No pilot shortage in the Future

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:13 pm

I think the end is near for all of us.
The future is looking bright for the "pilots" of RC airplanes though.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/03/30/pilo ... index.html

The Ex · Post by **The Ex** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:37 pm

Creeps me out actually. Would anyone actually want to be a passenger in one of these??? Reminds me of that movie 'Maximum Overdrive', but in this case it'd be the planes that have minds of their own.

Blue Side Down · Post by **Blue Side Down** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:34 pm

It's only a matter of time... but I think that it's not something we need to worry about for the next decade at least- maybe two or three. Trains still have conductors, right? ...I think it's going to be a while yet until the 'trains can leave without us- so to speak.

Flying Low · Post by **Flying Low** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 8:40 pm

WHAT??????? No pilot shortage???? I'm shocked...the flight school told me...

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:06 pm

Blue Side Down wrote:It's only a matter of time... but I think that it's not something we need to worry about for the next decade at least- maybe two or three. Trains still have conductors, right? ...I think it's going to be a while yet until the 'trains can leave without us- so to speak.

Have you stepped on a skytrain in vancouver anytime in the last 20 years ?

The clock for pilots has been ticking for 20 years, most just dont realize it.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:59 pm

The FAA can approve it all you want, but I doubt too many people would buy a ticket on a pilotless plane. So far their accident rates are high enough that if it were a commercial operation, they'd be shut down.

buck82 · Post by **buck82** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 10:12 pm

Until those things can figure out how to soar off a ridge, put down in a lake, navigate canyons and do non insturment approaches (oh... and land) in the sticks i'm not too worried. As long as we have resources in the bush we'll need pilots to get people and equipment in there.

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:19 am

Given that we still can't get an autonomous vehicle to successfully drive off-road, I'd say that we've got a bit more time left.

Especially true for bush and rotary wing guys. It'll be a while before we figure out how to get a computer to successfully swing bags or lift drills in the foothills on a seismic job.

Murdoch86 · Post by **Murdoch86** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:35 am

I hope this never happens. But I think that's what the milkman said the first time someone told him about a crazy new milk distribution system.

Some survey companies already have UAVs. And I don’t care what anyone says, a R/C plane hitting a wire to “land” has NO style.

I don't think it's going to be in our life-time. But I can't help feeling like the milk man right before he gets his 2 weeks.

D

grounded · Post by **grounded** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:14 am

I saw a bit on the Discovery Channel a while back profiling unmanned helicopters to do ag spraying in Japan. The units were very impressive, and I think they would have a lot of uses in segments of aviation. The idea of climbing into an airliner thats being "flown" by a guy sitting at a desk miles away would and should scare the hell out of most people. Not going to happen in our careers. Anyone remember the 707 (or DC-8, I never get those two straight) that the FAA flew remotely to conduct flammability tests on fuel? They were supposed to crash that one, and still screwed that up by not crashing in the right spot.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:16 am

People said the same thing about fly-by-wire, they'd "never trust a computer to fly an aircraft!"

Guess what. It already is (shrug).

Airbus has been pushing single-pilot for years now.

N2 · Post by N2 » Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:27 pm

IF you look seriously into air accidents it's usally pilot error that causes the majority of them.

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:33 pm

People will be terrified of of no-pilot airliners and everyone will absolutely refuse to fly on them.......... Until they realize that it'll save them 15 bucks YVR-YYZ. Pilotless planes are inevitable, and will be here sooner than we think. I'd guess it'll be less than a decade before we see them doing lots of spraying and pipeline work. It'll take a little longer for them to get certified for pax, I'll hopefully be an old man by then. But as others have said, bush and most helicopter work will hold onto flesh-and-blood-in-the-cockpit pilots for a long time to come.

talkinghead · Post by **talkinghead** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:10 pm

The Ex wrote:Creeps me out actually. Would anyone actually want to be a passenger in one of these??? Reminds me of that movie 'Maximum Overdrive', but in this case it'd be the planes that have minds of their own.

Yes they would get on. Its all about money. If the price is right and TC says its safe then they will get onboard. Its that simple.

Invertago · Post by **Invertago** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:27 pm

As for most accidents being 'pilot error' part of that is that it is always easy to blame the dead as they are not around to argue their side of the story.

As for flying px in unpiloted aircraft... cruise missiles for example can hit a target with amazing accuracy when everything works out perfect, but in speaking with a family member who works in military intel. Somewhere in the range of 25% of the cruise missiles fail and crash never reaching their target. Just as we use two engines for redundancy, we will have pilots as redundancy for autopilots or other systems. With the technology out there now, the pilot may just have a smaller work load, but he/she will be necessary as a backup system for a long time still.

Though… if I am wrong

maybe we’ll all have to work our way up from the ramp into the captains desk in the office where we remotely pilot the aircraft. On a side note… I have never been around anything that has crashed as often as my computer, I can just imagine trusting my life to a software program.

Justwannafly · Post by **Justwannafly** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:52 pm

As for most accidents being 'pilot error' part of that is that it is always easy to blame the dead as they are not around to argue their side of the story.

EXACTLY

ProfessionallyPoor · Post by **ProfessionallyPoor** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:01 pm

Sombody alert Boeing and Airbus that they are wasting their resources and many many dollars putting flight decks into their new aircraft like the Dreamliner and the 380. I dont think we need to worry about this just yet boys and girls!

N2 · Post by N2 » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:18 pm

Pandora wrote:
As for most accidents being 'pilot error' part of that is that it is always easy to blame the dead as they are not around to argue their side of the story.
EXACTLY

No this is not the case if you look into it. Flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ground because of a burnt out light bulb. (Eastern FLA) configuring aircraft incorrectly for take off (Delta Fort Worth), losing situational awareness and hitting mountain (American Airlines South America) to name but a few. I am not trying to degrade pilots in any way, shape or form but unfortunately the statistics speak for themselves. The human factor is the weakest part of the equation. Go into the NTSB site and start reading….very educational.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/aviation.htm

just another pilot · Post by **just another pilot** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:02 pm

Has B.C. Ferries looked at full automation?

Justwannafly · Post by **Justwannafly** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:33 pm

N2 wrote:
Pandora wrote:
As for most accidents being 'pilot error' part of that is that it is always easy to blame the dead as they are not around to argue their side of the story.
EXACTLY
No this is not the case if you look into it. Flying a perfectly good aircraft into the ground because of a burnt out light bulb. (Eastern FLA) configuring aircraft incorrectly for take off (Delta Fort Worth), losing situational awareness and hitting mountain (American Airlines South America) to name but a few. I am not trying to degrade pilots in any way, shape or form but unfortunately the statistics speak for themselves. The human factor is the weakest part of the equation. Go into the NTSB site and start reading….very educational.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/aviation.htm

READ "Human Factors for Aviation" all 3 are very good & education books...BUT even there they say that even if the pilot is given the wrong info weather ect...its still their fault. The point is, there is a reason it's call'd "Pilot Descision Making" becuase is descisions that have to be made with the information that they have....NOT with the information that they have after going through the info for 18months & seeing what happened as a result of the desicisions that were made.....All a pilot can do is try to make the BEST ones, & be sensible about them...a lot of crash's are stupid pilot error (we are human afterall) BUT If my plane breaks down (due to no fault of my own) & then I crash) I don't like that I'm blamed for that...& THAT DOES HAPPEN ALL THE TIME

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:32 am

just to add to the comment on survey companies using UAV's.....they also have had limited success. One of the big Canadian survey companies already lost one of those offshore when it just decided for whatever reason to fly into the swells of the north atlantic. That's not to say automation won't happen eventually. But as a previous poster indicated, I think a human pilot will be in the airplane as at least a back up. Look at the AT to the azores....what would have happened with a computer at the controls?

also, as for trusting your life to computers that crash...well, in many ways you are trusting your life every day to these computers.....in modern aircraft as well as trains, subways, elevators, etc.

buck82 · Post by **buck82** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:53 pm

Forget computers as pilots in airliners... however if we're thinking that way then why not have a robotic cabin crew too?.. for some airlines it might be better than putting up the pressent attitude and crap of inflight service..

lets see... ten less cabin crew = ten more paying customers, no wages to pay.. heck, then you could pay the pilots even more!!

N2 · Post by N2 » Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:51 pm

[quote=also, as for trusting your life to computers that crash...well, in many ways you are trusting your life every day to these computers.....in modern aircraft as well as trains, subways, elevators, etc.[/quote]

Hopefully it won't have a Microsoft logo on it!

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:39 am

CAL · Post by **CAL** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 10:02 am