Boeing to study pilotless planes

[OneNineHundy]

Once they make this switch to pilotless Aircraft how does everyone see it playing out? Cargo aircraft first? Single pilot for a decade then no pilots? Will existing pilots be offered the jobs remotely controlling the aircraft on the ground?

I find it difficult to fathom that a widebody will launch on a 16 hour flight with no one up front and 12 flight attendants down the back. Who is ultimately responsible for the aircraft during a medical divert. How often do we switch the seatbelt sign on just thru what we feel in our seat when nothing is painting on the radar.

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

 

[mikecweb]

The turbulence arguement gets thrown around a lot but you could give the FAs authority to do that and/or accelerometers giving data on the ride.

 

[OneNineHundy]

The turbulence arguement gets thrown around a lot but you could give the FAs authority to do that and/or accelerometers giving data on the ride.

Fair point about the FA but they can't see the cloud coming or a sudden wind shift or temperature change of just that feeling you get. Sure they might feel the bumps and switch it on but by then half the plane is in the roof. And who is ultimately responsible for the aircraft? Who becomes the PIC or whatever they will call it without pilots?

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

In the new age of tech bros, no one is responsible...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ppragman]

This is very much the camp I'm in. By the time planes are gate to gate the average worker is going to super not care. You'll literally be fighting for your life at that point.

I actually don't think so - to be hone

In the new age of tech bros, no one is responsible...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually this is incredibly prescient. If you think about it, this is perfect - there's literally no one to sue because of the diffusion of responsibility. "Well, the corporate algorithm used in their operations wasn't exactly what the manufacturer said so you can sue the operator, but they're just using algorithm guidance from the FAA that the manufacturer was responsible for drafting. The division by zero error that caused the airplane to select a -90 degree pitch attitude as the target attitude could have been caused by...[insert list of 40 different organizations]."

@jtrain609 - dude you probably still have me blocked, but your perspective on the legal ramifications of who's to blame for software problems would be interesting. Who would be liable in an event where software kills a bunch of people? If it's a cut and dry case of "manufacturer error" then it's obvious, but when software is interacting with the "real world" and there are eventualities that are outside of the programming and it kills people...what happens then? I mean let's envision a "Sully" type scenario where the autonomous airliner ingests a ton of geese and flames out everything, in attempting to maneuver back to the field it impacts the proverbial "schoolyard full of disabled orphans" and kills a bunch of people. Legally, who's on the hook?

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

You know who is on the hook. The person whose child burns up in the wreck.

The people who should be responsible will just jump into their private jet with a chump who was just like me 3 years ago at the controls.

They don't give a hoot about any of us...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ppragman]

You know who is on the hook. The person whose child burns up in the wreck.

The people who should be responsible will just jump into their private jet with a chump who was just like me 3 years ago at the controls.

They don't give a hoot about any of us...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We'll, you're correct - but the truth of the matter is (as much as I hate to say it) that that doesn't really matter. Since we as a society have decided to make everything a commodity everything (and I mean everything) has a price - to include that schoolyard full of orphans. That's a societal problem that transcends the present discussion (and I think is ethically wrong) but the point still stands. Who's on the hook for something where the machine was "trying to do everything right" but because of situations outside of it's control a bunch of people are killed or maimed?

As an aside, this whole "meta" topic about the commoditization of every aspect of existence bothers me to no end. For example, when I hear the term "human resources" it bothers me a little bit because the first thing that pops into my head is that "human beings aren't resources! A person isn't an input into a production function! They're a person!" But...society doesn't necessarily think that way.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Assuming you could have a robust enough connection to the aircraft from the ground that is immune to any type of denial of service attack.

True. Not possible now. But someday. Maybe before we are dead. I think certainly within 100 years. Positively within 500, if we don't nuke ourselves first.

 

[RamRise]

If you put flights together in the right way, one guy can operate several flights simultaneously.

Bot to mention savings on hotels, cabs, per diem, etc. The financial case is there.

Why do I get this sneaking suspicion that these savings aren't going to be passed on to passengers?

This whole push is an effort to further increase 'margins' which will be enjoyed mostly by the exceptional few. The way I see it technological unemployment and income inequality are two sides of the same coin.
The pervasive line of thinking in our modern world is if one can make the financial argument, that it justifies implementation. Human beings are literally seen as disposable units, and pilots are no exception. We collectively believe we are making progress toward a technotopian fantasy yet each year it becomes more difficult to afford basic living expenses, we go further into debt, traffic gets worse, forests are torn down, et cetera et cetera, ad inifintum. IMHO, the engineers who will be tasked with programming pilotless Aircraft, like most guys, are just driven to get laid. that drive has been and will continue to be exploited by the people who hold the keys to the machinery.

 

[mikecweb]

Why do I get this sneaking suspicion that these savings aren't going to be passed on to passengers?

This whole push is an effort to further increase 'margins' which will be enjoyed mostly by the exceptional few. The way I see it technological unemployment and income inequality are two sides of the same coin.
The pervasive line of thinking in our modern world is if one can make the financial argument, that it justifies implementation. Human beings are literally seen as disposable units, and pilots are no exception. We collectively believe we are making progress toward a technotopian fantasy yet each year it becomes more difficult to afford basic living expenses, we go further into debt, traffic gets worse, forests are torn down, et cetera et cetera, ad inifintum. IMHO, the engineers who will be tasked with programming pilotless Aircraft, like most guys, are just driven to get laid. that drive has been and will continue to be exploited by the people who hold the keys to the machinery.

Flying is too cheap as it is.

 

[jtrain609]

True. Not possible now. But someday. Maybe before we are dead. I think certainly within 100 years. Positively within 500, if we don't nuke ourselves first.

I'll take odds on us destroying ourselves long before humans are able to do anything really interesting.

 

[mshunter]

I mean let's envision a "Sully" type scenario where the autonomous airliner ingests a ton of geese and flames out everything, in attempting to maneuver back to the field it impacts the proverbial "schoolyard full of disabled orphans" and kills a bunch of people. Legally, who's on the hook?

"The orphanage should have never been built there. They should have known this would happen!"

 

[MikeD]

Hal it taking your jerb!

Heading to single pilot airliners is one way management can solve any pilot shortage and take us back to the late 80s, early 90s of pilot surplus. Those were the days!

 

[derg]

and then Boeing can finish it's anti-labor dreams.

 

[MikeD]

and then Boeing can finish it's anti-labor dreams.

Back then, you were the man if you managed to land that Mesa Airlines Caravan or GoldPac 402 gig!

 

[ppragman]

Back then, you were the man if you managed to land that Mesa Airlines Caravan or GoldPac 402 gig!

Alaska was like this until about 4 or 5 years ago. A caravan or a Navajo job was a "big deal." Now guys are going into the Van with 1200. During the recession 3,000hrs of AK time would barely get you into a van. Oh how times have changed.

 

[derg]

Back then, you were the man if you managed to land that Mesa Airlines Caravan or GoldPac 402 gig!

Mesa Caravan FTW!

I remember Larry Risely in the DLC saying "I'd hire all y'all right after graduation, but we're getting rid of the Caravans and the Beech 1300's"

 

[MikeD]

Mesa Caravan FTW!

I remember Larry Risely in the DLC saying "I'd hire all y'all right after graduation, but we're getting rid of the Caravans and the Beech 1300's"

The 1300s were cool, in that Mesa green/yellow paintjob. Yeah any Riddle IP who got onto Mesa was a King back then.

 

[derg]

The 1300s were cool, in that Mesa green/yellow paintjob. Yeah any Riddle IP who got onto Mesa was a King back then.

 

[MikeD]

View attachment 38997

Thats it! Strangely, i cant find any pics of Mesa Caravans.