FI: When will we drop the pilot?

[Dornier 335]

I used to be one of those "Maybe...someday...but not in my lifetime" types.

...until this past year when I witnessed:

1) The pilot buffoonery on display in some recent accidents (I guess we truly have become the weakest link)

2) The FAA's gathering momentum on finally establishing regs (and the subsequent approvals) for UAV operations

3) The military continuing to demonstrate what's possible (now they've demo'd UAVs doing flawless traps & cat shots off a carrier!)

4) The major auto manufacturers stated plan for driverless cars within the decade (you think the passenger acceptance thing is going to still be an issue when George just drove them through rush hour traffic to the airport?)

Parents, don't encourage your kids to grow up to be pilots because the job is going to disappear a lot faster than many ever thought possible. Never underestimate the pace and ramifications of new technology.

Bear in mind that new technology works usually fine when it's new! Give an UAV a couple of thousands cycles/hours and I'd like to see the reliability and precision of parameters. It made me laugh when Embraer talked about single pilot aircraft two (?) years ago, I have seen many many glitches on the 145 series and even more on the 190. Looking at the 190 you never know whether the VNAV profile will be captured at the TOD. The problem is more software-related than mechanical. Embraer blames Honeywell and Honeywell blames Embraer. In many cases a CTRL+ALT+DEL procedure clears the fault, but sometimes really odd messages appear.

It's like saying that your computer/iPad/iMac/Android etc. is never going to crash/becomes unresponsive.

Look at a new car that's overload with electronics. Are you really believing that everything is going to work after thousands of hours of hard city driving?

 

[chqflyer]

The only real application will be cargo. This is because cargo aircraft will then not require life-support system design, and require less system redundancy.

There will always be a human in front of a passenger airliner. That person might not really be a "pilot" as we think of one. Who knows, the training might be very minimal compared to what we do now.

But it will be cheaper to hire a guy to sit up front than to design failsafe self-resetting circuit breakers. Or to design failsafe ice detection systems. Or to design a system that can clear the area before starting the engines.

Taxiing in a congested area is probably an even bigger technical challenge than flight.

What they will do is design an aircraft that does not really need a pilot, but then place one up front to make everyone feel better.


Also, do you really want the ultimate on-board authority figure to be a flight attendant? Really? Airborne cat-fight anyone?


Single pilot? Maybe.

It's not really as far-fetched as one might think. A 20-something computer operator up front to trouble shoot the automation coupled with a minimum wage ground crew to tow the plane to and from the runway is all you really need. As far as the FA's, do we even really need them at all? Seriously, now that the pax can be tuned out with their iPods from the moment they board until the time they deplane, why bother? Put a couple vending machines to dispense $5 sodas and pretzels. It's not like any of the passengers pay any attention whatsoever to the "safety briefing" anyways. From an accountant standpoint, the loss of a few plane loads of commoners every now and then is an acceptable trade off. The people who matter in the world will still continue to fly in their private Lears and Gulfstreams. This is obviously an overly simplistic and rather pessimistic viewpoint but based on the fact that corporate profits and executive compensation are much more important than human lives.

 

[LJ45]

I guess we would ground all flights during solar flares?

 

[Sparse]

In the case of flight 214, the right-seat pilot - Lee Jeong-min - told the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in a post-crash interview that he was unaware his Boeing 777-200ER was flying 34kt below reference speed for approach and on the verge of stalling until it was too late. Jeong-min, as the "pilot monitoring", said he had assumed the auto-throttles were engaged, but they were not.

I hate to Monday morning QB but what I have read the A/T arm switches were off. I went through the Boeing course for 777 in 1999. I was an instructor/APD/Line check airman. The Boeing procedure dictated to never turn an A/T arm switch off unless directed by an abnormal checklist. The A/Ts would have woken up at the speed they were below Vref had they been armed. Proper training and checking would have gone a long way in preventing this from happening.

 

[SIG600]

I used to be one of those "Maybe...someday...but not in my lifetime" types.

...until this past year when I witnessed:

1) The pilot buffoonery on display in some recent accidents (I guess we truly have become the weakest link)

2) The FAA's gathering momentum on finally establishing regs (and the subsequent approvals) for UAV operations

3) The military continuing to demonstrate what's possible (now they've demo'd UAVs doing flawless traps & cat shots off a carrier!)

4) The major auto manufacturers stated plan for driverless cars within the decade (you think the passenger acceptance thing is going to still be an issue when George just drove them through rush hour traffic to the airport?)

Parents, don't encourage your kids to grow up to be pilots because the job is going to disappear a lot faster than many ever thought possible. Never underestimate the pace and ramifications of new technology.

1.) if you're referring to Asiana the elephant in the room is that it was caused more by cultural problems than anything else. At least two pilots in that cockpit knew they were in trouble.

2.). In very confined areas for research.

3.) that one UAV landing on the boat was a technology demonstrator, and after years of research and billions of dollars, racked up a lackluster 60% boarding rate in calm seas under a controlled environment. Far from flawless.

4.) they can plan all they want, making it happen and it being financially viable has yet to be proven.

 

[krewmeel]

I used to be one of those "Maybe...someday...but not in my lifetime" types.

...until this past year when I witnessed:

1) The pilot buffoonery on display in some recent accidents (I guess we truly have become the weakest link)

2) The FAA's gathering momentum on finally establishing regs (and the subsequent approvals) for UAV operations

3) The military continuing to demonstrate what's possible (now they've demo'd UAVs doing flawless traps & cat shots off a carrier!)

4) The major auto manufacturers stated plan for driverless cars within the decade (you think the passenger acceptance thing is going to still be an issue when George just drove them through rush hour traffic to the airport?)

Parents, don't encourage your kids to grow up to be pilots because the job is going to disappear a lot faster than many ever thought possible. Never underestimate the pace and ramifications of new technology.

Yup, like I've said before, this profession has about 20 years left, the momentum is growing. The datalink security will be a huge obstacle as will ground ops. The FAA will be our best friend as their bureaucracy will hold up the process for at least a decade. The unions will help slow it down as well. Not to mention the fact that the necessary ATC modernization will move at the speed of smell. Air Traffic Controllers will eventually be obsolete in their present form. They will need a few to be system monitors, but not nearly as many as they need now.

 

[waveflyer]

The job is judgement -

We won't have pilotless airplanes until we have AI

And we'll be at war them anyway, right Terminators

 

[Crash Pad]

I was wondering about litigation. When a plane crashes is it a defective product and do I get to sue Boeing? Pilot error made a handy dodge for everyone.

I was also wondering about third world travel. Europe and the US might get the proper infrastructure but what about South America?

Funding: the only thing making this feasible is our bloated military budget. Ironically a large portion of pilots are cheering the same defense spending that will make them obsolete.

 

[waveflyer]

So who's the Learmont guy anyway? Why does his opinion matter on such things?

Later in his blog, he begins a thread by talking of auto lands in the late 60's.

So again, if pilotless airplanes were so easy- why haven't they happened by now?

The jetsons had flying cars, and sci-fi writers were talking of moon colonies by the 70's. Serious scientists back them up.

What is possible is not always economical.