Four wasted years...priceless
- Thread starter ppragman
- Start date
It has started in the military,
It will move to civil cargo first....
It's called technology disruption. And if you are 20 something now you will see it bring and end to the flight deck as we now know it. For us old guys not really a factor.
The study, which officially ends in March this year, concluded that transoceanic cargo transport flights were a promising beginning for civil UAV use, especially from coastal airports.
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...ned-air-vehicles-to-use-general-aviation.html
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
You're right on about this, of course many people here will not like it. After 9/11 the Airbus people said the technology is there to take over a hijacked plane from the ground. UAS technology improves everyday. In reality it is here even if it has not matured or received popular support. I was a NFO in the Navy. Basically a combined Nav and HF radio operator, and then later ran the mission stuff in back. Inertial Navigation stuff for ICBMS started to make navs obsolete back then at least for point to point stuff.
There will be a guy in a cockpit, probably with some reversionary controls, but he maybe computer science maybe the way so study wise.:dunno:
mikecweb
Well-Known Member
This.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
No doubt, these kids might very well be stackin' the ched fast, especially for the first ones to get out there if this proves successful.
And if they have no interest in getting in an airplane and flying it, then why not? They'll make good money and be home every night.
Right now, the FAA still is very uneasy about UASs (RPVs, whatever the current nomenclature is) in the NAS. UAVs can't normally fly in the NAS outside of Class A without a chase aircraft and can never be VFR. There have already been a good few incidents of lost-link with the Ku (satellite) control of a few UAVs stateside that have flown places/altitudes unintended when the pre-programmed emergency or "lost link" mission either wasn't loaded correctly, or didn't work correctly. Until such time that there can be far more accuracy with UAV systems, the FAA likely won't budge.
deek
New Member
This is true today, but certainly not true tomorrow. Things will improve and UAVs will be the way to go for cargo and a bunch of others, but I still see airline and corporate safe from robots for a long long time. But it's a smart idea by UND, if there is a demand, then be the supply and you'll make money. Think about the California gold rush, the people who made the most money wasn't the panners in the woods, it was the outfitters who sold tools and supplies who made the most money during that time. But I digress...and am marginally interested, not in the degree but in the field.
It's going to be a while. The problems I cite have, and still are, a problem. They'll eventually work out, but it won't be soon tomorrow.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
If that was what life was about to them, then yes.
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
I think that the only thing you will maybe see UAVs do in the civilian world is cargo ocean crossing. Thats bout the only thing I think that would justify the cost. 135 operators arent going to buy them. It will just be too expensive. The cost of a new UAV and the system to track it and still having someone on the ground to guide it. It just wont be cost effective. They will continue to buy old beat up airplanes and pay guys to fly them. Even 121 operators. I just dont see it being cost effective for domestic operations. Even in decades when the technology to do it is there, I think money will be what prevents it from happening. People want the lowest fares possible. And you dont get the lowest fares by having to buy all new equipment and still have to have the same number of employees. I'm 21 and I still dont think I will ever see a unmanned plane flying passengers or cargo on domestic routes during my life time. And forget traffic watch or pipeline patrol. It would be way to expensive for them. hell they only use 172 right now. Imagaine how much more a UAV will cost to buy and operate versus a old 172. It just wont happen in my opinion.
Goldmember
Well-Known Member
Get married and see if you want to be home everynight...
GatorFC
Well-Known Member
Isn't the Border Patrol using UAV's? I thought I remember seeing a job posting from them looking for UAV pilots.
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
Border Patrol isnt civilian. That is just another government use of them. We are talking about cargo operations and what not. It just wont happen. Its not cost effective. Except for maybe ocean crossing cargo routes.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
You know another thing to think about is insurance, what's cheaper to insure, a computer program or a pilot. Frankly I don't know, but in an environment as dynamic as aviation, I'd bet a pilot is. Plus there are failure modes where you could lose the satlink and be left with nobody in control. Nobody wants that, 300 pax careening out of control towards certain death.
We'll have robot FAs before we'll have uncrewed jets blasting through the skys. We won't even have virtual ocean going freight either. Some of that freight is expensive, and you want people up front incase there's a satellite failure so that he can make it in.
We'll have robot FAs before we'll have uncrewed jets blasting through the skys. We won't even have virtual ocean going freight either. Some of that freight is expensive, and you want people up front incase there's a satellite failure so that he can make it in.
Inverted25
Well-Known Member
:rotfl:
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I could say the same thing for an English, history or, in some cases, philosophy degree. The degrees might position you for a decent entry into post-grad work, but they won't do much on their own. I might even go so far as to argue a bachelor's in business is about as useful as an aviation degree unless you use it to get a MBA.
Cowboyav8tor
Well-Known Member
:yeahthat: Agree with you there!