I know what you are saying, but the point is (as is also often the case with these news articles), that the technology is still decades away from being proven enough to generate sufficient passenger trust to make it a viable solution to a problem that might not currently exist anyway. It has to have a market otherwise it doesn’t go anywhere.

I think pilots are already actively involved in technological progress and new ways and means of operating throughout their career span. However you cannot be involved in developing these unless you know of the specific solutions on offer.

I think everyone knows it will happen eventually, but the timescales are far too optimistic. Again, single pilot cruise ops is fine. Single pilot commercial (max 19 passengers) is probably palatable currently (king air, many companies require a safety pilot still!), but if you’re talking aircraft capable of carrying 200 passengers then it’s another level of responsibility and convincing the market that it’s feasible and safe is not going to be an easy task, regardless of what the academics might theorise.

I think one of the main problems (pointed out in earlier posts) is that single pilot operations for heavies and/or LH/ULH requires a level of safety for the aircraft that needs to assume no pilot at all, or at best, no pilot for significant periods.

I am reminded of a particular phrase when I see gushing projections from academics and aircraft manufactures: Full Self-Driving. It will happen, I’m sure of it, but just like working fusion power, it’s been lots of false starts and a huge amount of work to come. There is also a parallel between aircraft and vehicle automation levels, in that the low-hanging fruit of levels 1 & 2 have been picked off, so level 5 (full) must be just around the corner? Unfortunately, we’re still stuck at level 3, looking at 4 which still needs an element of human intervention, which is unlikely to go well if the last few hours of the journey have been spent on social media because the transport is “reliable" in human estimation. 3 & 4 are unwanted and dangerous, IMO, and we really need to go directly to 5 because the human is already well out of the loop in 3 & 4.

Another issue is certification. What will happen to the DAL-A/B/C stuff which was so heavily regulated in the past but will effectively have to be done by some sort of trained AI? “Yeah, we use GPT-3 to talk to ATC, a genetic algorithm to optimise the route and Stable Diffusion to create a pilot avatar. We’ve done some testing and it seems to work most of the time..."

Unmanned flights of increasing complexity are being demonstrated every day. Helo flying, the last bastion has been breached!

https://newatlas.com/military/black-...-without-crew/

Garmin have an emergency autonomous autoland function for certain GA aircraft. It requires no pre-programming of destination and runway choice. Press the button and next thing you know you’re sitting at the end of a runway at an airport the system has chosen, with park brake on and engine shut down.

https://www.garmin.com/en-US/blog/av...nd-passengers/

There is probably no technical reason today why any aircraft can’t be retrofitted with equipment which would allow unmanned operation from gate to gate. Engine start, to shutdown.

As for emergencies? For the most part we are robots… Fly the aircraft, identify the problem, call for the checklist..etc.

Agreed there has been the occasional outlier which required inspirational problem solving by the crew outside the remit of the checklist. You can be sure researchers, designers and engineers are working feverishly to eliminate the likelihood of such unimagined combinations of failures.

I think that once 100% reliable, redundant and robust two way data comms can be guaranteed, the era of manned airliners will come to an end. I wonder how close they are to achieving this.

Who is going to deliver this technology?

Boeing can't even build an normal aeroplane that stay in the air without crashing - you really want to trust them with this leap in technology?

Every time Airbus puts out an OEB, they are telling us that the computer cannot cope with something. The A380 cannot fly though an area of GPS jamming without it mangling the MMR, requiring a ground reset before you can do any form of FMS approach. It also has problems intercepting the localiser these days, something planes have been doing for almost a century. I'm not sure they are capable of delivering the level of reliable technology required for autonomous flight.

the max crosswind on my aircraft (350) is 30 knots for auto land. What do you do when it’s above that in an autonomous aircraft? Does it try? Divert automatically? Keep trying until it runs out of fuel..

I think you’re conflating two separate problems: the first is how to get a light aircraft onto the ground in an emergency situation where the alternative is a certain crash involving injury or death, and the second is commercial routine everyday operation at the highest level of safety achievable, which encompasses that required by regulation. It’s not surprising that a solution is available for the first problem as anything is better than nothing, but I’m sure the legal disclaimer has more than one paragraph. There is no technical reason why I couldn’t build my own car, but it is unlikely to comply with many of the safety standards required to actually operate it on the public highway.
I would agree that for much of routine flying that is the case, but we are there for the times where it’s not immediately obvious, there are external factors and it’s necessary to draw on multiple career experiences to bring the situation to a successful conclusion. “Identify the problem” is often a convoluted and easily misjudged stage which can have adverse ramifications if not done quite right.
Eliminate the “known unknowns” or even the “unknown unknowns”? That is a heady proposition, and almost by definition unachievable.

I’m sure that we will have autonomous passenger aircraft in the future and I think there are several different ways of achieving that. One, by strictly bounding and curating the environment in which they operate, and another by using robust AGI to deliver something that has at least the safety performance of the equivalent human-piloted craft in a real environment full of edge cases.
Starlink? They are already demonstrating terminals that work while in motion, so very soon. I don’t see that changing the way the aviation world works in terms of piloting, except HF comms will become redundant. Yay! And I can FaceTweet while over the middle of the Pacific. Double yay!

Inability to execute a well practiced normal go around and crashing there's a study by BEA and ICAO about 54 such accidents including 15 fatal which resulted in 954 deaths. So let's not exaggerate human presence. One Sully or Haynes doesn't make summer. Make no mistake, providing a possible human factor shield for simple, straightforward piloting errors will have a big part in demise of the human from cockpit.

At the moment, i've been flying commercially for 20 years and in that time I've flown thousands of approaches without any incident, but had to intervene twice during an autoland otherwise those probably would have been disastrous.
However, those two events and the fact pilots "saved" the aircraft from a computer error, aren't mentioned in the newspaper, nor this site, nor anywhere.

While humans are flawed, so is technology and there are no indications that will change anytime soon. What is the ratio between incidents happening due to pilot error and incidents prevented due to pilot skill?

But that doesn't really matter, besides the consumers view on pilotless aircraf, it is all a matter of which produces a higher chance of an accident, which is more expensive and who carries that risk?

If a manufacturer can convince an airline and more importantly, an insurer that the chance of an incident is lower with computers i.s.o. humans, there will be pilotless aircraft (again assuming consumers are willing to play along).
The chance will never be zero, not now, not ever.

I think there is little doubt that even with today's technology, you could build a plane that executes a full flight from parking position to parking position and do a decent job with it.

But Proof of concept is one thing, commercially viable is a different world.

Next to the valid arguments already raised here and obvious safety concerns one thing that gets overlooked is that simply the ground infrastructure is nowhere near supporting such a technology and will probably be not for a forseeable time. Todays Autoland technology requires CAT II/III facilities that only a fraction of airports have in both directions, so either a full automatic plane will be very limited in the area of operation (forget about NAT ETOPS routes) or there would be the need of a huge investment in ILS facilities worldwide to support a full automatic landing capability which I dont really see happening. So whats the alternative? SBAS? Eventually yes but we are still far off for many years in reliably demonstrating that this can be used for full automatic landings. And there is the possibility of signal jamming...

This is problem is also independent of single or no pilot cockpit as supposedly the single pilot is watching the automatics do its job. If the single pilot has to perform the landing because the automatics can't do it then from a redundancy perspective you need the second pilot anyways.

So which plane manufacturer would now pump billions into designing a plane with such limitations beyond their control? In 20 years maybe but now I dont think any.

So full automated planes without pilots in this century? Probably. Eventually technology and infrastructure will be there. In my lifetime? Maybe. In my last 25 years I have in this profession? Surely not.

So is the industry prepared to move the weakest link in the chain from the flight deck to guy who wrote the code?? In reality this really doesn't do anything it would just maybe fix one problem and create a new one that doesn't exist at the moment.
The other issue is that fully automating aircraft doesn't really solve a problem because the accident rate is so low. However if you take a proven system and completely reinvent it you are introducing a very large risk factor which didn't exist.
The SAFEST way to fly is to have a highly advanced, automated aircraft with two pilots up the front.

How does a single pilot taxi? Cameras? Center seat? Robo-tug to runup area?

Will ATC issue instruction directly to the flight control system?

Is aviation coding, hardware and software and comm infrastructure secure and free of jams or saturation?

How is onboard radar offboarded to a "superdispatcher" or ground-based pilot?

Is there bandwidth for modern buffer-filling radar offboarding? If not- who pays/provides?

Looking ahead- Can manned and unmanned share the exact same flight profiles like two separate manned flights today?

Your story describes the ideal world, correct for some 95% of the time.

Unfortunately, the flying public, nor the electoral public, will accept a 95% perfectness in real life (and the rest more or less ending up in disasters of varying seriousness).

Ever seen robots, spinning around in vain, when outside their pre-programmed capabilities or having a defect ?

AI is NOT human ingenuity. Feed an AI engine a lot of horse pictures, to recognize in the future horses on pictures and find out later on, the AI network "learned" to recognize the logo on the training pictures. AI (nowadays) is no more than a super-multidimensional recognition of acceptable solutions (and in practice fed with additional sensory input to validate/control the AI output/feedback), used to operate in the same super-multidimensional environment as its training. Change something in the environment, and suddenly the Teslas start stopping for the moon. If the electronics of a Tesla fails, it strikes, and the Tesla is frozen. Or road recognition algorithms/AI completely choke on just a piece of white paper behind a window opposite the long leg at a T-crossing.

When things go haywire (stuff fails, though unknown when), human ingenuity (based on interpretation of significantly more "training" results than can be fed into AI) is required, to solve the situation in an acceptable way. Even, as Pilot DAR writes, in situations considered "normal", it turns out the learning/algorithms aren't covering the complete super-dimensional circumstances to be considered for directing towards a safe outcome. We should not forget, when humans are "training", they embed (!) those training items in their already existing knowledge/capabilities outside the currently offered training items, not something AI-networks do on training.

Reliable comms will never exist (ever heard of solar flares?). Reliable GPS will never exist (think about GPS jammers, used in wartime or just for fun). The more vulnerabilities are build into society, the easier things can go wrong in unforeseen circumstances. Remember the Tesla that went on an extremely wild road-warrior crusade, just recently in China, in the end, killing 2 people. Is this really "ready in 2 years" for full autonomous driving ?

And, for the one-person cockpit occupation: When things go haywire, 2 (highly trained) people are needed to keep situational awareness and resolve the issue into a non-issue.

Back to the ideal Instagram world......

A single pilot will never have complete sole and legal control of an airliner in normal flight operations. Full stop.

Is it true that Airbus are developing vending machines to replace the cabin crew ?

You could argue RYR trasformed them already.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....01d47463c4.jpg

Perhaps the single pilots will be sitting in an air conditioned porta cabin in the future?

And how does a prospective paying passenger with any sense decide to climb onboard single-pilot operated transport airplane?

There is no doubt automation/AI etc can achieve just about anything these days, but I am not convinced it can handle multiple complex failures and 'think out of the square'. A fully automated aeroplane might have saved AF447 but I doubt it would have saved QF72 and QF32.

pug, #81, et al.

Change the focus from technology to concepts.

The buzz words are AI and Big Data; we have them, but the important issue is what is their purpose, how to use them.

Alternatively, pilots and regulators should consider what and why particular functions are required, then assess the type and level of technological support and how that might be achieved.

An emerging concept is IA; Intelligent - to the user, and Assistance - provided by technology.

A simple, but valued example is EGPWS.

Technology, in background, continually monitoring parameters.

Provides Information, maps on request.

Alerts to parameter boundaries (Amber), a need to change focus or change the course of action.

Warning of hazards (Red), awareness, understanding, action.

Automatic action where able; pull up (currently pilot activated); compare with auto wind shear recovery - ACAS, or like Airbus AP engage below min speed.

Apply this thinking and the concepts to other operational areas, e.g. single pilot cruise; what functions are required, how to implement the technology for the users point of view, wary of unjustified perceptions of uncertain scenarios.
The users have the knowledge and expertise in operation; focus on the positive aspects, what might be done, how, why, when.

Re QF etc; not complex problem solving, just a simple question - what is still working, what do we need (one of the crew posed that question).

Re software etc; the coding or engineering are not the critical issues, it's what is specified for the software to do, and when. Operators, pilots can provide the better input, based not only on the present, but importantly with vision of the future, which unfortunately is generally unknowable, thus feared. Generate the future that we require, no more fearful than that which is managed today,
… but with an unlocked flight deck door.

It boils down to trusting technology instead of humans with command on board. But the software code, AI and network setups are made by humans as well. Humans that can make mistakes, write stupid code, have no idea about flying, weather or technology and such. I prefer somebody experienced on board who can decide whatever any unexpected scenario thrown at them requires. Failure modes are way too complex to be predicted and be handled by remote control, unreliable networks or onboard technology as we know it today.
In order to have one working pilot available at all times you need at least two of them on board. It will be a huge business to install all the machinery and network connections needed until this gets going. No wonder any issues get downplayed by the salespeople. No problem, when we find out whether it is working or not as advertised they will have made their money anyway.

I am not opposing technological innovations but it think it is much too early to hand over control to ground based or even AI command. There is nothing wrong with improving things but this goes in the wrong direction: Less redundancy and finally more costs not less.