A bleak future for Aviation?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New Jersey Shore
Age: 92
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I see it, the glory days of airline piloting are fading, and may not return. That's a real shame.
However, "Aviation" will continue to thrive. The adjustments will be painful, I'm afraid, for airline pilots. The prestige is slipping, along with the salary.
There are endless suckers who will work for little more than bus drivers just to fly anything for any body, for the sake of being a pilot.
However, "Aviation" will continue to thrive. The adjustments will be painful, I'm afraid, for airline pilots. The prestige is slipping, along with the salary.
There are endless suckers who will work for little more than bus drivers just to fly anything for any body, for the sake of being a pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes of course it will, but you won't need 'pilots' up front as you did in days of yore. Have as many as you like in the flight deck, but the simple fact is that they will not be required to 'handle' the thing, that is to risky. The vast majority of accidents are caused by pilots and the industry is looking to get them out of the loop. The point of this thread was to discuss the future in aviation, it is already obvious both from the experiences of us in it and the trend in design and automation of aircraft that the future for those who feel it necessary to 'pole' the thing is limited. After all it is no longer necessary to 'fly' in the simulator, apart from a ILS and G/A the whole thing is done with the autopilot, the old instrument rating is long gone replaced by a more realistic test using the aircrafts automatics and things will continue to develop. As for being a pilot, well it's not that big a deal, it's the size of some of the ego's that produces the Neos et al in this business. Problem for you boys is that the 'managers' in the business who employ you don't share your inflated opinions of yourselves.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, Carruthers, your posting style only succeeds in making you sound bitter and envious.Even if what you say was to be proved true, why do you have to make it so
personal?Flying is something we do professionally because we love it - it's a vocation. So quite naturally we will fight to remain pilots.
I'm sure you'd be exactly the same about something you love.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Carruthers (or perhaps we should call you Gollum) -
Tell you what, whenever next you fly, mention your PPRUNE handle to the flight crew. They might just take a day off and leave you to attempt to program your beloved automatics to try to fly the aircraft to destination. The pilots can leave (you know, the dangerous, irrelevant, egotistical and overpaid people at the front) followed closely by all the rest of the passengers. They can all watch your laughable efforts from the comfort of the departure lounge Starbucks from now until my retirement in about 20 years time.
Or you could try blagging a ringside seat in a simulator. Last time I was obliged to fly in the box, ooooh let me see now, at least 3, yes count 'em, 3 manually flown approaches on 2 and 1 engines, and you know what, some of those ended in manually flown go-arounds. Even more amazing, I didn't crash!
And even more amazing is the fact that professional airline pilots do this week in week out. Compare that with the number of times your computer fails, and you put your faith in the latter?
Meanwhile, back at Starbucks, I'll have another expresso......
(They stole it, those filthy thieving airline pilots, my precious, my job, my self-esteem, those horrible, filthy pilots, they stole my PRECIOUSSSSS..... (on ad nauseam))
Tell you what, whenever next you fly, mention your PPRUNE handle to the flight crew. They might just take a day off and leave you to attempt to program your beloved automatics to try to fly the aircraft to destination. The pilots can leave (you know, the dangerous, irrelevant, egotistical and overpaid people at the front) followed closely by all the rest of the passengers. They can all watch your laughable efforts from the comfort of the departure lounge Starbucks from now until my retirement in about 20 years time.
Or you could try blagging a ringside seat in a simulator. Last time I was obliged to fly in the box, ooooh let me see now, at least 3, yes count 'em, 3 manually flown approaches on 2 and 1 engines, and you know what, some of those ended in manually flown go-arounds. Even more amazing, I didn't crash!
And even more amazing is the fact that professional airline pilots do this week in week out. Compare that with the number of times your computer fails, and you put your faith in the latter?
Meanwhile, back at Starbucks, I'll have another expresso......
(They stole it, those filthy thieving airline pilots, my precious, my job, my self-esteem, those horrible, filthy pilots, they stole my PRECIOUSSSSS..... (on ad nauseam))
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously the only thing that matters is whether or not one is a PILOT. It is of course this arrogant belief that we and only we are of any relevance or importance that causes others to perceive us with contempt. But of course you are right boys, in twenty years time you’ll still be ‘flying’ your aeroplanes with the bean counters falling at your feet, dream on.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ermm.......you're the one who keeps ranting on about pilots....
and in case you hadn't noticed, this is the pilots' rumour network, so you would tend to find pilots here, talking about things which affect pilots , now wouldn't you?
Anyway...whatever.........
and in case you hadn't noticed, this is the pilots' rumour network, so you would tend to find pilots here, talking about things which affect pilots , now wouldn't you?
Anyway...whatever.........
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It's sad how people like C.... , try to simplify and belittle what is a complex, technically advanced and skilled position... I don't care what you say... landing 20 tonne or 200 tonne safely, in monsoons/fowl wx or just big crosswinds takes expertise!
It's also sad how the equation has been stuffed up.
It takes 4 key ingredients to run an airline:
1) Airframes
2) Crew to operate ( PILOTS& F/As)
3) Fuel to go
4) Pax
Just so many people are riding the coat tails, that the water has been muddied and the simple equation lost .
It's also sad how the equation has been stuffed up.
It takes 4 key ingredients to run an airline:
1) Airframes
2) Crew to operate ( PILOTS& F/As)
3) Fuel to go
4) Pax
Just so many people are riding the coat tails, that the water has been muddied and the simple equation lost .
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO - if software stuffs up, the guy who designed it / okayed it may be halfway around the world sleeping or having a coffee .... They may not have the same motivation as a pilot in making sure the aircraft gets from A to B as safely as possible because, yes, they may find it was their fault, but they can go oops and be alive to say it ......... The Pilot on the other hand, definately has a personal interest in ensuring the survival of the aircraft and its contenets ........
Just my 2c ......
Just my 2c ......
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
There's also a thread running on the D & G forum along similar lines to this one, interestingly enough.
Perhaps as the thread starter there, Oz Ocker, has suggested in his latest post, one major contributing factor to the reason for pilots' salaries going the way they are, is because of the "Global Village" in which we all now supposedly reside.
The work that was once the domain of only white Anglo-Saxons is now extended to just about every race world-wide.
I am not basing my thoughts on racism, but on the REALITY of the situation - so no abuse please.
As we are well aware, pilots salaries varied markedly until the last 10 or 15 years. Pilots in Western countries were paid reasonably good salaries, achieved by their united (unionised) efforts, whereas pilots in developing countries took what they were dished out - but in general enjoyed salaries higher than the average in their own countries.
Pilots from Eastern Europe made some impact on salaries in many parts of the world when they migrated - for them a BIG salary increase, but for incumbent pilots it meant a substantial drop in earnings to compete.
Technology of new aircraft means that traditionally required skills of pilots, and training time required to learn new aircraft have been lessened. And so - for example - China now has thousands of pilots flying the SAME aircraft types as are flown in Western countries for around 1/10th of the pay.
The employers are well aware of this and would replace ALL of us today if that were possible, I'm sure.
One of the biggest obstacles that stands in their way are the unions, which is why we are constantly seeing them chipped away and busted.
Labour laws in many countries have been dramatically changed over the past decade or so, facilitating the influx of cheaper foreign labour as airlines of Western countries try to compete against former Eastern European and Asian airlines operating on a far lesser labour cost base. As these airlines grow, the Western world's companies - and their employees - will come under even further pressure to trim down their costs, or alternatively go bust.
The money that non-Western airlines must be stashing away in profits for future expansion must be phenomenal, and a worry to Western world companies.
IMHO, that is the reality of the situation - the future for ALL airline employees, in the west, will be lower wages until the situation stabilises, and increasing salaries for employees of the up-and-coming airlines in the developing countries.
I've had my differences with Carruthers before, however he also speaks a lot of truth - although we mightn't like hearing it.
Perhaps as the thread starter there, Oz Ocker, has suggested in his latest post, one major contributing factor to the reason for pilots' salaries going the way they are, is because of the "Global Village" in which we all now supposedly reside.
The work that was once the domain of only white Anglo-Saxons is now extended to just about every race world-wide.
I am not basing my thoughts on racism, but on the REALITY of the situation - so no abuse please.
As we are well aware, pilots salaries varied markedly until the last 10 or 15 years. Pilots in Western countries were paid reasonably good salaries, achieved by their united (unionised) efforts, whereas pilots in developing countries took what they were dished out - but in general enjoyed salaries higher than the average in their own countries.
Pilots from Eastern Europe made some impact on salaries in many parts of the world when they migrated - for them a BIG salary increase, but for incumbent pilots it meant a substantial drop in earnings to compete.
Technology of new aircraft means that traditionally required skills of pilots, and training time required to learn new aircraft have been lessened. And so - for example - China now has thousands of pilots flying the SAME aircraft types as are flown in Western countries for around 1/10th of the pay.
The employers are well aware of this and would replace ALL of us today if that were possible, I'm sure.
One of the biggest obstacles that stands in their way are the unions, which is why we are constantly seeing them chipped away and busted.
Labour laws in many countries have been dramatically changed over the past decade or so, facilitating the influx of cheaper foreign labour as airlines of Western countries try to compete against former Eastern European and Asian airlines operating on a far lesser labour cost base. As these airlines grow, the Western world's companies - and their employees - will come under even further pressure to trim down their costs, or alternatively go bust.
The money that non-Western airlines must be stashing away in profits for future expansion must be phenomenal, and a worry to Western world companies.
IMHO, that is the reality of the situation - the future for ALL airline employees, in the west, will be lower wages until the situation stabilises, and increasing salaries for employees of the up-and-coming airlines in the developing countries.
I've had my differences with Carruthers before, however he also speaks a lot of truth - although we mightn't like hearing it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carruthers, you seem to have adopted the role of ‘resident 411A’ on this thread. As the person who might be said to have instigated this thread (through having started the original thread on D & G that got this discussing going), allow me to explain where I, and I think many other pilots, are coming from on this issue.
We see the seemingly unstoppable march towards total automation as counterproductive to what used to be the overall aim of this business - getting the bums, once they’ve been placed on seats by the very capable efforts of people within the industry with skills very different to those we possess, safely to their destination. I probably should add to that ’…by all possible means available’ - the magic word being ‘all’.
That one seemingly simple sentence actually encapsulates tomes and tomes of learned script and decades of many-faceted experience, with specialists from widely disparate fields lending their hard-won expertise towards achieving (what used to be) the primary aim of aviation – getting fare-paying passengers from point A to Point B in one piece.
There’d be some who’d say that that primary aim seems to have been replaced by another over the last ten to fifteen years, and that is squeezing as much profit out of the system for the minimum amount of input. Anyone with an even passing knowledge of the history of early commercial aviation would agree that that aim was as close to the hearts of 1920’s airline management as it is to the Michael O’Learys of today – and they were just as single-minded in attempting to achieve it as any of today’s crop of ‘wunderkinder’.
Gawd, I’ve descended into waffle mode… (It’s been said of me before today that I’m not one to say in one hundred words what could be said in a (couple of) thousand!) The above wasn’t the point I started out trying to make. Trying to get back to said point: the only difference between the O’Learys of today and the Rikenbaker’s of the 1920’s is that modern technology and automation are allowing today’s airline managers to cut costs (some would say corners) in pilot training and standards that would have quickly proven commercially fatal to an airline (as well as physically fatal to its passengers!) back in the 20s or even the 60’s.
But today, redundant automation systems have removed one word from that last sentence – ‘quickly’. However, without the ‘quickly’, I think, (although many like Carruthers would disagree with me), that the latter part of that sentence remains true today in the long term. As costly as it may seem to managers whose only (or major) concern is a short term black bottom line, by their current seemingly inexorable push to ‘dumb down’ the flying side of industry, they risk throwing away the very thing that has made it the uniquely safe mode of transport it has been to date.
(Finally getting to my point…)
My prime example of where the engineers got it wrong and the pilots got it right was the first moon landing by the Apollo astronauts. From Day One of the project, the engineers wanted the operation to be fully automated and the astronauts to be ‘hands off’ passengers – ‘spam in a can’ was the term sued at the time. They didn’t even want them to have windows. (It may be an urban myth, but I believe the same argument was tried by the engineers in the early design stages of the 1960’s Trident – as an aircraft built around a fully automatic landing system, the designers wanted the pilots sitting down the back under their engines, because they wouldn’t need a forward view on landing.)
Back to the moon landing: the astronauts (=pilots) won the argument for a window on the lunar lander and a manual override capability (causing enormous extra costs in TRAINING said astronauts in manipulating the unwieldy machine and manually handling it under a series of malfunction scenarios that the engineers knew could be better (and more cheaply) handled by the automatics.
Just in case there’s someone out there who isn’t aware of it, on the big day in July 1969, Neil Armstrong had to override the automatics in the last vital seconds before the first manned touchdown on the moon when he saw – out the ‘unnecessary’ window – that the craft was going to touch down on a crater rim. But for this manual override by the astronaut using a skill that was deemed by the experts to be ‘no longer necessary’, the landing would have resulted in disaster, with enormous, some would say unthinkable implications for the United States space program and the USA as a whole.
Long-windedly, I’m just trying to say that current thinking by ‘save another cent by any means’ management, (aided to a large degree by the apparent design philosophy of the engineers at Airbus), is leading our industry inexorably towards a future – and possibly massive – ‘moon crater landing’. And if things continue going the way they’re going, there won’t be enough men remaining within the industry with the kind of ‘unnecessary’ training Neil Armstrong was given who might be in a position to avoid that ‘crater’ when, not if, the industry as a whole confronts it.
We see the seemingly unstoppable march towards total automation as counterproductive to what used to be the overall aim of this business - getting the bums, once they’ve been placed on seats by the very capable efforts of people within the industry with skills very different to those we possess, safely to their destination. I probably should add to that ’…by all possible means available’ - the magic word being ‘all’.
That one seemingly simple sentence actually encapsulates tomes and tomes of learned script and decades of many-faceted experience, with specialists from widely disparate fields lending their hard-won expertise towards achieving (what used to be) the primary aim of aviation – getting fare-paying passengers from point A to Point B in one piece.
There’d be some who’d say that that primary aim seems to have been replaced by another over the last ten to fifteen years, and that is squeezing as much profit out of the system for the minimum amount of input. Anyone with an even passing knowledge of the history of early commercial aviation would agree that that aim was as close to the hearts of 1920’s airline management as it is to the Michael O’Learys of today – and they were just as single-minded in attempting to achieve it as any of today’s crop of ‘wunderkinder’.
Gawd, I’ve descended into waffle mode… (It’s been said of me before today that I’m not one to say in one hundred words what could be said in a (couple of) thousand!) The above wasn’t the point I started out trying to make. Trying to get back to said point: the only difference between the O’Learys of today and the Rikenbaker’s of the 1920’s is that modern technology and automation are allowing today’s airline managers to cut costs (some would say corners) in pilot training and standards that would have quickly proven commercially fatal to an airline (as well as physically fatal to its passengers!) back in the 20s or even the 60’s.
But today, redundant automation systems have removed one word from that last sentence – ‘quickly’. However, without the ‘quickly’, I think, (although many like Carruthers would disagree with me), that the latter part of that sentence remains true today in the long term. As costly as it may seem to managers whose only (or major) concern is a short term black bottom line, by their current seemingly inexorable push to ‘dumb down’ the flying side of industry, they risk throwing away the very thing that has made it the uniquely safe mode of transport it has been to date.
(Finally getting to my point…)
My prime example of where the engineers got it wrong and the pilots got it right was the first moon landing by the Apollo astronauts. From Day One of the project, the engineers wanted the operation to be fully automated and the astronauts to be ‘hands off’ passengers – ‘spam in a can’ was the term sued at the time. They didn’t even want them to have windows. (It may be an urban myth, but I believe the same argument was tried by the engineers in the early design stages of the 1960’s Trident – as an aircraft built around a fully automatic landing system, the designers wanted the pilots sitting down the back under their engines, because they wouldn’t need a forward view on landing.)
Back to the moon landing: the astronauts (=pilots) won the argument for a window on the lunar lander and a manual override capability (causing enormous extra costs in TRAINING said astronauts in manipulating the unwieldy machine and manually handling it under a series of malfunction scenarios that the engineers knew could be better (and more cheaply) handled by the automatics.
Just in case there’s someone out there who isn’t aware of it, on the big day in July 1969, Neil Armstrong had to override the automatics in the last vital seconds before the first manned touchdown on the moon when he saw – out the ‘unnecessary’ window – that the craft was going to touch down on a crater rim. But for this manual override by the astronaut using a skill that was deemed by the experts to be ‘no longer necessary’, the landing would have resulted in disaster, with enormous, some would say unthinkable implications for the United States space program and the USA as a whole.
Long-windedly, I’m just trying to say that current thinking by ‘save another cent by any means’ management, (aided to a large degree by the apparent design philosophy of the engineers at Airbus), is leading our industry inexorably towards a future – and possibly massive – ‘moon crater landing’. And if things continue going the way they’re going, there won’t be enough men remaining within the industry with the kind of ‘unnecessary’ training Neil Armstrong was given who might be in a position to avoid that ‘crater’ when, not if, the industry as a whole confronts it.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only point of being in business is to make money- it is now as it was in the twenties. Most businesses will take any steps they can to reduce costs and overheads and maximise profit. If they don't, their management team is failing them and should be replaced.
The main question is, what does that company then do with its profits- does it pay its shareholders, invest in new equipment, invest in its people? If it does all three, it is probably a good company to work for. If it doesn't, it is like some airlines today- profits to the managers/owners, lots of new kit, not much for the employees.
In any event, the question driving this thread is automation and the elimination of the flight crew from the flight deck (or a reduction in status to observers).
The technology is not yet mature enough to allow this to happen. Even if it were, the regulatory framework doesn't exist to allow it to be implemented. Such a uses of technology almost certainly contravenes a lot of existing legislation (certainly in Europe); the sort of legislation that protects the rights of the consumer. Getting to an automated airliner that flies with no human intervention is almost certainly not possible in the forseeable future for these reasons.
Even if it were, the chances of it being accepted quickly by the travelling public are remote. There is no precedent for fully automated flight; the few other forms of transport that are "driverless" (such as elevators, some trains, airport shuttles etc) are also failsafe- the brakes come on and you stop. An aircraft can never be failsafe.
Even if you could get over the hurdles of technology, regulation, consumer rights, and public acceptance, this technology is unlikely to be cheap. It would almost certainly cost the modern equivalent of Concorde to develop to a satisfactory level. As we all know, few manufacturers can stump up the development costs, and few airlines can afford the end result. The cost saving you achieve by eliminating the pilots is simply not that big.
For certain, none of the second-tier airlines could afford to participate.
And finally, the first time one of these pilotless aircraft crashes, the whole programme will be thrown into chaos (and there will be accidents, as there have been (spectacularly) with FBW aircraft.
Yes, the pilot is not foolproof from an ultimate safety point of view (which is why there are two of them, after all), but there is still a way to go yet in the quest to eliminate pilot-induced accidents (which are, by the way, extremely rare in any case- especially in the West). If the primary purpose of technological advance was safety, we would be doing something about the carnage on the roads. We don't, because it isn't profitable.
I really do believe there is life in the old wetware yet. Automation may come- especially as the rise of nanotechnology and biocomputing continues- but not in my lifetime (than God).
The main question is, what does that company then do with its profits- does it pay its shareholders, invest in new equipment, invest in its people? If it does all three, it is probably a good company to work for. If it doesn't, it is like some airlines today- profits to the managers/owners, lots of new kit, not much for the employees.
In any event, the question driving this thread is automation and the elimination of the flight crew from the flight deck (or a reduction in status to observers).
The technology is not yet mature enough to allow this to happen. Even if it were, the regulatory framework doesn't exist to allow it to be implemented. Such a uses of technology almost certainly contravenes a lot of existing legislation (certainly in Europe); the sort of legislation that protects the rights of the consumer. Getting to an automated airliner that flies with no human intervention is almost certainly not possible in the forseeable future for these reasons.
Even if it were, the chances of it being accepted quickly by the travelling public are remote. There is no precedent for fully automated flight; the few other forms of transport that are "driverless" (such as elevators, some trains, airport shuttles etc) are also failsafe- the brakes come on and you stop. An aircraft can never be failsafe.
Even if you could get over the hurdles of technology, regulation, consumer rights, and public acceptance, this technology is unlikely to be cheap. It would almost certainly cost the modern equivalent of Concorde to develop to a satisfactory level. As we all know, few manufacturers can stump up the development costs, and few airlines can afford the end result. The cost saving you achieve by eliminating the pilots is simply not that big.
For certain, none of the second-tier airlines could afford to participate.
And finally, the first time one of these pilotless aircraft crashes, the whole programme will be thrown into chaos (and there will be accidents, as there have been (spectacularly) with FBW aircraft.
Yes, the pilot is not foolproof from an ultimate safety point of view (which is why there are two of them, after all), but there is still a way to go yet in the quest to eliminate pilot-induced accidents (which are, by the way, extremely rare in any case- especially in the West). If the primary purpose of technological advance was safety, we would be doing something about the carnage on the roads. We don't, because it isn't profitable.
I really do believe there is life in the old wetware yet. Automation may come- especially as the rise of nanotechnology and biocomputing continues- but not in my lifetime (than God).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just about every accident we have had over the last decade has been pilot error. We are developing terrain mapping, automatic weather radars (because the 'pilots' cannot be relied upon to turn them on or use them effectively) automatic landing systems, navigation, TCAS, three dimensional sattelite systems etc, etc. All to get the pilot out of the loop as much as possible. So the moon lander needed some help 34 yrs ago, well there you go. Presumably then we can't trust Cat 3 landings where the pilots are passengers? No one is talking about a pilot less flight deck, but what will be his role and what will he be worth. The 'cock ups' we witness in training are invariably because the pilots decide to fly it rather than manage it, mostly because most of them don't effectively use the systems available now. At the moment they are a necessary but very fallible requirement, but the writing is on the wall.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
You're getting a little carried away with yourself there, Carruthers, when you write,
Not to mention that old adage that "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing", or today's version, "All you need in Life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure"!
The systems you describe were developed to bring the pilot more INTO the loop by supplying him with the maximum information available, thereby enabling him to make a more accurate assessment of his available options at all times.
Just about every accident since aviation-time immemorial, has been due to pilot error.
Admittedly the pilot's role has now become one who is more of a monitor of the equipment he has elected to use - or not use - depending upon prevailing conditions, than as solely a skilled airman.
With all of the information provided, he is then able to combine that with his own appreciation of prevailing conditions and make any necessary modifications he considers necessary.
It's fine to believe the "blurb" of manufacturers promoting their fail safe, automatic equipment, one of the better examples being the driverless train that the Malaysians introduced in Kuala Lumpur about 6 years ago. On one of its early runs, it failed to stop at the final station and crashed into the buffer at the end of the track.
I wonder what sort of "buffer" the airlines are going to be able to use as their last fail safe - apart from the pilot! (The one with the gold belt buckle, Ray Bans, and shiney wings on his neatly pressed shirt, Carruthers
)
We are developing terrain mapping, automatic weather radars (because the 'pilots' cannot be relied upon to turn them on or use them effectively) automatic landing systems, navigation, TCAS, three dimensional sattelite systems etc, etc. All to get the pilot out of the loop as much as possible.
The systems you describe were developed to bring the pilot more INTO the loop by supplying him with the maximum information available, thereby enabling him to make a more accurate assessment of his available options at all times.
Just about every accident we have had over the last decade has been pilot error.
Admittedly the pilot's role has now become one who is more of a monitor of the equipment he has elected to use - or not use - depending upon prevailing conditions, than as solely a skilled airman.
With all of the information provided, he is then able to combine that with his own appreciation of prevailing conditions and make any necessary modifications he considers necessary.
It's fine to believe the "blurb" of manufacturers promoting their fail safe, automatic equipment, one of the better examples being the driverless train that the Malaysians introduced in Kuala Lumpur about 6 years ago. On one of its early runs, it failed to stop at the final station and crashed into the buffer at the end of the track.
I wonder what sort of "buffer" the airlines are going to be able to use as their last fail safe - apart from the pilot! (The one with the gold belt buckle, Ray Bans, and shiney wings on his neatly pressed shirt, Carruthers
)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carruthers
Your envy obsessed rants are becoming a real bore! You have lost any semblance of rational argument by your wasteful, windup inspired drivle. The last time i came on and said much the same thing the guy ended up in prison (aka the guvnor!).
People like yourself make this site an irrevelent bore! Please go and get a life - that's it, rant over, next posting in a couple of years.
Your envy obsessed rants are becoming a real bore! You have lost any semblance of rational argument by your wasteful, windup inspired drivle. The last time i came on and said much the same thing the guy ended up in prison (aka the guvnor!).
People like yourself make this site an irrevelent bore! Please go and get a life - that's it, rant over, next posting in a couple of years.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carruthers
You either need to define your terms, or stop making sweeping generalisations. "Pilot Error" (or human factors as we call it these days) can include just about anything. You could justfiably say that Sept 11 was "pilot error" if you wanted to (in the sense that they made an error in allowing access to the flight deck).
All that automation will do is create a new class of error. You could call this "engineer error" (as in software engineer).
You also need to get out a bit and actually talk to some pilots and development engineers. The truth is that the technologies you mention are not intended to get the pilot out of the loop, rather they are intended to get the pilot further into the loop- by providing him with more and/or better information, and relieving him of some tasks that allow him to better monitor and manage the flight.
The "cock ups" you mention are more down to the fact that training is designed to allow pilots to safely explore their, and their aircrafts, limits- so that the same errors won't be repeated in real life. We call this "learning" and it isn't a sign of pilots being unable to handle their aircraft properly, or not understanding their systems.
In the end, the pilot is there to not only achieve a safe routine operation, but to cope with the (rare) situations that automation couldn't resolve. Any experienced pilot will tell you about those...
You either need to define your terms, or stop making sweeping generalisations. "Pilot Error" (or human factors as we call it these days) can include just about anything. You could justfiably say that Sept 11 was "pilot error" if you wanted to (in the sense that they made an error in allowing access to the flight deck).
All that automation will do is create a new class of error. You could call this "engineer error" (as in software engineer).
You also need to get out a bit and actually talk to some pilots and development engineers. The truth is that the technologies you mention are not intended to get the pilot out of the loop, rather they are intended to get the pilot further into the loop- by providing him with more and/or better information, and relieving him of some tasks that allow him to better monitor and manage the flight.
The "cock ups" you mention are more down to the fact that training is designed to allow pilots to safely explore their, and their aircrafts, limits- so that the same errors won't be repeated in real life. We call this "learning" and it isn't a sign of pilots being unable to handle their aircraft properly, or not understanding their systems.
In the end, the pilot is there to not only achieve a safe routine operation, but to cope with the (rare) situations that automation couldn't resolve. Any experienced pilot will tell you about those...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chocks Away,
you said above
I think you have some of that arse about face. Pax (no.4) should in fact be No.1. They, after all, pay the dosh to cover the cost of the other three. Having said that, Freight will do just as well ( or perhaps even better)
We forget something in all this discussion. Our industry is driven by the number of people who will pay to travel, and how much they will pay to travel. Everything derives from that. Whether we, as a profession, like it or not, significantly more people want to fly these days because they can do so by paying significantly less. And while we, in our noble profession, with our finely honed skills, might feel that we are unloved and underpaid, bear in mind that there are significantly more pilots in employment these days then ther ever were before. And ultimately it is the PASSENGER who decides how much you will be paid, by deciding how much your services are worth to him in his ticket price.
The profit margin of a "successful" airline is in the order of 3% of revenue. Go figure
you said above
It's also sad how the equation has been stuffed up.
It takes 4 key ingredients to run an airline:
1) Airframes
2) Crew to operate ( PILOTS& F/As)
3) Fuel to go
4) Pax
It takes 4 key ingredients to run an airline:
1) Airframes
2) Crew to operate ( PILOTS& F/As)
3) Fuel to go
4) Pax
I think you have some of that arse about face. Pax (no.4) should in fact be No.1. They, after all, pay the dosh to cover the cost of the other three. Having said that, Freight will do just as well ( or perhaps even better)
We forget something in all this discussion. Our industry is driven by the number of people who will pay to travel, and how much they will pay to travel. Everything derives from that. Whether we, as a profession, like it or not, significantly more people want to fly these days because they can do so by paying significantly less. And while we, in our noble profession, with our finely honed skills, might feel that we are unloved and underpaid, bear in mind that there are significantly more pilots in employment these days then ther ever were before. And ultimately it is the PASSENGER who decides how much you will be paid, by deciding how much your services are worth to him in his ticket price.
The profit margin of a "successful" airline is in the order of 3% of revenue. Go figure
Guest
Posts: n/a
We're all still in the departure lounge Starbucks waiting for Gollum to get his act together.......
I've now tried all of Starbucks fare apart from the Venti Mocha with a shot of almond essence, so I'll have one of those and then mosey on over to Costa and start on their stuff.
Still no sign of movement from Carruthers new auto-airliner, but then I'm not expecting anything on that score for at least 50 years.
Oi Gollum, turn the lights out when you're done....
I've now tried all of Starbucks fare apart from the Venti Mocha with a shot of almond essence, so I'll have one of those and then mosey on over to Costa and start on their stuff.
Still no sign of movement from Carruthers new auto-airliner, but then I'm not expecting anything on that score for at least 50 years.
Oi Gollum, turn the lights out when you're done....
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Carruthers.
Just back from another day at the coal face.
Not sure what your motives are, but WE CAN GUESS, and, as with every day at work, I'm reminded that you are talking a load of old codswallop. Too tired to rehash all the previous + more.
You know it, whatever your motive, and so do we.
Chinese pilots over here in Europe, someone said too?! Sure.
They need to live and eat too. Whats the plan? Stick 'em in the company dormitory and pay them with food stamps for the company store like miners in the nineteenth century goldrush?
Right.
Just back from another day at the coal face.
Not sure what your motives are, but WE CAN GUESS, and, as with every day at work, I'm reminded that you are talking a load of old codswallop. Too tired to rehash all the previous + more.
You know it, whatever your motive, and so do we.
Chinese pilots over here in Europe, someone said too?! Sure.
They need to live and eat too. Whats the plan? Stick 'em in the company dormitory and pay them with food stamps for the company store like miners in the nineteenth century goldrush?
Right.