Pilot Shortage affecting the Majors

[krewmeel]

Wrong,
Look at technology innovations, all the rapid advances come at the beginning, as the process matures, improvements are more incremental, and increasingly more expensive to achieve.
In short you are wrong on so many levels, it's amazing that you can use a keyboard.

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve. Put your head in the sand if you want, but its already happening:

From WIRED magazine


Posted by Chris Anderson on February 12, 2009 at 1:09pmView Blog

FedEx founder Fred Smith came by the Wired offices yesterday for a chat on a range of things, but I'll focus here on the bit relevant to this site. He says that they'd like to switch their fleet to UAVs as soon as possible but that this will have to wait for the FAA, which has a tough road ahead in figuring out the rules of NAS integration. Unmanned cargo freighters have lots of advantages for FedEx: safer, cheaper, and much larger capacity. The ideal form is the "blended wing" (example shown). That design doesn't make a clear a distinction between wings and body, so almost all the interior of both can be used for cargo. The result is that the price premium for air over sea would fall from 10x to 2X (with all the speed advantages of air).

As he notes, a modern 777 is already capable of being an unmanned vehicle. "They let the pilots touch the controls for about 20 seconds, to advance the throttles, and then the plane takes over," he said, only half-kidding. The truth is that the plane can take off, fly and land itself. Today pilots drive the planes on the ground, but there's no reason why the computer can't do that, too. Sully's a hero, but Smith's perspective is that humans in the cockpit make the airways more dangerous, not less.

Because the FAA rules are not in place, nobody's built that perfect blended wing UAV for FedEx yet. But Smith believes it's only a matter of time. As he notes, the key thing is having NO people on board, not even as backup. A single person in the craft requires a completely different design, along with radically different economics and logistics. The efficiencies come with 100% robotic operation.

Freight dogs first...then guess what?

 

[CX880]

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve. Put your head in the sand if you want, but its already happening:

From WIRED magazine


Posted by Chris Anderson on February 12, 2009 at 1:09pmView Blog

FedEx founder Fred Smith came by the Wired offices yesterday for a chat on a range of things, but I'll focus here on the bit relevant to this site. He says that they'd like to switch their fleet to UAVs as soon as possible but that this will have to wait for the FAA, which has a tough road ahead in figuring out the rules of NAS integration. Unmanned cargo freighters have lots of advantages for FedEx: safer, cheaper, and much larger capacity. The ideal form is the "blended wing" (example shown). That design doesn't make a clear a distinction between wings and body, so almost all the interior of both can be used for cargo. The result is that the price premium for air over sea would fall from 10x to 2X (with all the speed advantages of air).

As he notes, a modern 777 is already capable of being an unmanned vehicle. "They let the pilots touch the controls for about 20 seconds, to advance the throttles, and then the plane takes over," he said, only half-kidding. The truth is that the plane can take off, fly and land itself. Today pilots drive the planes on the ground, but there's no reason why the computer can't do that, too. Sully's a hero, but Smith's perspective is that humans in the cockpit make the airways more dangerous, not less.

Because the FAA rules are not in place, nobody's built that perfect blended wing UAV for FedEx yet. But Smith believes it's only a matter of time. As he notes, the key thing is having NO people on board, not even as backup. A single person in the craft requires a completely different design, along with radically different economics and logistics. The efficiencies come with 100% robotic operation.

Freight dogs first...then guess what?

Good luck with that...

 

[freightdogfred]

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve. Put your head in the sand if you want, but its already happening:

From WIRED magazine


Posted by Chris Anderson on February 12, 2009 at 1:09pmView Blog

FedEx founder Fred Smith came by the Wired offices yesterday for a chat on a range of things, but I'll focus here on the bit relevant to this site. He says that they'd like to switch their fleet to UAVs as soon as possible but that this will have to wait for the FAA, which has a tough road ahead in figuring out the rules of NAS integration. Unmanned cargo freighters have lots of advantages for FedEx: safer, cheaper, and much larger capacity. The ideal form is the "blended wing" (example shown). That design doesn't make a clear a distinction between wings and body, so almost all the interior of both can be used for cargo. The result is that the price premium for air over sea would fall from 10x to 2X (with all the speed advantages of air).

As he notes, a modern 777 is already capable of being an unmanned vehicle. "They let the pilots touch the controls for about 20 seconds, to advance the throttles, and then the plane takes over," he said, only half-kidding. The truth is that the plane can take off, fly and land itself. Today pilots drive the planes on the ground, but there's no reason why the computer can't do that, too. Sully's a hero, but Smith's perspective is that humans in the cockpit make the airways more dangerous, not less.

Because the FAA rules are not in place, nobody's built that perfect blended wing UAV for FedEx yet. But Smith believes it's only a matter of time. As he notes, the key thing is having NO people on board, not even as backup. A single person in the craft requires a completely different design, along with radically different economics and logistics. The efficiencies come with 100% robotic operation.

Freight dogs first...then guess what?

It'll be past my checkout time, so who gives a rat's ass

 

[atpcliff]

computers will be more than 1 billion times more powerful than they are now (google quantum computing). This will easily enable pilotless aircraft.

This is not an issue, currently. The main issue is the quality and stability of the datalink...nothing to do with the quality of the computers controlling the process of flying the aircraft.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Wow, looks like I struck a nerve. Put your head in the sand if you want, but its already happening:

From WIRED magazine

There is an industry information source. I have a buddy in the UAV business, their plane is military, and the problems he describes are vast, the datalink is the primary issue, when someone does anything with RF, the plane gets jiggy. Head in the sand is not even close, it's when a pro gamer like yourself thinks that the reality of a box and TV monitor equals reality.
Sorry, not even close.

 

[Nolife]

Don't believe me? Remember the railroads used to have "firemen" who made sure that the fires were stoked in the steam engines. They were kept on even after diesels took over due to featherbedding by the unions. Eventually, however, the unions could not save them.

The engineer is still there. If anything trains could be automated easier than airplanes. Engineers and conductors make as much or more than most major airline pilots and have rest rules as well. Train companies would love to get rid of them but they can't. Not saying it will never happen but pilotless planes are several hundred years away.

 

[waveflyer]

I know,
I'm sure it's every execs dream: no pilots-next gen ATC, more advanced systems etc- our role will change as it always has, but I agree we're a long way off-

The number one priority is safety. Accidents get major media and political pressure. And aviation still scares a huge percentage of people- at worst we're a safety blanket. And we all know these things "don't fly themselves"

The technology for EFBs was available when I got in the airlines
Now we'll roll them out in 2014 so....
Imminent isn't the word I'd use for pilot-less airplanes

 

[JT12345]

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/d...s-safety-lessons-may-help-civilians-1C8932488

Remote control is a funny one. Airplanes are not monorails or elevators and UAVs are 300 times more likely to crash than a GA aircraft. An airplane can fly just fine by it self. The pilots are there and 2 of them at that for the mechanical failures, weather and strong winds. You either need no pilots when things are perfect. Systems good, nice weather, and light winds or 2 pilots to handle the problems. Not just 1 IMHO. It takes 2 when things go to ********************. And sometimes the automation is not on your side either.

 

[Jetjockey]

When we have automated trains traversing the country, I'll start to become worried about a UAV taking my flying job.....with 15-18 years left I'm betting they will still need pilots.

Notice the original article was written in 2009.

 

[JT12345]

Sanitation workers in NY make over 100k. Some 120k. Automate the feking trash first. Heck in some neighborhoods around me a claw comes out to grab the trash cans.