Pilots to become (sort of) obsolete, says Airbus
 

Magenta line-chasing? Pah! Leave that to the computers...

One Per Cent: Will computers or humans fly airliners in formation?

"Systems and sensor redundancy - which means providing multiple backups for the backups - will be a key safety factor, he says".

I wonder how many spare engines it will have. :)

Having read this, read the contiguous thread about an A321 nearly stalling on the approach.
You could even have a formation crash on the approach.

Ye...and maybe one day we will land on Mars:rolleyes: They will be having driverless cars soon:confused:

I can fully understand that pilotless passenger aircraft would be a distinct possibility but no-one would fly in them, would you? - me neither!

Freight though, this is guaranteed, and not too long either.

No, it's not.

Look up the 787 development costs, all in. Multiply by at least two. Add in the costs of proving this technology to every country you want to operate in.

I work for the largest cargo carrier in the world, and I know WE ain't paying that. Don't know too many that would. Airbus can't even fund an A380F.....

Cost/benefit mate. Lockheed's still selling C-130's. Some technologies just plateau.....

For goodness sake, Airbus have been banging on about this nonsense since the 1980's.

The stupid detent-type thrust levers (why cant those things just move normally) were originally designed as power switches ffs.

Airbus have succeeded in removing pilots from the loop but not eliminating them and in doing so created a messy no-man's land in the process.

But could computers really do it? How could a computer perform ECAM, QRH, OEB, FCOM, MEL or whatever sequence it is this week? How could it understand Fringlish? How could it ever work out those ridiculous landing distance charts? Does a computer understand an asterisk?

Yes there are many pilot-induced accidents but for at least the next 80-100 years we will never solely trust computers. One major issue is that pilots have to try to second-guess what the bloody thing is doing when failures overwhelm limited computer capabilities. How would the Qantas engine explosion have panned-out if the pilots hadn't have been there? Reckon the best the MCDU would have come up with is CTRL+ALT+DEL

Tried doing an autoland in an A330 in what the computer regards as confusing winds (a little downwind or crosswind)? Unlike the 747, its awful. Had to take over on a number of occasions as the thing pulled off trust too high and hurtled earthwards.

Prediction: Year 2085: "European/Chinese Aircraft manufacturer Airbus SAS says that it is close to perfecting a pilotless ducted-fan A390. The aircraft has only been approved to carry animals and freight and can only fly over unpopulated areas and land at airports at least 100km from the nearest city. EasyRyanair have expressed an interest".

Good luck with these plans Mr Airbus - laughed 30 years ago when first heard the story and nothing has swayed my opinion about the stupidity of this concept.

Now off to feed the dog that's there to bight my hand etc etc.

Coming to a future near you.......
 

I would have to respectfully disagree with Huck and the poster above from Hong Kong.

Hucke says he is in the business of flying freight I am not, perhaps he is right. However with ground based operators "flying" daily drone missions around the clock and half a world away in places like Afghanistan having now become routine I can envision a strong argument being made for ultra long haul freight being flown remotely in not too distant future.

If I was a freight pilot I would not like to think about it either. In fact there may come a day when passengers fly on planes " piloted" remotely, but not likely in the remaining years that I have in this industry.

I have heard it rumored (4th or 5th hand banter) that at least one of the large U.S. freight companies is already in talks with Boeing regarding remotely flown commercial aircraft. Along the same rumor mill I have heard that the U.S. Navy is working on a remotely flown 737. Those of you really "in the know" care to comment for the rest of us?

Again, paid for by whom?

It won't be a remotely-piloted 777F. It has to be a new creature or there is no advantage.

All those military drones are clean-sheet designs - there wasn't enough advantage gained by automating an OV-10.

The Fedex rumors came from a USAF officer at a conference a couple of years ago. They went viral. But he knew nothing of what he was talking about.

Our main hubs are in huge cities - Newark, Paris, Guangzhao. There will be no remote, thinly populated routes. The first cargo RPV would have to fly into hard weather into Standsted, Frankfurt and LAX. There will be no pass given to cargo.

So, I say again, cost/benefit. Trust me when I say, pilots are an order of magnitude cheaper.

As I tend to do here, let me point out again the number of fellows riding around in the fronts of those big freight trains that go past my house. How long have we had the technology to automate them out of the cab?

Flawed approach?
 

Hi,

After deep analysis to understand what happened with F-GZCP, (AF447, A332) many of us are concerned with Airbus SAS approach.

A. Le Rhone:

I think your feeling was correct.

green granite:

And simultaneously to this the pilots will be trained to just watch (and startle when things go south :}). F-GZCP (as observed by an old pilot) could be a canary in a coal mine.

All this very concerning...:sad:

computers won't pay to fly!
 

so many airlines are most unlikely to invest.

Pilots to become (sort of) obsolete, says Airbus
 

Not me !! I like there to be someone piloting up front, whose skin is in the

same aircraft I am in and who is even more interested in not being the first

one to be flattened when hitting the deck !@@#$%%%^^

Airbus, the bible wisdom warns against humans becoming too cocksure !:ugh:

This is not a question whether airplane can be flown remotely or not, because it can be. The question is whether such airplane equipment + cost of communication + cost of operator is higher or lower than piloted aircraft. Once it becomes cheaper to have remotely controlled aircraft, you can count month rather than years before it happens in numbers.

To be honest when "SHTF" a pilot who is on board will be working harder not only because there are 300 pax behind him but also because his ass is on the line too.

While these may be biased opinions from pilots I am sure the gen pop shares the same views.

I thought about another example, and this is important.

Back in the sixties, there were two groups of design engineers at Boeing. I picture them at opposite ends of a hallway. The "A" team with all the brilliants from Cal Poly, RPI and MIT were working on the Next Generation of Aircraft - capable of supersonic cruise. The first model was the SST.

Down the hall was the "B" team, guys from Auburn and Georgia Tech. They were working on a big freighter, with room for two containers abreast and huge gross weights. This was the 747. They were told the passenger version was just a stop-gap until the SST ruled the world.

So... what happened? Massive amounts of public and private investment, all for nought in the SST case, though the Concorde had a decent (but non-profitable) run.

So... now the SST models are in museums, the Concordes are on poles and the 747-800 is taking off at a million pounds. I have no doubt in my graying skull that the 747-800 will be hauling freight for the next 50 years.

See.... we had the technology, but (say it together now) the COST / BENEFIT analysis didn't pan out....

FFS
I can just envisage a TSA $6.75/hour halfwit "taking over" because he/she/it "thought something was wrong", "landing" a 320 at Dogsbottom Arkansas where equally brainless swat teams will storm the hapless crew and kill everyone aboard.
Simple TEM would have to strangle this idiotic concept in the cradle.
Next: TSA requires "Flight Sim 2000" experience in all new hires...
I weep for the future.

UAV's the military doesn't want to tell you the failure rate on them. I wonder why? Since no pilot is dead easy enough to get another one built.

What's in a good headline...
 

« Pilots to become (sort of) obsolete, says Airbus » . Good God ! Choc, horror and indignation…


Now, I would hate to let any form of truth interfere with a good tabloid headline, but upon reading the article, I failed to find any declaration by Airbus to that effect. Au contraire, mes amis ! The author notes that, when questioned, Charles Champion, executive vice-president of engineering at Airbus in Toulouse, specifically points out that despite the company's line that an "intelligent" aircraft will do the work, that's not the full story.

"In our business safety is number one," says Champion. "This is why we would not envisage a system where the pilot is not in control of the aircraft." And the author of the article concludes by stating “By 2050, computers will be unrecognizably fast and capable, that's for sure. But they will still be fallible machines - so it is encouraging to hear Champion backing the human at the flight controls. I hope they stick to it.”

Quite a different story than Airbus announcing the obsolescence of pilots (even if “sort of”). But again, let’s not let reality distract us ! I would like therefore to contribute to the OP’s creativity with the truth by suggesting the following headlines for a few riveting future threads:

Airbus (sort of) supports pedophilia” : Too many young pilots without any training are actively encouraged to take to the skies, without the slightest regard for safety or decency standards

“Airbus (sort of) considers that (insert name of your favorite minority) have a too low IQ to competently handle their planes” : A frightening tale of discrimination and wrongdoings, cunningly plotted by your favorite manufacturer…

As for the supporting facts, well, who needs them anyway ?

Thank you! There's not even a hint of single-pilot operations, either. The article is about using technology to allow tasks that are more efficient but trickier to perform. There's no mention of barring a crew from taking over nor is there any suggestion that computer-controlled formation flying will be implemented regardless of any safety issues.

How do we progress if nobody's thoughts go near, or beyond, the bounds of what's currently possible?

Actually it is the 'skunk works' guys of Airbus justufying their salaries. If you finish to read the article and read what Charlie Champion said, you'd probably understand this.

But since the correspondent smoly puts it as 'Airbus' it looks like the company strategy.

All aircraft manufacturers assume that the airlines will put competent pilots who know howmto fly into the cockpit.mthe only thing they really say is that you can learn how to use this or that particular aircraft much faster than before. A, B, B or E, all the same...

No Pilots!
 

All this talk of "no pilots" reminds me of an old joke! Forgive me if you've heard this a thousand times!


In the future all flight decks will have a pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to monitor the automatic flight and the dog is there to bite the pilot if he touches anything!

All this talk of "no pilots" is insane!