Airline Pilot Jobs of the Future-home every night, no jetlag

[Panama Jack]

That doesn't mean, of course, there will be no pilot jobs. I suspect that 30 years from now the 703 outfits will still be operating Navajos and who knows what Buffalo Airways will be flogging.

frozen solid, you keep saying "you humans" to the point where I've started wondering what kind of interesting life-form you are?

[CFR]

1016202_10200316272365267_1827187207_n.jpg (49.94 KiB) Viewed 1700 times

[BabyRain]

This topic is a sad one. The idea that humans, would design a system in which pilots would not be needed in the cockpit is depressing. If it ever came true, well it would just suck because I like flying. Also It just shows how ridiculous we are as humans. Creating machines to take away our jobs, and we're talking about a GREAT job! We don't need less jobs on this planet and we definitely don't need computers taking away the job of a pilot! Who gives a crap if we CAN or Can't have computers/robots doing this type of thing, or if passengers would feel comfortable with it or not. Why does it always have to be about the bottom line. I REALLY hope this never happens.

[frozen solid]

Well, in a word, the one percent who make most of the money don't care if the 99 percent have jobs or not, if the automatic machinery keeps making money for them.

But that's my exact argument. You humans are increasing your numbers at the same time as you are allowing the number of available good jobs to dwindle. Good work.

Panama Jack, I'm also human. But I'm getting ready to explain my behaviour to any possible alien invaders by claiming not to be involved with any of the rest of you. It makes me feel safer.

[iflyforpie]

The only reason we don't already have pilotless planes hauling people around isn't logistics, acceptance, technology, safety, or economics. It's regulatory..... that's it!

The first remote controlled pilotless aircraft was flown in 1918..... Nearly 100 years ago... by the Sperry Company (the autopilot manufacturer, surprise surprise).

Other than preserving your jobs, most of the arguments against automation don't hold much water.

First, the planes are highly automated anyways. We've got autopilot, auto throttles, auto brakes, auto spoilers, auto land. With digital airliners, it is a bunch of computers that make the final decision of what the plane does, not the pilot.

Second, most of the 'manual' controls pilots do are just in response to what other humans are telling them. 'Turn right to 130, descend and maintain 5000', reduce speed to 180'. How hard would it be to have ATC simply turn the knobs themselves on a remote autopilot panel? Less garbled communications, no necessity to read back. Just like the USS Enterprise going into Space Dock.

Speaking of space, we already have 17,500 mph spacecraft that are fully automated from launch to landings, never mind one dimensional trains. The Soviet Shuttle Buran never flew with a crew on board, and proved to those Edwards cowboys that you don't need a hot shot pilot to land a space plane.

Third, pilotless can be redundant. Multiple data links, on board safe mode to get the plane on the ground if a link should fail, more remote centers with more crew than could ever fit in one plane.

For emergencies, again most are SOPs which have only gone south when crew didn't perform them properly. We've already got autofeather, Alpha Protect, Alpha Floor, stick pushers, automatic fire extinguishers, why not automatic everything else?

Finally, as planes become more and more reliable, it is the human element that repeatedly comes up as a cause for incidents and accidents.

Another argument for getting this all in place even keeping the pilots is for safety and redundancy. Think how 9/11 would have turned out if they could have used the Prefix Code like Captain Kirk did to Khan..... four nice smooth touchdowns at Andrews followed by a bunch of head shots with M40s.

Will we see pilotless airliners in our lifetime? Who knows? But you can be sure that as soon as regulatory hurdles are overcome people will try.

[Rockie]

With digital airliners, it is a bunch of computers that make the final decision of what the plane does, not the pilot.

I'm guessing you don't fly automated airplanes. But if you do, please god don't ever let me get on one you're flying because you don't have a clue what you're doing and shouldn't be flying them.

[iflyforpie]

Could Tex Johnson roll an A320 in Normal Law?

[Rockie]

Could Tex Johnson roll an A320 in Normal Law?

No, but he could in alternate or direct law. Plus external forces could roll the airplane despite what the computers want at which point the computers give up and say "you have control". Like I said, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[iflyforpie]

How often is Alternate or Direct Law used operationally on Airbus products?

And yes, perhaps I don't understand digital aircraft, that post was a bit facetious.

However, the crew of AF447 seemed to understand digital aircraft, yet they wound up at the bottom of the Atlantic. Had they flown it like a Cessna, they would have survived.

[Rockie]

How often is Alternate or Direct Law used operationally on Airbus products?

How often do people try and roll them? You do not know what you're talking about and have no clue what pilots in Airbus or any other automated aircraft have control over or not. Equating envelope protections that no pilot worth his weight in salt would ever approach as removing a pilot's ability to control his aircraft is absurd.

Do some reading.

[Slats]

In my airplane......I AM THE LAW!

Thank you, you may now return to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[Rockie]

However, the crew of AF447 seemed to understand digital aircraft, yet they wound up at the bottom of the Atlantic. Had they flown it like a Cessna, they would have survived.

Actually the crew probably didn't understand digital aircraft because this one was completely controllable at all times and could in fact be flown like a Cessna. It was a problem with training.

[frozen solid]

Yeah, sorry, iflyforpie, but he's got you there. There's no indication the crew of AF447 understood digital aircraft. And, while a Cessna couldn't possibly have been in that situation to begin with, let's use something else, like a dash 8 or maybe a Vickers Viscount or something... my gut feeling is they would have been screwed either way.

I think there is a lot of your post that I agree with though. And there was a post earlier that I really agreed with too. If we take it as a given (which I don't, but let's assume for the sake of argument) that there is any pilot of a heavy, jet-powered, transport category passenger aeroplane with digital flight controls who is more or less incapable of flying a full-procedure instrument approach to minimums and conducting a safe landing, under manual control, and has nonetheless managed to secure and legally qualify for a PPC on said aircraft, and people think this is acceptable, the I say YES, absolutely, these people must be replaced with automatic flight control systems without delay. The sooner the better. Pull your socks up, people.

[+RA]

Weren't we supposed to have flying cars by now?

[Changes in Latitudes]

Another argument for getting this all in place even keeping the pilots is for safety and redundancy. Think how 9/11 would have turned out if they could have used the Prefix Code like Captain Kirk did to Khan..... four nice smooth touchdowns at Andrews followed by a bunch of head shots with M40s.

Will we see pilotless airliners in our lifetime? Who knows? But you can be sure that as soon as regulatory hurdles are overcome people will try.

The truth hurts indeed.


and I can't resist.

[Mostly Harmless]

1. To suggest that the reduction of flight crew from 5, to 4, to 3, to 2, is the same as to 1 or none is to completely misunderstand the whole concept of redundancy.

I wasn't going to respond to this, but what the hell, I'll address it anyway. I understand concept just fine, thank you. #5 - Radio Operator, #4 - Navigator, #3 - Flight Engineer.... all replaced by a machine made their job redundant. I'm sure that none of them every though they would be replaced by technology. #2 - The First Officer, is nearing the point of redundancy in airliners due to technology, and remote piloting capability. Not there yet, and not for some time to come, but within my lifetime for sure. In fact, the autopilot has eliminated the First Officer position on many aircraft already... it's called single pilot IFR and is very common. Which is also somewhat ironic considering it is based on some of the least complex and reliable autopilots in the industry.

3. The technology to remotely control any machine has been around for what, 50 years? So what's the hold up? Why aren't they all already being flown remotely?

There have been issues with the abilities and reliability of this technology. Issues that are being resolved and improved upon every year. To make the linear logic argument that we could remotely pilot aircraft 50 years ago and it didn't happen then so it can't be done now is akin to saying that computers were invented in the 40's and haven't improved since or; the safety of automobiles is still the same as it was in it's infancy. The march of improvement has already eliminated jobs in Aviation (see above) and all other sectors of the economy.

However, as one job disappears, usually new jobs appear. Like robot repairman.

That doesn't mean, of course, there will be no pilot jobs. I suspect that 30 years from now the 703 outfits will still be operating Navajos and who knows what Buffalo Airways will be flogging.

Absolutely. There will still be pilot jobs. I'm really only talking about airline jobs at the moment... just to clarify.

The only reason we don't already have pilotless planes hauling people around isn't logistics, acceptance, technology, safety, or economics. It's regulatory..... that's it!

The first remote controlled pilotless aircraft was flown in 1918..... Nearly 100 years ago... by the Sperry Company (the autopilot manufacturer, surprise surprise).

Other than preserving your jobs, most of the arguments against automation don't hold much water.

First, the planes are highly automated anyways. We've got autopilot, auto throttles, auto brakes, auto spoilers, auto land. With digital airliners, it is a bunch of computers that make the final decision of what the plane does, not the pilot.

Second, most of the 'manual' controls pilots do are just in response to what other humans are telling them. 'Turn right to 130, descend and maintain 5000', reduce speed to 180'. How hard would it be to have ATC simply turn the knobs themselves on a remote autopilot panel? Less garbled communications, no necessity to read back. Just like the USS Enterprise going into Space Dock.

Speaking of space, we already have 17,500 mph spacecraft that are fully automated from launch to landings, never mind one dimensional trains. The Soviet Shuttle Buran never flew with a crew on board, and proved to those Edwards cowboys that you don't need a hot shot pilot to land a space plane.

Third, pilotless can be redundant. Multiple data links, on board safe mode to get the plane on the ground if a link should fail, more remote centers with more crew than could ever fit in one plane.

For emergencies, again most are SOPs which have only gone south when crew didn't perform them properly. We've already got autofeather, Alpha Protect, Alpha Floor, stick pushers, automatic fire extinguishers, why not automatic everything else?

Finally, as planes become more and more reliable, it is the human element that repeatedly comes up as a cause for incidents and accidents.

Another argument for getting this all in place even keeping the pilots is for safety and redundancy. Think how 9/11 would have turned out if they could have used the Prefix Code like Captain Kirk did to Khan..... four nice smooth touchdowns at Andrews followed by a bunch of head shots with M40s.

Will we see pilotless airliners in our lifetime? Who knows? But you can be sure that as soon as regulatory hurdles are overcome people will try.

Some very good points about the automation levels of current airliners, of space flight and even robots wandering the sands of Mars.

[Rockie]

First, the planes are highly automated anyways. We've got autopilot, auto throttles, auto brakes, auto spoilers, auto land.

All of which require a pilot to use at the appropriate time because they are simply tools that follow a magenta line. Anybody who flies an airplane equipped with this stuff knows how limited it really is.

How hard would it be to have ATC simply turn the knobs themselves on a remote autopilot panel?

In the first place ATC controllers are busy enough. Secondly they are not in the airplane and can't see if it's safe to turn and descend or not. Thirdly, they're human. I thought the idea was to automate everything to remove human error? There are countless other reasons why this idea is dead on arrival.

Third, pilotless can be redundant. Multiple data links, on board safe mode to get the plane on the ground if a link should fail,

Everything fails, and do you really want a computer deciding where and when to land when it does?

Speaking of space, we already have 17,500 mph spacecraft that are fully automated from launch to landings, never mind one dimensional trains. The Soviet Shuttle Buran never flew with a crew on board, and proved to those Edwards cowboys that you don't need a hot shot pilot to land a space plane.

You do however need hundreds of engineers and astronauts monitoring and directing every single aspect of the flight in real time standing ready to make changes at a moment's notice, and a direct path to where they're going swept clear of all other traffic by the military and ATC systems. How successful do you think NASA would be landing the Space Shuttle at LaGuardia at 5 PM on a Friday afternoon?

You guys are fixated on today's autoflight systems as a sure sign of pilotless airliners when you have no real understanding of the limitations of that automation. You are also completely ignoring the necessity to separate those airplanes in an already maxed out ATC system, and seem to have totally forgotten any of the other risks associated with flying that a pilot deals with every single day they go to work. You should actually think about what you do in an airplane sometime, you might be surprised.

[shimmydampner]

I understand concept just fine, thank you.........In fact, the autopilot has eliminated the First Officer position on many aircraft already... it's called single pilot IFR and is very common.

Just how common is it on the 705 types in question?

[frozen solid]

We should quickly program some computers to have this debate for us. Then we could examine this issue sans the emotion that is causing almost all of us to resort to rhetoric and wishful thinking.

I rather like the linear approach to forecasting how many crewmembers will be present in the cockpits of the future. If it's gone from five to four to three to one, and if it's logical that the next step will be for there to be NO pilots, then I submit that the next logical step is for there to be a negative number of pilots, starting with minus one and going from there. What does this mean? Well, I imagine it will happen when we invent time travel, and we become able to remove pilots from the cockpits of the past!!!

This could be one of the most important safety innovations of all if done selectively and wisely. If we could then force these temporally displaced former pilots to give back their paycheques, executives could take credit for even more profit! Think about it.

[dukepoint]

Businesses are usually risk averse. The concept of spending shareholder dollars on developing an airliner that could possibly be shunned by the traveling public would be a hard sell. Hard sells don't work in the business world. Airbus and Boeing are having no issue selling currently available "two-crew" airliners. There are literally thousands of two-crew airliners on backorder with delivery dates as late as 2022 or later. There is no single pilot airliner on the drawing board as far as I've heard....correct me if I'm wrong.

There are far, far more effective ways available to reduce operating costs other than eliminating the "paltry" wage of a co-pilot. Carbon fiber, advances in aerodynamics, engine technology....ect, would effect efficiency to a far greater extent. A development as simple as winglets brings far more gain, at a massively lower development cost than the elimination of a single pilot.

If the topic was agressively persued starting right now, the public may be "sold" on the idea within ten years, add another 7 years for product development, and another five for the product to actually appear in the marketplace "en mass".....your looking at 2035 already. Given the life span of a modern airliner at around 30 years+-, the bulk of the airliners in use for the next 50 years will need two pilots. For this to occur at all, an agressive campaign for the elimination of pilots would need to start right now.....don't hold your breath.

The bottom line is pilots are cheep, and getting cheeper. Spending money on developing a single pilot airliner, in a business sense alone, is very risky and costly. Shareholder dollars are far better spent improving efficiency, and they know it.

This topic is 25 years too early.....and if you ask me its 50 years too early.

DP.

[Mostly Harmless]

Rockie, I did not write one single word you quoted me as saying.

Please re-read who said what, and thank you.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

For normal aircraft to operate without pilots they would have to be completely free of the requirement for human judgement and decision making. Let's see a small sample of what that might entail:

I believe what they're talking about is putting the human in an office instead of the airplane, not removing him completely. This way he can "fly" mulitple airplanes at once.

They would need to fly indefinitely without running out of fuel.

Huh? there'll still be a human driving the fuel truck. At least until they automate those too. But either way fuel is still available.

They would have to be immune from any weather effects or risk.

No, weather avoidance can be done by the pilot in the office

They would have to takeoff and land vertically without the need to consider takeoff or landing performance.

The takeoff and landing performance we currently get by punching numbers into a computer and waiting for the output? Pretty sure that can be done either automatically or by the pilot in the office. The technology already exists for the aircraft to weigh itself and calculate it's own CofG.

They must be completely immune from mechanical or electronic failures. They must be fire proof. If they are carrying passengers, the passengers must never suffer health issues or misbehave in any way.

The only malfunction they need to be immune from is losing communications with the pilot on the ground. As for the passengers, nobody is suggesting removing the cabin crew, just the pilots.

They must never come into conflict with other aircraft at any time, ergo:

The ATC system would need to be completely automated, and would have to provide real time, full time flight path control to every aircraft in the airspace. And this impressive ATC system would also have to be immune to any kind of failure.

No need for ATC to be fully automated, just coordinated. There's absolutely no reason that with today's technology aircraft can't be given clearances, speeds and times throughout the whole flight in order to reach destination at a slot time and avoid enroute conflicts. The main barrier to this right now is politics, not technology.

I have absolutely no doubt that pilotless airliners will come eventually, the question is just when. With 20 odd years left in my career I think I'm pretty safe. I think single pilot aircraft will come first. Perhaps in 20 years. Considering it would probably take 10 years from initial concept of a new aircraft to it's entry into service I'm pretty confident we won't be seeing any single pilot airliners this decade and probably not the next. Undoubtedly these single pilot aircraft will have to be backed up by ground support. It will take another decade or 2 of safe and reliable operations before the pilot is completely removed. I would guess a bare minimum of 30 years before passengers are being flown on large commercial airlines, but probably more. Maybe 2050? And even then it will just be on domestic routes as the politics of international coordination will take much longer to sort out.

So if it's 2050 before shorthaul domestic routes are pilotless, the question then becomes: Will airplanes in general be redundant on shorthaul routes by then? With 500km/h+ maglev trains already in existence I can't imagine too many people will be flying on any route that's less than 1500km if there are other high speed options.

Look at Japan. There are 30-40 wide body flights a day between Tokyo and Osaka. That may seem like a lot but it's nothing when you consider that there is a bullet train every 10 minutes between to 2 cities with the seating capacity of two 747s. Those trains only go ~300 kph. It's a 2.5-3 hour train ride vs. a 1 hour flight but still the vast majority of people take the train. The total travel time is comparable when you include trips to and from the airport, checking in and security.

China is building a massive high speed rail network. Clearly their goal is to put people in trains, not on planes. Granted their rail industry is rife with corruption and incompetence at the moment, but when it gets sorted out the trains will take away more pilot jobs than single or no pilot aircraft will in the next 30 years.

[Panama Jack]

I recently travelled on the Chinese bullet train that does the Shanghai-Beijing corridor.

Pretty awesome and very convenient. My 1st class seat was about the same price as an economy class ticket on the airline.

Why go by rail?

1) Departures and arrivals extremely punctual (to the minute).
2) Airline flights are frequently delayed to to wx or military operations.
3) Very frequent service vs. 1 or 2 inconveniently timed daily flights.

There is corruption throughout China. Not so sure about incompetence though in the Railway. Even decades ago when most things could not be taken for granted, China's railway and postal system were both reliable and worked well.

Sorry for the thread drift.

[Rockie]

Rockie, I did not write one single word you quoted me as saying.

You're right. I was addressing the comments and lifted them from your post instead of the original poster's. They aren't yours.


Joe Blow Schmo

You seem to think everything we do in an airplane can be done remotely by someone sitting in an office. Try it sometime. Next time you have a decision to make explain the situation to someone over the phone or radio and have them tell you what to do. But make sure the information you give them is sterile and free of any interpretation from you because computers do not interpret. Do not use your brain in any way and even then you'll be better off than at the hands of a computer.

Do you fly an automated airplane and have had to intervene because it wasn't doing what you wanted it to do? Have you ever had a fault that required you to think or do you just do what the QRH said and nothing more? How about if something happens that isn't included in the EICAS or ECAM database of known faults, do you just leave it alone because if the computer hasn't recognized it it must not have happened? Have you ever seen an autoland in marginal conditions, and are you even aware there are limitations? Have you ever avoided weather because of what you've seen out the window when nothing was showing on the radar? Have you ever taken takeoff data from a computer without putting in your observed conditions first, and then modified it just to be safe based on other people's observations? Have you ever been concerned about your fuel state when traffic has backed up due to weather?

Basically, have you ever made a decision in an airplane?

If you can say no to any of that you're either not a pilot, or I don't ever want to get on your airplane. Because it means you don't think.

Give this a thought as well...if humans make mistakes when they're actually in the airplane what makes you think they'll make fewer when they're not?

I recently travelled on the Chinese bullet train that does the Shanghai-Beijing corridor.

I've been on that train too. It is awesome and completely automated despite the operator sitting in the front who's only function seems to be hitting the big red stop button if necessary. But then again the train is on a fixed track between two, and only two points, and it's the only train on the track.

[Joe Blow Schmo]

Rockie,

The point is that the operator on the ground would have/would need to have exactly the same information that the pilot on board has. Including the ability to manually fly the aircraft remotely. There's no need to explain anything to a third party.

I'm not saying I like the idea of no pilots in the cockpit, I just think it's inevitable eventually. If air travel survives as a primary mode of transportation, it will eventually be automated.

Pretty smart move by the airlines. Save money by putting a bunch of inexperienced pilots in the cockpit, then when they screw up say "look, our pilots can't even fly anymore, might as well get rid of them altogether".