Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article >

Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article

Old 02-17-2011, 06:35 AM
  #91  
Gets Weekends Off
 
nwaf16dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
Default

Originally Posted by Gearjerk View Post
Why assume the crew of the aircraft has to be 60+ years of age? Why not allow the "older, more experienced" crewmembers to have an "after retirement" job from the airline and occupy the seats of the Ground Control Stations (GCS)?

Again, I'm not saying it'll happen anytime soon, but if it were ever to near fielding wouldn't regulations for age/crew position be similar to the new laws being put in place for not having two 60+ guys flying in the cockpit now?

V/R,

GJ
OK, I guess I meant age 59.5 instead of 60. Doesn't significantly change my point.

Bottom line... is it possible? Sure. Happen in the next 30 years? Extremely unlikely. I just don't see the economic imperative to make the investment. Heck, we can't even get NextGen properly funded.
nwaf16dude is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 07:09 AM
  #92  
veut gagner à la loterie
Thread Starter
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

I think really the technology is there today to go down to 2 pilots for international ops. It might cost a lot in satcom but if you can have an open mike with dispatch and gang you could probably pull it off just fine. It'll be far more feasible when ATC is datalinking you stuff rather than using VHF radio. Which either way, that will make talking to french female controllers a lot easier when you can understand them.

As to if a pilot dies enroute, probably not much different than the case out of IAH where a CAL Captain died and the FO landed the plane.

Plane Diverted To Valley After Pilot Has Heart Attack
KGBT4 (CBS affiliate for the Texas Rio Grande Valley) ^ | Jan 20, 2007 11:16 PM | Staff

Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 12:06:16 AM by Paleo Conservative

Steve Sweeney, his wife and a group of friends left Philadelphia early Saturday morning.

They flew to Houston and then boarded their connecting flight en route to Puerto Vallarta.

But while in the air, heading into Mexico, Sweeney said the passengers were issued an alert.

"The co-pilot came over on the loud speaker saying if there was a doctor on board and after about 10-15 minutes they asked if there was a pilot on board," Sweeney said. - Personally, I'd never ask that, just land the plane, chances are you'll be doing more explaining then you need to when Private Pilot Joe comes up. Maybe ask if there is a Continental pilot on board and maybe another Part 121 pilot on board will get a clue and ask if he can help? -

Immediately, he knew something was wrong.

"It was scary, my wife got nervous, she was thinking that my daughters wedding is in June and she was like, we're not gonna make it, we're not gonna make the wedding," he recalled.

Dave Davenport from South Carolina added: "It was the first time something like this has ever happened on a flight with (me and my wife)"

Action 4 News contacted Continential Airlines' headquarters.

In a verbal statement they told us a pilot of Flight 1838, "experienced a serious medical problem which required the aircraft to land immediately."

The airplane was diverted to the McAllen-Miller International Airport.

An ambulance arrived and transported the pilot to the McAllen Medical Center but according to Continental officials, the captain died.

The airline assures a Continental co-pilot landed the plane around 1:30 p.m.

But Sweeney has another story.

"They asked for a pilot out of the passengers and one guy who flies small planes went out and helped them," he remembered.

In the end, the plane landed safely and all 210 passengers waited approximately four hours for another crew to arrive and finally fly them to Puerto Vallarta.

The wait, however, wasn't so bad according to some passengers. Continental fed them pizza and soft drinks while they waited.

Davenport says the crew did a great job keeping everyone calm.

"They kept their cool, they knew exactly what they were doing so it kinda settled everyone down after a while."
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 07:18 AM
  #93  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

ForgotToBid,

I'm going to apologize if I got a little bit too spirited yesterday, I was multi-tasking and my other other task did in fact have my BP up. Coincidentally it involved UAS and associated difficulties (high side, so not going to elaborate).


The reason I think I was concerned with winning the argument (as opposed to just airing my opinion and leaving it at that) is because I really do believe that the changes required to regulation, technology, and infrastructure are too broad, complex, and costly to happen within our working careers. I literally overheard some pilots in our crew room talking about unmanned airlines (the embrear thing I think) and they actually sounded scared. I think this whole concept is unrealistic in the near/mid-term so it REALLY frustrates me to see pilots worried about it. We have enough blankity-blank things to worry about in this industry as it is, I just really hate to see folks worked up over something which is not going to affect them. Their grandkids might have something to worry about...

My perspective on this is based on airline line experience on one hand, and systems engineering and military experience on the other. I have been at least marginally involved in UAVs for a decade and have worked on a consulting basis with some of the people who made the current military UAV boom happen. Someone with 121 but no UAV experience is going to automatically make a LOT of assumptions and take for granted a lot about UAV reliability and redundancy...but it just ain't so. Someone with UAV but no 121 experience is not going to understand all of the requirements and issues associated with 121 ops.

But the current regs do allow single-pilot risk with 91/135, and you occasionally see the downside to that. The probable cause on this is not out yet, but the SLC controllers were saying that the guy sounded incapacitated on the radio prior to the crash: WPR09MA159

121 Single pilot ops would require one of three things...

1. The airplane fly itself with the same redundancy as having a spare pilot onboard. The currently installed equipment can't do that, but the technology certainly exists for "routine" flight ops. But beyond that it get's expensive, and AI doesn't exist which can do some of things a human mind can. Abnormals is where things get hard for automation...interpreting data from the Wx radar, ATC radar reports, and PIREPs to decide how to best navigate Wx. That is an art, not a science, and if you aren't an artist you either have to RTB or risk illuminating the "WING OFF" warning light.
. Also recognizing and reacting to flight control failures is hard to program for (pull, turn, and lock...)

2. The airplane be able to be remotely controlled from the ground. But the problem is that NO comm link to a MOVING platform is 100%, or even 99%, reliable. You Pred guys don't have to be told that. So this takes us right back to #1. Or maybe we could improve comms by launching 100 additional COMSATs dedicated to airline ops...at $2 Billion PER satellite

3. The FAA (and the rest of the world) change their standards to allow reduced safety. Probably not going to happen.

The best you could hope for is that the FAA do an analysis and determine that single-pilot with UAV-style (that is to say unreliable) automated backup is equivalent in safety to two pilots. But since I have never heard of a two pilot incapacitation in modern airline ops, I doubt the math would work out.

Then you have the Mx hassles...you probably need EVERYTHING on the airplane working to be 100%, so any little writeup would be grounding. For those of you not familiar with airline ops, some simple Mx functions at outstations are performed by the pilots...it can take hours to get contract Mx to show up.

Anyway, I just don't want airline pilots worrying about this unnecessarily. There has been at least case of an organization being created to allegedly advocate unmanned airliners for the sole purpose of scaring a major European pilot group during a labor conflict. When it happens for real, there will plenty of warning.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 07:22 AM
  #94  
Super Moderator
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 6,851
Default

Hey guys,

The time to start worrying about this is when the company starts trying to make contractual changes to our current crew augment and ULH policies.

The technology could hit the street tomorrow, but DAL couldn't pursue it because of our contract, and we all know how sacrosanct our contract is.

Scoop
Scoop is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 08:05 AM
  #95  
Feeling blessed.
 
HalinTexas's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: Was I finally in the right place at the right time?
Posts: 536
Default

One thing forgotten in the mix. Insurance. What insurance company in their right mind would insure a pilotless jet? If there is one, what airline would be stupid enough to pay that premium?
HalinTexas is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 08:09 AM
  #96  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Elliot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Default

Originally Posted by HalinTexas View Post
One thing forgotten in the mix. Insurance. What insurance company in their right mind would insure a pilotless jet? If there is one, what airline would be stupid enough to pay that premium?
Have you read the previous 10 pages? Nobody is talking about a "pilot-less" jet, and anytime in the near future for that matter. What the thread the "OP" started, and is trying to highlight, is if it's possible for airlines to reduce the amount of crews actually required on the airplane due to "augmented" crews operating the aircraft from a "remote" location.

There will ALWAYS be pilots aboard aircraft. Will the required number be reduced by "remote operations"? Maybe.

GJ
Elliot is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 08:44 AM
  #97  
veut gagner à la loterie
Thread Starter
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
ForgotToBid,

I'm going to apologize if I got a little bit too spirited yesterday, I was multi-tasking and my other other task did in fact have my BP up. Coincidentally it involved UAS and associated difficulties (high side, so not going to elaborate).
Fair enough Rick, good on you.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
The reason I think I was concerned with winning the argument (as opposed to just airing my opinion and leaving it at that) is because I really do believe that the changes required to regulation, technology, and infrastructure are too broad, complex, and costly to happen within our working careers. I literally overheard some pilots in our crew room talking about unmanned airlines (the embrear thing I think) and they actually sounded scared. I think this whole concept is unrealistic in the near/mid-term so it REALLY frustrates me to see pilots worried about it. We have enough blankity-blank things to worry about in this industry as it is, I just really hate to see folks worked up over something which is not going to affect them. Their grandkids might have something to worry about...
I understand. The reason I bring it up is because in Aviation Week for instance you have an article about a pilot shortage in this decade and more or less in the decades to come next to an article about Sikorsky developing a Black Hawk that could go being flown as a UAV, okay but it seems like that's in vogue in the military anyways, but they eye catcher is that they could also be flown with 1 pilot or if you want 2.

That's coupled with the single pilot ops thing Embraer is developing plus what evidently the FedEx pilots are discussing on their thread (have to find it) about FedEx looking into single pilot ops made me want to have a rather open ended discussion about it.

So do I have an agenda? Yes. To talk about what could happen to our ultra long haul high paying wb staffing needs if technology matures just a little more and to talk about one negative unintended consequence of the possible of a pilot shortage if it ever goes from myth to reality. Many think pilot shortage = leverage and greater pay especially on the low end, or it could go in a different direction that is not what we'd want.

For the record, this isn't happening for a decade or so and I don't think no pilot airliners is going to happen and when I say single pilot ops I'm not thinking about a UAV style landing system but an FMS based one where the plane is put in position via dispatch downlink to the FMS to land and stop itself.

I think the technology would allow one or a few airliners to fly zero pilot but yes the cost to do that with a fleet of 600-700 jets is prohibitive and more so the public reception wouldn't allow it. Nobody wants to be on a pilotless airplane, not that I know of and that I think will always be the deal killer but I'll never say never to the technology make it possible.

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
My perspective on this is based on airline line experience on one hand, and systems engineering and military experience on the other. I have been at least marginally involved in UAVs for a decade and have worked on a consulting basis with some of the people who made the current military UAV boom happen. Someone with 121 but no UAV experience is going to automatically make a LOT of assumptions and take for granted a lot about UAV reliability and redundancy...but it just ain't so. Someone with UAV but no 121 experience is not going to understand all of the requirements and issues associated with 121 ops.
listening...

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
But the current regs do allow single-pilot risk with 91/135, and you occasionally see the downside to that. The probable cause on this is not out yet, but the SLC controllers were saying that the guy sounded incapacitated on the radio prior to the crash: WPR09MA159
Sad. There is a down side to single pilot ops for sure. Especially if you consider that sometimes the people sitting in a CJ2 by themselves are wealthy, not experience pilots and not young - as in more likely to have medical issues.

Hold that thought because I'm going to play devil's advocate...

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
121 Single pilot ops would require one of three things...

1. The airplane fly itself with the same redundancy as having a spare pilot onboard. The currently installed equipment can't do that, but the technology certainly exists for "routine" flight ops. But beyond that it get's expensive, and AI doesn't exist which can do some of things a human mind can. Abnormals is where things get hard for automation...interpreting data from the Wx radar, ATC radar reports, and PIREPs to decide how to best navigate Wx. That is an art, not a science, and if you aren't an artist you either have to RTB or risk illuminating the "WING OFF" warning light.
. Also recognizing and reacting to flight control failures is hard to program for (pull, turn, and lock...)
Unlikely they'd bother with a plane that could do that, but still hold that thought...

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
2. The airplane be able to be remotely controlled from the ground. But the problem is that NO comm link to a MOVING platform is 100%, or even 99%, reliable. You Pred guys don't have to be told that. So this takes us right back to #1. Or maybe we could improve comms by launching 100 additional COMSATs dedicated to airline ops...at $2 Billion PER satellite

3. The FAA (and the rest of the world) change their standards to allow reduced safety. Probably not going to happen.

The best you could hope for is that the FAA do an analysis and determine that single-pilot with UAV-style (that is to say unreliable) automated backup is equivalent in safety to two pilots. But since I have never heard of a two pilot incapacitation in modern airline ops, I doubt the math would work out.

Then you have the Mx hassles...you probably need EVERYTHING on the airplane working to be 100%, so any little writeup would be grounding. For those of you not familiar with airline ops, some simple Mx functions at outstations are performed by the pilots...it can take hours to get contract Mx to show up.

Anyway, I just don't want airline pilots worrying about this unnecessarily. There has been at least case of an organization being created to allegedly advocate unmanned airliners for the sole purpose of scaring a major European pilot group during a labor conflict. When it happens for real, there will plenty of warning.
I agree doesn't sound likely but what if this is the solution and I'm going to base this loosely on the A320.

Say there is a single pilot A320 modified for single pilot ops. Let me give you a scenario, pilot dies en route. Per the SP system, the pilot has to periodically acknowledge that he's still awake and alive by pressing a I'm Here button. Pilot doesn't respond, a protocol is then followed with lights, bells, horns, flight attendant is notified by the plane and is asked to call and dispatch and ATC are in the loop that the pilot isn't responding. Pilot is still dead. Dispatch or the FA unlocks the door, walks in, pilot is dead, nothing to be done. No pilot in the back.

Now the airplane isn't handed off to a guy with a joy stick and a camera link but rather control is given to dispatch who can interact with the FMS and navigate the plane to an airport, it shoots an RNP approach and it autolands and stops on the runway.

Or another, if the pilot is landing in Jackson Hole and has the AP off and doesn't seem to be keeping the airplane within the safe confines of the arrival or approach, because he's assumed room temperature. AP turns back on and executes a climb out, goes and holds and a protocol again is followed to which dispatch talks to the FMS and the plane lands all on AP.

Now what happens if there is NO COMM or some MEL item or it's just an unsafe area to be single pilot, then you require 2. Not to unlike international ops, which says you can't leave with certain yet normal domestic type MELs and you just live with that. As with that black hawk, 0 pilots, 1 pilot or 2, take your pick.

What I'm seeing really is a situation where pilots monitor APs while flying SP. As in 1000' AP on until 1000' above the runway unless the AP lands. Not cool but we're getting really really close to that on the MD88 at Delta already. So that's what I think is coming. Its just a thought.

Is that plausible?


Originally Posted by Scoop View Post
Hey guys,

The time to start worrying about this is when the company starts trying to make contractual changes to our current crew augment and ULH policies.

The technology could hit the street tomorrow, but DAL couldn't pursue it because of our contract, and we all know how sacrosanct our contract is.

Scoop
Or an LOA that says big pay raise for ULH categories... oh but...
forgot to bid is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 11:27 AM
  #98  
veut gagner à la loterie
Thread Starter
 
forgot to bid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Default

Okay you can tell me if this is nuts or not as it won't hurt my feelings:

Two Pilot Ultra Long Haul
  1. Aircraft modified with quick SATCOM link to dispatch for both the cockpit and flight attendants. Pilots can contact ATC facilities by phone if desired.
  2. Dispatch and pilot in the cockpit confer prior to entering tracks or other controlled areas. Pilots are provided with a print out of all frequencies and airspace boundaries in case of communication difficulties.
  3. Two pilots for takeoff and landing.
  4. MEL or theatre factors could dictate the addition of a relief pilot.

Single Pilot Domestic Ops
  1. Aircraft is modified so that it can be flown in a conventional two pilot cockpit or a single pilot cockpit.
  2. Modification includes ensuring systems such as hyd, ice, pressurization, ac and so forth have a simple OFF-AUTO-ON functionality. Engine starts have to be simple OFF-START-RUN and pilots do not add in fuel nor monitor starts.
  3. Camera’s installed to allow the pilot to have external views of the aircraft for taxi.
  4. Dispatch has direct SATCOM link to both the cockpit and the cabin crew. Situations in the cabin will be handled not by having the FA’s call the cockpit who call the company but FA’s calling the company directly and pilots kept in the loop. A pilot must divert if so directed.
  5. The company has complete view of the FMS and can interact with the FMS. Dispatch also can see live all aircraft settings, configurations and all of the information displayed on the instrument panel.
  6. Flight plans, clearances, ATIS altimeter settings, weights, passenger counts and V-speeds are automatically uploaded to the aircraft. The pilot is not required to update the system but to verify information. A route change has to be coordinated between ATC and the company and uploaded to the pilot.
  7. Checklist is simplified; aircraft checks configuration changes and audibly alerts pilots if there is a discrepancy between FMS and actual configuration.
  8. Aircraft can not accept any vectors that are inside of the FAF + 3nm. Aircraft has to be configured completely prior to FAF or 2,000’ AFE.
  9. AP must be on from 2000’ on departure and remain on until 1000’ prior to landing.
  10. If contact is lost for X amount of time with the pilot a protocol is set in motion to regain contact through various cockpit interactions or by contacting the FA’s. FA’s have the ability to open the door in flight via the protocol as exists today.
  11. If a terrain, weather, air traffic, route or other appropriate threat is identified and there is no pilot interaction with X amount of time the aircraft will perform an appropriate safety maneuver automatically, even if AP was off, then see below:
  12. In the case of complete pilot incapacitation a protocol is in place to declare an emergency have the aircraft navigate to an airport and perform an FMS autoland approach with configuration changes done automatically and/or by dispatch and double checked if desired by a cabin crew member.
  13. More stringent work rules are required for pilots operating single pilot. Such as no 4+ leg days.
  14. If flying into mountainous terrain or areas where GPS and satcom are questionable or if an MEL compromises the single pilot system then 2 pilots are required.
  15. Divert required if autoland system becomes inop Enroute.

So, is that ^^ possible with all of our fly-by-wire, break-by-wire, power-by-wire, all things-by-wire, or is it a

forgot to bid is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 05:29 PM
  #99  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CANAM's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: 1986 LeBaron Convertable
Posts: 439
Default

Originally Posted by Gearjerk View Post
CANAM,

Good point, but according to the 2010 census numbers vs. 2000 census numbers, the U.S. population alone grew by 29,411,673 people. That's 29 million more people in the U.S. alone, not accounting for the world population growth.

According to some sources, the world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Black Death around the year 1400. Current projections show an increase in population at a steady rate with the world population expected to reach between 7.5 to 10.5 billion people by the year 2050. The world population is presently estimated at around 6.9 billion people.

Hope that answers your concerns of "too many people keeling over", and possibly being out of a flying job anytime soon.

GJ
I don't know what to believe anymore. I recently read that the US birthrate is a mere 1.6 and 2.11 when you include non-legal aliens. 2.11 is the breakeven number in which the population doesn't shrink.
CANAM is offline  
Old 02-17-2011, 08:48 PM
  #100  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,522
Default

As for the 2 pilot ultra long haul scenario, I don't think that comminucations is the reason at all for 4 pilots versus 2. By that logic we'd already be single pilot ops for domestic flights today.

Ultra long flights need more pilots so that you always have a full crew in case it hits the fan. Communications are a part of that, but a very small part compared to things over all. And again, the question isn't can planes be automated to the point of redundancy necessary to justify less or no crews. I think the answe to that is yes, although not today, and not by a long shot. If a robot blackhawk crashes, some general sniffing brandy in front of an appropriations committee will three way high five some lobbyst who golfs with a congress critter in the district where they build them and order more. Who cares. But some day, maybe in 10-15 years as some have predicted we might begin to see the onset of the level of reliability and redundancy, maybe. But can the plane itself and the entire infrastructure be brought up to those standards for at or below the price of the nation's FO's? Not for generations IMHO.

Even for single pilot ops, pilots still not only die at the wheel but also become incapicated. And again, what are we talking about here but the cost of the nation's FO's. That doesn't cut pilot labor in half either, as FO's make a good bit less than 50% of the total cost of pilot labor anyway. And there's still all the other issues of CRM. Long term we are a good ways away from getting to the point where single pilot 121 ops or half crew ultra long haul ops becomes a reality.

As for the "pilot shortage" that will be a self correcting problem. While the supply line has dwindled, that really isn't that big of a deal. It has dwindled precisely because there has been very little to no hiring the last decade thanks to the economy and age 65. When the dam breaks and every airline is hiring a ton, it won't take very long at all for the CFI pipeline to ramp up and ramp up big time. Students will quickly flood the flight schools big and small, quickly creaating more CFI's and so on, just like every other boom time the industry has seen. Heck in the 50's or 60's airlines hired pilots with PPL's and took it from there. This will be a non event. The only real obstacle is financing the cost, but if there are actually jobs waiting for those who plunk down the cash, the market will find a way to provide financing. The reason financing has been difficult for this particular career field is because of the bleek prospects for obtaining gainful employment and not being able to pay the loan back. Worst case, even with a 1500 TT ATP requirement, airlines and/or college programs will spool up zero time to ATP programs like some have been doing for years. If we do see a pilot hiring boom time, even 6 figure loans will be given out like candy, at least to those who are going to work in fields that can actually repay them. Heck look at all the 529 money, grants and loans we barf at any and every 6 figure arts history degree so kids can take a 4 year break from reality, develop their alcohol additcion and ruin their credit, all with an almost certain zero chance of being able to pay it back but what the heck it's (yet another) entitlement, and they are still getting the money. That part of the problem (pilot shortages) will be 100% self correcting even at the 1500 TT limit (which will probably be reduced anyway but in any case) single or no pilot ops isn't a viable threat for several more decades. Pilot labor is just not that expensive, but dual pilot 121 ops levels of reliability and reduncancy is.

Last edited by gloopy; 02-17-2011 at 08:59 PM.
gloopy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JustaRampagent
Cargo
13
03-08-2008 07:51 PM
AFPirate
Major
38
01-17-2008 02:46 PM
aerospacepilot
Regional
59
07-01-2007 04:57 PM
SWAjet
Corporate
40
05-02-2007 05:01 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices