Here is the Start of the automated cockpit!

[Prodriver]

This looks like the start of the push for remote copilots or other automation. More surveillance is on the way.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/ ... 1451839626

[timel]

What a load of crap.

There are two accidents for every million departures and they want to change it all haha, most accidents are caused because pilots aren't following existing procedures that do actually work, it is not perfect but a lot of good work has been achieved until now.

There are external factors you can't all define, control and human factors. Mechanics are human, programmers are human, engineers are human and the last line of defense is the pilots, last time I checked two human brains is better than one.

The key is more pilot training and valuable hours of experience in smaller aircrafts, so when the TCAS gets your attention in the cockpit, it isn't a sandbag freezing over the controls with 300 pax in the back.

We are pushing ourself to become a brainless world where people are software assisted. Technology is suppose to help us, not make us become stupid and weak.

[Prodriver]

I get it, but they are flying drones off of Carriers and bombing targets all from a control room in KS were the guy goes home at 5:00. With all that tech and the ability to move one flight crew member to a remote location on the ground I can see this playing out. Saves a lot of money on hotels I guess.

[timel]

Drone over conflict zones, worst case scenario, you lost datalink, the drone crashed and burned in the middle of a city, but it's ok they were 'terrorists'...

Datalink error over Paris, an other story. Hackers only hack pentagon and cia, not airplanes.

The fact they want to turn airline ops into single pilot is already stupid, but create a wireless remote access to a cockpit is completely insane.This whole thing is a joke.

[xsbank]

You need to open your minds! It will happen, you just have to be prepared for when it does. If it makes economic sense, it will happen. You need a strategy and you need to be salting away for your retirement and you need to be able to do something besides fly, just in case. Work into management, get a trade, get a good degree. Be prepared!

From 5 in a cockpit and 4 engines to 2 and 2 engines...notice the pattern here? What makes you think it will stop here?
Cell phones
Drones
FMS
GPS
Cable television
Internet

[xsbank]

Another thing that surprised me, I had to buy another laptop because my old one is toast. The size is entirely due to the screen and the keyboard, the computer itself is the same size as a cell phone and its surrounded by batteries to fill the case. The hard drive is solid state and doesn't need a cooling fan. Technology is almost unbelievable. How about that guy that invented a lens to replace the one in our eyes that will make all our vision perfect, no more glasses, at all ages? It is in human medical trials now and was invented in Vancouver.

We are very close to having one pilot or pilotless airliners. The only "real" pilot jobs will be bush. Take a look around you!

[Rookie50]

You need to open your minds! It will happen, you just have to be prepared for when it does. If it makes economic sense, it will happen. You need a strategy and you need to be salting away for your retirement and you need to be able to do something besides fly, just in case. Work into management, get a trade, get a good degree. Be prepared!

From 5 in a cockpit and 4 engines to 2 and 2 engines...notice the pattern here? What makes you think it will stop here?
Cell phones
Drones
FMS
GPS
Cable television
Internet

I started trading, on a futures floor, in 1998, about 30 other guys there. Floor closed in 2000, went electronic. My broker at the time, said to all of us, in essence "boys life as you know it has ended". Rather direct. We laughed.

He was right.

I saw the writing on the wall and went to school on really learning the business, and am still in business today.

Along with 2 or three others, out of that group of 30.

Adapt or die.

[timel]

I have no problem with new technics and technology. It still seems very extreme and a lot troubles to save few bucks over salaries.


Will robots take your jobs? check it out.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34066941

[Prodriver]

Here is the system that will run the data to the AC. Spearheaded by an Airline owner Sir Richard Branson and an air framer, Airbus Group.


http://oneweb.world/

This game is going to change fast I bet. Really if you think about it what is the difference if your co-pilot is talking to you on your headset looking up data, etc., he is just not there. If something goes sideways with the plane or lone pilot, the ground co-pilot could take over and shoot an RNAV and land. In the event of a data lose the AC could be programmed to go shoot an RNAV somewhere. You will still have 9-12 Crew in the back to hang out with and one of them could be cross trained to assist with landings or Taxi supervision w/ remote center co-pilot. I think it is going to be a crazy amount of change coming to this industry.

[trey kule]

I think many of us old farts have been around long enough to see the changes and get beyond our belief that we are the greatest thing in the cockpit. For the younger generation they just dont want to believe and they have always had GPS, cell phones, and automation.

I wrote on these reads a few years ago that it was inevitable and the reaction was rather forceful.

Yep. The day of the automated airliner is coming. Probably on freight first.
And yes there will be accidents. When the 747 came out the doomsayers talked about what would happen if two should collide? Well it did happen. And the 747 is still with us.

The cries of what happens if the computers fail are loud. But when we look at accidents, the vast majority are from pliots failing to do their job properly.....computers know what to do if a plane stalls, and they dont get scared.

Multi crew licenses are the way of the future. Top pay at 90k in todays dollars to feed the dog .
Its coming kids despite what the colleges will have you believe

[Meatservo]

The cries of what happens if the computers fail are loud. But when we look at accidents, the vast majority are from pliots failing to do their job properly.....computers know what to do if a plane stalls, and they dont get scared.

Multi crew licenses are the way of the future. Top pay at 90k in todays dollars to feed the dog .
Its coming kids despite what the colleges will have you believe

I sort of agree with you, but it's kind of a convoluted argument. The case I think you're referring to is one where the data being presented to both the pilots and the computer was corrupted in some way, the computer was programmed in that case to beep three times and pass control to the pilots, who were then unable to get their asses in gear to figure out what was happening. You might well argue that a much less automated plane would have required pilots who were more experienced and better-trained in the first place, with more experience at handling an aeroplane manually, would have had a completely different control architecture as a result (that wouldn't have summed or cancelled out disparate control inputs from two electric control-stations).

We know the real motivator here is money. In a way, the automated airliner is a foregone conclusion simply because the airlines save money on training, producing less capable pilots, which increases reliance on automation, which normalizes the degree of automation, which produces pilots who can justify to themselves being even less capable, (the "multi-crew pilot's license" might as well just say "less capable pilot"- it would save money on ink) which makes everyone more likely to accept an even higher degree of automation, which justifies EVEN LESS training, at least in the core competencies of "being a pilot", which then produces more accidents, which then induces more research into automation, which produces some other magical gizmo, which pilots come to rely on, which fails at some point, which causes another accident as the hapless fools in the cockpit fail to deal with it, which inspires someone to invent some box designed to keep THAT from happening again, which pilots come to rely on, which fails, and so on.

What I think I have witnessed is this: as dumb as some pilots are, flying used to take a certain amount of wits, cunning, and resourcefulness. Increases in technology (GPS for example) inevitably produce an increase in safety. With the pilots you currently have, this cannot fail to increase safety, but the gadget also makes flying easier, which opens the doors to people who might previously have been too dumb or too immature or too uncoordinated or too scared to learn how to fly. As these people enter the workforce, the "increase in safety" curve on our graph starts to plateau again, until it becomes obvious that it will not cross our "safety" threshold, which prompts another technological tweak, which again improves safety, which again allows LESS capable people to get a job flying, which AGAIN causes the safety improvement to fall short of the mark.

All that needs to happen is for pilots to become stupider, and computers to become smarter, until at last we are willing to throw our lot in with the computer. Increasing technology will not, then, produce stupider autopilots. Instead, technological sophistication and safety will be mathematically related in some (probably still asymptotic) relationship that will have fewer variables than the current one. And another group of semi-professional middle-class workers will subdivide into those who can adapt*, and those who will join the ranks of the working poor**. Yippee.

We have ourselves to blame?




*bush pilots

**also bush pilots

[trey kule]

The issue of using an example, I suppose, is that it becomes the focus of the argument. The example I chose was intended to be nothing more than one example of a problem rather than a situation to be analyzed.

I agree mith you meatrick. But until the industry, and TC recognizes that you cant replace experience with training, the airlines will be hiring what they can get as cheaply as they can get.
Computers dont get frightened, tired, sick, or need pensions.
Airplanes are becoming increasingly complex and the complexity is being reduced by automation.

I predict the accident/ incident rate will increase in general in the next few years, and specifically as a result of real pilot error. And the solution will be more and more automation. The feed the dog story originated in the DC 9 era...it takes time but it is inevitable.

[DanWEC]

A lot of things that are directly related to technology end up being cyclical. Just because it's new and different doesn't mean it ends up being better in the end.
There is a human element that has to persist in our own damn life. Look at ebooks, downloading singles in music, tv dinners, literally hundreds of things that were heralded as the future in a soundbite. Now, all the "old" technology like actual books and full length vinyl are make a massive, significant comeback. The novelty of new tech wears off.

This is a very simplistic comparison, and the previous posts about the training regime are very true. but I'll bet that 30 years from now computers might be flying planes, but in 60 years it'll be people again, as new risks evolve that necessitate it.

[YBW-Kid]

One only has to look at the now defunct 36 year old Space Shuttle program. How much stick time did the Shuttle Pilot actually get on a mission? Not much. Gear down -flare- touchdown- pull the parachute handle- keep it on the centre line and brakes. All the rest was done by Houston.

[plhought]

...and the Shuttle was perfectly capable of performing all of the above without the crew!

At least the planes won't fix themselves in the future

[timel]

Who is going to be liable for accidents in pilotless aircrafts?

[Meatservo]

Depends what you mean by "crew". Every single degree of control deflection, and every second of thrust from any of the manoeuvring jets, was programmed and loaded ahead of time by human beings, and the ship followed the script just like one of those little plastic cars from the '70s, that you loaded with a specially-shaped cam that steered it along a predetermined route. Interestingly the one thing that couldn't be preprogrammed was dropping the gear. Later in the program a cord was developed that would allow the crew to bypass the gear handle and allow the gear to be dropped remotely, in case the heat shield was damaged and it was decided to leave the crew on the space station and try to fly the plane home empty. The Space Shuttle isn't a good example. It did everything according to a script. Which is what automated planes will do. Which will work out most of the time.

I am pretty sure that with a few of those little "Arduino" micro-controllers, some industrial servos and a large battery, a video camera, a satellite transceiver and a six-channel radio control transmitter I would be able to fully automate just about any aeroplane, or at least "automate" it well enough to fire it off to somewhere and have it land under the control of some guy with another transmitter at the destination. And that's without significantly modifying the plane. Or using any "technology" other than the arduinos. Find a way for me to remotely interface with the FMS from my iPad and I can make it do anything. I'd only need my R/C gear, the servos and the micro controllers to taxi and take off, set the pressurization "down" and turn "off" the landing lights at the end of the flight. Oh and press the button that makes the "bing bong" sound now and then during the flight, whatever that is for.

Heck, it's not even new. The U.S. Navy automated an obsolete reciprocating-steam-powered destroyer in the 1920s. It had a crew aboard to shovel coal and oil the valve gear. No-one was on the bridge. The guns could be fired remotely and the ship could be steered from the director tower of another ship. I can't figure out why the concept was abandoned after the successful trials.

I don't think this is the point. The point here is that people with more powerful positions than us are trying to find a way to do us out of our sick days, our pensions, our health plans, our vacations, etc- so that the "executive" class can enjoy more lavish versions of the same. All technical jobs are at risk. I just wonder who they think is going to buy their plane tickets, or other products, after they have eliminated all the jobs. I suppose a lot of educated people with technical jobs could find another way to make a living, hey they could even sell their souls and BECOME "executives", but the world population is getting bigger and these jobs aren't getting more plentiful!

Anyone who thinks this is about anything other than the consolidation of wealth into the upper class needs to consider how easy it would be to "automate" any executive job, and ponder to himself why this hasn't happened yet. Well it's simply because they are the only people who have the power to prevent this happening to themselves. We are not so lucky. We could get serious and stop having accidents, and the credit would go to how "easy" and "safe" flying is, and serve as proof that it ought to be automated. We could try to draw attention to how challenging it is, and how difficult our jobs are, and this would serve as proof that it ought to be automated. EVERYTHING serves as proof that it ought to be automated, because it's CHEAPER. Ultimately that's all anyone gives a shit about. Think about how easy it would be to automate a boat, or a train. The reason this is getting so much press in aviation isn't because of safety, it's because of how much people cost, and how to get rid of them. Boats and trains go largely under the radar.

Good read: "How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrrell Huff. You can't even win this fight with good evidence that pilots are necessary. They'll be able to turn it around on you, and they have a better advertising budget than you do.

[pianokeys]

I've worked at a power plant, and now an oil refinery in the control room. We have a PILE of automation that works pretty good for steady state operations. But when something goes wrong? The logic can often make things worse. Almost always when there is a blip, we intervene manually.

Cars, boats, and trains (think of how easy it would be to fully automate a big train, theyre on tracks...) are not fully autonomous yet. Oil refineries, power plants, breweries, heating plants, and nuclear plants are not fully automated yet. So what makes people think that fully automated or pilotless airplanes are weeks away? I dont think we will see a pilotless, fully automated commercial airliner in our lifetime. Maybe a prototype, but not the full thing. (We went from old, analogue control set up to fully digital at the power plant, and no one lost their job)

If anything, we will see single pilot airliners with the possibility of a second ground based crew member for assistance during times of high work load, and more reliance on automation.

[fleet16b]

And then there is the whole flight time controversy
I'm not trying to light any fires but how does an Airline pilot justify logging hrs for an entire flight while they hardly actually touch the controls ?
How can that be called flying if all one is doing is baby sitting the aircraft ?
I am sure there is more to it than that but how much time is actually spent flying the aircraft on say an 8hr flight ?

[dazednconfused]

Not sure if this has already been posted on avcanada, so I apologize if it is old news.

http://www.boeing.com/defense/unmanned- ... bird-h-6u/

[rigpiggy]

Everything works, until it doesn't. We are the final redundant link in the chain. Ask the Pax of 1549 what they thought about having a well trained person up front. Now ask the pax from AF 447!

[Rockie]

When computers can think, predict the future, exercise judgement, act on hunches, interact with humans on an equal emotional level, say "no" when they're programmed to say "yes" (and know why they're saying "no"), know when what they do can kill them and fear it, plus a thousand other things humans can do that they can't, then they might be suitable to fly airplanes with people in it all by themselves. Until then...nah.

As for single pilot transport category aircraft, who trains the new guys?

[Meatservo]

And then there is the whole flight time controversy
I'm not trying to light any fires but how does an Airline pilot justify logging hrs for an entire flight while they hardly actually touch the controls ?
How can that be called flying if all one is doing is baby sitting the aircraft ?
I am sure there is more to it than that but how much time is actually spent flying the aircraft on say an 8hr flight ?

Come on, man. How do you "justify" logging the time you spend buzzing to and from a destination in a straight line? Steering a plane in level flight is the easiest thing in the world. Have you ever had, or been, a co-pilot? How would you "justify" logging air time if your co-pilot was flying? Is being able to stay awake for hours at a time whilst staring at the flight instruments and making little corrections supposed to be challenging enough to "justify" being in your logbook? I would submit that no, it isn't, at least using your criteria for "justification".

If you're being diligent and taking your job seriously, there's still plenty to do. At least, there's still 99% of the things to do that there would be if you were steering manually for hours at a time, which, having done plenty of that in my time, I would say barely qualifies as "doing something" anyway.

I know you say you didn't mean to light any fires, but don't worry, airline pilots are "doing stuff". Your attitude is dismissive and not terribly productive- unless you're looking forward to buying the first ticket on a new pilotless airliner.

[Rockie]

I'm not trying to light any fires but how does an Airline pilot justify logging hrs for an entire flight while they hardly actually touch the controls ?

I stopped logging my time years ago because at this stage who cares? It's just a number, and for me I have no idea what that number is. More than a thousand and less than a million... Success is measured by arriving safely at the gate, which the airplane all by itself has very little to do with.

How can that be called flying if all one is doing is baby sitting the aircraft ?

Aircraft are never "babysat", and if any pilot thinks that's what they're doing they don't have a clue and don't belong there.

[Prodriver]

Everything works, until it doesn't. We are the final redundant link in the chain. Ask the Pax of 1549 what they thought about having a well trained person up front. Now ask the pax from AF 447!

That is the point, in a case like that the clear minded ground co-pilot will take over and fly the AC overriding the pilot. The key to this system working is the data transfer on the new world wide coverage provided by One World that was post at the start of the tread. It is being developed by Airbus and an airline owner. Since Airbus's equipment was involved in these accidents I would bet that is why they are working on this world wide data grid which is mostlikly step one of the plan.