Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Unnecessary first officer...

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Unnecessary first officer...

Old 20th Mar 2010, 00:34
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 624
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ability to program the code in the way a pilot thinks
Surely if you manage to achieve this level of programming then you are only going to replicate the 'pilot error' rate rather than imrove it.

Regards,
BH.
Bullethead is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 00:50
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Captplaystation

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

I wait to read the rest of the thread with interest and see how open minded the pilot profession will be.
Nigd3 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 08:40
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't think he was suggesting you only need one pilot. I reckon he was suggesting it might be possible to get away with only paying you when you are actually doing the flying. In his mind one of you is really just on "standby". Likewise when the autopilot is on he can switch both to the standby pay rate
cwatters is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 10:08
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nice, FR
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If we just ask the SLF at time of booking if they have at least a PPL, then at a pinch we should be able to get by with just the one on most flights. Cross training the cabin crew would be another way "Just let me get into the cruise and I'm pop back and serve the coffees in a minute"
paull is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 10:19
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Funny thing about those UAV pilots, though.

You put them in charge of an aircraft full of people, make them responsible for the lives they hold in their hands, and guess how much you're going to have to pay them? About as much as an onboard pilot....
A single UAV/UAS pilot can be in charge of several aircraft.
Or you can assign UAS pilots for specific tasks like approach and landings, take-off up to 5000ft, and en-route. En-route, computers can do most, UAS pilots could then be made to respond to warnings/cautions.
I imagine that you could manage 30 flights with only 10 UAS pilots.

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

A computer can be made sensitive enough to land you a B737 in a 50kts, gusts 75kts crosswind automatically.
The presence of pilots in the cockpit has been limiting automation.
fly_antonov is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 10:59
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EPWA
Age: 65
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@fly antonov
you may be right and maybe not. Automation is helping a lot in all repetitive tasks. Not helping in situations which has not been PREPROGRAMMED before.
All AI (automated Intelligence) efforts are still in preliminar stages only.

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

so it is good to discuss single pilot flying as it will (possibly) enhance our common knowledge base but there is still some time before it may commercially happen. So even if processors run faster it doesn't make them more intelligent...
WojtekSz is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 11:29
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,810
Received 134 Likes on 66 Posts
A computer can be made sensitive enough to land you a B737 in a 50kts, gusts 75kts crosswind automatically.
Rubbish.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 12:07
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rubbish.
It is not, because a computer can detect and respond to a deviation from GS and LLZ alot faster than a pilot. If it is not being done today on Cat3 systems, it is to give the pilots sufficient time to process and monitor what the autoland system is doing.
The resulting lack of sensitiveness limits its crosswind landing capabilities.


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

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

Driverless car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Last edited by fly_antonov; 20th Mar 2010 at 12:17.
fly_antonov is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 12:15
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is not, because a computer can detect and respond to a deviation from GS and LLZ alot faster than a pilot.
No it can't mate. Really it can't. The limitations are much lower than for a manual landing and any half decent pilot can do a better job than the the 737 autopilot and auto-throttle, except for the cruise and low vis.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 12:16
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was told that Boeing demonstrated a 767 Cat III autoland in a 35 Kt crosswind - on one engine. That was 15 years ago.

GB
Graybeard is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 12:24
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Really...that would be impressively scary.

I see 767s regularly do autolands on clear days with lightish winds....25% of them are very scary.
blueloo is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 12:28
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
It is not, because a computer can detect and respond to a deviation from GS and LLZ alot faster than a pilot.
No it can't mate. Really it can't. The limitations are much lower than for a manual landing and any half decent pilot can do a better job than the the 737 autopilot and auto-throttle, except for the cruise and low vis.
Exactly my point. Today' s A/P and A/T' s built-in sensitiveness has been reduced to give the pilots the ability to monitor these systems.
That' s why these systems have an embarassing lag.

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

It' s matter of philosophy. Do you build the machine to the human' s processing capabilities, or do you build it to go beyond?
The simple calculator is already an example of the machine going beyond the human being. But do you question its reliability when you use it?
fly_antonov is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 12:46
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was told that Boeing demonstrated a 767 Cat III autoland in a 35 Kt crosswind - on one engine. That was 15 years ago
.

Did they do this in actual flying conditions in a real aircraft, or was it simulated?
sleeper is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 12:59
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 1,251
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
This new Ryanair fleet, will it have autothrottle systems built by Toyota?
blue up is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 13:12
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Add-ons

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

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

Oh, interesting thought - would MOL himself be happy fly on an FO free B737? It's all done by computer, programmed by MOL himself (those programmers are far too expensive to employ) so nothing can ever go wrong..go wrong..go wrong.. go wr....
DIA74 is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 13:23
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can see the billboards now. ONE MILLION SEATS FREE on RYANAIR ! use our website, 10, use a card to pay, 20, baggage 50, check in 75, and - oh at the end of the booking you get a new OPTIONAL choice - Iif you want one pilot to fly you add 5, if you would like 2 pilots to fly you, add 200.
....you left one additional option out..... an extra 200 to sit in the vacant seat next to the Captain!
blueloo is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 13:27
  #97 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You folks know the difference between involved and committed?

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

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

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

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

I'm a functional test pilot for the world's largest cargo operation. I spend my days testing the very automation you're talking about. I've seen firsthand what an autoland system can do to kill you. Sure, they can be made safer. They can also be made out of cast gold but we're not going to pay for that either.
Huck is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 14:39
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,983
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Today' s A/P and A/T' s built-in sensitiveness has been reduced to give the pilots the ability to monitor these systems.
That' s why these systems have an embarassing lag.
Really? Please can we see the written evidence for this?
fireflybob is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 14:46
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,810
Received 134 Likes on 66 Posts
Exactly my point. Today' s A/P and A/T' s built-in sensitiveness has been reduced to give the pilots the ability to monitor these systems.
That' s why these systems have an embarassing lag.

In reality they can be made sensitive enough to react to a micrometer deviation but pilots would not be able to monitor such a sensitive system.
Do you actually read the things you are writing? So a human pilot can monitor a degraded system making slow, large errors, but couldn't monitor a perfect system with "micrometer" accuracy making no errors.

It's amazing the faith people have in automated systems - and the "sci fi" ideas they have of their capabilities.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2010, 15:15
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was told that Boeing demonstrated a 767 Cat III autoland in a 35 Kt crosswind - on one engine. That was 15 years ago.

Sleeper:
"Did they do this in actual flying conditions in a real aircraft, or was it simulated?"
It was a real approach and landing at Reykjavik, IIRC, demonstrating the newer autoflight computers developed for the 747-4.

GB
Graybeard is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.