"Pilotless airliners safer" - London Times article
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Limoges/Sussex
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Costs? Depends how you look at it...
It may be small on a $ per seat mile basis, but in the aggregate afaik, it is 15-30% of direct operating costs. That makes crew costs a priority target
Staff costs for 2000 pilots and 4500 crew - £454,000,000 - annual report
Estimate of "fully-loaded" costs for pilots ~ £300,000,000 - any comments?
Total annual costs including fuel - £3,780,000,000 - annual report
Total profit before tax - £478,000,000 - annual report
So, 300/3780 is only 8%, so not so big, eh? After all fuel was over 1.1 billion in the same perid.
But if you could, say, just halve £300m that would take pre-tax profits to £628m which is a whopping 31% increase.
As I say, it depends how you look at it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I would assume those pilot costs don't take into account anything beyond wage, training, recruitment, pension etc.
They don't take into account the loss of the 4-6 first class seats that could be fitted where they sit on every flight if you removed the cockpit. How much does that add up to over a year?
How much does all that cockpit hardware such as screens, switches and so on weigh? that all cost money to fly around.
They don't take into account the loss of the 4-6 first class seats that could be fitted where they sit on every flight if you removed the cockpit. How much does that add up to over a year?
How much does all that cockpit hardware such as screens, switches and so on weigh? that all cost money to fly around.
They don't take into account the loss of the 4-6 first class seats that could be fitted where they sit on every flight if you removed the cockpit.
I guess if you got rid of the cabin crew as well you could save a considerable sum......
Guest
Posts: n/a
How big do you think the computers are likely to be? Something the size of a mobile phone shouldn't take up much space.
My quick and dirty application of Moore's law suggests that all the computers currently on board plus the automation ones should take up approximately..... no space at all in 10 years time
My quick and dirty application of Moore's law suggests that all the computers currently on board plus the automation ones should take up approximately..... no space at all in 10 years time
Riiiiiight.
So you think the human brain can be modelled by a 'computer' the size of a mobile phone ?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Good luck with that. Cheers, You've just made my day.
So you think the human brain can be modelled by a 'computer' the size of a mobile phone ?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Good luck with that. Cheers, You've just made my day.
Sorry.
Still laughing......
Still laughing......
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Limoges/Sussex
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About time...
About time someone actually said it.
Commercial enterprise supported by enabling technology is rushing us all (all humans, I mean) headlong towards this goal. The reason that this thread is so interesting in this regard is that the sentiments expressed here are a) technically informed, b) aposite and c) so emotively expressed.
As pilots, we should be the first to see the bigger picture, no?
The day that unmanned systems are complex enough to replace human pilots is the day that all humans become redundant. After all, what is a finance director other than a glorified spreadsheet? And who is to say that such unmanned systems will not exhibit all the failings of humans, and possibly even some new ones?
As pilots, we should be the first to see the bigger picture, no?
By all respect, to change minds of SLF to be willing to board pilotless airliner may be much tougher task than to tackle all technical hurdles of making such an a/c.
I would bet - the single pilot airliner will be the next logical step.
I would bet - the single pilot airliner will be the next logical step.
And, considering the pilot is a safety critical part of the system, the same applies to number of flight crew.
But my main point is that even if it would be technologically feasible the hardest aspect would be making such a solution desirable by general public.
Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done...
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Asia
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But my main point is that even if it would be technologically feasible the hardest aspect would be making such a solution desirable by general public.
the general public ?
many times people ask me if there are 2 pilots (yep they are not even sure of that) and when I say yes, they ask me what does the copilot do... and when I reply, the same, he flies the plane...they reply "oh ok, I did not know".
Don't worry, the general public is less worried than a pilot himself.
I saw a lovely quote from Warren Buffet in relation to stock market predictions and there being two types of experts. Those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know! I think that may apply here.
Ozymandias
Well said (both posts). It's not, imho, just redundancy but also cross checking eg reroutes and new clearances and also task sharing especially in an emergency (PF/PNF) that determines two as being the minimum number of pilots. I'll vote for unmanned large airliners as somewhere between a long way off to never.
Ozymandias
Well said (both posts). It's not, imho, just redundancy but also cross checking eg reroutes and new clearances and also task sharing especially in an emergency (PF/PNF) that determines two as being the minimum number of pilots. I'll vote for unmanned large airliners as somewhere between a long way off to never.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Greenlight.
Years ago, on boarding as pax, my wife happened to mention to the cabin crew (probably in reference to sitting in the emergency-exit row) that I was an airline pilot. The reply was "Are you a pilot or a First Officer?" And that was from a crew member.
they ask me what does the copilot do
I wonder which of the following proposals would cause most concern for passengers.
1. Use automation (much more capable autopilots) to replace the pilots.
2. Use automation (vending machines) to replace the cabin crew.
Yes I know that the bottom-line function of the cabin crew it to get the passengers out in an emergency, but I doubt if many passengers give much thought to that until the emergency occurs.
1. Use automation (much more capable autopilots) to replace the pilots.
2. Use automation (vending machines) to replace the cabin crew.
Yes I know that the bottom-line function of the cabin crew it to get the passengers out in an emergency, but I doubt if many passengers give much thought to that until the emergency occurs.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
All London airspace closed
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 48
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, if this has been mentioned before, I haven't gone through alle the replies.
One thing automation won't resolve is human error. How many of those "human errors" that lead to plane crashes have actually been errors in using automated systems?
I'm thinking of that case where pilots accidently entered a wrong waypoint into the FMS and the plane flew into a mountain. Or the case where pilots accidently entered a 3500 FPM descent instead of a 3.5 degree descent and the plane flew into the ground. Or the case where pilots accidently entered a heading of 020 instead 200 and ran out of fuel over the jungle.
In all these cases, the planes were flying on autopilot and the human error was not in handling the plane, but in entering wrong data into the automated systems. That will happen in fully automated planes as well.
There's one thing that humans can do but automation can't: Humans can recognise their own errors. A human being can make an error, and a second, or a minute later recognise their own mistake and correct it. An automated system can't.
In the three cases I mentioned above, the pilots didn't recognise their own mistakes in time to prevent the accident, but we don't know how many similar cases happened, in which pilots accidently entered something wrong into their FMS only to spot the error in time to prevent anything bad to happen. And I truly believe that a pilot who is actually there and will be the first to die in an accident is more likely to be vigiliant and spot their own erros than a ground operator who is far away and is possibly distracted by operating several planes at a time.
One thing automation won't resolve is human error. How many of those "human errors" that lead to plane crashes have actually been errors in using automated systems?
I'm thinking of that case where pilots accidently entered a wrong waypoint into the FMS and the plane flew into a mountain. Or the case where pilots accidently entered a 3500 FPM descent instead of a 3.5 degree descent and the plane flew into the ground. Or the case where pilots accidently entered a heading of 020 instead 200 and ran out of fuel over the jungle.
In all these cases, the planes were flying on autopilot and the human error was not in handling the plane, but in entering wrong data into the automated systems. That will happen in fully automated planes as well.
There's one thing that humans can do but automation can't: Humans can recognise their own errors. A human being can make an error, and a second, or a minute later recognise their own mistake and correct it. An automated system can't.
In the three cases I mentioned above, the pilots didn't recognise their own mistakes in time to prevent the accident, but we don't know how many similar cases happened, in which pilots accidently entered something wrong into their FMS only to spot the error in time to prevent anything bad to happen. And I truly believe that a pilot who is actually there and will be the first to die in an accident is more likely to be vigiliant and spot their own erros than a ground operator who is far away and is possibly distracted by operating several planes at a time.
"It seems one of the most sophisticated ATC computers in the world has just thrown its toys out of the pram. Pilotless airliners? QED"
notice we have "LONDON Times" somewhere in this thread title, oh the irony
notice we have "LONDON Times" somewhere in this thread title, oh the irony