Perhaps Compy's account has been hacked?
 

Also...

The assertion that;
... is a common perspective often expressed by "the smartest guys in the room" (not having a go at Rudder Sir), but it is flawed in its inference that piloting could be done by an automaton. (Shut up & just fly the plane you moron!)

Granted, flying has become safer and more reliable with technology, but it's disappointing that some pilots seem to complacently believe that nothing could go wrong on their flights. The evidence says otherwise and, in those cases, there is NO substitute for the highest possible skills and proficiency from pilots!

There is a huge difference between the outcomes of examples like AF447 and US1549, but the more such "easy job" tosh is accepted as fact because it supports cost reductions and industrial agendas, the more de-skilled the pilots of the world will become and there is already plenty of evidence of where that leads.:rolleyes:

Has any of the nay-sayers considered that pilots (like firemen or the peacetime military) are not there for what what they usually do in the day-to-day operation, but rather for what they're supposed to be able to do when the chips are down.:ok:

AUD $00.20.
 

The ship had stopped, mid ocean; big problem with the steam power. Captain says I'll pay anyone who can fix it $100. A small, shabby figure appeared on the deck from the bowls of the ship, "I can fix her Skipper" he mumbled. "Go to" says the Skipper. About 5 minutes later there is a mighty clang and the engines rumble into life. The shabby figure reappeared on deck, in his hand a sledge hammer. "How did you do that?" asks the Skipper. "Well" says old mate "I hit a pipe with my hammer".

"A hundred bucks for hitting a pipe" says the boss, "how will I write that into the accounts".

"Easy" says old mate; "you pay me $1.00 for hitting the pipe and $99 for knowing where to hit it"....;)..:D.....

Any monkey can hit a pipe with a big hammer. QED.

I'm guessing you wouldn't be too impressed by Airbus' plans for single-pilot airliners within 10 years and unmanned (ground controlled) within 20? :E

It's very true that pilots make their money being on hand for when the **** hits the fan, but that doesn't make the day to day operation any less monotonous. There's also the fairly important point that many accidents of late wouldn't have even occurred if not for the pilots' mishandling - not helping our cause to stay relevant!

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here - but surely you can see the argument for fully automated aircraft? The question is, do your QF32s outweigh your AF447s?

Jetsbest

No, Comply's account has not been hacked. If you have watched his/her posts over the years, this person is a complete tool.

Hmmm interesting that story, I once read a similar story about a retired engineer from .....Annset, I think it was, where he was recalled from retirement to fix a problem on a 727, I wondered at the time if it was urban myth. It was a good story but looks like it was just a story.

Where? A google search shows no press release or news article verifying those comments?

If your referring to the ACROSS project, partially funded by Airbus?
A direct quote from their website: Single pilot operations "are not in the scope of ACROSS research and technology developments"
Objectives | Across

I think most pilots really downplay what they do in their jobs. Have a think about it next time you go to work, and think about every time you make a judgement call in your job that an automated system would miss, no matter how small: (Slowing the aircraft early because of an un forecasted tailwind or diverting around cumulus clouds that the weather radar didn't pick up)
For me it would be 40/50 times in an average day.

You won't find it published anywhere. Imagine the reaction...

Almost all (if not all) of the judgement calls we make could be done away with by putting the appropriate systems in place. I.e. pilotless aircraft would obviously require a fully-automated ATC system. There's a technological answer to any problem I can conceive of. If the technology isn't up to scratch, it can be developed.

If that's the case basicaly any job can be taken over with automation.
We can kiss goodbye to the need for human beings all together!

Very true but it still has to meet two criteria: is it affordable and is it relevant.

As an example man has been able to fly to and land on the moon since 1969 but moonshots can no longer meet those criteria. Similarly supersonic passenger flight is easy to achieve from a technology point of view but is not affordable and was only relevant to a minority.

Unless pilotless airliners meet the criteria it will not be developed beyond concept stage which is all Airbus are doing at the moment.

Rudder Sir said
AIRBUS have already developed a procedural system to mitigate automation inadequacies.
It is called 'Golden Rule #6'.
Unfortunately the dumbing down of manual piloting skills leave people ill equipped to decide when it is appropriate to go 'GR6'.
And to stay on thread, I think Mr. Sampson is a good choice to be a QF board member. I wish him well.

What about us Chopper boys, are we going to be put out of work as well?

That's where Sampson comes in, and to get them to recognize where and when that they have lost direction. Having said that, I wonder if this justifies a seat on the board. Why not a contract instead?

I completely agree - I'm just the messenger in this scenario. Good points by all (and sorry for the thread-drift).

You'd think we humans would have learned by now, but we seem to still have this perverse drive to automate ourselves out of existence. I think the main problem is that the people doing the automating are not (generally) the people being put out of work by it.

I remember, back in 1983, in my year 12 computer science class. We were discussing the likelihood of our proposed careers being overtaken totally by computers. The lecturer was quite convinced that just about every profession we came up with could be done better, and cheaper, by computer. Of course when I offered "pilot" he stated that would be the easiest of all jobs to automate with a computer flying a pilotless aircraft. My response then was, possibly, but would you and your family fly in one?

Fast forward 30 plus years. Sure we have driverless trains in some countries (one dimensional control, no traffic, no weather issues).

We have some of the major car companies and Google attempting to prove the concept of driverless vehicles (2 dimensions, traffic, variable road conditions, pedestrians with smartphones blindly walking out in front of you etc etc etc.... ) but are still years away from production, and that's just the technical issues. They're finding its a legal minefield to get the things allowed to legally drive on public roads. In fact Audi, one of the pack leaders, have only recently stated that the days of handing over the driving completely to a computer is still years off, and they are concentrating on driver assistance or the foreseeable future.

And you are seriously suggesting that pilotless airliners will be taking over pilots jobs within 10 to 20 years? (3 dimensions, and I won't even begin to list the complexity of operations we deal with every flight. Suffice to say compare the complexity of driving your car to the airport verses that of operating a flight.)

Not a snowflakes chance in hell I'll see it my lifetime, and on the balance of probabilities it won't happen in the lifetime of my four year old either.

"And you are seriously suggesting that pilotless airliners will be taking over pilots jobs within 10 to 20 years?"

It will happen but maybe not as soon as 10 years.

But for sure there could be a reduction in crew numbers as a first step. Do you really need two dudes sitting up front counting waves? Maybe one could be minding the ship while the other one sleeps. Doesnt take more than a jiffy to get them back into the seat if an emergency develops, which rarely happens anyway.

IsDon, with respect, I think your comparison of fully-automated aircraft with road vehicles is flawed.

It is far easier to fully-automate an airliner than a car for use on public roads, you only have to consider the current state of automation and the operational environment.

I think 10-20 years is way to soon aswell - but that's the timeframe apparently being held by at least some of the Airbus design engineering team. Of course, any initial design would take decades to fully infiltrate the airlines.

Another management-employed troll... or someone who has no idea how often this automation fails? I've seen 10 pages* of Technical Logbook deferred items on some airlines. Less so, these days, probably because of inventive paperwork management.. or because they've been hidden from view on a computer somewhere :rolleyes:

Tell that to the family and friends of Air France 447 passengers/crew... and, possibly, MAS MH370.

And what happens when the cockpit door automation fails? Or the plane is inverted?

*which the pilots have to read and apply risk management principles to... before they start "counting waves".

Ahhhhh, one (possibly two) examples of where no crew would have been better!

Why do people get so hot and bothered about a simple debate? I'd suggest if you can't remove your personal situation from play and remain objective, your judgement is clouded.

I'd like to see a pilotless plane do a max perf TO ex YNWN on a 45 degree day and suffer an eng failure at V1:eek:

Wouldn't like to be a pax on it though:rolleyes: