Pilotless Cockpit?

[pilotmiketx]

The last Jepp IAP revision I did, most were NDB approaches that were eliminated. FNL HAD a NDB Rwy 33 that is no longer. That's where I learned to fly with an ADF. APA is the only airport in range (less than X-counrty distance) where I can still go to shoot NDB appraoches. The real problem is that our rental aircraft have inop. ADFs and they won't be fixed anytime soon.

I like the NDB!!!

Man, I've been having so much trouble posting on this board with my Commodore 64, I think I might have to upgrade. I saw an Atari 6400 on Ebay for $10...Nothing like hanging on to obsolete technology for nostalgic reasons.

Dadgum, when did the Democrat whippersnappers turn off them thar mail route beacons? Ah can't fly 'cross the mountains no more at night in mah Pitcairne Mailwing.

 

[Traderd]

10 years ago I am sure that UAV's were considered James Bond nonsense. Now the Air force is considering replacing half of their fighters with the latest one from Boeing.
Skyline

From a horse's mouth while running a VIP leg out of Langley. "The F-22 will be the last manned fighter procured by the United States Air Force"

He had more shiny stuff on him than me and the points looked pretty sharp so I tend to believe him. Also, he used the word "procured". Could be wrong as as I never say never, unless of course I'm saying never say never.

I also understand that the F-35 package was scaled back when the first whiff of the X-45 tests arrived at the five sided building.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/x-45/flash.html

 

[QueensPilot]

10 years ago I am sure that UAV's were considered James Bond nonsence.

Skyline are you sure about that? I think the military has been using UAVs for much longer that 10 years. I think I remember reading that they were used in the first gulf war, although I only vaguely remember reading that. Remember, UAV stands for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. A paper airplane is a UAV. Those remote control airplanes and helicopters you sometimes see being flown at the park are UAVs. I even remember reading that the military used them in the 60s, except they weren't called UAVs. I believe they were called Drones. Maybe they took photos?

Can a bus driving down 5th avenue in Manhattan be automated? Are bus drivers worried? How about big cruise ships. Are Cruise and cargo ship captains getting replaced? Are they worried?

Speaking from a purely technical standpoint, if technology has infinite potential, then EVERYONE, including doctors, lawyers, accountants, drivers, pilots, fedex deliverymen(did you see irobot?), counterservers, policemen etc will be automated out of the picture. Sounds really ridiculous, but not if you agree that technology has infinite potential.

And just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should.

And anyway pilotless cockpits may be an oxymoron.

 

[GVFlyer]

The time is now. The last major Al Qaeda operative killed in Afghanistan was made room temperature by a Predator UAV piloted by a guy sitting in a van in Langley, Virginia. The US Air Force has already stated that the JSF will be the last manned fighter. The unmanned Global Hawk is flying high altitude trans-continental surveillance missions. Predators and Global Hawks take off and land like ordinary manned aircraft.

Stop by Nellis AFB sometime. The guys there are saying tht within 10 years half the aircraft flying in Red Flag will be unmanned. While you're there check out what the 11th, 15th and 17th Reconnaissance Squadrons are up to.

In addition to strike and reconnaissance missions, the Air Force is also planning unmanned bombers, transports and tankers.

In the near term the Air Force is going to 15 Recon Sqdns manned by Guard and Reserve unit.

Make no mistake, all of this is transitional technology. At first, there will be one operator for each UAV. As technology improves, one operator will be able to control groups of UAVs with similar missions.

Think about it. Many aircraft have autoland and auto-braking systems - that's old technology. Right now, the FMS on new generation Gulfstreams knows all of the terrain on earth and when you're going to run into any of it. It also knows all of the SIDS, Airways, Stars and approaches on Earth and can fly them without pilot input. The HUD already projects an image from a camera beneath the nose. Gulfsteam has been working on synthetic vision technology for over five years. Synthetic Vision will place a computer generated image with scalable terrain up on the HUD which is updated by Millimeter Wave Radar. Pretty soon the question becomes do I need to be in the cockpit to read what is already a remotely generated view of the world?

GV

 

[Big Duke Six]

We Aren't Going Anywhere

I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about pilots.

First, as a gee-whiz note, I was taxiing for takeoff years ago at Davis-Monthan behind an F-100. Yes, a gen-u-ine SuperSabre. When it turned left to take the runway, I saw that the cockpit was empty. It held briefly on the runway, then lit off and blasted skyward. Dangdest thing I ever did see.


But for this discussion, I have three points worth making:

1) A single-pilot airliner makes no sense. If you need one human, you need two. If people won't get on a pilotless airliner (I wouldn't), they won't get on a single-pilot airliner either.

2) There is NO relationship whatsoever to what the Air Force may or may not do in the fighter world and how civilian airliners will operate. The military is the military and can operate way beyond what the civilian world would tolerate. In the same vein, I don't really see pilotless airlifters either, at least none that carry people. No one cares if a drone fighter crashes. Not the case when there are pax aboard.

3) The fact that aircraft are becoming more automated does not equate to computers someday rendering pilots obsolete. They will always need to be there no matter what the level of automation.

CAN it be done? Could have been done years ago. WILL it be done, no way.

 

[Skyline]

Queenspilot

Queenspilot,

Like I mentioned in my post I am sure that there will be people up front that you could call pilots but they will be there as a back up if there is a problem and to assure the Pax. Even now modern airliners are mostly completely flown by programed computers. Soon after lift off you don't have to touch the controls again until after roll out.

Compared to the 1940's we are already automated. If there is a problem dispatch and MX control decide what to do about it. Engineers have already designed what to do in the event of an emergency through check lists. The pilot is just a human interface. We could clean up the system by having all the data and information pass directly between aircraft and the ground. The pilots could observe the progress of the flight from a mute vantage point. They could be there to reset the circuit breakers and to step in if there is a big problem. Why they could even have bunks up front and be asleep until needed. The best part is that we could pay them like rampers.

The Passengers would never know what went on up front. Even today I am sure if the passengers at most regional airlines knew that they had a pair of early 20 somethings flying the plane that came from a 12 month academy and hired on with only 600 hours TT they would be pulling the emergency door handle. From my view I would rather have a computer flying the plane.

Skyline

 

[Swede]

This is a fascinating topic, but even ignoring pax desires, the technology is decades away purely from a reliability and redundancy standpoint. Yes a troupe of engineers today can turn a 737 into a drone, but the cobbled system would be a "one off" that could never be relied upon.

Try this: Set up a leg in a modern FMC jet with the goal of absolute MINIMUM pilot interaction. I think you'll find that you're still punching/moving/actuating dozens of interface devices:

Lights/gear/packs/bleeds/gennies
HDG/LVL CHG/VNAV parameters
LNAV mods/TSTM avoidance/RADAR
Fuel management etc etc

A huge number of these functions, in a pilotless AC, would require streams of data to a remote operator... such as the radar image. This stream would have to be doubly or triply redundant and hack proof. All of the listed interfaces would also require probably triple redundancy to be considered even remotely safe in the current or near future ATC structure.

And finally there's this: You'd still need a human to "monitor" the flight 100% of the time. If you need this guy, then stick his a$$ in the cockpit and let him be the pilot we've always had.

And by golly they need to PAY this guy a reasonable wage!!

 

[ePilot22]

Man, I've been having so much trouble posting on this board with my Commodore 64, I think I might have to upgrade. I saw an Atari 6400 on Ebay for $10...Nothing like hanging on to obsolete technology for nostalgic reasons.

Dadgum, when did the Democrat whippersnappers turn off them thar mail route beacons? Ah can't fly 'cross the mountains no more at night in mah Pitcairne Mailwing.

Ouch! Your wit is so cunning, it hurt! Thanks for contributing your constructive and intelligent thoughts on the subject. I guess there's always got to be a dumba$$ on here saying something stupid.

 

[Skyline]

Swede

Swede,

It is false to assume that airliners use state of the art avionics. Even a brand new 757 or 737 uses an FMC that was designed in the late 70's. Most other errors are pilot induced. We could remotely send inputs to the FMC and make changes en route. A pilot does not need to be there to accomplish changes or updates. If there is a loss of communication the plane could proceed as any noncom IFR flight would.

I agree that it would be nice to have a tech person up to casually oversee things. You could have a ground dispatcher and MX person monitor the plane 100% of the time. I'll bet they could keep track of 5 or more planes simultaneously.

As for a fair wage for the person who is up front I cant tell you what that would be. The way things are going these days getting paid anything at all might be good enough

SkyLine

 

[Swede]

Swede,

It is false to assume that airliners use state of the art avionics. Even a brand new 757 or 737 uses an FMC that was designed in the late 70's. Most other errors are pilot induced. We could remotely send inputs to the FMC and make changes en route. A pilot does not need to be there to accomplish changes or updates. If there is a loss of communication the plane could proceed as any noncom IFR flight would.

SkyLine

My whole point is not that it isn't possible, but that the timeline to do so is in fact decades away at a minimum. Every single input we now make to the aircraft up front would have to be remotely actuated, and this requires wireless, hackproof, triply redundant data streams.

A simple example - you drop the flaps to 15 by moving the flap lever. The actuators move the flaps. The flap position sensor moves the guage that says, yup, flaps are at 15. This is a WIRED system, and very reliable.

Now let's do it remotely. The command to move the flaps must be transmitted. The only method we have now is via radio. The MOVE THE FLAP command is initiated on the ground somewhere, tagged for the specific AC, encrypted, digitally burst. The AC recieves the signal, acknowledges, turns on a hydraulic valve. Flaps move. The position sensor recognizes FLAPS 15, encrypts, attaches an AC specific tag, and sends it to the ground station. A huge, complex loop, which would require massive redundancy to be safe.

Add split flaps and it's a new ballgame. And this example is the trivial movement of a flap. I cannot imagine the enormous bandwidth a single transport would require, and it must all be digital, error corrected, encrypted. Multiply by 1,000's of airliners airborne.

Consider ACARS, a very simple VHF-based system. NO COMM is pretty common. That would tend to suck to get a NO COMM for your pilotless datastream. How is the pilotless data sent? UHF, VHF work but are prone to interference, terrain blockage, etc. Satellite? Maybe. The only technology we have now is radio. And radio, for a pilotless transport, does not have the margin of safety necessary for the enormous bandwidth.

One last thought - your left engine is on fire. Do you really think onboard AI plus ground monitoring could possibly cope with such a dire, fluid situation? Maybe a HAL 9000 could, but real-world AI is a joke. Again, you end up with a dude on the ground handling it remotely. He may as well be up in the jet!

 

[FN FAL]

One last thought - your left engine is on fire. Do you really think onboard AI plus ground monitoring could possibly cope with such a dire, fluid situation? Maybe a HAL 9000 could, but real-world AI is a joke. Again, you end up with a dude on the ground handling it remotely. He may as well be up in the jet!

Yea, that would be a hard one to program...

Relevent thrust lever to idle.

Relevent thrust lever to cut-off.

Relevent fire lever to first detent.

Select fire bottle #1 and activate.

Note the time: after 30 seconds elapses and fire still detected, select fire bottle #2 and activate.

Consult QRH.

Divert to nearest suitable airport.

Land.

 

[Skyline]

Remote Pilots

The military has enough confidence to send UAV's out with bombs and rockets attached and sucessfully kill people from the back side of the globe. It would take an entirely redesigned flight deck but I am sure it can be done and it would be easier than you would think. In a 777 most of the functions that you mentioned on a privious post are already fully automated. The airbus is a wireless plane. It would be easy to have the signals sent from a computer instead of a switch.

I havent hear it mentioned yet but if the government ever hangs a nuke off of a UAV then I would say that unmanned ground controlled airliner would be a slam dunk.

Slyline

 

[FN FAL]

I havent hear it mentioned yet but if the government ever hangs a nuke off of a UAV then I would say that unmanned ground controlled airliner would be a slam dunk.

What do you think an ICBM or a Cruise Missile is?

 

[Skyline]

Icbm

FN FAL,

I think an ICBM is a NUKE !!!! Oh !! A cruse missile is also a NUKE !!!


Oh My,

Skyline

 

[Swede]

FN FAL my NFA Brother... do you really think it boils down to your simple laundry list? Look at the DHL which took the missile in Baghdad, or the hydraulic-free DC-10, or a windshear escape, wake turbulence upset, there are countless episodes of compounding problems in which a logical, computer-driven flow diagaram from a QRH isn't the solution.

Could AI have saved those folks in the DC-10 with no hydraulics? I suspect the palm pilot flying the thing would crap itself and probably issue a computerized PA saying "Sorry folks, I have reached the end of the QRH... since my sensors detect we are inverted at 3,000 MSL, please kiss your a$$es goodbye! And by the way, I have beamed my program into all of your cell phones so at least one copy of me will survive!"

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL my NFA Brother... do you really think it boils down to your simple laundry list? Look at the DHL which took the missile in Baghdad, or the hydraulic-free DC-10, or a windshear escape, wake turbulence upset, there are countless episodes of compounding problems in which a logical, computer-driven flow diagaram from a QRH isn't the solution.

Could AI have saved those folks in the DC-10 with no hydraulics? I suspect the palm pilot flying the thing would crap itself and probably issue a computerized PA saying "Sorry folks, I have reached the end of the QRH... since my sensors detect we are inverted at 3,000 MSL, please kiss your a$$es goodbye! And by the way, I have beamed my program into all of your cell phones so at least one copy of me will survive!"

:beer:

 

[Skyline]

Swede

Dear Swede,

What about all the other plane crashes from pilot error? Who's to say that a computer couldn't have done as good a job or better with the DC-10 Al Haynes incident? Pilot reaction times are slow and frequently make mistakes in high pressure situations. I do think a computer driven check list could recognise a problem much faster and make the proper corrections before the crew even realized that there was something wrong. I am willing to bet that an airplane with AI running the show would be much safer over all especially considering the skill level average airline pilot. Even today we already have automated most of normal airplane operations. I know it is a blow to the ego but we already are mostly automated compared to the cockpit of a 1946 DC-3. In the near future the free flight concept that the FAA hopes to put in place will entrust our transponders and GPS systems to communicate for us and make altitude and heading changes without any input from the flight deck. In reality we are not to far from total automation now.

Skyline

 

[TonyC]

Who's to say that a computer couldn't have done as good a job or better with the DC-10 Al Haynes incident?

Me.








..

 

[GVFlyer]

I'm not talking about this thread, I'm talking about pilots.

First, as a gee-whiz note, I was taxiing for takeoff years ago at Davis-Monthan behind an F-100. Yes, a gen-u-ine SuperSabre. When it turned left to take the runway, I saw that the cockpit was empty. It held briefly on the runway, then lit off and blasted skyward. Dangdest thing I ever did see.


But for this discussion, I have three points worth making:

1) A single-pilot airliner makes no sense. If you need one human, you need two. If people won't get on a pilotless airliner (I wouldn't), they won't get on a single-pilot airliner either.

2) There is NO relationship whatsoever to what the Air Force may or may not do in the fighter world and how civilian airliners will operate. The military is the military and can operate way beyond what the civilian world would tolerate. In the same vein, I don't really see pilotless airlifters either, at least none that carry people. No one cares if a drone fighter crashes. Not the case when there are pax aboard.

3) The fact that aircraft are becoming more automated does not equate to computers someday rendering pilots obsolete. They will always need to be there no matter what the level of automation.

CAN it be done? Could have been done years ago. WILL it be done, no way.

I hear a lot of denial at the "O" Club,too. I've seen the X-45 UCAV out in W157A and W158C overlying and the 15 G turns it makes are pretty impressive. But check out the profile for a couple of their most recent test flights.

For test flights 63 and 64, the X-45As departed from the base, climbed to altitude, and autonomously used their on-board decision-making software to determine the best route of flight within the "area of action" or AOA. The pilot on the ground approved the plan and the two unmanned vehicles entered the AOA, a 30 by 60 mile area within the test range, ready to perform a simulated Preemptive Destruction-Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission. The mission involved identifying, attacking and destroying pre-identified ground-based radars and associated missile launchers before they could be used to launch surface-to-air missiles.
During the test flight, the X-45A unmanned aircraft faced a simulated "pop-up" threat, used evasive maneuvers to avoid it, and autonomously determined which vehicle held the optimum position, weapons and fuel to attack the higher priority simulated target. Once the pilot authorized the attack, the unmanned aircraft simulated dropping weapons on the target. After engaging and destroying a second simulated target, the two X-45As completed their mission and safely returned to Edwards.


It's like a Sci-Fi movie...


GV








~

 

[FN FAL]

It's like a Sci-Fi movie...

Yea, I know. Look at DARPA's website. They had a one million dollar prize the last time they held the autonomous land vehicle contest and nobody finished. This time around in the two million dollar contest, all but the Ford SUV guys finished. There has been a big increase in computing power since the last contest.

 

[Skyline]

Fn Fal

FN FAL

Hi, You are an interesting character. I like your posts. What is your story?


Skyline

 

[FN FAL]

FN FAL

Hi, You are an interesting character. I like your posts. What is your story?

Nothing to see here, Just a ragged out fr8dawg with too much time on my hands.

 

[Big Duke Six]

It IS fascinating stuff, and again I'm not saying it's impossible to do. Clearly, it is. The common thread, even with military drones, is that there is and IMHO always WILL be a "pilot" on the ground managing some aspects of the flight. I just can't envision a completely hands off scenario, especially when it involves a tube full of people. It gets to the point where the business decision would be "Well, if we have to put in all the added systems, software etc, and STILL have a guy on the ground to watch it all, then why not just keep him in the jet?"

Even if we ever get to that point, and I agree with Swede that it is YEARS away at best, I don't think the public will EVER buy it. I've been wrong before, but I think this is a HUGE hurdle.

And again, I believe that if the powers that be determine a human is needed, than you really need to have two. Sounds stupid, but people are people, and can fail occasionally.

The military is a whole different animal.

 

[the_dimwit]

... It gets to the point where the business decision would be "Well, if we have to put in all the added systems, software etc, and STILL have a guy on the ground to watch it all, then why not just keep him in the jet?"

Even if we ever get to that point, and I agree with Swede that it is YEARS away at best, I don't think the public will EVER buy it. I've been wrong before, but I think this is a HUGE hurdle.

And again, I believe that if the powers that be determine a human is needed, than you really need to have two. Sounds stupid, but people are people, and can fail occasionally...

I see your point, but I raise you another. Current subway systems are computer-controlled. While an operator does sit up front, it's mainly to act as a backup in case something happens and to look out the window to verify all passengers have boarded before the doors close.

As technology has advanced, people have become more accepting of transferring control over to a computer. Evidence of this is found in little things such as anti-lock brakes (we no longer have to remember to pump the brakes), but it can also be seen in bigger things like the modern passenger airplane. How many systems in modern aircraft are fully-automated?

Will the pilot ever go away? Perhaps, but as many have said already, the exit is very distant right now. I live in the DC area and use the subway every day to commute to work. I can attest that the system is far from perfect. The trains are sometimes stopping short or long of the platform, and there are other "quirks" that keep me from being totally willing to let the operator go.

--Dim

 

[TonyC]

Current subway systems are computer-controlled. While an operator does sit up front, it's mainly to act as a backup in case something happens and to look out the window to verify all passengers have boarded before the doors close.

One must consider the consequences of a catastrophic failure of those automated systems. What happens when the cockpit goes completely dark? In the case of the subway train, the cars come to a stop safely on the same rails that have guided their course all along. There is no risk to the occupants until they attempt to leave the cars and walk to the nearest tunnel exit.

The outcome in an ariplane is much less certain. Even if the systems were redundant and a complete failure only occurred once every 1,000 flights, we'd have an unnacceptable number of catastrophes.



.

 

[the_dimwit]

One must consider the consequences of a catastrophic failure of those automated systems. What happens when the cockpit goes completely dark? In the case of the subway train, the cars come to a stop safely on the same rails that have guided their course all along. There is no risk to the occupants until they attempt to leave the cars and walk to the nearest tunnel exit.

The outcome in an ariplane is much less certain. Even if the systems were redundant and a complete failure only occurred once every 1,000 flights, we'd have an unnacceptable number of catastrophes.



.

I agree, Tony. However, there is no guarantee that a rail car will simply stop. Consider a scenario where the computer malfunctions and increases the speed of the train to an unsafe speed. Said train takes a corner too quickly and derails. Or, the train doesn't "see" another train in the next station and collides with it. The increased speed could result in a tunnel intersection going very wrong...you get the idea.

While the above doesn't make a great case for computer automation in mass transit, my point is that even though we know the dangers exist, we still choose to use it. Computers are getting smarter. So-called "artificial intelligence" is improving tremendously each year.

You see, I believe that people are getting used to technology and the rapid improvements to it. Fifteen years ago, the Internet would have been a pipe dream. Ten years ago, it became reality. The past five years has seen tremendous growth in terms of popularity and technological innovation. The result has been increasing acceptance of the Internet its role in human society.

The military has been grappling with the role of the pilot for a while now. I think that civilian aviation will begin to do the same at some point, too. As the "older generations" begin to give way to the younger folks who are used to the idea of computers running things, I believe the concept of pilotless airplanes will become reality.

Don't worry, though. As long as government bureaucracy and labor unions are around, there will be a very long road to travel before computers really fly.

--Dim

 

[AdlerDriver]

disregard

 

[Skyline]

Automation

One must consider the consequences of a catastrophic failure of those automated systems. What happens when the cockpit goes completely dark? In the case of the subway train, the cars come to a stop safely on the same rails that have guided their course all along. There is no risk to the occupants until they attempt to leave the cars and walk to the nearest tunnel exit.

The outcome in an ariplane is much less certain. Even if the systems were redundant and a complete failure only occurred once every 1,000 flights, we'd have an unnacceptable number of catastrophes.

Even now with fly by wire and glass cockpits I think there is an accepted risk level on the avionics. Sure failures will happen but would you rather trade your moving map GPS, smooth fly by wire, full glass jet for a scant cluster of steam gauges, slow responding heavy controls, and an E6B? Not me.


We don't have to start out with people hauling. Cargo companies could take the lead. UPS and FedEx are going to have a hard time getting pay cuts out of their pilots. They could just replace them instead and save millions every year per plane. Each plane has about 12 crews at an average pay of 180K per pilot that makes $4,320,000 saved per year, per plane. Not bad.
A ground controller can manage several flights simultaneously. Just like on the subway we could put a low wage technician up front to report conditions back to ground. Maybe it could be a FA or mechanic?

Skyline

 

[mzaharis]

Who's to say that a computer couldn't have done as good a job or better with the DC-10 Al Haynes incident?

Me.

..

I don't have enough experience to offer a valid opinion as to whether a computer could have done better, but I do know that NASA has done research in this area, after the Al Haynes incident. They were attempting to come up with some control laws for a reversionary mode where a pilot could control the aircraft through throttle controls, mediated by a computer system. Presumably, the computer would already have the control laws programmed, and would be able to apply the optimum adjustments in throttle to effect the flight attitude changes commanded by the pilot. Therefore, the pilot wouldn't have to do a "controls test flight" as Al Haynes did, to determine what throttle settings caused the desired attitude changes - they'd already be in the computer. My memory is a bit rusty, but I believe that the pilot would still give control inputs through the yoke and pedals, but they would translate to throttle adjustments.

They had proceeded to some flight testing. I believe that they started with an F-15 (not exactly the best aircraft to start with, due to the near-centerline thrust of the engines), but if memory serves, they were also going to try it in an airliner, possibly a DC-10 (it's been a long time since I read about this). I don't know what became of the research, or if it's still ongoing. A bit of rummaging around nasa.gov (probably at the Dryden or Glenn Center pages) probably could turn something up.

 

[TonyC]

Even now with fly by wire and glass cockpits I think there is an accepted risk level on the avionics. Sure failures will happen but would you rather trade your moving map GPS, smooth fly by wire, full glass jet for a scant cluster of steam gauges, slow responding heavy controls, and an E6B? Not me.

Given that I have recently transitioned from the MD-11 to a 727, I guess you might say I made that trade. Sure, I don't have the moving map or the FMS doing math for me, but I haven't wound up in a heaping pile of aluminum in anybody's back yard. When I was flying the MD-11, it was understood that there were pilots on board to ensure that the FMS and AFS were programmed correctly and behaving correctly. Guess who flew the airplane when there was a dual FMC failure!

We don't have to start out with people hauling. Cargo companies could take the lead. UPS and FedEx are going to have a hard time getting pay cuts out of their pilots. They could just replace them instead and save millions every year per plane. Each plane has about 12 crews at an average pay of 180K per pilot that makes $4,320,000 saved per year, per plane. Not bad.
A ground controller can manage several flights simultaneously. Just like on the subway we could put a low wage technician up front to report conditions back to ground. Maybe it could be a FA or mechanic?

Skyline

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at this bologna. Where do I even start? Airplanes with boxes make just as large fireballs as airplanes with pax. 180K average? HA!! "[L]ow wage technician up front to report conditions"?!?!? Let me guess, you'll be applying for that position?




.