Recent posts focus on the emotive no pilot autonomous operation, whereas the Airbus research is considering dual-pilot operations.

Instead of stating what we do not want, consider what we might require in a dual pilot cockpit, when, why, where. For what purpose, workload, safety viewpoint, or new or changed risks.

Is the type of automation being considered what crews will expect; do we sufficiently understand current operations, ourselves, in normal, high workload, or abnormal situations before considering the hypothetical.

What are the current critical situations; how are these identified and understood.

That is still te long term plan , yes. the technology is not new, was tested already in large simulations both in the USA and in Europe, It works but does not deliver capacity , so does not pass cost benefit analysis, yet . One paragdim was that fully automated ATC needs a fully automated aircraft too. Basically ground computers talking constantly to airborne computers using high broad band data exchange. . That data link however does not exists yet.
Then will come what they call the "emotional aspect" : basically acceptance by the public. Some believe if the price of the ticket is right , i.e. much lower than manned flight , they will go for it . Not sure of that but here you go.
@ Chieftp
I am sure they will then most probably recruit and train youngsters to do this for half you current Capt salary. As to the safety enhancements, technically they do not have to be enhanced, it is still 10 to the minus 6 , we are currently well below that, so maintaining current saftey is enough. ( to avoid nasty remarks : I am beeing sarcastic here :suspect: )

Freight doesn't get a say on who is piloting the aircraft, so that's where they will start with autonomous/automated flights. It does surprise me how willing some members of the public are willing to put their safety in the hands of "full self driving" cars despite such autonomous driving systems not being certified for autonomous driving.

I think we are likely to see full autonomous vehicles on the roads within the next 10 years, but they too will be carrying freight between distribution centres.

A mate of mine still wears a mask when he's out and about and he's probably one of the smartest blokes I know. Not because he's scared of Covid, but because he has a legitimate reason he has to avoid getting crook. To ridicule is cheap and easy, and the oldest trick in the book...
Yeeaaahh, about that....How'd that work out for those pilots who took on the Navigation duties when they got rid of the Nav? Or those 767 Driver's who took over from the F/E back in the 80's? Or all those train driver's after they aboloished the Guard on the back of the train, or the Coey beside them whem they went to Driver-Only Operation?!?

You can ask, but you won't get. And all they will do is redefine your role s they have done to countless other industries to reduce numbers.

Really? Do you really want to go there?

• Asiana 214
• Air France 296
• American 965
• Korean 801
• GermanWings 9525
• SilkAir 185
• EgyptAir 990
• Air France 447
• Transasia 235
• BMA 92
• Eastern 401
• China Airlines 006
• Singapore 006
• Tenerife

And countless others besides where the crew have flown a perfectly serviceable aircraft into an obstacle, or grossly mishandled a relatively minor fault and the aircraft was lost. As I've said above, there's likely multiple times the tech crew have saved the aircraft from errant technology - however do not confuse pilots up front as being indefensible in terms of preventing fatalities, particularly when pilot suicide is a significant cause of fatalities in recent years. There'll also be new and novel failures experienced with autonomous operations, but I proffer that even with these losses, safety will be improved overall by removing the human element.

What is not reported there, because no crash occurred where human intervention has prevented crashes.

I think the step should be either two pilots or no pilots. However, we are a long way from the reliability and safety needed for commercial passenger operations without pilots. The flying public will not accept cheapo bot flights.
Two are needed for redundancy and educating future captains. No pilots might work for freighters electronically hooked up to a manned formation flight leader or similar. And then the freighter can leave the remote monitored formation to autoland garmin style at some remote desert airport or similar.

That’s my take on it as well. Beyond a certain flight duration, you have to assume a single pilot aeroplane will have no-one at the controls for periods of time (or for the rest of the flight if they become incapacitated), therefore the aircraft will need to be able to deal with anything the pilot could. At that point, why have a pilot? You’ve already paid for an autonomous aircraft...

Someone mentioned MCAS as an example of technical failure. My take on that is that it was a technical failure which only came about due to the requirement to make the aircraft feel the same to the pilots. No pilots = no MCAS...

When Airbus gets automatic optically guided flight sorted out, which it inevitably will, the clock will be ticking for professional piloting as we know it. If the cost is that the next Miracle on the Hudson turns into a disaster because the computer couldn't work out what to do, the benefit of having avoided the dozens of pilot error accidents that would have happened in the meantime will have been worth it.

Kraviator,
There will always be exceptions to the rule, you’re cherry picking incidents and accidents, and by the way, as far as I know 100% of Airliner accidents have occurred with a manned crew, so stats are irrelevant in this discussion. Here’s a statistic I was privy to, but most folks aren’t. Military drones crash, a lot….I’m Glad your friends wears his mask,sounds like he has a valid reason to do so, however, I’d bet a lot of money that 80% of the people I see wearing masks in airports in 2023 are wearing them for psychological security and not medical reasons. Masks have become the Adult equivalent of the baby pacifier. All I’m saying is these types of passengers will be terrified to board an aircraft without a pilot. As far as Freight ops, as a freight pilot, I’m not worried, because after the first 747 unmanned freighter crashes into a farmer’s field, or, God Forbid, a populated city, unmanned flights will cease.Hell they could barely fly the Concorde in the 1970’s because of a small noise issue, and you really think people will be OK with a 650,000 pound aircraft loaded with 100,000 lbs of jet fuel flying overhead with no pilot.?

I still cannot envisage how a robot is going to pick its way through the ITCZ. Or thunderstorms in a terminal area. Or avoid cloud layers for a smoother ride. The pax will just have to keep belted in and stay terrified.

Recruiting cabin crew may also be a problem.

Teachable autopilots have been considered and likely quietly developed for several years.
Would the integration and perfection of this technology allow for a gradual acceptance and smoother transition to autonomy over time?

Think of salary structures. Most Long Haul operators promote pilots from their Short/Medium Haul Ops. Would SH/MH folk take a big drop in earnings to work as a back-up cruise pilot on the LH fleet? Obviously not. I cannot see where the airline's cost savings would come from given the salary structures of SH and LH being roughly comparable. A well-paid SFO on SH is far more likely to want to move to the left seat on SH than step way down in earnings to right-seat/sleeper seat on LH. And how would the new and lowly-paid FO/SFO in Long Haul ever get trained properly? While they are asleep? And does the Captain stay awake for the whole flight?

I think that the real airline bosses are not even after cost savings: they are after power. They don´t want anyone to interfere with whatever they deem to be the best operation, the best PLAN . So, if there are no pilots, no-one is going to say ´no´ , no one is going to go on strike... and the bosses can rule.
Incientally, they save the $ for the pilots, too, but that´s a secondary consideration.
Pilots´ responsibility ? Will be legislated away from the airline, just as the risk of rockets falling onto earth-dwellers has been legislated away. Look to the Virgin rocket : it almost fell onto Teneriffe !
Thus, no-one in the airline hierarchy is personally responsible anyway...and the auto-pilots can do their job, one way or another.

Slightly scary thoughts, I admit. But cost can´t be the real point of getting pilots out of cockpits. You need to pay for a ton of research, electronics and extra maintenance to make that auto auto auto-mated cockpit happening.
Yes, technically, it can be done - as long as those auto auto auto-planes are the only objects in the sky and nothing goes wrong. Russia flew their space-shuttle around the world decades ago - no humans on board.
Many military organizations fly UAVs halfway around the world.
But: look at the safety record. Not good. (( mentally subtract those ´shot down´): https://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/