CEO says unmanned flights are 5 years away

What could be more rewarding than staring at clouds 4 hours a day, while trying to stay awake, so you can end up spending the night at the Courtyard Marriott Cincinnati airport?

Um I dunno. Paying for your own RV so you can be based in another state and SPLIT the hook up charges with a guy that can afford to own a Falcon 2000?
 
I used to think I knew what was going to happen with this stuff. The more I see, the more I scratch my head and think to myself "I dunno?"
 
Whether UAVs are the future or not will depend a lot upon their field of use.

Military Surveillance:
Advantages:
  • Due to smaller size and increased simplicity drones are cheaper to purchase and operate than traditional manned platforms.
  • They make a smaller target for the enemy.
  • They are able to stay aloft longer.
  • They remove a human pilot from the line of fire.
  • They are expendable (e.g. keeping a drone aloft past bingo fuel to support those on the ground).
  • Reduced maintenance and storage costs.
  • Theoretically lower manpower costs.
  • Drones are well suited to the simple, repetitive, easily programmed routes of surveillance tracks.
Disadvantages:
  • Direct human intervention impossible (i.e. increased risk to the vehicle itself, those in the sky around it, and those on ground).
Conclusion: In military surveillance, the advantages of drones far outweigh the disadvantages, especially when the risk to the pilot of a manned system is weighed against the risk of the drone colliding with a manned aircraft or persons on the ground.

Survey Work (aerial survey, herd/crop survey, pipeline, search and rescue, etc.)
Advantages:
  • Due to smaller size and increased simplicity drones are cheaper to purchase and operate than traditional manned platforms.
  • Reduced maintenance and storage costs.
  • Theoretically lower manpower costs.
  • Drones are well suited to the simple, repetitive, easily programmed routes of aerial survey tracks.
  • No risk to any humans on board the drone.
Disadvantages:
  • Direct human intervention impossible (i.e. increased risk to the vehicle itself, those in the sky around it, and those on ground).
Conclusion: While the advantages are fewer than in a military application, using drones for survey work still makes sense. The increased safety of using drones is debatable and will be highly dependent on sensible regulations from the FAA, some form of certification for drone operators, and designing drones to consistently avoid midair collisions and hazards on the ground. I'm confident those will all come with time.

Part 121 Airline
Advantages:
  • Theoretically lower manpower costs.
Disadvantages:
  • Direct human intervention impossible (i.e. increased risk to the vehicle itself, its passengers, those in the sky around it, and those on ground).
Conclusion: Once you reach Part 121 Airlines nearly all the advantages of an unmanned flight deck evaporate. The size and complexity of such a drone would not decrease because a large tube would still be needed to carry passengers/cargo and part 25 certification would still require multiple redundancies in most on board systems. Therefore, maintenance costs, storage costs, initial costs, and operating costs would not decrease. Furthermore, compared to the previous applications, the disadvantages are increased because the lack of direct human intervention can now harm passengers on board the aircraft. There is a misconception that by removing pilots from the flight deck you can increase safety by removing all human elements (and, therefore, human error). However, this is incorrect on two counts: first, human error is still present within the design of the automation - either errors in the programing or a failure to foresee some dangerous set of circumstances - and, second, human error is still present in the ground operator who must program and monitor the flight. Switching to unmanned airline flight decks simply makes no sense, economically or in terms of safety.
 
First of all, I say bring in the automated cars, the more and sooner the better. The general population sucks at driving, and that especially includes all the people that like to grumble about how much people suck at driving (yes, that includes me).
If I was a remotely piloted airliner operator, would I have to wear pants?
"Look sharp, fly sharp" as the Defenders of the Monkeysuit like to say.
 
First of all, I say bring in the automated cars, the more and sooner the better. The general population sucks at driving, and that especially includes all the people that like to grumble about how much people suck at driving (yes, that includes me).

"Look sharp, fly sharp" as the Defenders of the Monkeysuit like to say.
Wait, I think I -am- one of those guys.

And the full line, from me, is "look sharp, act sharp, be sharp."
 
First of all, I say bring in the automated cars, the more and sooner the better. The general population sucks at driving, and that especially includes all the people that like to grumble about how much people suck at driving (yes, that includes me).

"Look sharp, fly sharp" as the Defenders of the Monkeysuit like to say.

You know, I used to be opposed to "driverless cars". After my wife was involved in an accident 2 days ago and our new (5 weeks old) Toyota Highlander was totaled, all because some jackass decided they just HAD to make the turn into their neighborhood RIGHT THIS MOMENT. My wife is okay all things considered... But seriously, if you were to take the human factor out of the driving, think of how many lives would be saved.
 
Fine with me. I'll monitor flights from home instead of being gone all the time flying them. As a matter of fact, this will be me "monitoring" the 2:30 LAX-JFK:
image.jpg
 
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.

That seems to be the part people forget about whenever we have these threads. While the media often publishes articles about pilots being replaced with technology (alternately with their articles about the pilot shortage- go figure), certainly pilots can't be the only profession that's on the chopping block. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect Technological Unemployment will be a major problem in the next few decades, and that most workers today are likely to be forced out of a job by technological advances. And even if pilots haven't been replaced by technology then, certainly there will be limited demand for us.

Anyone ever read Manna by Marshall Brain? Chapters 1-5 seem like they are probably a fairly accurate prediction of what the future might be like with technological unemployment, but of course I'm no expert on the subject. Definitely an interesting story though:

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
 
It wouldn't be surprising to have a promotional publicity stunt type of flight where they put a bunch of volunteer passengers on board an unmanned aircraft for a short hop. As far as regular service we have a few decades due to see-and-avoid software still catching up, the FAA's snail-paced work on legislation, and the public perception of UAS. Factor in things like the first UAV to wreck a manned aircraft slowing things down and you have very very slow progress.
 
I wonder if there'll be all sorts of hype about the "money we save" without pilots per flight, and when it's all said and done, savings are 5-10 smackers?

Assuming: Technology to develop will take some number of dollars per leg "X", CA and FO wages added together (plus their health insurance costs) per leg "Y", X-Y=less than general public thinks. Enjoy it I say, lots of other jobs in the world.
 
I wonder if there'll be all sorts of hype about the "money we save" without pilots per flight, and when it's all said and done, savings are 5-10 smackers?

Assuming: Technology to develop will take some number of dollars per leg "X", CA and FO wages added together (plus their health insurance costs) per leg "Y", X-Y=less than general public thinks. Enjoy it I say, lots of other jobs in the world.

It really doesn't matter if money is saved or not. You must only appear to save money, so that rich guys can inflate stocks back and forth.
 
Nah, but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't see them in a decade or two. I'd bet that the weight of newly certified single pilot jets will climb higher and higher though.
I don't know man. Now that many of my best friends are flying the line and I'm getting all the good stories, sounds like there would be A LOT more accidents if there wasn't a second pilot up there. I know I make mistakes all the time, I'm sure every PIC has their butt saved by the guy in the right seat every now and again. That's the real reason I don't see it happening. How much money do you end up saving when the first single pilot 737 to end up in a smoking crater has your brand painted across it?
 
I don't know man. Now that many of my best friends are flying the line and I'm getting all the good stories, sounds like there would be A LOT more accidents if there wasn't a second pilot up there. I know I make mistakes all the time, I'm sure every PIC has their butt saved by the guy in the right seat every now and again. That's the real reason I don't see it happening. How much money do you end up saving when the first single pilot 737 to end up in a smoking crater has your brand painted across it?

I'd assume that if single pilot airliners happened that it would literally just be a guy monitoring a computer program, not actually touching anything.
 
I'd assume that if single pilot airliners happened that it would literally just be a guy monitoring a computer program, not actually touching anything.
And I'm sure the ever alert PIC would be so quick to use their human capabilities to react to and correct a problem when ish hits the fan when for the last several hours they have been sitting in a chair doing not so much as transmitting to ATC or dialing in a heading change. It's a bad idea, and if it happens, people will die an otherwise preventable death. Not saying they don't already with pilot error events, but this will be a step backwards in "tombstone technology" just to save money. And that won't jive well.
 
Where the technology is now, I'd agree, but it's advancing at a breakneck pace. I mean, consider things like a "smart checklist" that acts as your SIC in the airplane, responds to voice commands, and will back you up for every phase of flight and could manipulate the flight controls. Once the software is good enough and the hardware is mature I could totally see it. Think about this, you run a flow, physically say, "before takeoff checklist" and the computer gives you a verbal "call and response" checklist. If you miss anything, the computer knows the switch positions and tells you what you missed. You get workload "dense" in the cockpit, you can't be bothered doing the manual act of flying the airplane right now, you literally say "RJ, you have the flight controls," and the airplane takes over flying the last assigned route or heading. It's coming, the software for this will be there, and sooner than most people think. Once speech recognition gets to the point where it can recognize context (which probably isn't that far off) we're going to see an explosion in this sort of thing.
 
Back
Top