Something to be concerned about?

Besides insurance requiring it, I would bet that a large percentage of the flying public would insist on having two pilots up front, and would vote with their feet against any operation that tried to go one-pilot.

Fix
 
Still don't understand how everyone can be so quick to say no. As a 28 year old, the changes that tech has brought to the world around me in my short lifetime has led to me never say "never".
 
Soku39 said:
Still don't understand how everyone can be so quick to say no. As a 28 year old, the changes that tech has brought to the world around me in my short lifetime has led to me never say "never".
Click to expand...

It's not about the technology, we already have that. It's about the money, logistics, bureaucracy, and psychology involved. I mean how long is it taking to get Nextgen ATC? I can't see this happening in our lifetime.
 
jskibo said:
Yes, but to get FAA Cert I need to design a bag and attachment capable of 16Gs.........

Not sure why that's a requirement, perhaps they don't want scat on the rudder pedals during a high G event.
Click to expand...

Who would've thought designing a certified PPB would be sooooo involved?!
:)
 
I could imagine a system where a second pilot is available remotely somewhere on the ground for abnormal operations, and to monitor multiple flights. Say a carrier has 100 aircraft operating at a time - and 5-10 virtual FOs who can assist when called upon. The virtual pilot would be capable of flying the aircraft like a drone if needed. I would think this would be the necessary first step before pax aircraft became pilotless altogether.
 
Hmm...I wonder if there is an accountant or a lawyer thinking they could make use of existing technology to cut costs?
 
mshunter said:
Do you honestly think they'd convert every airplane to single pilot? No. They start building them as new designs and phase them in.
Click to expand...
That is another option I guess but how long would it take to phase out all of those Airbus, Boeing ect aircraft? Also not a realistic option at least for the next 20 + years. That would be a serious effort just to take 1 pilot out of the cockpit.
 
mshunter said:
Do you honestly think they'd convert every airplane to single pilot? No. They start building them as new designs and phase them in.
Click to expand...

And those airlines that still fly 25-30 year old airplanes? How you gonna force them to get rid of the cheap old planes.
 
"This translates to one accident every million flight hours or the equivalent of roughly one accident every ten days worldwide."


Where is this bizzaro world? Every 10 days? The 24 hour news cycle would be all over this if it were true. With the IGO grinding, needlessly I might add, the FAA about our "hand flying skills" and our "reliance on automation" the EU wants to add more. I don't see it happening in this country any time soon.
 
Everything takes 10 years in aviation to change, at a minimum. So single pilot ops.. Ok... With a remote backup, that's a decade away before testing. 15-20 before implementation. Current ops require 2 pilots. In the past the idea of an FE to 2 pilots was big, but automated systems. Now we want to take 2 to 1, guess what, automation is currently HIGH for systems... We now have broached the idea of CRM. Systems are now "smart" but it still takes AT LEAST 2 heads to prevail when things go south. All aircraft manufactured now and planned have 2 pilots. You can't replace an FO currently. At least a decade before that can be changed.
 
Cptnchia said:
And those airlines that still fly 25-30 year old airplanes? How you gonna force them to get rid of the cheap old planes.
Click to expand...
My 40 year old lear 35 could be modded to accept commands from a ground control station quite easily.

If the aircraft has a 3-axis autopilot all you need is satcom TX/RX, dual GPS antenna, and a few shoebox sized computers to do the deed. It's already being done...a lot.

images


Jetstream-passenger-drone-uav.jpg


images
 
It's one thing to throw some boxes in an airframe and drive it around under controlled conditions in an airspace reservation.

It's a couple of orders of magnitude harder to do it with people (and over people), in crowded airspace, angry weather, in changing conditions reliably....day after day after day.

As for tech advancing....it does, but in fits and spurts. The vectors are always uncertain in direction and magnitude. When I was 25 (1990s), we had cell phones and computers, and the intrawebz was already ticking along, if not exactly public domain. Nearly 25 years later, not much has really changed...the cell phones are smaller, the computers a faster, and the intrawebz is prettier.

One thing we DON'T do is manned spaceflight. We went to the moon in 1969...almost 50 years ago. In a spam can and a computer that is outmatched by most wrist watches. I'm checkin' Ortbitz, and I'm not seeing any daily flights to Tyco or the Fra Mauro Highlands.

Whenever you get actual live people involved, things get insanely complicated.

Biotech? We're good at that...how about a mouse with 4 ears? Wanna get Hungarian Bowling from the satellite? No problem! Putting BIG stuff in orbit? Not so much. Computers? What do ya need? We got it! AI? Not so much.

We do small good. Big? Well, how much time you got? The first 90% of the Interstate system took 20 years. They're still working on the last 10% 50 years later.

You get the point. The human race, once a colossus that stood astride the Earth, and literally moved heavens and mountains alike, has become the watchmaker.

My point is that BIG projects like this take a LOT of time, money, infrastructure and most of all, motivation.

I'm not holding my breath.

Richman
 
esa17 said:
My 40 year old lear 35 could be modded to accept commands from a ground control station quite easily.

If the aircraft has a 3-axis autopilot all you need is satcom TX/RX, dual GPS antenna, and a few shoebox sized computers to do the deed. It's already being done...a lot.

images


Jetstream-passenger-drone-uav.jpg


images
Click to expand...

How many of those have triple redundancy to operate every system? Cause that's what it's gonna take.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I could imagine a system where a second pilot is available remotely somewhere on the ground for abnormal operations, and to monitor multiple flights. Say a carrier has 100 aircraft operating at a time - and 5-10 virtual FOs who can assist when called upon. The virtual pilot would be capable of flying the aircraft like a drone if needed. I would think this would be the necessary first step before pax aircraft became pilotless altogether.
Click to expand...

Yeah, This may help to tackle this kind of situation.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I could imagine a system where a second pilot is available remotely somewhere on the ground for abnormal operations, and to monitor multiple flights. Say a carrier has 100 aircraft operating at a time - and 5-10 virtual FOs who can assist when called upon. The virtual pilot would be capable of flying the aircraft like a drone if needed. I would think this would be the necessary first step before pax aircraft became pilotless altogether.
Click to expand...

Yeah, This may help to tackle this kind of situation.
 
Box hauler said:
That is another option I guess but how long would it take to phase out all of those Airbus, Boeing ect aircraft? Also not a realistic option at least for the next 20 + years. That would be a serious effort just to take 1 pilot out of the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Never said it wouldn't be a serious undertaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top