Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article
02-14-2011, 08:15 PM
#31
veut gagner à la loterie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I am not short sighted, I have actually made some money with forward thinking.
My opinions on UAV's carry people are based are in-depth technical knowledge, particularly systems and software engineering, combined with many years of government and private-sector management experience.
You are right in one sense only...it will probably happen. But it's not going to be any time soon. The technology is achievable, but the required level of REDUNDANCY and reliability does NOT exist at any reasonable cost: You can buy a satellite which weighs about as much as an RJ for $2 Billion...since those things can't be repaired in orbit, they go to extreme lengths to try to ensure they don't fail. It works well...most of the time.
Then you have all the issues with re-engineering the national airspace system...who's going to pay? Why would the government go to the trouble? What about the rest of the world?
Then you have security issues and public perception. Oh yeah, on an automated airliner any writeup more serious than a tray-table is going to grounding. You've obviously never flown an A320...
I think the military will pave the way eventually, and I know all about military UAS programs...they are not even considering flying troops around in un-manned aircraft. How the hell would you write that letter to Corporal Johny's Mom, that he died despite the best efforts of the autopilot and they dude drinking coffee in a control van on the other side of the world??? Our current military leaders are not going to go there...
My slightly-educated guess? Shortly after the turn of the century.
My opinions on UAV's carry people are based are in-depth technical knowledge, particularly systems and software engineering, combined with many years of government and private-sector management experience.
You are right in one sense only...it will probably happen. But it's not going to be any time soon. The technology is achievable, but the required level of REDUNDANCY and reliability does NOT exist at any reasonable cost: You can buy a satellite which weighs about as much as an RJ for $2 Billion...since those things can't be repaired in orbit, they go to extreme lengths to try to ensure they don't fail. It works well...most of the time.
Then you have all the issues with re-engineering the national airspace system...who's going to pay? Why would the government go to the trouble? What about the rest of the world?
Then you have security issues and public perception. Oh yeah, on an automated airliner any writeup more serious than a tray-table is going to grounding. You've obviously never flown an A320...
I think the military will pave the way eventually, and I know all about military UAS programs...they are not even considering flying troops around in un-manned aircraft. How the hell would you write that letter to Corporal Johny's Mom, that he died despite the best efforts of the autopilot and they dude drinking coffee in a control van on the other side of the world??? Our current military leaders are not going to go there...
My slightly-educated guess? Shortly after the turn of the century.
But back to the redundancy and reliability is not available, it most certainly is. It's called a pilot. 1 pilot backs up the system. Again, just like the Black Hawk article mentions, it can go from 2 to 1 to 0.
Can it be sold to the public, sure, if something happens to the flight deck crew we can land the plane - something not currently available.
I gotta feeling you can see some form of this on international 4-man and 3-man crews to where you slice the crew to 2 pilots. Probably need nothing more than the ability to change the FMS from the other side of the world (not to unlike the auto upload function you can get from dispatch in ATL while sitting on the ground in AMM) and the means to arm an autoland that stops the aircraft on the runway. What happens if the autoland is out? No worries, you're not allowed to take one across the ocean with it out anyways. Now what about domestic? If the plane has significant write ups then you call in a reserve pilot and you go back from 1 pilot to 2.
Put it this way, if a shortage materializes, if fuel prices stay high and technology continues to advance, just at the legacy carriers you're looking at a $2B reason to cut staffing in half and make this a reality. Plus, what airline wouldn't want to have far more control over aircraft operations? No more "short approaches" that lead to most unstable approaches and better yet get the aircraft operated on your desired profile and not the pilots desired profile.
Just something to think about.
02-14-2011, 08:28 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 618
Once the major start hiring in mass how will this change the landscape of the regionals. The regionals will not be able to go out and hire 2000+ guys overnight. Their just not that many CFI to cover the gap. CFI training is at a historical low. The shortage is here, its a matter of Delta and US and AA to start interviewing. once a few thousand regional pilots move on you will see the 250 hours gut getting hired. Its here, believe or not. if you don't beive it call around and ask how many Americans are training at 141 schools. look how many 61 schools are closed. Flight schools are already becoming desperate trying to find CFI's. One school said all 20 instructor had their resumes out and very few Americans training to fill the gap.Who is going to replace them. Only 2 ways. banks start financing training again or increase in wages, and I don't see either in the near term.
02-14-2011, 10:27 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by stbloc
Once the major start hiring in mass how will this change the landscape of the regionals. The regionals will not be able to go out and hire 2000+ guys overnight. Their just not that many CFI to cover the gap. CFI training is at a historical low. The shortage is here, its a matter of Delta and US and AA to start interviewing. once a few thousand regional pilots move on you will see the 250 hours gut getting hired. Its here, believe or not. if you don't beive it call around and ask how many Americans are training at 141 schools. look how many 61 schools are closed. Flight schools are already becoming desperate trying to find CFI's. One school said all 20 instructor had their resumes out and very few Americans training to fill the gap.Who is going to replace them. Only 2 ways. banks start financing training again or increase in wages, and I don't see either in the near term.
From what I hear from CFIs, finding good work is near impossible. There are CFI's performing janitorial duties at many schools just to pay the bills and rent. Some CFI's are volunteering to fly for free flying jumpers just to get hours and get a few bucks in tips. I've seen CFI's at FBO's begging cargo guys for hookups and interviews.
Never mind the fact that when someone does land employment, plenty of FBO's are exploiting the situation to make them be the office ***** in addition to instructing. Clean the FBO, answer the phone, sell charts, basically open it from morning to night and only get paid for the few hours you do instruct.
Regarding the whole comparison of single-pilot operation to the elimination of the flight engineer job, I don't think its really all that fair. Look at a the FE panel on a 727, DC10, L1011 or 747. Anyone back then could have told you that all that information & knobs could have been easily condensed into a computer + screen. It's just that no one could possibly have comprehended that information could be easily organized and displayed in such a manner. Regardless of technological advances in automation and eliminating work-load making single-pilot operation easier, the First Officer always has a place in terms of redundancy. Bad things happen and remotely operated aircraft are prone to various types of RF attacks.
Last edited by tortue; 02-14-2011 at 10:27 PM. Reason: typo -beggingbeg
02-14-2011, 11:39 PM
#34
Day puke
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Out.
Posts: 3,865
Originally Posted by snippercr
I am curious on this one and I have tried finding the answer online but couldn't. Just about everyone here will claim "There never has been a pilot shortage and never will be one." However, it was only a few years (2007/2008) when airlines were hiring with less than 500 hours. My question is, what caused that? To me that sounds awfully like a pilot shortage (I was still in training at the time).
Alas, things don't always work out.
02-15-2011, 06:18 AM
#35
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,223
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
Put it this way, if a shortage materializes, if fuel prices stay high and technology continues to advance, just at the legacy carriers you're looking at a $2B reason to cut staffing in half and make this a reality. Plus, what airline wouldn't want to have far more control over aircraft operations? No more "short approaches" that lead to most unstable approaches and better yet get the aircraft operated on your desired profile and not the pilots desired profile.
You could easily spend $2B on EACH airplane to achieve the required level of safety and that does not include a TOTAL revamp of ATC technology, plus changing FAA domestic regulations and ICAO international regulations.
I think you are naive based on the fact that you don't understand the REAL issue here which is not technology per se, but cost, safety, bureaucratic intertia, and public and political resistance.
The FAA's official standard for safety is that they accept NO changes which do not result in an equal or greater level of safety.
Then you have a chicken/egg situation. Manufacturers will not even contemplate building such an airplane unless someone will buy it. Airlines will not buy an airplane which they cannot operate, which will require regulations and ATC systems to be TOTALLY re-engineered. Why would the government execute a manhattan-project, at phenomenal expense to do that? Just to put 70,000 pilots out of work? Pilots are still the cheapest system available with the required flexibility and adaptability. The airlines are not going to do it...look at how their managers are compensated: based on THIS quarter's stock performance. No airline CEO is going to even consider spending tens of billions on a system which will reap benefits long after he is retired. Our industry's financial/management system is geared to be far too short-sighted for that.
Single-pilot ops? Sudden-incapacitation (ie heart attack) is relatively common in airline crews, so a single-pilot airplane would effectively have to be a no-pilot airplane. Otherwise you would lose several hulls each year when the pilot keeled over.
Oh yeah, don't reference the military as an example, their need was NOT to eliminate the pilot to save money but rather to achieve greater range, endurance and altitude. They accomplished that...however, they have lost about half of the predators to NON-COMBAT accidents in the last decade. Those things are relatively cheap and nobody dies so it doesn't make the news. But the AF is in all kinds of hot water over that.
I'm not one those "oh it will never happen" people, but I know what the hurdles are, and they are numerous and high. Like I said before it will probably happen eventually, but it's a loooong way off. Remember even if such a system will save money for private business, it will be hard to get the players to pony up the initial investment...especially with the government broke.
Last edited by rickair7777; 02-15-2011 at 06:34 AM.
02-15-2011, 07:25 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Rick & FTB,
Good discussion on the possible long-term effects of unmanned technology. While I agree with most of what Rick mentions, there are a few points I'd like to add.
A little of background. Joined the Army to fly Helo's in the mid 90's. Flew both Huey's & Blackhawk's, deployed overseas multiple times with both airframes. Obtained my civilian ratings, worked for the regionals, hired by NWA in '08, merged with Delta shortly thereafter. While making the transition from the regional to NWA, I also transitioned from Army Helo's to Air Force unmanned ops and have been flying UAV's for the Air Force now for almost three years.
My additional duties have allowed me the opportunity to attend the Flight Safety Officer course at Kirtland AFB, NM. (ABQ) I've attended multiple accident investigations, (human to machine interface factors are my primary interest) and have even done preliminary testing with the "Dr's" at Wright-Patterson AFB for "future" concepts. If anyone is familiar with that division of the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), it's one of the many "research centers" for "technologies on the horizon". One more thing, I've also toured the General Atomics plant in San Diego, maker of the MQ-1 Predator/MQ-9 Reaper, and spoken with their Engineers also about "changes to the system". (TS Clearance required)
I agree wholeheartedly with your last remark. I'm not planning on it happening anytime soon, and neither is anyone else from what I can gather, but the technology exists and when the technology is tested by enough people with the "right ideas", I think it'd be plausible to see it in the next 15-20 years, for freight operations anyway. Just look how far we've come in a short 100 years of "powered" flight.
Good discussion,
Fly safe,
GJ
Good discussion on the possible long-term effects of unmanned technology. While I agree with most of what Rick mentions, there are a few points I'd like to add.
A little of background. Joined the Army to fly Helo's in the mid 90's. Flew both Huey's & Blackhawk's, deployed overseas multiple times with both airframes. Obtained my civilian ratings, worked for the regionals, hired by NWA in '08, merged with Delta shortly thereafter. While making the transition from the regional to NWA, I also transitioned from Army Helo's to Air Force unmanned ops and have been flying UAV's for the Air Force now for almost three years.
My additional duties have allowed me the opportunity to attend the Flight Safety Officer course at Kirtland AFB, NM. (ABQ) I've attended multiple accident investigations, (human to machine interface factors are my primary interest) and have even done preliminary testing with the "Dr's" at Wright-Patterson AFB for "future" concepts. If anyone is familiar with that division of the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), it's one of the many "research centers" for "technologies on the horizon". One more thing, I've also toured the General Atomics plant in San Diego, maker of the MQ-1 Predator/MQ-9 Reaper, and spoken with their Engineers also about "changes to the system". (TS Clearance required)
Originally Posted by rickair7777
There is absolutely no way this technology will be available in time for any pilot shortage which may be impending during our careers. If a true pilot shortage happened at the onset of the next decade, it's your "assumption" alone, the timeline wouldn't be met. The technology is already available, and as you made mention, it's not that you don't agree with the technology, you just don't believe in the timeline, correct?
You could easily spend $2B on EACH airplane to achieve the required level of safety and that does not include a TOTAL revamp of ATC technology, plus changing FAA domestic regulations and ICAO international regulations. I agree with your cost estimate, but would the airlines or governments receiving benefits of air travel really find $2B on each airplane that cost prohibitive? What's the ROI spread out over 5-7 years?
I think you are naive based on the fact that you don't understand the REAL issue here which is not technology per se, but cost, safety, bureaucratic intertia, and public and political resistance. I'm glad you brought this up. (Although I'd caution you early on about referring to "Forgot to Bid" as naive.) Each point you've made, to include "cost, safety, bureaucratic inertia, and public/political resistance" is a HUGE SWINGING PENDULUM. You should know this with your military background/experience. Again, something that's "cost prohibitive" on one fiscal year budget, might have plenty of money on the next. Depends more on our Commander in Chief. Same can be said for "safety, inertia, AND political resistance".
The FAA's official standard for safety is that they accept NO changes which do not result in an equal or greater level of safety. The FAA is as much of a bureaucratic, governmental agency as the rest of them. The BIGGEST HURDLE for the FAA to get their arms around now is the fact that to allow UAV's/RPA's (whatever day of the week it is) into the National Airspace System (NAS) is they need to relinquish the "ANTIQUATED" idea that "SEE & AVOID" is the answer to all mishap/mid-air collisions and understand that with today's technology, "SENSE & AVOID" is much safer and more effective, as well as efficient, in today's congested environments.
Then you have a chicken/egg situation. Manufacturers will not even contemplate building such an airplane unless someone will buy it. Airlines will not buy an airplane which they cannot operate, which will require regulations and ATC systems to be TOTALLY re-engineered. Why would the government execute a manhattan-project, at phenomenal expense to do that? Just to put 70,000 pilots out of work? Pilots are still the cheapest system available with the required flexibility and adaptability. The airlines are not going to do it...look at how their managers are compensated: based on THIS quarter's stock performance. No airline CEO is going to even consider spending tens of billions on a system which will reap benefits long after he is retired. Our industry's financial/management system is geared to be far too short-sighted for that. Just my opinion, but much like the F-35, I'd venture to say the latest aircraft being manufactured, (i.e. A380, 777, C-series, E-series) already have the ability to be "remotely" operated with a few "tweaks". (No, black helicopters don't follow me around on my days off, and "NO", I don't think the airplanes in September of 2001 were being remotely operated.)
Single-pilot ops? Sudden-incapacitation (ie heart attack) is relatively common in airline crews, so a single-pilot airplane would effectively have to be a no-pilot airplane. Otherwise you would lose several hulls each year when the pilot keeled over. Not understanding you here. Are you saying that if the pilot keeled over in flight, that the airplane wouldn't be able to land itself? (Auto-land features installed on a/c or aircraft landed by "operators" on the ground using Line-of-Sight signals)
Oh yeah, don't reference the military as an example, their need was NOT to eliminate the pilot to save money but rather to achieve greater range, endurance and altitude. They accomplished that...however, they have lost about half of the predators to NON-COMBAT accidents in the last decade. Those things are relatively cheap and nobody dies so it doesn't make the news. But the AF is in all kinds of hot water over that. The numbers I'm assuming your referring to are accident numbers increased due to "training events" or Launch/Recovery Element (LRE) Ops. If so, you know that's not an accurate assessment of what would happen to the civilian sector if "freight" went unmanned, or passenger carrying ops reduced the amount of pilots needed.
I'm not one those "oh it will never happen" people, but I know what the hurdles are, and they are numerous and high. Like I said before it will probably happen eventually, but it's a loooong way off. Remember even if such a system will save money for private business, it will be hard to get the players to pony up the initial investment...especially with the government broke.
You could easily spend $2B on EACH airplane to achieve the required level of safety and that does not include a TOTAL revamp of ATC technology, plus changing FAA domestic regulations and ICAO international regulations. I agree with your cost estimate, but would the airlines or governments receiving benefits of air travel really find $2B on each airplane that cost prohibitive? What's the ROI spread out over 5-7 years?
I think you are naive based on the fact that you don't understand the REAL issue here which is not technology per se, but cost, safety, bureaucratic intertia, and public and political resistance. I'm glad you brought this up. (Although I'd caution you early on about referring to "Forgot to Bid" as naive.) Each point you've made, to include "cost, safety, bureaucratic inertia, and public/political resistance" is a HUGE SWINGING PENDULUM. You should know this with your military background/experience. Again, something that's "cost prohibitive" on one fiscal year budget, might have plenty of money on the next. Depends more on our Commander in Chief. Same can be said for "safety, inertia, AND political resistance".
The FAA's official standard for safety is that they accept NO changes which do not result in an equal or greater level of safety. The FAA is as much of a bureaucratic, governmental agency as the rest of them. The BIGGEST HURDLE for the FAA to get their arms around now is the fact that to allow UAV's/RPA's (whatever day of the week it is) into the National Airspace System (NAS) is they need to relinquish the "ANTIQUATED" idea that "SEE & AVOID" is the answer to all mishap/mid-air collisions and understand that with today's technology, "SENSE & AVOID" is much safer and more effective, as well as efficient, in today's congested environments.
Then you have a chicken/egg situation. Manufacturers will not even contemplate building such an airplane unless someone will buy it. Airlines will not buy an airplane which they cannot operate, which will require regulations and ATC systems to be TOTALLY re-engineered. Why would the government execute a manhattan-project, at phenomenal expense to do that? Just to put 70,000 pilots out of work? Pilots are still the cheapest system available with the required flexibility and adaptability. The airlines are not going to do it...look at how their managers are compensated: based on THIS quarter's stock performance. No airline CEO is going to even consider spending tens of billions on a system which will reap benefits long after he is retired. Our industry's financial/management system is geared to be far too short-sighted for that. Just my opinion, but much like the F-35, I'd venture to say the latest aircraft being manufactured, (i.e. A380, 777, C-series, E-series) already have the ability to be "remotely" operated with a few "tweaks". (No, black helicopters don't follow me around on my days off, and "NO", I don't think the airplanes in September of 2001 were being remotely operated.)
Single-pilot ops? Sudden-incapacitation (ie heart attack) is relatively common in airline crews, so a single-pilot airplane would effectively have to be a no-pilot airplane. Otherwise you would lose several hulls each year when the pilot keeled over. Not understanding you here. Are you saying that if the pilot keeled over in flight, that the airplane wouldn't be able to land itself? (Auto-land features installed on a/c or aircraft landed by "operators" on the ground using Line-of-Sight signals)
Oh yeah, don't reference the military as an example, their need was NOT to eliminate the pilot to save money but rather to achieve greater range, endurance and altitude. They accomplished that...however, they have lost about half of the predators to NON-COMBAT accidents in the last decade. Those things are relatively cheap and nobody dies so it doesn't make the news. But the AF is in all kinds of hot water over that. The numbers I'm assuming your referring to are accident numbers increased due to "training events" or Launch/Recovery Element (LRE) Ops. If so, you know that's not an accurate assessment of what would happen to the civilian sector if "freight" went unmanned, or passenger carrying ops reduced the amount of pilots needed.
I'm not one those "oh it will never happen" people, but I know what the hurdles are, and they are numerous and high. Like I said before it will probably happen eventually, but it's a loooong way off. Remember even if such a system will save money for private business, it will be hard to get the players to pony up the initial investment...especially with the government broke.
Good discussion,
Fly safe,
GJ
02-15-2011, 07:34 AM
#38
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Planes already fly themselves
I see a future where pilots sit there arms folded in remotely controlled airliners at minimum wages while the computer flies the plane with some help from the ground. Oh wait.... that how things are now. 
A pilot shortage whether real or make believe does not translate into a better life for pilots. Companies will only use it as an excuse to lower minimums, establish cadet programs or bring UAV technology to the airlines.
I do not see anything stopping an airline from having two minimally trained pilots monitoring a ground controlled plane for peanuts.
Skyhigh
A pilot shortage whether real or make believe does not translate into a better life for pilots. Companies will only use it as an excuse to lower minimums, establish cadet programs or bring UAV technology to the airlines.
I do not see anything stopping an airline from having two minimally trained pilots monitoring a ground controlled plane for peanuts.
Skyhigh
02-15-2011, 07:43 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by SkyHigh
I do not see anything stopping an airline from having two minimally trained pilots monitoring a ground controlled plane for peanuts.
Skyhigh
Skyhigh
Agree 100%.
GJ
02-15-2011, 10:40 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,187
GPS denial is as easy as spending $100 at radio shack. Think about the implications of that on an "un-manned" pax aircraft industry, by any number if illintentioned lunatics. As far as a man in the loop at all times, UAV's lose connectivity ALL. THE. TIME. Rick is spot on. Assuming for a minute politicians or the flying public would entertain the idea, the cost to implement a fail-safe AND moer efficient system would be mind boggling.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
