|
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Major Bob Hollands at the controls....
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
..dangerous as airline pilots. Especially if they are from non-Western air forces
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
some are very gifted and stand-outs
Originally Posted by flyboy410
Fighter pilots do have a tendency to 'drive' planes more than flying them
Originally Posted by flyboy410
There's a stark weight and maneuverability difference between a fighter and an airliner!
Originally Posted by flyboy410
there are some who take it by hand up ... until they're in a stable climb. Usually, the latter are the better pilots qualitatively
Every time we meet between ex-fighter pilots, disregarding nationalities, we always agree about the poor level of handling skills and lack of aerodynamic background so common with the "pure civilian" pilots, who paid for their training and have been therefore instructed a minima. Now it seems those people are comforting themselves by talking about more miserable than themselves... |
Here we go again......
Every time we meet between ex-fighter pilots, disregarding nationalities, we always agree about the poor level of handling skills and lack of aerodynamic background so common with the "pure civilian" pilots, who paid for their training and have been therefore instructed a minima... Wasn't that what this thread was about...? |
Is all the sim two hours manual by PF or just part of it
|
a hybrid between hand flying and automation
In my opinion, with actual technology there should be a way to fly an airplane halfway between manually and using automation. By manually I mean zero automation, and I am not referring to the FD bars.
This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits. Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances. WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation. And we would have so much more fun! |
Excellent and well written ! I was discussing this accident with my brother who is a Delta Captain flying the A-330 in an attempt to understand why the crew did not revert to flying AOA. I have flown corporate Gulfstream models for the past 35 years which come standard with "normalized" AOA presentation and was shocked to learn that Airbus does not provide AOA status to the crew.
The Gulfstream-550 incorporates a procedure in the QRH that addresses the exact scenario faced by the AF crew by pitching to an AOA range (percent of lift used) of 0.30 to 0.50 for clean configuration to fly straight and level. We also have the advantage of HUD providing a zero pitch line which can be aligned with the FD FPA symbol. Is there a logical rationale for not having AOA information available in all swept wing aircraft? |
Kudos to Chimbu and VirginExcess - they have nailed it.
The reality is that the problem is commercial problem as much as a technical problem. Automation has been a commercial necessity in the IT and Utility (Power, gas, electricity) industries for decadeds. It is now a commercial necessity in aviation. The way forward is to accept the fact that pilots are now dependent on automation as their employers can no longer afford to keep the hand flying skills current. As such, any reduction in automation due to unreliable airspeed or any other criterion should have a mandated gradual reduction in automation based on the computer's best estimates from the remaining reliable telemetry. What is no longer acceptable is the sudden "I give up" programming to hand over full manual control to pilots in an instant, as what happened with AF447. It is no longer economical to train pilots to hand fly in such situations - the automation response must be gradual and very unabiguous to enable pilots to adjust to a fully automatic to semi-automatic flying mode. Just giving up and expecting hand flying skills is no longer on the cards. |
JB
I preferred the post from the ex-mil gent who pointed the obvious - even the most skilled ex-fast jet jockey will lose a lot (if not most) of his handling skills if he doesn't practise them regularly. Wasn't that what this thread was about...? Have also argued many times on this forum, that manual flying todays airliners in the current RVSM/RNP/RNAV crowded airspace is not really a good idea, not to mention the fact that these machines are not designed to be flown manually the way that we used to know; there is too much FMS/MCP manipulation needed by someone or other, coupled with ATC RT and/or config changes by PM/(PNF) to make it an effective cross-monitoring operation, which is why both Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus want you to make full use of automation for a safe operation and also a smooth ride for the punters down the back. I have also argued many times that we should be protecting our flying skills by doing more raw data exercises in the sim, rather than wasting time on these "politically correct" LOFT scenarios. Why would I want to spend one hour of LPC time doing low vis taxi at AMS and full deicing procedures before take-off?!. Then they try to cram so many scenarios in (at strange, complicated airfields) that you come out wondering what on earth you learned here; no time to review fine details and most obscure but potentially important points forgotten as soon as you walk out the door with a successful pass and a good "score". It's called "Information Overload". However, thankfully the trend seems to be going away from this particular mindset, with a new breed in training, although still a way to go.If they want to check my knowledge of automation systems, then incorporate some Fixed Base training time, and leave the full flight sim for something more useful. I know all these points have been covered ad infinitum by previous contributors on this and other threads, but I have to ask myself-why do we forever keep on reinventing the old wheel? Another favorite quote (Samuel Johnston?)- "Man has oft more need to be reminded than informed", and I've lost count of how many times I've posted that hoary old one on this forum:sad: Without any doubt, we'll all be repeating ourselves a hundred or more posts down the line.... |
...and a :mad: roman candle coming out of the left donk out of CBR |
So much contempt in those words... Listen young man, you can have quite proficient pilots with brown or yellow skins, but that engrained feeling of superiority is so common in your beer "culture"... And by the way, tell the americans about the "non western" Vietnamese fighter pilots in the 60s ... This is an interesting and important thread that highlights industry deficiencies. Your first post was absurd in content and you've followed up with consistency and the introduction of personal abuse. I'm happy to take this offline and spare others the slanging match but first..... Major Holland killed his B52 crew in sadly spectacular fashion. His hazardous attitude has a similarity to yours in your opening post. Where you seem to think that because you have barrel rolled a probably non-aerobatic certified transport aircraft, the solution to the airline industry of diminishing hand flying skills, would be to just unashamedly recruit more military pilots. I stand by my comments.The last thing the industry needs is to recruit Maj Bob Hollands types. When you opened up with listen young man I thought what an idiot. You then displayed a poor understanding of the argument by playing the race card where it had no reason to be played. There is a significant ideological difference between the training of the Western and non-Western fighter pilots that seems to have manifested itself in difficulty transitioning to an airline environment. Indeed, in the seventies, some Warsaw Pact countries had expensive, government funded civilian flying academies to address safety problems associated with using ex-mil crews in their state owned airlines. The Vietnamese air force analogy was a poor one. Yes, a small number were successful against Americans who were severely restricted by their ROE. Vietnamese ( possibly Russian and North Korean ) pilots used guerilla warfare hit and run tactics that initially worked against Washington controlled fighter bomber formations. If the Americans were permitted to bomb the radar stations and command and control facilities that so successfully positioned Migs into advantageous positions, their initial successes may not have occurred. I digress. Quite simply, most pilots from a non-Western background in military aircraft are start again candidates. Their training and culture are vastly different to what transitions comfortably to an airline cockpit. You move on and have a crack at others who argue the handling differences between a fighter and an airliner. This needn't worry you because you tell us you flew Jaguars in the desert and at "high altitude"; I can tell you it worried Airbus and Boeing enough in their mid 90's push to have airlines introduce upset training, where they were concerned not only with poor civilian experience levels in aerobatics or extreme attitudes, but also with ex- military crews who may use inappropriate recovery techniques with airliners. If you want to abuse me because of my culture I would be thrilled to continue this offline via PM- especially as you seem to be French and my grandfathers fought your wars for you cleaning up your collaborators in the Middle East. Or, we can continue here and add to the debate on an important air safety issue. |
Those of you who have been knocking ex-military pilots - it would appear that the CAA agree with you! The revised CAP804 has just removed all military exemptions for skill tests - which, in the most ridiculous and extreme example, means that an A1 Tutor QFI/IRE with thousands of hours' instructional time has to take a skills test just to get a PPL! Yes, a PPL! Crazy - and more than a little insulting.
Even to me (as a current military man) it says that the CAA do not trust the military training output, or worse, the military do not trust themselves (the revised document was based on a submission from the RAF). Should we be allowed into controlled airspace at all if our training really doesn't qualify us for even a PPL? :mad: |
I don't think anyone here is knocking military pilots. I question the assumption that if you are ex-mil you will automatically make a good airline pilot. It's just not the case.
|
Originally Posted by TallestPoppy
Sheppey, at what stage was this offered by the Captain?
If this had been a discussion prior to the top of descent, then a mental model could have been shared, and agreement had on how the visual approach would be fine. Despite there probably being a nice diagram in the QRH, a sharing of each pilots understanding of how the approach would be flown, at what config, at what point, and how any go-around would be flown would go a long way to ensuring a safe outcome. What the hell happened to FLYING the aeroplane???????????? |
Well , I regularly fly with 4 ex mil FOs in my base and they all failed the upgrade on the first attempt and they were arrogant , over confident, had poor interpersonal skills , 2 of them had poor hygiene , and they all had issues with authority. I would love to have had a chance to operate a fast jet or any high performance military
aircraft and I think the experience you can get is excellent but as I said form what I have seen , more often than not they're just annoying to fly with Lack of humility and an inability to hold their hands up when they make a mistake is also an issue. Just an observation ! |
|
Easy Street
My take would be the conspiracy theory that the Powers to be in the RAF have pulled a political move. They want to make it more difficult for the military pilot to leave and fly in the civillain world. |
It's NOT ok not to be proficient in raw data manual flight!
I've been reading through this thread with interest and amazement.
I'm absolutely flabagasted by some of the comments I have come across: As far as being able to grab the jet from the autopilot in IMC when everything is going pear shaped? I don't think so. Now days I am struggling to do a basic maneuver. I still do them from time to time, but only when well briefed with weather and traffic conditions permitting. Gone are the days of immediately reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, or at least they should be gone. ......Additionally, in most modern jets, any hand flying intervention should normally be limited to establishing stable flight and re-engaging the automatics Again, the days of disconnecting and pointing at the runway are gone. At the very least you have to call for the appropriate mode so that you have flight director guidance. Any in flight occurence that requires an autopilot disconnect is most likely going to pop up on the FDR. When/if it does the Captain will be sent a please explain. If he has continued flight without appropriate flight director guidance it is unlikely that he is going to be patted on the back and have his exemplary flying skill praised. More likely he is going to be sent to the sim for some more training on how to manage the automatics. There is really no excuse for Airlines who forbid their pilots to keep their raw data handflying skills up to date. Last year I started a thread in the tech log about “Your airlines' policy about the use of automation during flight?” I invite you to read it. Will there be crashes as a result; you bet, but there will be a lot less than if you allowed these low hour pilots to hand fly jet aircraft around. Unlike many others my company encourages pilots to keep their handflying skills up to date. Most of the time, I don't have to suggest my F/O's to turn the automatics off. they will have asked me before if they can. More often it happens, especially with the newly released kids, that I have to suggest them that it would be wise to fly with the automatics on when the atis warns us about low clouds and moderate visibility or when flying into a busy airport we are not familiar with! It's not they are not smart enough to know that, it's just that they were so used to raw data flying during their training, that using the automatics for approach had become the exception, rather then the rule. :E I'll admit that sometimes those new F/O's are not so great in using the automatics. For instance, the first time they have to intercept a G/S from above with the A/P, they will often have a problem. Not amazing, they've trained it once in the sim and then they were expecting it! So confronted to this situation these guys (and girls) will disconnect the A/P when it captures the initial approach alt before the G/S iso using the Airbus procedure for this. (dialling the altitude up and using V/S to get to the G/S.) Oh well, manually intercepting the slope and then re-engaging the A/P gets the job done just as well and it gives me something to talk about during a friendly post-flight debrief. If anything, I have witnessed the total opposite. "Nah mate, I don't build FMC circuits, I just turn all that off and fly it like a man." When I hear those words, I sit up in my seat and review unusual attitude recovery in my mind! Have witnessed plenty of white knuckled, shiny lever, wrestling matches and usually at the end of a big day! Why make it tough? Pick your fights, good weather, light traffic, FO with ample brainspace..... click click. Come on fellows: stop looking for excuses thinking it's ok not to be proficient in raw data manual flight as an airline pilot flying one of the modern Airbus or Boeing devices. I'm sure you can fly that A380 manually with just raw data once you're on the intercept heading for the ILS in LHR or SIN when the weather is nice enough! Or are you flying for one of those companies stopping their pilots to stay proficient, then please try to get that that policy changed. You owe it to the passengers! Happy landings! |
Regarding the automation issue: if you can't readily to hand fly an aircraft if needed within ATP tolerances you have no place in the cockpit. At my company due to the nature of our airspace and our approaches, as well as autoflight restrictions, many are hand flown with no flight director or a flight director used only for secondary reference. We've had a couple relatively high time jet pilots (5000+ hours, which is high for a turboprop operator) fail our training due to our emphasis on flying unique approaches using raw data or limited FD use.
Honestly in transport category turboprops a pilot can fly the aircraft smoother and more precisely than the autopilot. I found this is often the case on many older jet aircraft as well. On the military issue, my company has a lot of military pilots and a lot of civilian pilots. I've found military to be no better or worse than civilians, though the high performance fighter pilots definitely seem to generally have more attitude and a notably authoritarian command style. |
RE: post #97
Well said Sabenaboy, I agree!
I once flew Be1900´s in and out of Miami International, and I always flew manually. Some seem to consider that dangerous, but we had no choice, because there was no autopilot installed in any of the aircraft. The more you practise, the easier and more precise it gets. When disengaging the A/P and A/T, on intercept heading for an ILS, the pilot monitoring should monitor the same way as he should (but probably doesn´t) monitor the autopilot. The only addition to his normal duties, is setting the speed bug. |
...2 of them had poor hygiene... |
Hi Sabenaboy
I quote myself In my opinion, with actual technology there should be a way to fly an airplane halfway between manually and using automation. By manually I mean zero automation, and I am not referring to the FD bars. This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits. Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances. WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation. And we would have so much more fun! It could satisfy both the manufacturers, the operators, the pilots and the authorities, because automation would still be there, normally, and sometimes it would be there, although standing by. It would be something like arming the FD. And even the A/THR. These would be activated only if required by the system I find this idea very nice, mainly because I had it. But it has more and more good points the more I think about it. I like those systems that are complementary to the human being, rather than substitutes. TCAS and GPWS are such systems. They complement deficiencies of the human being, but they don't substitute us. We need safety nets, rather than delegating more and more in a system which in the end is also prone to failure, and that when it fails things will be complicated due to pilot atrophy. I wish my airline had your policy, but it does not. It recommends highest use of automation, although it leaves a tiny chance for practice. |
Next step?
I finally figured out ; my mood is “Bodhi”.
Thanks to a former colleague of mine (he was my co-pilot, and is now on AB330 FO) who told me: "You are an old pilot." I became aware of my state: I am a Pterosaur. Why scramble to teach how to prevent a stall, or how to come out of it? Modern aircraft do not stall! Why you should warn the students from spin, what makes it different from the spiral, the way to establish unequivocally the sense in which the aircraft is turning. What use to teach drawing in the ether precise climb / descent at a constant rate simultaneously performing standard turns. The automatics do it better. And then to instruct how to imagine their position in space according to the indication of some Needle. How to acquire and maintain a QDM or QDR, or to capture a radial, to what end? Double drift in some holding entry, the triple in a certain leg to maintain it; dollar yes or dollar no!?. All this is best done by automation, and well-designed, in real-time on the screen of N. D. set on MAP. Why warning: "dead foot: dead engine ..." or "foot chases ball…" On modern aircraft yaw caused by engine failure is automatically corrected. Why to check often during the descent that the distance remaining multplied 3 gives the actual altitude in order to avoid to arrive long and / or fast, for this there is the Vertical Nav. Why to memorize attitudes and powers for (flight turbulence), for the initial, intermediate and final approach with all engines and with One Engine Inoperative and their corrections for weight, P.A and wind. The A. T. maintains very well the speed needed for each and every occasion. Why to point out that to maintain the glide rather than chasing the VSI, the secret is to make small changes to the attitude and power, that the locator displacement has not to be chased but prevented, by calculating and changing constantly and almost imperceptibly the heading according to the cross-wind component: so even if we disconnect the A. P. there is the F / D, and then there is the Flight Path Vector, that will make those calculations before and better than us. Why to do the Alt. Check & x-check at the FAF, FAP, we checked the FMS immediately after entering the STAR. We can even build any type of instrument / visual approach and a circuit with PB, PBD or the coordinates of significant points to which we can associate altitude and speed. Next step? Guess what? |
Some skill needed.
Agree with Flygare. The more you practice, the easier it gets. The more familiar you are the less uncomfortable you feel when you have to think a bit more.At least with my Company we hand fly and practice raw data approaches as much as we like....not always because the automatics are so :mad: you have to....
The scary thing is in 30 years time new pilots will be amazed that we once had to keep the FD bars crossed using old fashioned control yokes and not a trackpad. |
Next step?
LeftBlank
The scary thing is in 30 years time new pilots will be amazed that we once had to keep the FD bars crossed using old fashioned control yokes and not a trackpad. In much less time there will be nobobody in the cockpit and the pilot will be sitting at home in front of his PC. |
Why do we still need pterosaurs?
@DOVES
Why do I keep teaching and practising hand sutures when 99% of them are (adequately, if not better) performed mechanically by a multitude of gadgets or a robot (an industry-driven "need")? Because when the machine fails, you have to do it yourself, and you better know how! My patients, as your A/C ultimately still depend on our capability of hand-flying (or hand-suturing), no matter how complex and "reliable" automation is... Maybe I'm a pterosaur too... But I feel I'm still usefull. |
Why do we still need pterosaurs?
costamaia
Obviously I was joking. Even when and if I will be no longer allowed to teach to love my art to aspiring airline pilots I will continue to teach as I do now, on real planes "Light sport aircraft" piloted with the seat of the pants, stick, rudder and throttle, and without the intermediation of one or more computers. |
In much less time there will be nobobody in the cockpit and the pilot will be sitting at home in front of his PC. The pilot will be there to feed the dog, and the dog will be there to see that the pilot desn't touch anything. |
Lowering accident rate due to automation
Some people on this thread attribute the lowing accident rate over the past decades at least partly to the use of automation. Does this mean we can expect the 737 to have more accidents than the 320 because it hasless automation?
|
I think automated flight controls are crucial nowadays, considering the sheer number of aircraft up there. But I do think there's a fine line between computers reducing workload and controlling so many flight parameters that the pilots can't practice their skills.
There's absolutely no mechanical connection between the stick and the surfaces on an airbus right? :hmm: But automation probably makes ATC life a hell of a lot easier! |
I would like to recall a term that I miss in the conversation:
Automation induced pilot error. There will always be human errors, but there will always be electronic failures. There is a very well established statistic about pilot error in airline crashes, not surprisingly a high one and, even less surprisingly a very meagre statistic about automation failure. In most cases there is mention about some electronic failure, however there is always the mention about the failure of the crew to either prevent it or correct it, thus blaming the pilot and statistically put it down to pilot error. Take away some automation and I admit we will have some accidents happen that could have been prevented through protections. However we might have some other accidents not happen because the pilots would not have been misled by badly designed or failed automation. Furthermore the training would have not been outsourced to poorly programmed online courses and reduced to the bare minimum and such trained professionals might have avoided some more accidents. Automation is great, if you have it as nice to have and use when appropriate. Today though, due to poor pilots skills and even poorer manger skills, it has become need to use. I pretend that this philosophy is slightly flawed and sort of originating a lot of accidents. How convenient for airlines, manufacturers and regulators though: It leaves them with the omnipresent pilot error. D'you wann bet neither AF nor AB will be indicated in any way for AF447? It will remain the way it is: Everybody hitting on the admittedly below adequate standard pilots!:ugh: |
Just do it. If you can't because of SOP, try to discuss and influence change Consider yourself lucky to fly in your company, if it really exists or works that way ..... ;) |
Sabenaboy, how do you dare spoil the fun and interrupt this thread's brash display of popular prejudices, misunderstandings and general ignorance of how aeroplanes fly by discoursing sensibly? Who do you think you are? A pilot?
Naughty boy.... :D:ok: |
I've possibly posted this earlier in the automation debate, but one of the aforementioned chaps posted in our discussion group that it's dangerous to hand-fly above FL250 and the seatbelt sign should be put on if you do so!
Discussion ceased after an emotional post from me that this was utter bulls#!t and setting the matter straight. However, the thoughts are out there!!:ugh: G'day ;) |
It's not a competition between pilot and computer. Computers fly an aircraft better, more accurate and more efficiently than hand flying.
99.9% of the time. I would like to think, as a passenger nowadays, that my pilot could cope if I was in the 0.1% situation. That's surely what they are there for otherwise, it could be argued, you don't need a human pilot at all. |
At last!
Gretchenfrage:
The good news is that "pilot error" will disappear for ever, there will only be "automation error". Computer operators will be like surgeons: they will not risk even a nail in the operation. |
New FAA policy on manual flying
A cut and paste of a document published 4 Jan 2013. Interesting reading and somewhat of a wise about-face IMHO.
A SAFO contains important safety information and may include recommended action. SAFO content should be especially valuable to air carriers in meeting their statutory duty to provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. Besides the specific action recommended in a SAFO, an alternative action may be as effective in addressing the safety issue named in the SAFO. Subject: (FAA) Manual Flight Operations Purpose: This SAFO encourages operators to promote manual flight operations when appropriate. Background: A recent analysis of flight operations data (including normal flight operations, incidents, and accidents) identified an increase in manual handling errors. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) believes maintaining and improving the knowledge and skills for manual flight operations is necessary for safe flight operations. Discussion: Modern aircraft are commonly operated using autoflight systems (e.g., autopilot or autothrottle/autothrust). Unfortunately, continuous use of those systems does not reinforce a pilot’s knowledge and skills in manual flight operations. Autoflight systems are useful tools for pilots and have improved safety and workload management, and thus enabled more precise operations. However, continuous use of autoflight systems could lead to degradation of the pilot’s ability to quickly recover the aircraft from an undesired state. Operators are encouraged to take an integrated approach by incorporating emphasis of manual flight operations into both line operations and training (initial/upgrade and recurrent). Operational policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure there are appropriate opportunities for pilots to exercise manual flying skills, such as in non-RVSM airspace and during low workload conditions. In addition, policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure that pilots understand when to use the automated systems, such as during high workload conditions or airspace procedures that require use of autopilot for precise operations. Augmented crew operations may also limit the ability of some pilots to obtain practice in manual flight operations. Airline operational policies should ensure that all pilots have the appropriate opportunities to exercise the aforementioned knowledge and skills in flight operations. Recommended Action: Directors of Operations, Program Managers, Directors of Training, Training Center Managers, Check Pilots, Training Pilots, and flightcrews should be familiar with the content of this SAFO. They should work together to ensure that the content of this SAFO is incorporated into operational policy, provided to pilots during ground training, and reinforced in flight training and proficiency checks. Contact: Questions or comments regarding this SAFO should be directed to the Air Carrier Training Branch, AFS-210, at (202) 267-8166.  |
Do you have a link to this document?
Seems to good to be true, to me... |
Do you have a link to this document? http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO13002.pdf |
Do this long enough and you start to get a feel for who the airline manufacturers are making planes for. Some has been written about the insiders saying 'we assume the biggest idiot nepotist hiring Chief pilot moron, hiring from the bottom of the resume pile, stuff the seats with incompetent kids'.
So they design slow planes, docile flying characteristics, where the computers handle the stick and big screens tell the pilots where they are. All in the hopes that the pilot salary savings equals more in cash then insurance costs and lawsuits from crashes. It's working to a certain extent except what your not told is the massive debt the airlines have piled up buying new planes instead of just flying around paid off 737s with new engines. Nope, you don't hear about that. Nor do you hear about how most of the system has gone short haul commuters, nor do you hear that the 'flying' is the same place, same time, over and over, back and forth. So the kids love it, they can call themselves pilots, the chief pilots love it because they have robots working for them, the passengers love it because they get cheap tickets. But at a certain point you can't finance $50 million dollar planes to shoe horn kids in to the cockpit to make it work. Sooner or later the debts come due. I suspect it will wander back to real pilots getting hired, but who cares, really, if no one cares if the Air France guys can't stay straight and level, so be it, a Darwinian outcome. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:46. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.