Will pilots be redundant in 50 years?

[Squawk7777]

For some time I have followed articles about the new unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) mainly used by the USAF and DoD and I don't know if I'll break an "unwritten taboo" by simply asking if pilots will be needed in the future.

Those new UAVs or drones are carrying out tasks like electronic surveillance and even light attacks as we have seen in recent events in Afghanistan. The days of the proud military pilots representing their country might already be a future sign of the past. More and more UAVs are being developed - there are probably many more unknown to us - and their tasks are becoming more complex and degrade the pilot - or human - simply as a system monitor.

One day I believe this will break into commercial aviation - like it or not. Imagine yourself opening up the virtual pages of FI or AW&ST in 30 or 40 years. An advertisement of a transport category airplane manufacturer catches your attention.

"Introducing the new [...] We are the first that introduce the new pilotless 250 seat airliner. Intensive research and testing have shown that pilots are completely unnecessary. The risk of human error is entirely eliminated. No more worries about pilot hiring procedures, training, recurrencies, HR issues etc. Our new plane has sextuple redundancy systems with their respective back-up systems and circuitries."

I could go on writing this ad but I hope you are getting my point. Unfortunately, I believe that we are not too far from this day, since most of us pilots are flying airplanes with very sophisticated autopilots and systems etc. and we are already used to a high level of automation.

Most of you pilots - and I am one of you - will get up and say that this is complete rubbish. Forcing myself to think "out of the box" there's one issue that we will all have to face:

Economics

An airline will not have to face pilot pay rises, retirement issues, etc. Realistically, many times being a pilot, friends of mine and I have heard that we're overpaid and only push buttons up there etc. This "against pilots" list could go one for a few pages, but I am sure that you have heard one or the other insulting(?) argument.

How far away are we from this day X where a pilot is simply an individual who monitors a flight from a computer? Everything will be automatic; probably even ATC - so there's also one less thing to worry about: No more controller strikes etc.

:(

When will it happen?

[foggy duck]

I think most pilots would agree it's inevitable.

The only disagreement would be the timescale.

Hopefully not before I retire,

[YouNeverStopLearning]

No.

There are many good reasons for keeping human pilots; here are just three I humbly think the most important:
As now, we supervise.
There will always be a need for manual intervention and the flexibility this affords.
There will always be a need to satisfy, however ill founded, the passenger’s psychological resistance to automation monopoly.

“ …the Titanic is unsinkable… “

[Squawk7777]

YouNeverStopLearning:

Right now, there are good reasons for us to remain in the cockpit. But how would the new "virtual" generation see this - grown up by playing FS2020 and PlayStation 40?

There will always be a need for manual intervention and the flexibility this affords.

For how long? NASA is already developing and testing autopilots to analyse and solve system malfunctions on F-15. Given powerful computers and good written software, a computer could handle an emergency far better than a flight crew. There would be no emotional interferences etc.

All this technology will turn against us one day ...

[seacue]

Right now, all the driverless passenger systems I know of are one-dimensional - vehicles running on rails. An example is a major part of the Lyon, France, Underground / Metro / Subway system.

I don't know of any large automated two-dimensional passenger systems even being seriously proposed, let alone three dimensional (flying) ones. At my age, I'm sure I'll never see a pilotless airline passenger plane.

[EI_Sparks]

From the point of view of someone doing research in robotics, which this is essentially about : No.

[PLovett]

Just a quick thought.

Aren't these UAVs being piloted by flight crew?

There was something on another thread, think it was about the Hellfire missile taking out the 3 Al Quaida suspects in Yemen, that stated that flight crew were being employed for the task.

An argument for the other side of the coin is that the escape shuttle being planned for the International Space Station is to be completely automated and I understand that the present Shuttle can be recovered automatically. Its only that the pilots on board want to feel useful that they manually land the thing (with all of the electronics up and running).

[Chinthe]

"there's one issue that we will all have to face: Economics "

True, and the economics are this: Who will pay to fly on this pilotless aircraft?

"Risk of human error entirely eliminated" - What about the humans who will design and build this aircraft? Or, what about the humans who will design the computers and robots that will design and build this pilotless aircraft?

"Sextuple redundancy systems with their respective back-up systems and circuitries." With all this, will there be any usable payload remaining?

I don't think I'll be buying any tickets to fly on anything like this. Who would?

[rr892igw]

Future cockpit will have a pilot and a dog.
The dog's job is to make sure the pilot don't touch any buttons,
The pilot's job is to feed the damn dog!!:D

[unwiseowl]

Single pilot will come first. That could last 25 years until they realise that all the pilots have retired and no more have been trained via the F/O route. Then we may see pilotless airliners!

[smoothkpilot]

This is a very interesting discussion and no-one can tell what will happen. Having studied Aerospace Engineering and done a little research into future passenger transport, I make note that most passenger airliners that fly in the skies today are already computer controlled and could probably be programmed to fly whole routes all by themselves, the only problem at the moment is system reliability, but over time this will get better. As someone who is studying/training to be a pilot I have asked myself this question many times, I am 23 and I wonder what kind of planes will be around in 20-30 years time. Most of the new passenger airliners in development now e.g. A380, Somic Cruiser etc are predicted to have a service life of anywhere between 10-20 years. Although these planes will be nearly 100% computer controlled with the pilot in a roll of systems administrator there will still be a need for someone in a supervisory role to oversee that all the systems are functioning effectively and correctly. The role of the pilot will become even more boring that what it is now but I don't think we will see a pilot-less passenger aircraft for a very long time. I don't think airlines will be willing to take the risk of having say 500passengers in the sky and not even a single soul on board who has any idea how to control the thing. This is faith in technology gone mad, and as the old saying goes, technology always fails. So although a computer system may be backed up six other systems, I believe any smart engineer/scientist will always allow an opening for manual control. Most pilots I've spoken to, say that the computer flies the plane most of the time, so in a sense that time is already upon us, economics will dictate that the cabin door remains locked at all times and the pilots watch the systems, if any of the computer systems malfuction the pilot or pilots will assume full or partial control. I would not get on something that goes 30,000ft plus in the air, cruises at just below the speed of sound, is pressurised and carries thousands of Ilbs of fuel without there being someone on board who knows how to control it, pilot or systems administrator, that is the future.
Smoothk.

[Squawk7777]

PLovett: I am not really sure who and how those UAVs are piloted. The ugly truth is that they t/o, cruise, attack and land without having a pilot on board. There are different types of UAVs, the Predator is powered by a pusher-prop and it carried out light attacks in Afghanistan. Not sure if it was used on the attack in Yemen.

Chinthe: At this point in time no one will by tickets for a pilotless transport category aircraft. But times change. I rememeber my first airline flight in 1990; FRA-JFK with Pan Am in an A300 or 310. Upon landing everybody cheered and applauded. Nowadays, this will be very unlikely unless most pax are intoxicated. If children grow up in a fully automated world, why would they see a need for a human in a cockpit? I don't want to offend anyone, but I have previously seen FS2002 "pilots" posting and replying to threads. 10 years ago this would have been unthinkable. As for multiple redundancy systems, we all know that technology has -so far - always increased power and cut weight. Jet engines, computers, etc. Who knows what we'll have in 20+ years?

seacue: There're already fully-automated two-dimensional vehicles out there - no public transport. I think that it is in either Amsterdam, Rotterdam or Hamburg. Those vehicles transport huge containers to and from the ships and the warehouses. Saw that on TV a few years ago. Don't know more about it - sorry.

Last year I read a report that engineers were working on aircrafts without windshields. Instead they were replaced by two large video screens.

This making-the-pilot-redundant development will not occur in huge steps, but in smaller ones. At the end it depends what the people (pax) are willing to accept. If a plane is developed that can outperform any human pilot in normal and abnormal preocedures, how will a society react that was raised in a virtual environment?

[divingduck]

SQ7777..

The UAV's that fly around here (middle east), also give position reports :eek: have their transponder code changed, can be vectored, climbed and descended like any other aircraft.

All done from over 5000 miles away, with very little lag time.

So I think that the answer is yes, it can be done, it's just a matter of selling pilotless aircraft to the public.

[Woodman]

There's no question that technology could make it happen but whether the public would accept it is something completely different.

Given that the pilot's role becomes (even) more of a monitor, when will the number of pilots be reduced from two to one?

[Jet II]

As the role of the pilot changes and he becomes just a 'system monitor' rather than a 'bus driver' - is there any reason why he has to be onboard at all?

As divingduck said, the present day UAV's are already controlled from the ground - why not a normal aircraft?

Putting the crew/monitor on the ground would also have the added benefit on removing the flight deck and prevent any possibility of hi-jack - thereby making flying even safer.

As for the argument about pax not wanting to fly on these aircraft - if the economics of removing the flight crew mean that the ticket price is reduced - people will fly on it. If you make something cheap enough people will always buy it.

I seem to remember in the dim, distant past that many of the safety arguments and 'passengers will never fly it' were also advanced when we started long range, overwater ETOPS.

[lunkenheimer]

Economics plays a part in the military UAVs in that the pilot and life support systems is a major component of aircraft weight (notice I didn't say payload). Eliminating the on-board human can add 25% capability (my guess) just in payload as well as eliminating the risk of having the pilot killed or captured, not to mention the expanded mission envelope.

[Iron City]

But the real question is whether the persons operating the UAVs are getting flight skins or are really pilots. Believe most are not pilots (wear wings, large wristwatches, small etc).



Video game operators for sure, and maybe good technicians. But when it gets all quiet and there are no fans for anything to hit is the person on the ground going to (1) be able to talk to the air vehicle and (2) be quite as "invested" in getting it on the ground in one piece? I think somebody said that the prospect of your imediate demise wonderfully sharpens the senses and attention

[GlueBall]

Fifty years from now there'll be just one pilot/systems' monitor and five heavily armed Air Marshals aboard each jet.:eek:

[Human Factor]

Would you fly on an aircraft with no pilot? I wouldn't, I know I'm not alone!

[Mac the Knife]

Urrrr... Pilots aside, will there be any JP-1 left in 50 years?
And if not, what will we be using? Hydrogen is awfully bulky.

[HOMER SIMPSONS LOVECHILD]

Why not ? Just as soon as they get radar and precision approaches into the Greek Islands.I reckon that gives us at least another 50 years !

[cy becker]

From my archives...

"There is a very strong feeling, particularly on the part of the engineering community, that the way to get rid of human error is simply to get rid of the pilot. In fact I've seen a letter signed by a senior vice-president of maintenance, of a major airline, which said precisely that.
I don't think that we'll ever see a situation in which we've totally eliminated the human operator, or the pilot, from the flight deck. Because we need the capability to do what thus far only people can do and that is to be creative and to deal with ambiguous situations, new situations, un-anticipated situations in creative ways.
I have an example from the real world that I think vividly illustrates what the human brings to the situation and why we need to design systems so that the human is an integral part of it.
Severeral years ago a large three engined aircraft was taking off from L.A and there was a failure in the horizontal stabiliser - a very serious problem. They were able to gain control of the airplane and in fact bring it around for a successful landing by making use of the differential thrust between the tail mounted engine [which is up high and above the CG], and when thrust is applied tends to pitch the aircraft down, and the wing mounted engines [which are below the CG] , and when power is applied to them tends to pitch the aircraft up. What makes that interesting is that's not an explicit, approved or understood procedure, in fact the crew made use of an adverse characteristic - engineers try to design airplanes so that they don't have pitching moments with power changes. Here a human being, a flight crew, was able to make use of an adverse characteristic to save the day.

It's that kind of creative thinking, that only the human can do, and do effectively, that is going to dictate his continued presence for the foreseeable future in any kind of complex system".

Dr John K Lauber
[Currently the vice president-Safety and Technical Affairs, Airbus Industrie of North America. Dr. Lauber completed two terms as a member of the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington, D.C. He has participated in investigations of major accidents involving all modes of transportation. Dr. Lauber has also served as chief of the Aeronautical Human Factors Research Office for NASA Ames Research Center, where he was instrumental in the development of advanced flight crew training concepts that are now used by airlines around the world.]

So give it a thought the next time you're flying. Are you better off in the hands of a human pilot, whose ability to mess it up is at least matched by his instinct for survival - or is there an alternative?

If we leave it to the computer, have we created the perfect pilot or could human error creep in another way? The old adage says 'it's the pilot who is always the first on the scene of an accident', but in a pilot-less aircraft the fault may lie with a software designer who is busy sipping his G&T at home in silicon valley - at the exact time your plane comes down in the Rockies!
:eek:

[Massey1Bravo]

Just a little note:

Many tube trains nowdays can be completely "driverless", yet tube companies worldwide still puts drivers in their trains. So that might explain a bit.

But what will happen to the co-pilot? I don't know.

[150Driver]

As a software developer and CPL holder I find this as laughable as the regular "robots about to take over the world" columns in the Daily Mail. It just shows to highlight the utter ignorance of the writer. Software development and computing technology is not and never will be equal to the complexity of the human brain.

[maxalt]

I guess an aircraft with no pilots, no cockpit and no flight controls, and locked on a pre-programmed route would be pretty difficult to hijack!

[GlueBall]

150 Driver be mindful of UAVs. The largest of them is the Globalhawk. It is remotely flown from the USA to the Middle East, then lingers in the air (on station) 6 hours and returns back to the USA, unrefueled, computer controlled, operated and programmed, sometimes by non pilots!

[Jump Complete]

Squawk 7777 says that apparently engineers are delevoping an aircraft with video screens instead of flight deck windows-what would be the point of that?
A video screen can break down, a window can't. (Although it could perhaps fall out-as has happened, but they got it down alright.
The possibility of having a basically automated aircraft but with the ability to be controlled from the ground was mentioned.
Firstly, that would surely be very vunerable to terroist. A very high powered transmitter to block the signals, and / or send false signals?
Secondaly, without constant monitering, how would they know when they needed to take over? Of course, you could have a highly trained indivual monitering with another highly trained indivual (with perhaps less expereince than the first) also monitering to make sure the first doesn't miss anything or do something wrong, constantly during the flight. In which case, it may be better to have them on board where they can react quicker and be more motivated to keep the thing in the air...oh wait a minute, aren't we back where we are now?

[slim_slag]

150driver

Software development and computing technology is not and never will be equal to the complexity of the human brain.

There are plenty of extremely distinguished nerds out there who would disagree with you. Although AI is not arriving as fast as some people have suggested, we really have no idea where we will be in 25 or 50 years time.

Anyway, there is a whole lot of difference between a computer being able to produce the complete works of Shakespear, and being able to fly an aeroplane. The latter is eminently computer controllable even now, computers are very safe, and can only get safer. Pilots in transport jets are no longer there primarily to move control surfaces, and carbon based computers have nasty failure modes too.

There is another thread out there debating the merits of having a 250 hour guy flying RHS on a 737. Personally, I'd rather have an experienced captain and a computer.

[Squawk7777]

Jump Complete As far as I recall the video screens were thought to be a good way around the problems designing cockpit windows. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read it, I believe this article might have been in Aviation Week & Space Technology . Engineers - I beleive - would appreciate a system like this on the next generation SST. No more tilting nose to worry about ...

slim_slag There have been a lot of discussions before about low time RHS pilots. The last intense one was about the Crossair 146 crash. Based from my experience it all depends on the individual and the training she or he had. Additionally, you cannot draw a line between good training, good piloting skills and flight experience. A few airlines put low time pilots in the RHS. Moreover, how many flight hours does a F-16 pilot have, the first time he flies solo? Besides all this, I suppose military pilots should be the first ones concerned by those UAVs. Last I read, Boeing is working on a UCAR - R standing for rotorcraft.

I am not favouring the idea of pilotless travel. I have started this thread because of the increasing number of articles and reports in the last few years.

7 7 7 7

[slim_slag]

7777

I'm not sure why people keep throwing out the F-16 pilot as a reason why 250hr pilots are fine to fly RHS in a 737. An F-16 pilot truly is la creme de la creme, would tend to be a risk taker, doesn't have 100+ people behind him, his plane is automated to the extreme, and there is an attrition rate of F-16 pilots which would be unnaceptable in civil aviation.

But what do I know.

I used my example to illustrate how far we have come since the days when cockpits needed three or more crew in them - and regulations were written accordingly. I didn't say computers are yet able to replace the experienced captain. The checks and balances they already provide, and ability to precisely move control surfaces and fly to/from a radio emitter, maybe make them capable of replacing the inexperienced FO - no matter how well trained. Who knows what the future has in store. unwiseowl describes a realistic scenario, IMHO.

Cheers

[FlatLanderRemoved]

Nothing can .... or ever will ... go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong ..... go wrong, ....go wroooonnnnnng, ... go wroonnn,.... go wwwwrrrrroooo .......


:) :) ;) ;) ::confused: :confused: :eek: :eek:


Nuff said!

Cheers.

[Squawk7777]

slim_slag you can use the example of the 250 hr F-16 pilot for and against the discussion whether to put a low-time pilot into the RHS of an airliner. Then there are arguments about too much SE time in your career etc. etc.

I agree with unwiseowl's scenario, too.

I haven't heard anything about the future A380 cockpit design philosophy. Anybody know?

7 7 7 7

[Jet II]

Several of the postings on this forum have put forward the view that the pilot is essential so that he can 'think out of the box' when the automated systems fail - and thus prevent an accident.

Surely we should look at this from a purely statistical point of view - yes there are incidents where flight crew have saved the aircraft from disaster after a mechanical failure but there are also many incidents where flight crew, through incompetance or failure to follow operating procedures have caused major incidents/accidents.

We should investigate to see if the amount of incidents that would be prevented by NOT having flight crews controlling the aircraft is outwhieged by the amount of incidents prvented by having flight crew who can overide the aircraft systems when they fail.

After a quick search I found this report on accidents causes
Improving the Continued
Airworthiness of Civil Aircraft
(http://search.nap.edu/html/airworthiness/index.html)

This report seems to show that the causes of accidents are mainly (2/3rds) the result of pilot error and only 10% aircraft system failure.

I am aware that you can make statitics show anything however I also note that in the worst of weather you can only do a CAT 3 approach if the computer is flying the plane - not the pilot!

[slim_slag]

7 7 7 7

Yep, I've noticed that different people will use the same example to push their own agenda.

Maybe to add to unwiseowl's scenario. Computers eventually deemed reliable enough to replace FO when monitored by experienced captain, but at more critical times (statistics would suggest take off, descent, landing appear to be risky) you bring in a specially trained member of the cabin crew. This appears to be the way other professions are moving, eg Practice nurses, physicians assistants and para-legals. They can do most things safely only under the supervision of the experienced expert (whatever that is:)) If captain snuffs it in cruise, computer can get plane down at closest airport with ILS with assistance of para-pilot. Actually GPS should do the trick too.

I guess not long ago that would have been considered herecy in the medical profession, but the docs eventually accepted it. Pilots might not like it, but you should never say never. Pay the existing pilots more, and they would go for it. Worked on the London Buses when they wanted to phase out conductors, union solidarity soon collapsed when drivers got offered extra cash.

I'm sure its all been said before, interesting times we live in.....

[Genghis the Engineer]

A view from the design office....

I suspect strongly that the job of the bomber pilot is on it's way out for most roles, there may well remain a role for certain types of local ground attack - the Harrier / Apache role, where close-in identification and decision making need to be made in real time. The death of the fighter pilot was forecast in a well publicised UK government paper in 1957, and hasn't happened yet. Again however, I think the role of controlling an aircraft, controlling the weapons, rather than dogfighting is almost inevitable - so the machines will start to take the main risks more and more.

I doubt very much that the job of transport pilot will ever die - but it is already becoming much more of a management role and less of a hands-on role, and I suspect that won't change. Who will ever want to fly as pax on a totally automated machine? Who will make the decisions on diversions, throwing pissed pax out the door, etc?

I can't see any way in which certain flying roles can ever be totally automated. For example - SAR, small local transport routes between semi-prepared strips in the back of beyond, sightseeing - and of course flight testing the non-automated aircraft.

So far as I can see the jobs of both pilots and engineers can only get more interesting. Except for that of airline captains, who presumably will continue to be paid more than anybody else for reading page 3 and occasionally checking the dials or dealing with a badly behaved passenger to relieve the boredom.

G

[dvt]

I'd like to see a computer control an aircraft like United 232. An engine disintegration that severed all hydraulic lines. How many lines of code would it take to do what Haynes and crew did?

Put me in the camp of unbelievers. The moment a pilot considers himself nothing more than a system manager is the moment he's set himself on a course for disaster.

There are countless instances of the crew saved a deteriorating situation casued by the machine, ATC or design oversight. They don't make for lasting headlines. For example, I'm trying to remember the L1011 flight out of SAN where the crew had no idea the horizontal stab had gone full nose up on them while taxiing out. The stab setting was green in the cockpit but a mechanical problem put it full nose up unbeknown to the crew. They took off and both pilots went full forward with the elevators and trim to no effect. The Captain defaulted to the stick and rudder skills of a fighter pilot, as he repeatedly rolled the lift vector off the aircraft to get the nose down. Using differential thrust and moving pax forward they were able to save the day. And they were quickly forgotten. I searched the NTSB database and could not find this incident. Is it possible to program these kinds of problem solving skills into a computer? I really doubt it. Not in my lifetime.

How would a computer cope with erroenous glidpath, false LOC capture, and other simple anomilies in visual conditions that is obvious to a pilot? Weather hazard recognition that demands interpetation and action between competing objectives. TILT!

[Flat Side Up]

Would be instructive to see a survey of low time F16 pilots accident/ incident rates. On the other hand if it all goes to grubs he can bang out in his fully automated ejector seat!100 percent loss of aircraft guaranteed. Statistics and damn lies:eek: :rolleyes:

[divingduck]

in one of the other threads on the Eurofighter crash, one of the drivers stated that in the event of a double engine failure...eject!

That says something about designing an aircraft to be inherently unstable and using a computer to basically fly it.

[Chimbu chuckles]

It's as simple as this.

Flight, among many other human endeavours, is just that...a human endeavour. If you design humans out of the equation it becomes completely non worthwhile.

Just because something is technically feasible doesn't make it a good idea.

At what point do we stop designing people out of life?

The ultimate computer known to mankind is the human brain..infinitely more capable than anything some loser who designs ultimate digital computers, and believes them infallible because unlike women they don't reject him, could ever come up with.

It seems to me very few 'airline pilots' have so far contributed to this thread...we do actually make many, MANY decisions each and every flight.

The reason airline travel is the safest way from A to B is because of the humans in the front...not the gadgets!

And be very carefull of assigning all human error in aircraft crashes to 'pilot error'...the pilots are often having to cope with the errors of others...notably 'Engineers'.

One 'Captain' on board?

How many sectors do you want to fly between A and B?

I have 15 to 20 years left 'airline flying' and this is my prognosis for my remaining career.

Aircraft will not travel significantly faster.
You can forget superfast 'lifting bodies' full of pax skipping across the atmosphere between Sydney and London in a few hours.
Aircraft will not be significantly more automated than they currently are. They may in fact be less so..or at least be designed to interface with the pilot better than some are at present.

After that I don't really care...I'll hop in my Bonanza and fly the way flying should be... when that is not possible I'll go sailing...with a sextant, chart and log and all the computer programmers can go fark themselves.

Chuck.

[burnercan]

Arent pilots redundant now in heavy jets ????
Maybe the title should have been will there still be humans onboard to operate/supervise systems ??


Just another stick and rudder man (cropduster):p

[25F]

PLovett:
Point of info on landing the Shuttle: some things can only be done manually, in particular lowering the landing gear.

Standard procedure is to take over from computer-controlled re-entry about two minutes before touchdown.

The Russian Buran shuttle, on the other hand, made one unmanned orbital flight, before they (basically) ran out of money.

Disclaimer: I am not an astronaut. In fact I'm not even a PPL.

[edited to get PLovett's name right!]

[Op checked Satis]

: No more pilots,how much easier life would be without you lot to break our lovely machines.:) :)

[under_exposed]

Computers are improving all the time. I am not sure the same can be said for humans which would mean its only a matter of time before the computer will be the better choice.

[Capt Pit Bull]

Jet II

This report seems to show that the causes of accidents are mainly (2/3rds) the result of pilot error and only 10% aircraft system failure.

Trouble is, this doesn't tell us how many system failures occur, that have been retrieved by the pilots, and thus become non-events rather than accidents.

E.G. if 1 flight in a thousand had a malfunction (that would cause an autonomous airliner to crash), and the crew only prevented it on 99.9% of the time, you'd have 1 accident per million flights, and they'd all be due to Pilot Error.

Take the crew off the aircraft, and now you have 1 crash per thousand flights, with no convenient scapegoat.

I've been flying for 20 years, airliners for the last 7, and I have experienced literally dozens of malfunctions that presented no real challenge (no real risk either), but have left the aircraft in a 'no automation available' condition.


I am aware that you can make statitics show anything however I also note that in the worst of weather you can only do a CAT 3 approach if the computer is flying the plane - not the pilot!

Well, from my viewpoint, I wouldn't classify AWOPS situations as the 'worst of weather'.

You should take note of the fact that autoland wind limitations are much more stringent than manual landings.

In my experience the weather is far more likely to be out of limits for autolandings (due wind) than for manual landings (due visibility).

Well, whilst I am prepared to entertain the possibility that continued development *may* make it techically possible to get rid of pilots at some point in the future, IMHO the current state of the art is nowhere it at the moment.

The bottom line is that computers can't land aircraft in strong gusty wind conditions.

CPB

[steamchicken]

Computers may improve all the time in processing power, but this is a crude measurement. It is quite conceivable that some groups of tasks will remain beyond the ability of computers forever - for instance ones requiring creativity or originality - and that more will not be possible for the foreseeable future at least. More importantly, the question is not just whether or not a computer could be made to do it, but whether it would be practical and economic to do it. You might be able to build an aircraft that could fly without human guidance, but be exorbitantly too expensive to produce or operate. Further, such things could well go through a long period as laboratory curiosities, too hedged in by limitations for anything but extremely specialised applications. Finally, there exists a certain class of mathematical problems which computers cannot, for reasons of the scientific philosophy underpinning computing, resolve.

I once saw a documentary concerning a Mercedes Benz project to build an automatic road vehicle. They did, indeed, get it to work within extremely restrictive parameters, and one saw it driving around a test track as the operator left the steering wheel and walked into the back (it was a van) to show off the equipment that made it work...which filled the load space completely. Merc later abandoned the project as a waste of effort.

[Squawk7777]

Interesting posts so far...

If engineers can develop a very powerful computer and feed it with a databank that e.g. includes 30 years of the UK mandatory occurrence report, we have combined two components: a "brain" and "experience".

Nobody has mentioned the "cargo rats". Maybe freight-pilots will become obsolete before the "bus drivers" (as a few pax have called me before :mad: )

I believe the future of this will be more foreseeable when the military has made a decision on the upkeeping of its real fighter and bomber pilots. If the military wants to keep 'em, then it is a good sign for us civil pilots...

Just my thoughts ... :rolleyes:

7 7 7 7

[Kapooley]

Yawn, this topic again. Airline pilots will never be replaced. Why anyway? Best to have both worlds, sopisticated computers and humans working alongside. Airlines are driven by consumers i.e the public, and aircraft manufacters are driven by what the airlines require. Its been mentioned before, which brave sole is going to board an aircraft with no pilots on board? Airlines know this. What airline would take the risk to introduce pilotless aircraft into its fleet? I guess the cargo fleet could be operated like this, however, again who would want pilotless aircraft to fly over their house? Also unless someone develops AI, a number of ground instillations would have to be set up and a number of controllers employed on the ground to control these aircraft. Whats the point exactly, when you can operate the aircraft by using pilots?

I think the question should really be: how many years will it take for the job as an airline pilot to become really de-skilled????


With the military, its a completely different story. Cost of pilot training far exceeds that of the airline pilot, as does the training timescale. Further, why restrict the aircraft to 9G, which is the human limit roughly, unless the guys sat on his back, when our materials, even now can withstand a good 25G.

[madupz]

Slim, your data that you even linked to seemed to be incorrect. Here is the data as read.

Cause Factor Number of Events Percentage


Personnel (human factors) 800 49.44
Aircraft 547 33.81
Maintenance 214 13.23
Environment 33 2.04
Air traffic management 24 1.48

Totals 1,618 100.00

Hardly the 2/3 you speak of.

[Rod Eddington]

rather an old topic brought back to the fore!

makes for interesting reading though

just a thought though, slimslag you talk about a single pilot flightdeck - 1 experienced captain. If there are no F/Os then where exactly do you propose the experienced captain gets his/her experience from???:confused:

or perhaps we can use technology to clone them. problem solved:ok:

[Pub User]

A quick search came up with this site:

http://www.lewis.army.mil/transformation/NWguardianNews/spying_safely_with_uav.htm

A quote from the site is as follows:

"Seven people are needed to operate the UAV: One person to work the payload, another to control the UAV, a mission commander, an external pilot to launch the UAV and three ground handling personnel to prepare the UAV for flight."

Discounting ground handling and payload specialists, who are also required by airliners, that leaves 3 people operating the thing. It flies in open, uncontrolled airspace without the need to interface with other traffic. Can you imagine the complexity of having little groups of drone operators scattered all over the World, as their machines are entering the stack at LHR on a foggy January morning? Far easier, and cheaper, to stick a couple of people on board the aircraft, with a radio to talk to a local contolling authority.