One asks what is the motivation behind crewless whatever form of transport. Mass transport short journey trains, e.g. STN terminal to stands, Hong Kong airport transport system etc. Cost saving and drivers deemed unnecessary. Safety improvements not really an issue. Driverless cars? No idea really. Aircraft, IMHO, is purely cost saving driven. There is no real increase in safety for the customer. It is the CEO's, who want to boost profits and all the consequential personal benefits that might be interested. However, if they had to fund the technological development and risks involved I doubt they'd be so enthusiastic. And the first airline that has a pilotless crash will collapse & sink faster than the Titanic.

I think it will go from two pilots to one pilot and then to zero pilots. When it goes to one pilot, that pilot will be simply supervising the automation, perhaps only intervening under unusual circumstances. I don't think I'll see zero pilots in my lifetime. I think the technology exists (theoretically) for zero pilots, but I think there will be a steep learning curve along with the requirement (of time and money) to "retool" aviation infrastructure.

As far as the steep learning curve goes, I think there would be an increase in hull losses compared to what we have now if we went straight from two pilots to zero pilots as we figured out this whole pilot-less airliner thing. I think the public would be perfectly happy to fly on a zero-pilot aircraft initially, especially when they get to save $1 on their ticket. However, I think after a hull loss or two due to the "zero pilot learning curve," most would be scared off. That's why the airline industry has to get the zero pilot airliner 100% right from the get-go. I don't think they'll get it 100% right jumping from two pilots to zero- again at least not in my lifetime.

I can’t believe that any sane flight crew could discuss pilotless commercial flights without their tongue firmly pressed against their cheek.
People, slf would simply not entertain a flight aboard such a craft, they wouldn’t even if they were paid huge amounts of money. My god it takes plenty of passengers a few swift drinks to even get on board. It’s just totally unreal that one can look at a potential pilot shortage and make sone sort of case for pilotless aircraft. I am astounded by such posts.
New Year resolution, not to react to bird brain posts.

A few educational articles on the first pages of big newspapers telling general public that absolute majority of accidents are caused by pilot errors and in a few weeks you will be able to command a premium for the flight on pilotless aircraft.

I doubt that somehow. What isn't charted or quantified with that statistic you quote is how many accidents have been averted due to human intervention. I would suggest the figure is far higher than the number actually caused by humans.

The people who will gain will be the ones setting the agenda - those against change will be branded as old, stupid, paranoid,full of self-interest, communists, trying to save their VAST salaries for only a few hours work a month etc etc

Think Fox or the Murdoch Press here

I was in Frankfurt a while ago and a fox crossed the runway just as we were cleared to takeoff. I regularly encounter cumulus formations which have no radar return but undoubtedly are severely turbulent. Having been anti-iced and taxied out in snow I can make a call as to whether the aircraft needs further treatment. AI will surely be able to fly the aircraft from A to B but it will need lots of as-of-yet unrealised sensors to operate the aircraft safely in the operational environment. I am not worriedly about my job yet.

There will never be a pilot "shortage" now or future until there is a restriction of supply. Take barristers in the UK for example (not baristas for our non British contributors) they are still doing very well aren't they? Demand changes nothing if there is sufficient supply. The demise of professional piloting as a career is inexorably linked to the expansion of the so called training industry.

Increasingly and amid the deafening enthusiasm from the tech sector, commentators are beginning to question whether genuinely driverless cars are a possibility anytime in the foreseeable future. There are still huge unsolved issues around safety, reliability, legality, insurability etc. The press is getting well ahead of itself because the stories make for good reading. My point being, we are probably a long way away from truly driverless cars never mind pilotless aircraft.

We should all be able to agree that eventually, in X many years, pilotless commercial aircraft will be a reality. That X is, in my opinion, a very large number at the moment.

I give it 20 years to see the mainstream pilotless passenger aircraft in service. With half of pilot jobs to be cut in between as a transition step to an assisted automatics.

20 years, really? Today's news about Intel chips having a fundamental hardware security flaw that appears to be un-patchable in software or firmware. The only solution is to reduce performance.

It appears that a second flaw has emerged that affects virtually every single CPU that has been on the market for decades is vulnerable and cannot be fixed.
There has to be fundamental redesigned, and it could take a significant period of time to cycle more secure hardware into the system. It is just a question of time before this is exploited in the wild.

At least with humans, our "bugs" are somewhat understood, and generally not a lot of new catastrophic failure modes appear to remain undiscovered after 10,000 years of recorded testing. We have evolved systems that cope with our know limitations. When these flaws become exposed, they generally isolated to a single pilot, or at worse can affect one crew at a time.

With networked computer systems, entire systems can be rendered untrustworthy, degraded or worthless with the discovery of a latent design flaws, as may be the case with these bugs. Is this the kind of risk management we want to save a small percentage of the ticket price?

With complex pieces of hardware or software, it can be decades before detection of a show stopping fundamental flaw, as this one (Spectre) may well be. Given that any unmanned or single pilot RPT autonomous type aircraft will have to have a communication channel, it will also be vulnerable to other, as yet undiscovered flaws (and there will be).

Now, there's a man who knows what he's talking about.

I’ve always pictured CurtainTwitcher as a woman. She sure does sound onto it :)

Reduced crew and single pilot ops are much more likely in the next 20years. I know my operator is actively working with Airbus on this, with a sim already functional. Apparently they are working on a 10 year until production time frame.

It still throws up issues, like how will future pilots be trained, how will these aircraft work alongside conventional aircraft, how does the role of a captain get re defined. But I guess that’s what they are mainly working on, considering aircraft are almost at the autonomous stage any way.

This will bring a reduction in crew and a huge cost saving, particularly in long haul heavy crew ops.

My prediction is in 20 years we will still be required but the job description will have changed dramatically. The chances of touching the controls reduced even further and the job will become essentially a monitoring monkey. This will then pave the way for ully autonomous, alowing future tech the time to be developed.

Heard the CEO of a sizable EU airline recently stating that a move to single-pilot CAT operations should be pushed hard and achieved within the next 20 years. But back to the original question: is there really a shortage now? I'm told some of the larger EU schools are now struggling to place grads and that there's been an erosion in quality of candidates?

The struggle to place cadets is a result of the slip in standards at certain big schools rather than the lack of talent in the cadets themselves.

Care to elaborate Maverick? What's the issue - instructors, standardisation, continuity? Any school in particular?

Nope! See the wannabe section for further information.

How would single pilot work and how would the progression wto flying single pilot work.
Ladies and Gentlemen good morning this is your Captain speaking for your flight to .. I’ve done 50 sectors and just left flight school but as long as the wind isn’t above 20 knots on landing we’ll be fine. 😩

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-of-innovation

"Forward X was one of several companies to have built a robotic suitcase that follows the owner around the airport so he or she doesn’t have the inconvenience of holding a handle. It’s a neat idea in theory, but in demos the prototype was slow and inconsistent in its ability to follow its owner."

Sounds like the AI equipped suitcase currently has less ability to follow something reliably than a dumb airliner can follow an ILS Loc/Glide...........but I'm sure the response will still be that a solution is almost upon us and therefore automated airliners are still "just around the corner."............:rolleyes:

I am not sure if there is an actual shortage, but it looks like that you can get a job in a reasonable time after completion of you ATPL (f) if you did fairly well in your training with no major hiccups.

There has been a lot of movement in the market lately, people moving on to different airlines, or leaving smaller operators for the big shiny jets. At smaller airports, you can definitely see that they are shorthanded of well-trained pilots. Think about areal survey flights, photography flights and random sightseeing flights. Them being short of pilots is a good indication of what might be coming to the airlines too if aviation keeps on growing at this pace.

So I am not sure about a shortage but it definitely looks very good for people coming out of school this year or planning to move on to a different airline.

you can definitely see that they are shorthanded of well-trained pilots.

And therein lies a possible problem. The type of pilots flying who've joined in the past 10 years are different animals from those 30 years ago, even though the technology is not so wildly different. LNAV/VNAV, magenta line FMC flying with triple autopilots started early 80's. FBW & GPS has taken it a stage further, but the basic foundation is not so far removed. What has changed is the type & depth of training. MPL pilots coming from a diluted CPL syllabus straight into a computerised jet, MPA trained monkey style.

So what is a 'well trained pilot'? We've had many circular debates on here for years. I'm not trying to start another one. However I do feel there is a need for a good long hard review of what the real requirements are for the major airline jet environment. I still see the 'candidate's requirements' are very similar to 40 years ago, but the job is completely different. The sim tests are still raw data SE ILS's following procedural patterns and then visual circuits and NDB approaches with GA's. All great stuff and should be possible; but I then ask why do some airlines want these skills but do not let their crews use them on a daily basis? What's the point of being recruited because you are a nice, team working, well hand-eye coordinated, clear thinking son of a gun, who is then treated like a school boy; as in sit down do your job and don't ask questions; and not allowed to fly.
Square pegs round holes comes to mind. I beg to differ with some ideas of what is a well trained pilot. We hear there are some large airlines who like to poach from some small airlines because it is believed their training is excellent. That might be true in an automated trained monkey environment, but it doesn't make them well trained pilots; just one sort of pilot.

True, but also good training material. I know several TRE's at a big ME operator who were formerly flying instructors then spent quite a lot of time on T/P's and smaller jets in a well respected UK operation, for example. In the words of one senior training manager "they get it".

We don’t seem to have the unofficial mentoring of old. If I see my FO doing something that is technically ok but could be improved with a bit of thought and the benefit of experience I’m not likely to tell him or her because it may not be well received. It’s likely to be met with argument for the technique they displayed. Only twenty years ago if I was informed of a different way to approach something I always took it onboard for consideration before implementing or discarding it. I certainly didn’t argue my position right off the bat.
There are no doubt benefits and pitfalls to both attitudes but I sometimes wonder how the new FO’s will ever progress if that mentoring is rarely occurring now days.

I have for the most part found that FOs, especially those with not much experience, appreciate feedback and pointers on how to improve. On the other hand, captains, especially those that have done the job for very long and who are bored with it and grown complacent, have sometimes real issues with honest feedback.

https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...nuses.amp.html

45K sign-on bonus to fly EMB175 and 6 years later flow-through to AA. Not a bad deal for young low hour pilots.

This is a now popular effort by regionals to "poach" from one another. Coming in to a carrier with the requisite 1000 hours of Part 121 experience facilitates quicker upgrade to captain. All's fair...and fun to watch.


"The signing bonuses of up to $45,000 will go to pilots who already have a solid record and Part 121 commercial airline experience, Wilson said."

Love to apply for the Envoy gig but there's that slight flaw in my plan....Must have the Legal right to live and work in the USA or a Green Card. Whilst I have a 10 year crew visa I don't meet that requirement. As I've said many times before..."when countries like the US, Canada, Australia and NZ offer sponsorships/Visas then and only then is there a genuine Pilot shortage. Worse still, as a Brit we're not even allowed to play the green card lottery.