F-16 Flies with no Pilot

[ahramin]

Research into SPO for Part 121 commercial operations at NASA Ames and Langley is focused on retaining the pilot in command as the final authority, supported by human-centered automation. The SPO concept combines onboard automation with off-board collaboration: a single pilot flying the aircraft with the help of automation while having access to a ground pilot in emergencies.

Been saying it for years. Single pilot airliners are coming, and this is going to be the model.

[timel]

Research into SPO for Part 121 commercial operations at NASA Ames and Langley is focused on retaining the pilot in command as the final authority, supported by human-centered automation. The SPO concept combines onboard automation with off-board collaboration: a single pilot flying the aircraft with the help of automation while having access to a ground pilot in emergencies.

Been saying it for years. Single pilot airliners are coming, and this is going to be the model.

So you are paying a pilot on the ground and one in the aircraft. What's the point, save an extra hotel room by replacing the right seat with more expensive electronics?

[schnitzel2k3]

No paying passengers will climb aboard a pilot-less airliner. There is something satisfying about knowing someone, who's life is also on the line, sits right at the front of the 'missile' and manages the systems. Granted some people shouldn't be sitting up front...

Aside from that, airliners may become so automated that the pilots are a redundant feature, but they will remain a feature none-the-less.

Think about the Shuttles going into space. 99% automated (ok bullshit statistic but...), but the systems are heavily automated from the ground, yet there are two highly trained pilots in the seats for when the engineers make a microscopic calculation error.

Stop stressing.

Hey look on the bright side - if I'm wrong - you people can stop bitching about 'Pay for PPC operators', 'ramp conditions', and 'crappy industry race to the bottom pay scales'.

[Meatservo]

The article quoted actually makes much of the difficulties in implementing automation. I found it extremely interesting that the current thought is that a one-person airliner might actually have to be slightly LESS automated than current cockpits, in order to keep the lonely pilot engaged through the simple act of having to manually "aim" the aircraft during course changes.

One thing that annoyed me a little was the admission that the main driver for this technology is reducing cost: that labour constitutes 25% of the cost and they "have to address that". I wondered if that cost of labour included any redundant management or executive-level employees, particularly the ones whose bonuses are more than a simple captain will make in his whole life. There's a valid theory out there that companies are destroying their consumer base because less and less skilled people have decent-paying jobs, mostly due to companies trying to reduce labour costs! Someday the executive class will have to do their own driving and cooking. I say let's automate THEM!

Anyway, I am not worried. There are plenty of specialty jobs out there that will always need a crew on board to accomplish. Maybe being a long-haul passenger transport pilot will eventually not be considered the primary goal of professional pilots, but something else will. There will always be pilots.

[ahramin]

Research into SPO for Part 121 commercial operations at NASA Ames and Langley is focused on retaining the pilot in command as the final authority, supported by human-centered automation. The SPO concept combines onboard automation with off-board collaboration: a single pilot flying the aircraft with the help of automation while having access to a ground pilot in emergencies.

Been saying it for years. Single pilot airliners are coming, and this is going to be the model.

So you are paying a pilot on the ground and one in the aircraft. What's the point, save an extra hotel room by replacing the right seat with more expensive electronics?

The point is the pilot on the ground is not needed for the entire flight. Early on I would think the ground pilot would be PM during departure and arrival, confirm reroutes, help with weather decisions. As the pilots in the aircraft get used to working alone and the cockpits get better (automation, information), I envisage the ground pilot simply in a dispatcher role monitoring a dozen aircraft at a time and available to assist in emergencies.

in order to keep the lonely pilot engaged through the simple act of having to manually "aim" the aircraft during course changes.

That's just silly intellectual babble from someone who has never flown an airplane. Simply never going to happen.

[timel]

The point is the pilot on the ground is not needed for the entire flight. Early on I would think the ground pilot would be PM during departure and arrival, confirm reroutes, help with weather decisions. As the pilots in the aircraft get used to working alone and the cockpits get better (automation, information), I envisage the ground pilot simply in a dispatcher role monitoring a dozen aircraft at a time and available to assist in emergencies.

Let's say there is an engine failure right after V2, the PM will retract the gear, do the drills from his "virtual cockpit on planet earth", respond to PF commands or whatever SOP states in an effective and a safe way while communicating with ATC? Or the guy seating in the aircraft will be the PM?

It sounds pretty complicate logistic to me, a lot of trouble and money to save a copilot salary and a hotel room.

[Meatservo]

in order to keep the lonely pilot engaged through the simple act of having to manually "aim" the aircraft during course changes.

That's just silly intellectual babble from someone who has never flown an airplane. Simply never going to happen.

I have flown an aeroplane before!! I was just quoting from the article, and said I found it interesting that this was the current thought! Personally though, I WOULD like something to keep me busy if had one of these horrible jobs! "Aiming" the plane would make me feel special!

[ahramin]

Meatservo I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting the article you quoted. It isn't current thought, it's just some daydreaming someone came up with in order to fill space. Never going to be taken seriously.

Timel as for the engine failure after V2 (I'm supposing you mean V1), I would imagine the initial part would be dealt with the same way any single pilot aircraft deals with it: The pilot flies the plane, including the gear handle. Autopilot goes on, checklists are perfomed, and the aircraft returns. How much and what help you would get from the ground pilot is all details that would have to be worked out, same way they currently work out the PF/PM details. Maybe the gear would be automatic from the aircraft. I don't think they're going to say "Wait wait, stop production! We can't have a single pilot airliner because then there wouldn't be anyone to raise the gear handle."

Perhaps single pilot airliners will have autopilots capable of taking off as well as landing and the driving will be fully automated from pushback to shutdown.

A note on PF/PM CRM details, it's not like they are ideal at present. The whole way manual flying with flight directors is managed is completely ludicrous, and many of the decisions are arbitrary. At my company when it comes to who moves the thrust levers in abnormals the FCTM says PF, the Emergency Procedures Manual says PM, and the FCOM and QRH have had any reference to it removed. Somehow the crews muddle their way through it anyway. When it comes to single pilot airliners, I think we're going to have to sharpen our pencils a bit and do a better job with our procedures rather than just "Smeg it, close enough, just hit print and they'll sort it out on the line."

[PositiveRate27]

Another thing to consider is that by removing both pilots from the airplane, the liability for most, if not every accident, will shift from the airline to the manufacturer. The cost of the airplanes they develop would skyrocket to offset this, making the whole endeavor redundant. (If they want that liability at all)

[timel]

Another thing to consider is that by removing both pilots from the airplane, the liability for most, if not every accident, will shift from the airline to the manufacturer. The cost of the airplanes they develop would skyrocket to offset this, making the whole endeavor redundant. (If they want that liability at all)

Good point.

If you cut the copilots, does it mean the captains make more money?

All the extra avionics that will be necessary. Communications, infrastructures with your "drone pilot", you fly in Paris, he is in Montreal? Internet? Satellite transmissions and controls... And all the formation,maintenance, troubleshooting, backup systems that comes with it...

All of that because you want to save 60k on your copilots salaries. A copilot seat is also a way to train a future captains. Want to remove one, remove both, or put a guy that seats in front and let the thing go on it's own like in a train, so pax feel they are safe.

[timel]

I've heard rumor that some operators would rather pay to have a second pilot than an certified autopilot because a right seater is cheaper than the maintence and certification. (no idea if this is true).

But think of the cost, redundancies etc needed to be in place. In this case they had 2 aircraft escorting the drone and I'm sure the escorts were not carrying flares and rainbow generators incase the self-destruct didn't work.

True some 703 - even 704 operate without auto pilot.