CEO says unmanned flights are 5 years away

PositionAndHold said:
Yeah, but you still have to pay that person on the ground almost all of those same things, even if they're operating five flights at once. Similar to a dispatcher, but more highly trained. You think the FAA will just let some one take a written test to be a ground based pilot, responsible if some thing happens to the pilot/plane during flight? Look at the new ATP rules, I think they'll make it pretty hard to be a ground based monitor. Recurrent training, medicals etc. I realize Management would love nothing more than to get rid of part of the senioity list. One crash of a single pilot airliner will probably eliminate any savings they may have had. It seems great in theory, just not so sure it's practical.
Click to expand...

Remember management does not live in the real world, they don't fly planes, they only care about money. I have lost count of the amount of times I've received don't waste gas training, only for management to go and pay the rampers like 3 bucks an hour, so there is literally never anyone to actually marshal the plane in to the gate because no one cares, meanwhile we're sitting there wasting gas... A lot of this is not grounded in the reality of the situation, but throw the words cost savings around and they'll run with it. I have no idea how this is all going to play out, I'm not a development engineer at Boeing or Airbus, I'm not a DARPA guy working on AI so bombers can go fly themselves around. I'm sure we will go down to one/no man pilot cockpits, the will is certainly there. I'm just not sure what the timeline will be.
 
Guess I should have got my degree in something else...

I'm so stupid....

Also, isn't the FAA still implementing rules for use of UAS in NAS? As far as I know I thought they weren't even approved yet besides military or some sort of special authorization.

I know for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) they've been working on the proposal for over 4 years and "claiming to be close". I took a UAS class and my professor said they would be done in a month. I sit here a year and a half later from that date month and still looks like it's in the "Proposed Rule Stage".

I've never understood how people would think that airliners would fly pilotless...especially pilots thinking those days are soon for how slow of a growth the industry has for new ideas/airplanes/rules. Everyone likes to talk about how restaurants, gate agents, and all those jobs will be automated also but there's only so much that a computer can do. I do think it's funny how airplanes (specifically airliners) will be the one of the first automated by robots/computers in the cockpit as the breakthrough on this upcoming technology. I realize that the technology in the last 25 years boomed but it doesn't mean it will continue to boom that same growth rate. I think we should think logical first at the big picture of automation before we start assuming the next 10 years is gonna be a pilotless sky... Just my thoughts for the slim information I know.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201004&RIN=2120-AJ60
 
Last edited:
I don't really like when fear mongering comes into the conversation but does anyone remember Iran hijacking our top of the line super secret stealth drone? I can think of a few bad things that could happen with pilotless aircraft.

hqdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:
averettpilot said:
Doubt it. Driverless cars would be far more difficult to automate what with all the obstacles to contend with. We already have a system in aircraft that you can program a great portion of the flight, push a button, and sit back and monitor things.

It's coming. Not in five years in my opinion, but it's coming.
Click to expand...
And flight has no obstacles? Like buildings?

And cars are hard to operate? There's 1 pedal and 1 brake to press. A lot easier than the buttons in the cockpit.

They have a system in place also. Keep in mind you just said a 4-6000 lb car is harder to have unmanned than an airliner (since that's what we are all probably talking about) that weighs 150,000 lbs plus and flies.

If a car gets in an accident what's the max amount of deaths? 10ish would be a pretty dramatic accident for this example. If you had an airliner get in an "accident" they could run the potential of killing anywhere to 150 on board to 1000+ on the ground for one accident. The 10 person car accident would need 100 accidents to even have the same amount. There are more car accidents obviously but they argue the driver less road is safer....just like they argue the pilot less sky is safer.

Technology is here there's no argument around that but I think we're smarter than that. A pilot less sky is asking for another 9/11 easily. With this new technology becomes smarter people who can hack it. Nobody can keep their own damn servers from getting hacked whether it's a video game company or the government.

I think regardless of the fact that the technology is here and will be available soon...you're talking about a huge jump into an area we don't even have the slightest clue about with safety or security. I think a car is a lot closer than any 150,000 lb + passenger aircraft with passengers even willing to do that.

Just because it's there doesn't mean it'll be used...Or anytime soon.
 
tcco94 said:
Guess I should have got my degree in something else...

I'm so stupid....

Also, isn't the FAA still implementing rules for use of UAS in NAS? As far as I know I thought they weren't even approved yet besides military or some sort of special authorization.

I know for small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) they've been working on the proposal for over 4 years and "claiming to be close". I took a UAS class and my professor said they would be done in a month. I sit here a year and a half later from that date month and still looks like it's in the "Proposed Rule Stage".

I've never understood how people would think that airliners would fly pilotless...especially pilots thinking those days are soon for how slow of a growth the industry has for new ideas/airplanes/rules. Everyone likes to talk about how restaurants, gate agents, and all those jobs will be automated also but there's only so much that a computer can do. I do think it's funny how airplanes (specifically airliners) will be the one of the first automated by robots/computers in the cockpit as the breakthrough on this upcoming technology. I realize that the technology in the last 25 years boomed but it doesn't mean it will continue to boom that same growth rate. I think we should think logical first at the big picture of automation before we start assuming the next 10 years is gonna be a pilotless sky... Just my thoughts for the slim information I know.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201004&RIN=2120-AJ60
Click to expand...

It has been very interesting to me to observe people be so eager to embrace technology without thinking about why they are doing it. There are so many solutions being invented to problems that never existed. I really don't understand it most days.

SpiraMirabilis said:
And pay about 20X that much for the satellite time. Do any of you guys know how expensive it is to operate a UAV right now? It is not cheaper than manned aircraft.
Click to expand...

Well here's the thing, It's not like new technologies won't be invented. The military uses satellites because they're flying over contested territory. In the United States you could just build a series of line of sight antennas to do the same job for cheaper. It's not like this'll happen overnight, but it will happen.
 
Last edited:
esa17 said:
From a technological stand point he is correct. It would be easy to do and only requires adding a few magic boxes to the autoflight systems.

I'll say it again, and again I'll get flamed, we will see single pilot airliners before my toddler graduates college.
Click to expand...
From a tech stand point sure, but not from a social perspective. I can MAYBE see public opinion swinging into agreement with single pilot airliners. Maybe. What I can never see is a flying public that is OK with the idea of remote operated airplanes. At least not for a very LONG time.

tcco94 said:
And flight has no obstacles? Like buildings?

And cars are hard to operate? There's 1 pedal and 1 brake to press. A lot easier than the buttons in the cockpit.

They have a system in place also. Keep in mind you just said a 4-6000 lb car is harder to have unmanned than an airliner (since that's what we are all probably talking about) that weighs 150,000 lbs plus and flies.

If a car gets in an accident what's the max amount of deaths? 10ish would be a pretty dramatic accident for this example. If you had an airliner get in an "accident" they could run the potential of killing anywhere to 150 on board to 1000+ on the ground for one accident. The 10 person car accident would need 100 accidents to even have the same amount. There are more car accidents obviously but they argue the driver less road is safer....just like they argue the pilot less sky is safer.

Technology is here there's no argument around that but I think we're smarter than that. A pilot less sky is asking for another 9/11 easily. With this new technology becomes smarter people who can hack it. Nobody can keep their own damn servers from getting hacked whether it's a video game company or the government.

I think regardless of the fact that the technology is here and will be available soon...you're talking about a huge jump into an area we don't even have the slightest clue about with safety or security. I think a car is a lot closer than any 150,000 lb + passenger aircraft with passengers even willing to do that.

Just because it's there doesn't mean it'll be used...Or anytime soon.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of which machine has more buttons, or which is responsible for more lives. The simple fact is a car operates in a much more dynamic environment than an airplane. We've had autopilots for something like 60 years in airplanes that have worked just fine. The closest thing we get to that in cars is cruise control because of that. An airplane is much more isolated in it's operating environment. The infrastructure that cars operate on don't allow for that isolation.

Think of it like this...In the air, I can turn on my aircraft's automation, go to the back, get hammered on booze from the drink cart, pass out, and the plane will keep flying on a heading and at an altitude until it runs out of gas. If ou are driving your RV and get out of the drivers seat and head to the back, how long is it going to be before you hit something?
 
esa17 said:
From a technological stand point he is correct. It would be easy to do and only requires adding a few magic boxes to the autoflight systems.
lt
I'll say it again, and again I'll get flamed, we will see single pilot airliners before my toddler graduates college.
Click to expand...

It's not a popular opinion here, but I'd agree.
 
Here's what I think is funny. I think we all know and understand that most jobs in our economy are on the chopping block due to technology. This all quickly becomes a moot discussion if no one else works and can afford to buy a ticket to fly somewhere... we'll be out of a job by proxy anyway since at the end of the day we work in a service industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top