see no way that it would be financially viable to go this way. One pilot cockpits ... hm ... so how is this supposed to work with new pilots? Just stick him in with some computer support and pray he manages to do everything correctly, does not suffer any health issue and can hold his bladder for the duration of the flight? If he's incapacitated in any way we're back to the problems from the previous paragraphs. Again not a very viable option. And let us not forget that by eliminating the pilots from the cockpit we wouldn't be eliminating the human factor from flying - we would still have humans planning, building and maintaining the aircraft, so the human error possibility would still stay a part of the equation. Where I do see the potential for more technology is more proactive monitoring on the part of the computer - and after being involved in planning, implementing and maintaining computer systems for well over a decade it is still my opinion that computers in aviation should remain advisors and monitors, but never controllers that can't be overridden - of course still being careful not to saturate the crew with information overload. Many human error related accidents could have been avoided with advanced monitoring systems. Let's say Lexington - a simple "takeoff runway" data stream from the tower would've enabled the FMC to warn of incorrect heading while takeoff power was applied, just to name one (pick a random accident/incident and think how an advanced monitoring system could have prevented the situation and I'm sure you'll find that many of them could have been prevented). Sorry for being long... D.

sikalia

23rd Mar 2010, 07:06

What about reducing the cost by flying with out cabin crew as well. It will be self service for the pax, or having venting machines.:ugh:

silverstrata

23rd Mar 2010, 09:05

What about reducing the cost by flying with out cabin crew as well. It will be self service for the pax, or having venting machines.

I hope O'leary was not listening when you said that.

Mikehotel152

23rd Mar 2010, 09:56

And who ensures they sit down and fasten their seatbelts etc etc?

I'm generally with damirc on this issue, especially as the timescale over which any significant changes to the cockpit could be implemented is so long as to be rendered superfluous by other issues.

BarbiesBoyfriend

23rd Mar 2010, 09:58

Mike.

Who cares? They get bounced around a little, they'll soon learn to strap in!

flyboy146

23rd Mar 2010, 17:19

Hi guys! I have just signed up to the forums and am currently finishing my ATPLs. I am completely shocked by utterly stupid O'leary is. I hope he and the rest of you realise that it would be illegal to fly the 737 single crew on commercial operations. It is a simple fact of Aviation Law that most (not all) commercial aircraft must have a crew of at least 2. As far as I can remember this is outlined in Jar Ops, but not sure.

AnthonyGA

23rd Mar 2010, 17:28

I hope he and the rest of you realise that it would be illegal to fly the 737 single crew on commercial operations. It is a simple fact of Aviation Law that most (not all) commercial aircraft must have a crew of at least 2.

Aviation law can be changed with the stroke of a pen, so I wouldn't count too much on that.

flyboy146

23rd Mar 2010, 17:46

Not so I'm afraid. If for example O'Leary really wanted to do something about this he would first have to inform the CAA and try to convince them that it was a viable and safe thing to do. If the CAA did agree which I highly doubt they will (as single crew IFR is highly demanding and not as safe as with 2) they would then would have to notify EASA and ICAO of the difference neither of whom would comply.

Not only this, but how would a pilot flying a 737 or any other large jet for that matter realise that he had made a mistake. There would be no cross-checks, no safety barriers. People would say "Oh well the autopilot does all the flying", that maybe but who programmes the Autopilot on the MCP? The pilot of course.

I really really believe that this is media conjencture. The whole point of having multi-crew is for safety and to eliminate the exact problems highlighted before.

Nigd3

23rd Mar 2010, 18:38

Flyboy146
Welcome to the forums.
Have a good read as to what is being suggested and researched by some major players out there. This is not just MOL spouting off cost saving measures as he usually does.
This has the potential of being fact in the relatively short future, maybe 20 years off, maybe 30, who knows.

WojtekSz

23rd Mar 2010, 19:26

damirc:
i am with you :)
i was also giving it a thought and came to similar conclusions: SAFE full automation is theoretically possible when we have control over EVERYTHING - so it may take some time to achieve.
PNF redundancy - interesting approach from MOL to get some free PR as sincere cost cutter. Definitely he has succeeded and got his message delivered!

Chronus

23rd Mar 2010, 19:47

Parabellum, it seems my posting which you consider an exaggeration has provoked you to a negative response. Parabellum is a noun which was coined by German arms maker Duetsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken, derived from the Latin si vis pacem paru bellum, meaning if you wish for peace prepare for war.
So given your apparent passion for latin and all things of war, I would have thought that you of all would have appreciated that major advances in aviation were largely brought about as a result of major conflicts, ie wars. On the subject of bows and arrows, more important than the arrow was the use of stirrups by cavalry troops, which in the abscence of such devices were unsteady on their mounts and inaccurate on their targets. Whilst I will readily admit that I am not trying to steal Nostradamus` thunder, I cannot agree with you that my reference to robot warships is a long shot or a long bow in the discussions on this thread.
In discussing the future of aviation are we to restrict our vision to the visible horizon, should we not try and see what lies beyond it.

parabellum

23rd Mar 2010, 20:09

tkazaz - When the density of submarine traffic approaches the density of air traffic I will agree that you have a point. Cheers.:)

chksix

23rd Mar 2010, 21:01

Loss of a UAV is purely economical. The army doesn't mourn loss of hardware.
Loss of a 738 is purely economical. MOL doesn't mourn loss of hardware. And he has insurance.

windscreen

23rd Mar 2010, 22:05

Yeah but what happens when the A/C starts breaking at 20,000' and the Captain falls out .......... bugger don't remind me

767Capt

23rd Mar 2010, 23:48

What an idiot!
I remember him offering "free" beds and blowjobs in business class on his future transatlantic airline during a press conference back in 2008...
German translator was blushing...

Here is the link for the curious:
Ryanair's CEO says new airline will give free oral sex | Gadling.com (http://www.gadling.com/2008/06/22/ryanairs-ceo-says-new-airline-will-give-free-oral-sex/)

xrba

24th Mar 2010, 01:30

Whilst UAVs, no crew, submarines et al, are all riveting stuff in another context, would someone like to RTFQ, as I was taught in pilot training, and tell me how different/ more difficult it is to fly an SJ 30 [my post 162] than, say, a modified A320 single pilot? The SJ is already approved by the FAA. This is happening here and now, it's not some future fantasy. Isn't that the point!
Discuss.

cactusbusdrvr

24th Mar 2010, 06:30

What a load of nonsense here. Automation is there to assist the crew, not take it's place. I have flown with engineers, it is not pretty. Yet they believe they can design a system to cover all contingencies from the ground? No freakin' way.

The current fascination with UAVs for combat will run it's course. The reality is, as we are seeing in Afganistan, is that you need someone on site to actually pull the trigger to prevent friendly fire or collateral damage to civillians. The new ROEs by McCrystal have made that clear. Most errant strikes have been missiles fired from Indian Springs, NV(or some other remote site).

CEOs (and engineers) dislike pilots because we dare to question their authority. The CEO we question because we are the first to see when management decisions go wrong. The engineers because we see the flaws that occur in any system and we press for corrections. Everyone would be happier if we pilots we silenced. Thank goodness for the sake of safety that we are still here.

Loose rivets

24th Mar 2010, 06:43

Okay, somebody must have that picture of the pilot sitting in an open cockpit - while his passengers are in the cabin behind.

What were they thinking? Had they got no imaginations?

I suppose it was because he wore a uniform hat that they had confidence in his ability to stay the right way up in cloud.

Of course, all Rapide captains had to sit in the hot-seat for the first flight.

dh rapide - Google Search (http://images.google.com/images?rls=ig&hl=en&source=hp&q=dh+rapide&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=9bSpS-XbKI3-M9v-nNoB&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CC0QsAQwAw)

obie2

24th Mar 2010, 07:48

Mikehotel152

24th Mar 2010, 08:17

Many LTCs would tend to agree... ;)

xrba

24th Mar 2010, 08:52

We've all flown pilot incapacitation drills in the sim, and had F/Os that have proved to be more of a hindrance than an asset, so when is the pilot community going to be halved?

Deep and fast

24th Mar 2010, 09:22

If airlines thought that trading conditions were harsh in any of the recent crisis points ie Gulf war, SARS and credit crunch, this will be a drop in the ocean compared the the drop in load figures should one or more of the flight deck crew be removed!

And as for first officers gaining handling skill in the right seat, all I know is that they seem to diminish in an airliner! I'm sure I was a better stick and rudder jockey on joining, although I didn't put the jet on the runway in 30 knot crosswinds on the first day. I left that for day 2 ;)

D and F

sekant

24th Mar 2010, 09:40

People here seem not to realise that there are already today hundreds of aircrafts that fly day in day out pilotless. They are named drones, UAVs or UCAVs and you find them mostly over Afghanistan and/or Irak, with the pilots bunkered somewhere in Florida.

These aircrafts fly in and out without particular glitches and it is not out of the imagination that such technology be extended to civil aviation. In other words, that planes fly without a pilot on board, fly mostly based on automation with a remote pilot in a position to intervene in case required or for some specifically sensitive parts of flights.

BristolScout

24th Mar 2010, 10:25

I'm a retired airline pilot now working withy UASs. Having had a number of incidents during my flying career that required counter-intuitive problem solving, I'm convinced of the validity of the human brain in the loop but I'm also content that there is a valid argument for a single pilot on shorter-haul routes, although there are many technical and institutional hurdles to be surmounted before we see it. Mr O'Leary is only voicing, in his peculiar fashion, thinking that is going on in the industry at large. Like some other more thoughtful posters here, I foresee unmanned cargo aircraft in the not-to-distant future, launching and landing at coastal airfields for trans-oceanic flights. The reality is that a freighter full of widgets going down in the Atlantic/Pacific is not going to worry anyone anything like four hundred souls perishing in the same circumstances. Nothing stays the same, especially in the fast-moving technology of today. The pilot community will always be needed, albeit in lesser numbers than at present, so it is better to embrace and help to guide the technology, rather than adopt a Luddite mentality. For what it's worth, the more I fly UAVs, the more problems I encounter so it certaintly is not silver bullet technology.

bigdaviet

24th Mar 2010, 11:37

Surely the main reason for having two pilots on board is quite simply in case one has a heart attack (or similar 'event,' ) and therefore is no longer able to perform his duties, or worse dies!

In this situation, even the worst FO in the world is still a far better proposition in the cockpit than having nobody who can fly at all!

Thats the end of the debate surely?

parabellum

24th Mar 2010, 11:56

sekant - Be a good chap and go and read through the 184 posts previous to yours before posting please. Thanks.:)

Nigd3

24th Mar 2010, 12:05

Cactusbusdr

That was a wind up post right? Please tell me you that you do not actually believe what you wrote, especially the last paragraph.
If not that has got to be the worst example of ill thought out stereotyping of pilots, engineers and CEOs that I have read for a while.

Huck

24th Mar 2010, 12:47

The reality is that a freighter full of widgets going down in the Atlantic/Pacific is not going to worry anyone anything like four hundred souls perishing in the same circumstances.

Yes, but they tend to crash at one end or the other of the flight plan - Amsterdam and Narita just in the last year or so.....

BristolScout

24th Mar 2010, 12:49

Bigdaviet.

The situation envisaged is a completely automated aircraft of the future, capable of controlling all movement from departure gate to arrival gate. The single pilot is there to override in the 10E-9 scenario where the computer can't cope. The chance of the pilot having a total incapacitation at the same time as the computer needs his input is infinitesimal - equivalent to both pilots having a simultaneous incapacitation today. (He may, of course, have died from boredom.)

oxenos

24th Mar 2010, 13:58

Someone has suggested that you would be able to do without an F/O on short flights. Some years ago I suffered from a kidney stone. It produced excruciating pain just 25 minutes into a 45 minute flight. Prior to take off all I had felt was mild backache. I was not totally incapacitated, but the pain came in waves, and had a wave hit me as we were landing, I would not have been much use.
Moreover short flights tend to be overland, with the potential to kill people on the ground as well as the passengers.
A lot of you are waffling on about technology marching on. Can I suggest before you go on waffling, you consider the question I posed in #153. If there are no F/O's, where do your Captains come from?

aguadalte

24th Mar 2010, 14:37

Well, look!..as a sim instructor I flew the 737 and the A320 many times, single pilot IFR after the crew had departed for the boozer.
Piece of cake to carry out a single pilot EFATO, S/E ILS, rapid descent etc, you name it.
Just one big computer game...easy as pie. Airplanes only need one pilot who knows what he's doing!...

or a sim instructor!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Well look, here is another example of a poor soul convinced he is a professional "star" with a simplistic view of his own work. A man who is a simulator instructor who hasn't the slightest clue of what an instructor is and how his profession really goes way beyond the computer game...if you were an SLF, I could understand your point, but coming from a professional pilot (specially from an instructor) I feel sorry for your students. To compare "playing with your simulator" in an environment you create as a playground, with the real world and the inadvertent emergency situations that some of us have already experienced is so naive that I hardly believe you were talking seriously. If you ever had a real emergency, you would understand how important would be, to have by your side, an experienced and proactive co-pilot. This is not a game where you touch "pause" to avoid a crash. This is real life and real people who trust the guy's in front are adult and well prepared. I've seen many "great game players" on ground, to become less confident in the real world...and it was not even a hardworking emergency... so please spare us all...

captplaystation

24th Mar 2010, 14:52

"Those that can do, those that can't teach"

"talk the talk. . easy, walk the walk ?" Hmnn

BTW, I know some TRI's/TRE's in a well known loco who I wouldn't like to be sitting next to when the sh1t hit the fan, they probably also feel quite up to operating daily "single crew" :rolleyes:
Perhaps it was a little tongue in cheek, I do hope so, yep, anyone could easily do the odd sector single crew Sheesh, with some guys you nearly ARE, but day in day out in all weathers, and when you too might be feeling as sharp as a beachball after 11hr of night duty ? Not much safety margin being left there.
If that margin is enough for you though, we may as well save some more dosh and sack the instructors and sell the sims to an amusement arcade, as that is the level of dumbing down of safety you are advocating. :eek:

Jovi Runner

24th Mar 2010, 14:55

Was reading this forum yesterday and spotted comments about people saying there are already unmanned trains and then spotted this on today's BBC News website - not the best advert for unnmanned trains (or planes for that matter!)

BBC News - Train in deadly crash in Norwegian capital (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8585315.stm)

Piltdown Man

24th Mar 2010, 15:46

If there are no F/O's, where do your Captains come from?

Why, that's simple! There are enough plonkers out there who will pay to fly. So, you simply stick a banner ad somewhere and just like in a well known film "They will come." A quick tweak in aviation law and you are home and dry. One further tweak, and you can get rid of cabin crew as well and then put vending machines in their place. From then on, all seats can be sold. The only way that you can improve on that is to charge people NOT to fly - now there's a though!

PM

PS. Hang on a minute, I've forgotten about traps. How much should you charge to sit on on of these? You could probably tell some half wit that unless he does six months toilet cleaning duty for free he can't be captain.

Pilot Positive

24th Mar 2010, 18:11

BTW, I know some TRI's/TRE's in a well known loco who I wouldn't like to be sitting next to when the sh1t hit the fan, they probably also feel quite up to operating daily "single crew"

Dont we all - some of them are frighteningly bad. How did they get to the LHS? :rolleyes:

fly_antonov

24th Mar 2010, 20:57

Nigd3,
I think i concur with desk pilot, automation do fail ive experienced a situation on a full automation go around where the airplane is designed to fly within a safe margin in terms of attitude speed and config takin the enviromental factors like gusts n windshear into consideration but after clean up n still in vnav mode the aeroplane simply couldnt hold speed n almost went into overspeed, as pilots do we sit n wait for the situation to deteroriate to that level jus to prove that automation do fail, jus like desk pilot intervened before things got out of hand thats what we did, you dont put over 150 lives at risk tryin to prove failure of automation if it aint doin what its suppose to :=u take over n make a decision for them they dont think

Did you get a confirmation from your mechanics that it was the automation failing? Most of the times it' s the pilots failing to read the little lines in the FCOM and then imagining that the automation is the one failing.

It could be, just asking.

Piltdown Man

24th Mar 2010, 21:26

Most of the times it's the pilots failing to read the little lines in the FCOM and then imagining that the automation is the one failing.

Really? Based on my experience, OK only 15 years or so - not much really, I suppose, I'd suggest that you don't know what you are talking about. The important stuff is written in small sentences in big letters. However, automation and flight mode confusion still trips up pilots, but rarely to the point where things get broken. Normally what happens is the aircraft approaches a limit (Speed, AoA, Level etc.) and the "monitors" intervene. The offending lump of Honeywell strangled forthwith and stone age flying (partial or full) commences. If you are correct, aircraft would be safer to fly without aircrew than with. But I'd suggest that modern aircraft are sufficiently unreliable enough to get insurance with single aircrew, let alone none.

PM

obie2

25th Mar 2010, 07:55

Strewth! I feel embarrassed!...
to get the serious response I did from aguadalte and the semi serious response from the following poster, cat something or other, regarding my send up of myself, makes me wonder about you blokes!! ;)

PS: Stick your cursor on the smilies for assistance, don't take yourself too seriously, and don't take prune seriously either! :O

parabellum

25th Mar 2010, 20:04

Th trouble is, John Smith, I knew someone very similar to fly_antanov and sadly he managed to get into aviation management, just imagine what a pain in the arse that was! Probably not the only one, either.:(

Clandestino

26th Mar 2010, 08:28

Certain PhD, CEO of the airline for last 12 years and former AEA chairman has told me: "Your job as a pilot is very easy, you just follow procedures and if something out of the ordinary happens, there are checklists for everything". He wasn't in the joking mood at the time.

So that's how you get the captains when there are no first officers; everyone reads the rulebooks, complies with them and they're good captains for that.

:E

Neptunus Rex

26th Mar 2010, 09:27

Your CEO a Ph.D - but in which discipline?
I'll warrant it has nothing to do with aviation.
Probably gets a thrill from spreadsheets, especially if the pilots' salaries are down.

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/perv.gif

Huck

26th Mar 2010, 13:00

"Your job as a pilot is very easy, you just follow procedures and if something out of the ordinary happens, there are checklists for everything".

In the Sioux City DC-10 accident, after the engine blew and sliced through all three hyd systems, the captain (Al Haynes) called for the triple Hydraulic Failure checklist. The F/E told him that it didn't exist.....

RB311

26th Mar 2010, 13:01

In my earlier post i mentioned unions preventing driverless trains from being brought into service in the late 60s. Surely unions now should be activated and motivated to ensure that the flight deck population does not get reduced by a further 50%.

Furthermore, I listened to the radio yesterday and Capt Burkhill recounting the moments before the successful forced landing of the 777. By having a co-pilot sat next to him concentrating on the real time aviation, he was able to assess the situation and by reducing the flap setting save all souls on board.

None of the sophisticated systems on board the aircraft either highlighted the problem or offered any diagnosis to the situation.. All the aircraft did was point out what was bleedin obvious, i.e. that the airspeed was too low...

i think when someone sits down and programmes a flight guidance computer for a future pilot free aircraft, they will have to be in possession of all the known knowns, known unknowns, but most importantly, the unknown unknowns...

Good luck.

Nigd3

26th Mar 2010, 13:40

C'mon chaps
The anti automation group will just read out the incidents where the pilot/s did the right thing and saved the day.
The pro automation group will just read out the incidents where the pilot/s missed some action or misread the situation that an automated system would probably not have done.
IMO, it will probably be decided by a statistician who will analyse which operations (dual crew v single crew with whizz bang automation) will lead to least incidents and accidents (hence cost) with the available technology at the time, offset against the cost of setting in place single crew operations. Then follows the "focus groups" of industry who will advise the legislators, who will then incrementally allow these types of single crew operations. 10-15 years off I reckon. Hows that for a prediction :8

Clandestino

26th Mar 2010, 15:47

Your CEO a Ph.D - but in which discipline?
I'll warrant it has nothing to do with aviation.

It does have something to do with the very wrong part of the aviation - airline marketing.

This debate would be much more comprehensible, if participants' experience were posted along with the opinions.

For my part:

2600 hrs in ATR-42
1200 hrs in A320/319
450 hrs in Q400

I have never, ever trusted automatics in any of my aeroplanes blindly and all of them gave their best to prove me correct on more than few occasions.

Autonomous and/or remotely controlled aeroplanes?

Maybe.

Not with the today's technology though.

Same goes for single-pilot operations. Once the spectre of incap is safely done away with through use of automatics and telecommands, we'll just switch to no-pilot on board. Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

Pilot Positive

26th Mar 2010, 16:32

Small MEP operators aside: It would be a brave airline that decides to launch a service with only 1 pilot onboard. I'm betting it wouldn't get too many customers...;)

Huck

26th Mar 2010, 16:36

IMO, it will probably be decided by a statistician

Just remember, if you have one foot in a bucket of ice water, and the other foot in a bucket of boiling water, statistically you're comfortable.....

LNAV VNAV -

26th Mar 2010, 17:00

'Surely the main reason for having two pilots on board is quite simply in case one has a heart attack (or similar 'event,' ) and therefore is no longer able to perform his duties, or worse dies!

In this situation, even the worst FO in the world is still a far better proposition in the cockpit than having nobody who can fly at all!

Thats the end of the debate surely?'

This is not the reason at all. The main reason for having two pilots is that this way most of the errors that would go unnoticed in a single crew situation, don't when there are two pilots.

Also, even though one pilot may be sufficient in the cruise when everything is normal, even two pilots may seem not to be enough when things get difficult. Go to a simulator and observe an engine fire on take-off or an unreliable airspeed exercise. You'll know what I mean!

xrba

27th Mar 2010, 00:08

So LNAV VNAV, why have the FAA approved the SJ30 then?

Agreed Nigd3. It's slowly creeping along, which is not to say I approve of it.

Where is the weight/pax limit now, is it 10 tons, 20 tons next year perhaps? As I said, the thin edge of the wedge has appeared. It is unlikely to be retracted.

LNAV VNAV -

27th Mar 2010, 04:47

I don't see your point. There are single crew aircraft and there are multicrew aircraft. :confused:

There were single crew aircraft long before the SJ30. The Piper Seminole for example.

Still, the reason for having two pilots in multicrew aircraft is not pilot redundancy. It may be a welcomed byproduct but it's not the reason.

Will there be larger single crew twin jets in the future? Of course there will be.

heavy.airbourne

27th Mar 2010, 08:31

Think of a heavy aircraft passing Norilsk (UOOO) during winter with smoke in the cabin, then show me automation to deal with it, or one guy who can handle it by himself...:=

You might need a 2nd pilot even in a Piper Seminole, but neither will the ops ever pay for him, nor does the financial risk will finance his position. And then there are the insurers of the operator: There will be a huge premium for operating an B787 or an A380 with one pilot only. It just depends on the pay scale.

xrba

27th Mar 2010, 10:38

My point, LNAV VNAV, is that the SJ30 is a modern, high performance, jet aircraft, with most of the same characteristics as a 737/320 et al, a Seminole patently is not. There used to be a weight limit, it has now been officially breached. Don't see many Seminoles at 49,000' doing M.83 transatlantic! Doesn't the SJ 30 have EFTO,s, unreliable airspeed, smoke in the cockpit etc problems? Is the insurance premium more when it is flown single pilot? I don't know, would be interested to find out the facts.

The major difference is the size/pax limit of, say, the 7X7/3X0. The trend is upward, when will it stop? Who will stop it? Who will encourage it? [Already answered, O'Leary] Comes down to money, nothing else. As you say:-

"Will there be larger single crew twin jets in the future? Of course there will be."

How big? 330/777? You tell me.

That is the problem, and, being a cynic, I fear for the worst.

I hope I'm wrong.

fly_antonov

27th Mar 2010, 14:15

Aircraft like A320/A330/A340/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777 were designed in the 1980's, early 1990' s with proven technologies from the '70' s.

The philosphy back in the '60' s was an automation that assist pilots.
The designers of the '80' s decided to couple automation with computers (FMC) using 1970' s computer technology, reducing the pilot' s function to monitoring the automation-FMC combination in non-critical phases of flight.

With the advance of UAV technology and other remote processing systems, the automation - 2010 computer technology - remote processing combination will certainly remove at least one pilot from the cabin.

A cabin smoke/fire situation can be processed on a flightcrew less aircraft as follows:

Smoke on board, smoke detection by sensors, information passed to on-board computer system and to a team of remote operators as a warning.
Variable smoke density sensors and remote operators using on-board camera' s can determine the extent of the situation. The computer can do all the checklists and the remote operator can be assisted in real time by a team of mechanics to determine the potential cause and risks of the fire.

The remote operators team can then decide to divert the flight to the nearest airport or if unable to reach one on time, determine the nearest forced landing location based on a database and real-time satellite imagery.
Examples of on-board fires that ended-up fatal:
Caspian Airlines Flight 7908 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Airlines_Flight_7908)

To the BAC 1-11 with the windshield torn off in flight, it wouldn' t have made a difference if the aircraft was autonomous and remotely controllable.

The DHL A300 in Baghdad, a master piece of flying.
Yet the PCA (Propulsion Controlled Aircraft) concept has been tested and can be installed on any recent aircraft to control aircraft in case of total flight controls failure: NASA - Propulsion Controlled Aircraft (PCA) (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/PCA/index.html)

I think that the A320/B737NG replacement (2027 entry into service) will be autonomous operations with a single monitoring pilot and remote operators, with the monitoring pilot progressively removed by 2040 and airliners becoming a largely autonomous with remote monitoring operation.

aguadalte

27th Mar 2010, 16:21

A colleague of mine had an electrical fire in the avionics compartment of an A310, about 1,5 hours away from a suitable aerodrome, four or five years ago.

Auto-Pilot went off plus a series of other systems. It was a scary situation. The co-pilot had to come down to the avionics compartment to face the smoke and the fire. Fortunately for everybody, they were able to put down the fire and landed safely.

I don't think a situation like this could be managed in a single pilot environment.
Remember aircraft are only new, until delivered to the customer. They are designed to fly for more than 30 years. They age and loose liability. And there are a lot of things going wrong that are impossible to predict and to program a software to cope with.

The worst scenario is a hacker to enter into the wireless "control" system. Even yesterday I read about an 18 years old French hacker who entered into a social network (was it T or was it Facebook?) and took over, because he was bored and jobless.

All flight information and all aircraft operations have to be done through the pilots, in order to keep them in the loop. As soon as you start taking pilots out of the loop, you will buy your ticket to hell. Sh:mad:t happens, even with two pilots in the cockpit. Someone has to be taking care of things, during all phases of flight. Especially when everything seems to be boringly OK. How would you keep a single pilot alert (awake) on a 12 hour flight? How would you choose your (single) captains? Where would they gain experience?
LNAV: The main reason for having two pilots is that this way most of the errors that would go unnoticed in a single crew situation, don't when there are two pilots.

Also, even though one pilot may be sufficient in the cruise when everything is normal, even two pilots may seem not to be enough when things get difficult. Go to a simulator and observe an engine fire on take-off or an unreliable airspeed exercise. You'll know what I mean!
Agree. And would like to add that the F/O is also there to reduce workload in the cockpit. And this is truth in the medium as well as in the long-haul. Today's working hour rules are hard to comply with, once airlines are reducing costs and making us all working more and more. I honestly don't think we will see a single pilot policy on commercial flights in our lifetime.

fly_antonov

27th Mar 2010, 16:27

What happens when the fire burns through the antenna feed for the datalink? Or overheats the datalink processor? How are your remote operators going to save the day then? Say "bye bye all passengers"?

Any critical systems are usually duplicated and certification is there to prove that the systems are built to cope.
In worst cases, all you need to do is to send the program sequence before the datalink goes down and the autonomous airplane could land itself according to that program.
Or easier even, build the systems to be fireproof.

Rubbish. There will be no reduction to single pilot operation for large passenger aircraft for the same reason there will be no reduction to one engine, generator or hydraulic system. They are all subject to failure, so to reduce the risk of it being catastrophic you have two or more.

Then there's the cost to consider. If you're building a passenger jet you'll need pressurisation, oxygen and the like for the passengers. It doesn't cost much to add two seats for pilots. Far less than the certification costs of an unmanned system.

First, the pilot is not vanishing. His job is going to be taken over by computers, just like computers took away the flight engineer' s job.
For exceptions, major problems and critical phases of flight, remote operators could be put in place but in largely reduced numbers compared to the actual pilots/aircraft ratio.

Take for example a 10 hour flight from London to Bangkok.
On an average flight, your pilots will be actually doing nothing significant for 9 hours and will be doing things that computers and remote operators can do for the 1 hour that they do provide significant work.
By cutting on those 9 useless hours, you save on staff cost.

Cost.
The cost of going from 10 pilots per aircraft to one remote operator per aircraft (since remote operators can handle several aircraft at the same time, depending on phases of flights) is a big saving to the airlines.
If you think of that it costs on average around $1 million per year per aircraft to the airline to pay (gross salary), train and retrain, insure, pay for hotels and meals of pilots, over a life span of an aircraft that is around $25 million, half the price of an A320.

Add revenue lost by over 100 inches of fuselage length lost (narrowbody); or 1 row of 4, 2 rows of 6 for a narrowbody like a B737NG/A320, you lose 16 passengers or 10% of your total seating.
The revenue generated by such a narrowbody during its lifespan is hundreds of millions of $.

Add aerodynamic drag caused by ergonomic requirements of the cockpit (the need to have a windshield is a major source of added drag!), the weight of piloting equipment (including the well-fed pilots) minus added weight of on-board sytems for autonomous operations (processors, wires, antenna' s, sensors, camera' s, etc...).

Add the reduced cost of insurance through lower premiums.

Add improved operational efficiency through improved air traffic management.

Cabin crew can be trained to fight fires in the cabin and in avionics compartments.

Hackers are a risk, but so are hijackers.
If aircraft were already autonomous, 9/11 wouldn' t have happened (2992 deaths, over 6000 injured).
Systems can be designed so that hackers have no way of commanding an airplane to deliberately crash into terrain (EGPWS one-way override link to FMC) or into other airplanes (TCAS one-way override linked to FMC).

BalusKaptan

27th Mar 2010, 17:46

All very interesting reading but tell me and the pax who's going to manage ATC when they acknowledge a 'Stoping' call on Take-off with 'Roger. Airbourne contact Departure 124.95' (Dubai), Who's going to manage ATC when they clear the wrong aircraft for take-off on a different runways and then get annoyed when both crews recoqnised the error and questioned it just to be told by ATC basically to "Pull their Heads in", ATC is not wrong(Jakarta), who's going to dodge the person walking down the runway checking the runway lights on a wet, dark night during your landing (Mumbai), who's going to remember where the potholes are on the runway and aim to miss them during Take-off and landing (Dhaka)? I could go on.

No doubt aircraft can be automated to operate both on their own and with a remote operator/Pilot but the overall picture of the dynamics happening around you will never be there.

voltage

27th Mar 2010, 17:51

fly_antonov

I don't know you nor have I researched what you have posted before. But what you write is really nonsense. Any person which has enough experience with the real thing (that is computers, technology, and aviation) can see that. And I don't have alot of aviation experience, and can still easily see that.

Why do you waste your time on here? And my time? I come here to learn, and fantasizing without basis like you do wastes time and lets us needlessly sit in front of these dull computers. Go outside, take a walk in the forest and marvel at these wonders of nature that are far more advanced that anything humankind can ever come up with.

The whole thread is a shame. When Mr. MOL makes remarks like this, how do the pilots that are flying for Ryanair feel? I am sure quite a few are reading here. The chief of your company is publically insulting you, that is the way I see it. It makes me sick.

Our society today is very greedy, that is in the lofty positions like the CEO's but also young pilots who are so greedy for their cool pilot jobs on shiny jets that they don't care about anything but THEIR career. And accept that their chief calls them useless etc.

I am right now doing my ATPL learning, and there are moments when I just want to drop it all and call it a failure. Not because it is too difficult but because it sometimes seems that only misguided, greedy spineless people with a need to show off become pilots. I know its not the whole truth, that's why I will finish my ATPL, other factors permitting.

If I should abandon my own values and start working for a company like Ryanair and still posting here, please give me a kick in the a**.

Christo

27th Mar 2010, 18:19

Not going to happen soon. The paying customer, never mind insurance requirements will never allow it to happen.

Some time in the very very distant future perhaps but in your lifetime, very very doubtful.

PJ2

27th Mar 2010, 18:33

fly_antonov;
Any critical systems are usually duplicated and certification is there to prove that the systems are built to cope.

In worst cases, all you need to do is to send the program sequence before the datalink goes down and the autonomous airplane could land itself according to that program.

Or easier even, build the systems to be fireproof.
You place far too much trust in official documents and processes and don't examine the industry "as-is". There are many counter-examples which illustrate that while such systems are very good they are far from infallible.

Cost and a 'because-we-can' attitude, and not primarily risk-management or the safety of passengers has already driven this industry towards:

- untoward modifications to crew complement,

- unacceptable levels of experience,

- the mistaken notion, almost universally issuing from those who don't fly but manage aviation nevertheless, that substitution by automation for a thinking pilot actually has a place in this industry and in the cockpit,

- the misapprehension of the nature of the job of "flying an airplane".

In short, because of serious misunderstandings of what pilots do, the industry is just beginning to see what happens when, purely to keep the payroll down and profits up, "expensive" humans are designed out of the process. We know it works better when the vehicle in question is running on tracks but even then, serious failings have occurred.

Your scenarios, arguments and your proposals of and trust in solutions are all substantiated and based upon official, tidily-documented bookshelf versions of reality. They are "smart like street-car" solutions. Such clinically correct but completely impractical solutions to problems on board airliners which have already been pointed out by others here, are regularly debunked by aviation's daily realities in which crews, not computers, bring airplanes home safely. "Automation-in-service-of-pilots" is an appropriate level of intervention; "automation-in-service-of-programmers'-notions-of-self-diagnosis", so that "expensive" pilots can be removed from the cabin [sic] is not.

respectfully,

PJ2

Huck

27th Mar 2010, 19:15

Take for example a 10 hour flight from London to Bangkok.
On an average flight, your pilots will be actually doing nothing significant for 9 hours and will be doing things that computers and remote operators can do for the 1 hour that they do provide significant work.

Your ignorance is showing.

Weather avoidance, FIR boundary negotiation, reroutes and the weather/fuel/NOTAM decisions that come with them, monitoring alternates, redispatch legalities, fuel scoring, plotting in case the FMS craps out, dealing with medical emergencies, dealing with violent pax, dealing with system failures, spotting system failures (lots of times no flags are raised), engine trend monitoring, PIREP's, coordinating ride reports on # 2, reporting ELT's, relaying VHF messages for ATC....

Doing nothing significant? Hardly. Long haul cockpits are alot busier than you've been led to believe.

Daysleeper

27th Mar 2010, 19:50

Just think on these words from B. Baksteen of the
Dutch Airline Pilot Association back in a 1995 paper on flight safety.

Pilots promise their passengers a safe flight and by sharing that flight with the passengers, they provide the ultimate guarantee: their own life. That goes a few steps beyond putting your money where your mouth is.

anyone who wants to read the whole thing can find it at Safety Science 19 (1995) 287-294

parabellum

27th Mar 2010, 19:58

And we still have the security aspect. No matter how sophisticated the automation is, or how many levels of redundancy are built in, there is still the possibility that a well armed and organised terrorist unit with suicidal tendencies could take over ground control stations, either by force or by using more powerful jamming equipment and carnage would be the result. They would probably do this in a fairly remote area with known sympathies to their cause, remote on the ground, that is, the skies overhead may well be very busy. Committed terrorists may even try it in a complacent part of Europe, being suicidal why would they care? They would still have control long enough to create a disaster that would make every disaster to date look insignificant by comparison.

(Yes, I do keep banging on the security drum as most others seem only to consider levels of automation or the influence of bean counters!:)).

fly_antonov

27th Mar 2010, 20:03

The way I see it going is that the oral communications will no longer be established. I think that everything will be digitally controlled, including ATC clearances.

A computer commanded rejected take-off would automatically flash a caution light on the ATC radar screen with the appropriate message.

The airplane navigates itself monitored by remote operators, ATC issues separation clearances that the aircraft confirms digitally, again with a EGPWS and TCAS override just in case ATC makes a mistake.

Weather avoidance, FIR boundary negotiation, reroutes and the weather/fuel/NOTAM decisions that come with them, monitoring alternates, redispatch legalities, fuel scoring, plotting in case the FMS craps out, dealing with medical emergencies, dealing with violent pax, dealing with system failures, spotting system failures (lots of times no flags are raised), engine trend monitoring, PIREP's, coordinating ride reports on # 2, reporting ELT's, relaying VHF messages for ATC....

You nicely summed up all the "cruise" jobs that can be taken over by an autonomous system and remote operators. VHF is made to disappear progressively, see above.

I' m surprised to see that so little people are informed about all recent progress in this matter. Here take this website, you will learn alot.
ASTRAEA Website - Home (http://www.projectastraea.co.uk)

You can say that I am nuts, but would you dare to say that EADS, Bae Systems, Thales, Rolls Royce, GE Aviation, FAA, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman are too?

Unmanned flight tests to advance airline reduced-crew concepts (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/28/336641/unmanned-flight-tests-to-advance-airline-reduced-crew.html)

The race to unmanned commercial flight has started and whether you like it or not, it will come.
Critics and sceptics, I understand you.
This thing will be a social bloodbath for the piloting industry, but it will come.

The technology being developed by ASTRAEA will address issues such as Ground Operations and Human Interaction; Communications & Air Traffic Control; UAS Handling; Routing; Collision Avoidance; Multiple Air Vehicle Integration; Prognostics & Health Management; and Decision Modelling.

ASTRAEA is a three-year programme in its first phase and it is intended that it will pave the way for commercial UASs to operate autonomously in non-segregated airspace within the next decade.

Half of the funding for ASTRAEA is therefore being provided by public sector organisations - £5 million from the TSB and £11 million from the regions - and the rest from a consortium of UK companies, including BAE Systems, Thales UK, Rolls-Royce, EADS, QinetiQ, Flight Refuelling and Agent Oriented Software.

PJ2

27th Mar 2010, 20:19

Huck;
Long haul cockpits are alot busier than you've been led to believe.
No kidding. One trip east or west through that section of the Middle East between Cypress and, say, Arar will prove that, unless "call-ahead" is no longer required!

One wonders how automation would handle the ITCZ or the millions of moment-by-moment, timely, small crew decisions that add up to thousands of eventless flights.

Computers which mimic human thought (pass the Turing test) are possible but the Philosophy of Mind still cannot describe what an 'idea' is, what a thought is, what imagination is, what possibility is or what happens in conceptualization, what the notion of "work-around" means or the phrase, "let's try this..."; these are all critical human functions required to fly an airplane, run a nuclear plant, drive a car, make friends or raise a child. A computer is a high-speed algorithmic zombie which, while can be no smarter than its programmers can be far more accurately, precisely, (and, to us, nefariously), dangerously dumb.

I may constantly defend the Airbus design but not against complacent reliance, stupidity or incompetence.

fly_antonov;
This thing will be a social bloodbath for the piloting industry, but it will come.
Were your proposals to be implemented resting upon the assumptions you state, that is not where the bloodbath would begin.

In the meantime, the piloting profession is not luddite-informed and has instead adapted readily to technological changes as they appear. Some industrial resistance will always occur but that is human nature. Resistance to reduced crews is based upon experience, not upon the need to maintain the ranks as some, including CEOs who think that long-haul augmentation is featherbedding, ignorantly state. These days I can assure you that we are at the very opposite end of the scale when it comes to numbers as the fatigue issues with which even now the US regulator (FAA) is wrestling, illustrates.

PJ2

captplaystation

27th Mar 2010, 20:37

Daysleeper,

You got it in one :ok: I am a very bad pax, & that is one of the few things that reassures me when I have to "go back" with the great unwashed.

fly antonov,

Do us all a favour and go back to whatever it was you were doing before you came on here to spout claptrap :ugh:, try to differentiate between "virtual reality" & "reality" :hmm:.

AirRabbit

27th Mar 2010, 21:54

I haven't taken the time to read through the whole thread, so I apologize if someone's already pointed it out ... but we keep hearing (in the US, anyway) that the new F-22 Raptor will likely be the last manned fighter aircraft built. The number of UAV sorties in war zones are increasing - as they are for pipeline and ground traffic surveillance duties. The question is how long will it be before the rest of the aviation world will find it financially viable to engage in the entrprize differently ... i.e., without the flight crew? The technology arguably exists today - not so sure about the refinements ... but how long might those refinements take? A decade? What did we all think about technology in 1999? I think that if I were flying for an "all cargo" company, I might want to start flying as much as I could to earn (and bank) as much as I could - 'cause I'm not sure just how much longer those non-passenger carrying flights will require the services many of us have become used to providing. And, depending on the success of those operations ... can the rest of the world to be too far behind???

I'm not predicting ... I'm not shouting doom and gloom ... I'm just lookin' ... and askin' ...

Roadtrip

28th Mar 2010, 00:17

Oh yea. That's what I want to do. Ride on an airliner where the only pilot is a guy who has no choice but to work for a slimbag outfit like Ryanair, and in an airplane maintained by someone like O'Leary.

Graybeard

28th Mar 2010, 01:59

Of all the costs to operate, the F/O has to be one of the best when it comes to bang for the buck. Downlinked data to monitor flights minute by minute will come first. "WA 182, why are you at mach .80, instead of .76?"

GB

Mud Skipper

28th Mar 2010, 09:14

Where wil MOL get his Captains from if there where no F/O's, how would a new pilot get the experience to qualify?

Reeks of an operator acting as a parasite giving nothing to the industry and unable to act as a responsible corporate citizen, the sooner we see the back of this person the better.

Surely this is just a publicity stund just like his paying for using a toilet idea.

Roller Merlin

28th Mar 2010, 12:36

AirRabbit your view that the "F22 as a last manned platform" and "UAVs may inevitably lead to automated civil transport" does not stand up.

This is not an argument for automation at all but one of risk. The purpose of the military aircraft is to achieve a military mission, where the risk of failure is weighed against the gains sought. The machine is simply a platform to achieve that. Replacing humans here is to reduce the risks.

The the civil airline seeks to attract the customer, get them on and off safely, fed, watered, saved significant time (otherwise they would take alternative means), and moreover to keep them happy, confident and assured they are safe in an environment they would otherwise avoid. This assurance of their safety extends to their loved ones, the community, shareholders in the airline etc. Retaining humans in the aircraft is to also reduce the risks.

I for one would never put my family on an aircraft without trusted people up front. Automation applied to reduce risks is great, provided there is an off switch.

Pilot Positive

28th Mar 2010, 12:55

You can say that I am nuts, but would you dare to say that EADS, Bae Systems, Thales, Rolls Royce, GE Aviation, FAA, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman are too?

fly_antonov: What planet are you on? :confused: These companies are developing unmanned delivery vehicles for the purpose of military missions where risk of injury is exceptionally high. The need for managed human loss limitation is big business: Get it wrong and it can cost you public opinion and an election.

Whilst I am sure there are military pilots reading this forum who no doubt are following UAV developments closer than most, you are applying these military principles to a civilian context. This is a big jump.

The application of UAVs in civilian arenas such as pipeline surveying, traffic reporting, criminal surveillance (god forbid), forest fire management etc... are predominently single pilots ops and still require a pilot - albeit on the ground. Thats an unfortunate side effect of progress and in anycase not everyone (especially in the private sector) could afford this option.

I think this discussion is about passenger carriage rather than specific high risk tasks (such as the military carries out) and for that reason your arguement is out of context.

niksmathew24

28th Mar 2010, 12:57

OMG..:ooh::ooh::ooh:fly_antonov is MOL

Ok guys no offence to anyone.
Why cant you all accept the fact that it is going to happen someday. I'd been reading through all the posts for a few days and found it so interesting that around 98% claim that its not going to happen. Am no aviation expert or fancy magazine writer. But with todays progress in technology it will happen, maybe by 2020 or could be even 2030.
If man can send man to space(forget passenger shuttles)...
Impossible is nothing..:ok:

Huck

28th Mar 2010, 13:06

Why cant you all accept the fact that it is going to happen someday.

Because it's not.

Read the thread. Lots of good reasons listed.

If you sit in a cubicle for a living, this may seem like an achievable goal. But if you've actually navigated an aircraft in the real world for a considerable distance, you understand the vagaries and the risks, the unexpected scenarios that could never ever be programmed or handled via datalink. Combined with the incredible level of safety that would have to be achieved to make such an idea feasible to the travelling public, the insurers and the regulators.

Not to mention the incredible cooperation that would have to exist among nations to allow such activity in their airspace. I've flown in areas of the globe where they're just now getting the HF procedures down. And they're going to allow unmanned aircaft to shoot approaches into their major cities? Why - because YOU say they're safe?

Pilot Positive

28th Mar 2010, 13:10

OMG..fly_antonov is MOL

Now that wouldnt be surprising. However MOL couldnt get charging for toilet use past the paying public so I'm not sure he's going to have much luck with his idea of having one pilot onboard....

niksmathew24

28th Mar 2010, 13:14

Ok lets forget the concept of unmanned planes for the sake of a discussion..
How about one pilot to monitor an unmanned system? I know this was discussed here before, but seems like no one wants to accept that also. As in a prev. post the chances of pilot fainting and computer hanging is a pretty rare occurrence.

Huck

28th Mar 2010, 14:04

How about one pilot to monitor an unmanned system?

Two things pop to mind:

One, he/she would not be capable of manual flight. One cannot learn to manually land an aircraft competently without actually doing it. It'd be like watching a player piano for years, only to be called upon to play a concerto perfectly on the first attempt. So ... when the magic dies, and there's a 25 knot crosswind, and it's dark and stormy, and you get to land on a slick runway.....

Two, that pilot will have legal responsibility for the lives of the pax and the value of the aircraft. As a person's responsibility grows, so does his salary.

Answer me a simple question: you are responsible for the lives of 300 people, whether you're solo in a cockpit or sitting at a console on the ground. You are legally and morally responsible for them as they travel at 600 mph through space. And you're responsible for a couple hundred million in aircraft, the millions in high-priority freight in the belly, and the lives of all the folks you could possibly kill on short final in a crowded airport e.g. Heathrow.

What would you do that job for, money-wise? To maintain the requisite skill levels, to take the legal responsibility? Would you do it for less than what pilots make today? (In our brave new world, that's about 120k american a year.)

If you would, then you don't fully understand what you're signing up for.

RVF750

28th Mar 2010, 16:23

Don't forget the built in Spike in the console so that if the real aircraft crashes............that should improve attention span!

Chronus

28th Mar 2010, 19:56

This thread started with MO`s comments about cost cutting by having one pilot rather than two.

The 2008 CAA license statistics show the following:

No of holders

JAR ATPL 7522
UK ATPL 4886
_____
12408
DEDUCT OVER
AGE 60 408
_____
12000
=====

Other stats show average pilots salary as £63,000.
Assuming 10,000 are in employment, the payroll translates to £630 million per annum.
Halving this is a cost reduction of £315 million per annum which is a lot of money and worthy of some serious consideration, particularly if you think of it in a global sense.
Using some of such saving to sweeten the pot for the single pilot, some towards more automation and a little for basic cockpit training for a cabin attendant you are still left with a huge cost saving, not just for one year but for every year thereafter.

In this situation Pvte Frazer would say "we are doomed Captain Mainwaring".

Pilot Positive

28th Mar 2010, 20:14

That may be a little bit of a naive calculation Chronus as you assume that all pilots with a license are employed and all are in multi-crew operations flying for a scheduled airline.

If only life was that simple... :}

Pelikanpete

28th Mar 2010, 21:01

Aviation is driven by economics.

There are quite a few calculations of the savings that could be made that seem a bit dubious to me. FOs really don't cost that much. For authorities to authorise single pilot ops in airliners would require a change in design of the aircraft and Ryanair alone do not have the kind of buying power to get the manufacturers to go with it.

As regards single pilot crew with assisted control from the ground or no pilots onboard - it would be a massive project. The costs and the length of time involved in implementing the systems needed to go from proposal through design, certification, manufacture and implementation are massive. There would be vast quantities of difficulties eg. a lack of bandwidth for the data transmission and navaid/beacon/communications reliability across Africa and South America. etc. To go ahead with this kind of technology would require not only all authorities to agree a standard and pay for the purchase and upkeep of hardware on the ground and satellites (out of fees paid by the airlines) but also all the aircraft manufacturers, who would have to take a massive risk to cover the development costs and potential liability - something they would only do if there was a real demand from the majority of airlines with guarantees of them adopting the technology. Airlines cannot be relied upon to commit to projects that take decades (as the industry is so uncertain). The savings involved would not cover the costs (for many decades if ever) and the system would only work if it was adopted worldwide simultaneously. None of this is compatible with the cash strapped airlines of today who are more interested in shorter term guaranteed savings such as lighter weight aircraft with more efficient engines and types of traffic management that can be implemented in the near future at minimal cost to the authorities they fund.

The way the latest automation is now developing is to improve safety by actually including the pilots a lot more in what's happening to make the systems an aid not a replacement. A better machine-human interface is what is needed to prevent what was previously referred to as pilot error and it is economically viable as well.

Microburst2002

28th Mar 2010, 22:15

I love that.

I think (hope) that CEOs will not see any bonus nor stock options for that radical, long term, world wide change.

So why bother?

neville_nobody

28th Mar 2010, 22:56

Given they can't even make an autopilot these days that can handle all weather conditions and fly the aircraft to its limitations I highly doubt we will be going pilotless in the near future. I have had to disconnect the autopilot twice in the past year on approach because it wasn't able to handle the conditions.

Huck

28th Mar 2010, 23:36

p51guy

29th Mar 2010, 00:23

Pilots won't do autolands most of the time because the airport won't protect the sterile arrival approach above 800 ft and 2 miles. If the pilots don't trust the system how could automation compensate for it? I have had full scale localizer deflections on ILS's with only a departing aircraft crossing the runway at 200 ft on a crossing runway. Some day they might have one pilot who can maybe fly a bit monitoring the automation but it won't happen in my lifetime.

Nigd3

29th Mar 2010, 01:00

Huck

I dont think the AMS accident is a good one to quote as a pro pilot poster.
The pilots actions on that day (or lack of them) didnt really provide a great reaction from a lot of pilots on here. Albeit aided with a malfunctioning piece in the automation puzzle, a few pilots made the observation of "they crashed a perfectly flyable aircraft into the ground with only a minor technical fault" or something along those lines.

Huck

29th Mar 2010, 01:05

No, the automation flew the aircraft into the ground, while they watched.

The crew looked bad ... but the automation looked worse.

p51guy

29th Mar 2010, 01:39

But the automation equipment didn't die.

PJ2

29th Mar 2010, 02:37

Huck;

No, the automation flew the aircraft into the ground, while they watched.

The crew looked bad ... but the automation looked worse.
What about this: - the "automation" isn't as involved or sophisticated as an A320 - (just a comment, not a comparison), and in this accident it is just a simple auto-throttle back-driving couple of moving levers.

We can imagine the scenario - upon failure of the #1 RA, both throttles would have come back to idle and they stayed there, (pushed up once, but returned again, if I recall), while the autopilot kept the airplane on the glideslope during which the speed bled off, for over a minute, by 40kts.

None of the three in the cockpit did anything until the stall warnings went off at around 400ft if I recall.

I don't think it's an autoflight accident. I would have to say that the automation did exactly as designed and certified. I think we can all agree that a radio altimeter failure is, or should be, a complete non-event. In fact, they would even have known about the RA from the previous log snags one expects.

Perpignan, Sao Paulo, Strasbourg, Madras, Sochi, (but not Bahrain) may have had elements of automation accidents but I don't think AMS was.

regards,
PJ2