Unnecessary first officer...
ability to program the code in the way a pilot thinks
Regards,
BH.
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.
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.
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 
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"
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....
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....
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.
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...
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...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bulgaria
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubbish. 
The resulting lack of sensitiveness limits its crosswind landing capabilities.
if we assume that driving a car in less difficult than flying a plane
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.
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.
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.
I see 767s regularly do autolands on clear days with lightish winds....25% of them are very scary.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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....
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
That' s why these systems have an embarassing lag.
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.
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 amazing the faith people have in automated systems - and the "sci fi" ideas they have of their capabilities.
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?"
Sleeper:
"Did they do this in actual flying conditions in a real aircraft, or was it simulated?"
GB