A bleak future for Aviation?
Pilots are dirt cheap and thats a fact.
Per passenger the co-pilot costs about 80p per sector and the Skipper about £1.40 (using a low cost airline model).
Now, you tell me, how much is the infrastructure, the development and the maintenance going to cost to replace the two bods at the front? Clearly more. Therefore:
Total automation of commercial airliners is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in response to a question that was never asked.
WWW
Per passenger the co-pilot costs about 80p per sector and the Skipper about £1.40 (using a low cost airline model).
Now, you tell me, how much is the infrastructure, the development and the maintenance going to cost to replace the two bods at the front? Clearly more. Therefore:
Total automation of commercial airliners is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in response to a question that was never asked.
WWW
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have had aircraft fly through CB's causing serious damage and injuries. Aircraft colliding despite TCAS warnings. Aircraft crashing into runways because the lights went out. Aircraft hitting the ground on airfield approaches. Aircraft hitting mountains. All avoidable through automation. It doesn't matter what it costs, safety will demand that crew error incidents are minimised.Yes weasly, pilots are cheap, but the consequences of their mistakes aren't. Yes there will be pilots up front, someone has to taxi the thing, but the point of this thread is what does the future hold. The job will change with the introduction of new technology, low cost is here to stay, already the terms and conditions are changing rapidly, short term contracts, part time, hire by the hour. It is getting very difficult to find worthwhile contracts in this business. You can claim all the skill in the world but ultimately you are only worth what the market will pay.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
All very good examples that you cite, Carruthers - incidents and accidents that occurred IN SPITE of having all of the lights, bells, and whistles on board (in some cases), and which also help to highlight the ADDED responsibilities the position of pilot carries because the vehicle which he controls moves around several different axes as opposed to land and sea craft, and at speeds far in excess of them as well.
As you aptly point out, there are far, far more possibilities for screw-ups in an aircraft than any other form of transportation.
That was the point you were making - wasn't it?
Yes, the job has - and shall continue to change. However, in case you weren't aware, we are ALREADY paid by the hour. I'm employed to fly xx hours per month - if I fly less, I still get my xx hours worth of dollars - after all, I don't make the schedules or the rosters, however I am available as my employer wishes me to be be.
More than xx hours per month, and I get "overtime" - just like any other job.
Skill in aviation has traditionally been measured by a pilot's flight time, and that is what is the usual criteria when jobs are advertised.
Certainly there are far more pilots available with lesser skill/hours for all jobs - but it's the EMPLOYERS who won't touch them, even though they could, and pay them less.
But they don't!
As you aptly point out, there are far, far more possibilities for screw-ups in an aircraft than any other form of transportation.
That was the point you were making - wasn't it?
Yes, the job has - and shall continue to change. However, in case you weren't aware, we are ALREADY paid by the hour. I'm employed to fly xx hours per month - if I fly less, I still get my xx hours worth of dollars - after all, I don't make the schedules or the rosters, however I am available as my employer wishes me to be be.
More than xx hours per month, and I get "overtime" - just like any other job.
Skill in aviation has traditionally been measured by a pilot's flight time, and that is what is the usual criteria when jobs are advertised.
Certainly there are far more pilots available with lesser skill/hours for all jobs - but it's the EMPLOYERS who won't touch them, even though they could, and pay them less.
But they don't!
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Copied that JMC-Man... you got me. 
The list wasn't really in any particular order, though I agree with you on the freight!
Carruthers... you may be forgetting that all this "fantastic" AUTOMATION, you're on about, is derived from PROGRAMMERs...
Programmer, Pilot, it all still comes back to Human input... the pilot being on the spot and in a better position to evaluate all the stats. No computer (to my knowledge) has been able to be substituted for this pilot/(human) decision making and logic.
Sure we have EGPWS developed and a "Windshear Radar" (sensing temp dev.s) being developed and other amazing technology but this is all TO AID THE PILOTS in THEIR decision making process.
It shall remain that way for some time... (i hope
)
The list wasn't really in any particular order, though I agree with you on the freight!Carruthers... you may be forgetting that all this "fantastic" AUTOMATION, you're on about, is derived from PROGRAMMERs...
Programmer, Pilot, it all still comes back to Human input... the pilot being on the spot and in a better position to evaluate all the stats. No computer (to my knowledge) has been able to be substituted for this pilot/(human) decision making and logic.
Sure we have EGPWS developed and a "Windshear Radar" (sensing temp dev.s) being developed and other amazing technology but this is all TO AID THE PILOTS in THEIR decision making process.
It shall remain that way for some time... (i hope
)
Guest
Posts: n/a
I do believe that the point to be made is not as you have assumed. I for one would not agree that there is far more opportunity for screw ups in aircraft. After all the Air Traffic Control system is there to avoid midair collisions, among other tasks. All RPT aircraft have a minimum of two drivers, a requirement for continuation training and checking, a tough medical to pass, and flight and duty time limitations to comply with. Compare that to a driver of a big trucking rig, sharing the road with a lot of for the most part semi trained car drivers, many not even licensed, closing speeds of over 200k's, passing distances at time measured in centimetres, if one hits a bus full of pax the casualty rate approaching that of many RPT aircraft loads.
No, I would not agree that there are far more possibilities for screw ups in aircraft. Many skills required for both tasks, different, agreed, but in the scheme of things the chances for screw ups, due to numbers involved for a starter, would have to be with other modes of transport.
Prospector
No, I would not agree that there are far more possibilities for screw ups in aircraft. Many skills required for both tasks, different, agreed, but in the scheme of things the chances for screw ups, due to numbers involved for a starter, would have to be with other modes of transport.
Prospector
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there will be pilots up front, someone has to taxi the thing,
I may have missed it, but in the interests of a level playing field, may I ask what you do for a living Carruthers?
It'd be interesting to hear your views on how your own occupation will develop in the future.
I've only made a few posts so I don't feel the need to order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Carruthers would like to explain to us how his glorious automation would have handled the recent incident with a BA aircraft missing the ground by only a few feet thanks to the crew spotting that the approach aid was giving out an erroneous signal. The human element realised there was something wrong and initiated a go-around. Had the a/c been left to follow the signals using all it's automatics there would have been a lot of bits of aluminium and human remains for the likes of Carruthers to blame on pilot error.
Even allowing for the latest technology used in remotely piloted vehicles and cruise missiles there are regularly 'incidents' where these devices lose the plot and leave a smoking hole in the ground far from any intended arrival point. I am fairly confident that we are secure from being replaced in our jobs by automatics for the forseeable future. I'm also fairly sure we'd see a lot more automation with 2D transportation such as shipping and rail, possibly even road before we see public confidence in the pilotless aircraft. Carruthers speaks from a position of abject ignorance when he states that we are all doomed. Sounds more like the wishfull thinking of a desperate manager who has exhausted all the tricks he was taught at the Harvard School of Business Management to reduce costs.
Like most managers, he knows the price of everything but the value of nothing!
Even allowing for the latest technology used in remotely piloted vehicles and cruise missiles there are regularly 'incidents' where these devices lose the plot and leave a smoking hole in the ground far from any intended arrival point. I am fairly confident that we are secure from being replaced in our jobs by automatics for the forseeable future. I'm also fairly sure we'd see a lot more automation with 2D transportation such as shipping and rail, possibly even road before we see public confidence in the pilotless aircraft. Carruthers speaks from a position of abject ignorance when he states that we are all doomed. Sounds more like the wishfull thinking of a desperate manager who has exhausted all the tricks he was taught at the Harvard School of Business Management to reduce costs.
Like most managers, he knows the price of everything but the value of nothing!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...(Raw Data) Even if it were, the chances of it being accepted quickly by the travelling public are remote. There is no precedent for fully automated flight; the few other forms of transport that are "driverless" (such as elevators, some trains, airport shuttles etc) are also failsafe- the brakes come on and you stop. An aircraft can never be failsafe.
Read here
Quote from above article:
The hospital's elevators have four separate safety systems built in. All four had to fail at the same time for the accident to happen, officials said.
Wow! There are many well thought-out, eloquent points made on this topic by Kaptin M, Wiley and many others.
As for automation, I read that the A-320 etc required an interesting redundancy in each primary control axis, i.e. the elevators, ailerons, rudder (for some of the laymen). Anyway, an article in either "Business and Commercial Aviation" or "Professional Pilot" (US magazines) claimed that each axis had two or three different components, and each component is produced by a different software company.
Automation requires an awareness of more issues than the older technology requires, at least at specific times and in certain phases of flight. An FO on a recent trip stated that a particular very popular series of modern airliners has an FMC and other aspects of automation, which in general are worshiped by many pilots today, but which are less logical to use than is the case with a very popular competing product, and it demanded much more time to be familiar and comfortable with it. Those are his words, not mine.
If the highest levels of cockpit automation are without a doubt the best solution for flight safety's problems, then how can operational "mode confusion", partial automation, lack of adequate training aids (for years no desktop computer available, with which to prepare for any very fast-paced, fixed-base sim period at 0600-oops!) and insufficient operational line training (bean-counter limitation$ or not...) support this automation mantra which has been chanted for years? Wasn't some motivation for all this mostly to get rid of the Flight Engineer expense and allow the ultra-modern aircraft to be operated by airlines where the crewmembers had not much line experience, never mind the much better payload-range and (not always)thrust/weight ratios etc? Pardon me if this stepped on anyone's toes or pride.
As for automation, I read that the A-320 etc required an interesting redundancy in each primary control axis, i.e. the elevators, ailerons, rudder (for some of the laymen). Anyway, an article in either "Business and Commercial Aviation" or "Professional Pilot" (US magazines) claimed that each axis had two or three different components, and each component is produced by a different software company.
Automation requires an awareness of more issues than the older technology requires, at least at specific times and in certain phases of flight. An FO on a recent trip stated that a particular very popular series of modern airliners has an FMC and other aspects of automation, which in general are worshiped by many pilots today, but which are less logical to use than is the case with a very popular competing product, and it demanded much more time to be familiar and comfortable with it. Those are his words, not mine.
If the highest levels of cockpit automation are without a doubt the best solution for flight safety's problems, then how can operational "mode confusion", partial automation, lack of adequate training aids (for years no desktop computer available, with which to prepare for any very fast-paced, fixed-base sim period at 0600-oops!) and insufficient operational line training (bean-counter limitation$ or not...) support this automation mantra which has been chanted for years? Wasn't some motivation for all this mostly to get rid of the Flight Engineer expense and allow the ultra-modern aircraft to be operated by airlines where the crewmembers had not much line experience, never mind the much better payload-range and (not always)thrust/weight ratios etc? Pardon me if this stepped on anyone's toes or pride.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do I do, training Capt Boeing, 14500 hrs. What alarms me most, watching pilots screw up. Cargo boy, the BA incident would have been avoided with Sat Nav, it should be compulsory, hopefully, soon. But 90% of smoking holes are crew induced and thus avoidable. Even with existing technology you can sit and watch it all be done for you from rotate to touch down, well some can, the intricacies of the FMC are beyond most in my experience.
Kapt M, ability/ competence is not directly related to how long you have sat in the seat. Employers, as you have pointed out will go for the cheapest option, and that doesn't automatically mean unsafe. Some very expensive 'western' pilots have screwed up on many occasions, TFN springs to mind. I'm not saying we are all about to be put out of a job, it's the nature of it that will change and the rewards. I would not advise a career in aviation now.Oh and Atlpax, don't get on a Airbus, there is nothing between the pilot and the controls but computers!
Kapt M, ability/ competence is not directly related to how long you have sat in the seat. Employers, as you have pointed out will go for the cheapest option, and that doesn't automatically mean unsafe. Some very expensive 'western' pilots have screwed up on many occasions, TFN springs to mind. I'm not saying we are all about to be put out of a job, it's the nature of it that will change and the rewards. I would not advise a career in aviation now.Oh and Atlpax, don't get on a Airbus, there is nothing between the pilot and the controls but computers!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, fellow posters, I think most of you have been dragged off on a red herring hunt by the esteemed 'Carruthers'.
'Wiley', in his excellent post that started this long thread wasn't bemoaning the advent of a crewless airliner - he was trying to sound a timely warning that the way things are going, the airline flight crew will become more and more merely monitors, untrained or not kept current in the skills required to manually override the automatics. (I just remembered that "Wiley's" original post is on another thread and that 'Croozin' linked this thread to in his original post.)
If we got back to that argument, I for one agree with "Wiley" that that day is far closer than I'm comfortable with.
'Wiley', in his excellent post that started this long thread wasn't bemoaning the advent of a crewless airliner - he was trying to sound a timely warning that the way things are going, the airline flight crew will become more and more merely monitors, untrained or not kept current in the skills required to manually override the automatics. (I just remembered that "Wiley's" original post is on another thread and that 'Croozin' linked this thread to in his original post.)
If we got back to that argument, I for one agree with "Wiley" that that day is far closer than I'm comfortable with.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carruthers, many thanks for the information. However, it has left me somewhat confused. I understand many of the points you make, but it is the apparent glee with which you make them that seems rather at odds with your position. For someone in a position of responsibility and dare I say it power over your fellow pilots, in your capacity as a training Captain, you do give the impression of holding the majority of them in contempt. Yet I assume you're not contemptuous of your own abilities.......
Coming back to the original thread, as WWW has said, because of the cost of developing a pilotless aircraft, in the medium future the problem doesn't exist.
However, I do think increasing levels of automation represent a huge threat to the job in terms of sheer boredom. If we do become 100% systems monitors, then I believe the job will attract a different sort of person, and for the rest of us will become intolerable.
Coming back to the original thread, as WWW has said, because of the cost of developing a pilotless aircraft, in the medium future the problem doesn't exist.
However, I do think increasing levels of automation represent a huge threat to the job in terms of sheer boredom. If we do become 100% systems monitors, then I believe the job will attract a different sort of person, and for the rest of us will become intolerable.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NC USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As SLF- I fly the low-cost carriers 60-80% of the time. Why? I typically get better service for my money. They are friendlier and more flexible. Just this week I flew AirTran (nee Valujet). The A/C are new, the cabin crew courteous, and I'm not disappointed in not getting a meal- I wouldn't get one on a major anyway. As a matter of fact, I changed my itinerary and they didn't charge the change fee and they bumped me up to Business "First" Class (although the cast on my leg and the light 9/10 travel load may have helped. I later noticed the counter agent working the pushback. This is compared to Delta where the get you for every change and standby fee they can. So why would I fly Delta if I don't need too? Requisite Caveat- I know a lot of good Delta people- I know it's the management.
Second issue-safety. The Valuject crash was a chain of events- possibly due to low paid poorly trained people- but it certainly doesn't happen at the lower-fare airlines alone. There are plenty of incident reports tagging everybody-if you know where to look.
Second issue-safety. The Valuject crash was a chain of events- possibly due to low paid poorly trained people- but it certainly doesn't happen at the lower-fare airlines alone. There are plenty of incident reports tagging everybody-if you know where to look.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unwiseowl -
Personally I think Carruthers is "being economical with the truth" when he claims he is a Training Captain wtih 14,500 hours. I would not expect such garbage from a 100 NPPL as I've heard from him.
He sure doesn't know jack sh1t about the Airbus.
AltPax -
Rest assured about the Airbus FBW system. There are a number of levels of redundancy in the system, and to my knowledge there has only been one case of Airbus FBW landing in line service in one of these redundant modes.
If Carruthers thinks Boeings are safer, ask him about rudder hardovers in the B737. On second thoughts, best not as he isn't a pilot despite his claims to the contrary.
Personally I think Carruthers is "being economical with the truth" when he claims he is a Training Captain wtih 14,500 hours. I would not expect such garbage from a 100 NPPL as I've heard from him.
He sure doesn't know jack sh1t about the Airbus.
AltPax -
Rest assured about the Airbus FBW system. There are a number of levels of redundancy in the system, and to my knowledge there has only been one case of Airbus FBW landing in line service in one of these redundant modes.
If Carruthers thinks Boeings are safer, ask him about rudder hardovers in the B737. On second thoughts, best not as he isn't a pilot despite his claims to the contrary.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't read all the pages, so forgive me if this has been mentioned;
Here in the US one can visit a supermarket, and check out ones' goods via a scanner. All by yourself. Insert credit card. Leave.
That don't get much usage in these parts (although is slowly catching on....)
As a punter, I have two choices: an automated a/c, or one with a coupla drivers up front. Ticket costs no more than 25% difference.
I know what choice I'd be making.
It might be possible, and it might be better, but it will take several generations to get over the fact of wanting human intervention.
Just an innocent bystanders 0.2.
Here in the US one can visit a supermarket, and check out ones' goods via a scanner. All by yourself. Insert credit card. Leave.
That don't get much usage in these parts (although is slowly catching on....)
As a punter, I have two choices: an automated a/c, or one with a coupla drivers up front. Ticket costs no more than 25% difference.
I know what choice I'd be making.
It might be possible, and it might be better, but it will take several generations to get over the fact of wanting human intervention.
Just an innocent bystanders 0.2.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Downunder
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automastiom
Guys & Gals,
Auto all you like. But no computer will every replace an Ag ( thats agricultural -for those who have never done an honest days work in their life!) pilot. Terrain data bases may be good but they cannot see power or tel phone lines, trees at the end or in the centre of paddocks (fields) or account for the winds in valleys that are opposite and random in strenght.
So BUS drivers - because that is all you/we are, automation will some day see the end of you all.
How many trains do you ride WITHOUT DRIVERS?
Enjoy the good life while it lasts.
Me, I'd rather sow a 100 tons off a hill strip 500 m long with a 30deg slope and a cross wind.
NO computer will EVER replace the FLETCHER.
Back to Lala land kiddies.
Auto all you like. But no computer will every replace an Ag ( thats agricultural -for those who have never done an honest days work in their life!) pilot. Terrain data bases may be good but they cannot see power or tel phone lines, trees at the end or in the centre of paddocks (fields) or account for the winds in valleys that are opposite and random in strenght.
So BUS drivers - because that is all you/we are, automation will some day see the end of you all.
How many trains do you ride WITHOUT DRIVERS?
Enjoy the good life while it lasts.
Me, I'd rather sow a 100 tons off a hill strip 500 m long with a 30deg slope and a cross wind.
NO computer will EVER replace the FLETCHER.
Back to Lala land kiddies.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, ag aircraft would probably be the first to be automated. Differential GPS nav and forward-looking anti-collision radar are relatively easy, and in the event of a catastrophe, in all probability the only victims would be a pilotless aircraft and part of a field. Given that the aircraft could be a lot smaller without the pilot (no requirement for a cockpit or a seat!), it would be the ideal candidate. In fact, a development of currently available pilotless aircraft could fulfill this role.
It is the human factor (ie passengers) which make the difference to the argument.
Paradoxically, Mr Fletcher himself was an advocate of such things. Of course, he never intended his creation to be an ag aircraft, it was originally designed for passengers.
Mind you, who would want a Fletcher when you could have a Cresco...
It is the human factor (ie passengers) which make the difference to the argument.
Paradoxically, Mr Fletcher himself was an advocate of such things. Of course, he never intended his creation to be an ag aircraft, it was originally designed for passengers.
Mind you, who would want a Fletcher when you could have a Cresco...