Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article
02-16-2011, 03:10 AM
#51
veut gagner à la loterie
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Light Chop
Posts: 23,286
How UAVs Will Change Aviation, Business and Commercial Aviation June 2010
"In researching this report, we heard of studies by major cargo airlines involving optionally piloted freighters, supposedly crewed on transoceanic flights by a single pilot, or none at all. We queried Federal Express on the subject and received a friendly but dismissive response from corporate spokesman Jim McCluskey, who said, "I'm in touch with our research people all the time, and I've never heard anything like that."
Nevertheless, he said, he'd run it up the executive chain of command to see what came back. In a follow-up conversation a few days later, his tone had changed somewhat. "I have an official statement from the company concerning alleged studies of minimally piloted or pilotless air freighters," he said. "'FedEx is always interested in new technology that will help us improve service to our customers, but we do not disclose the nature of our research.'"
"In researching this report, we heard of studies by major cargo airlines involving optionally piloted freighters, supposedly crewed on transoceanic flights by a single pilot, or none at all. We queried Federal Express on the subject and received a friendly but dismissive response from corporate spokesman Jim McCluskey, who said, "I'm in touch with our research people all the time, and I've never heard anything like that."
Nevertheless, he said, he'd run it up the executive chain of command to see what came back. In a follow-up conversation a few days later, his tone had changed somewhat. "I have an official statement from the company concerning alleged studies of minimally piloted or pilotless air freighters," he said. "'FedEx is always interested in new technology that will help us improve service to our customers, but we do not disclose the nature of our research.'"
02-16-2011, 06:24 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by tortue
This still seems like a very old school / low tech approach at communicating with ATC. It seems eventually that the operator will have a direct landline based method to communicate with the controllers station. Even adding some "nice" features such as having the UAV operator transmission be delayed/cached if another person is transmitting on the frequency at a given time to prevent people from being stomped over each other and to permit the controller to be able to hear them in order, versus two people talking at the same time.
Good point. It is still "old school" when we have to rely on the aircraft's radio/antenna limitations or the mechanics of the "control head" in the station itself.
With that being said, there are "other forms of communication" we use in the UAV/RPV world, which I can't comment on here, as they're "classified". These types of communications would allow for the UAV/RPV community to more effectively transmit/receive and ensure proper communication. The closest analogy I could draw would be something like an "ACARS" message to the crew, with the crew "free texting" the ATC station again.
V/R,
GJ
02-16-2011, 06:31 AM
#53
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
Tortue,
Good point. It is still "old school" when we have to rely on the aircraft's radio/antenna limitations or the mechanics of the "control head" in the station itself.
With that being said, there are "other forms of communication" we use in the UAV/RPV world, which I can't comment on here, as they're "classified". These types of communications would allow for the UAV/RPV community to more effectively transmit/receive and ensure proper communication. The closest analogy I could draw would be something like an "ACARS" message to the crew, with the crew "free texting" the ATC station again.
V/R,
GJ
Good point. It is still "old school" when we have to rely on the aircraft's radio/antenna limitations or the mechanics of the "control head" in the station itself.
With that being said, there are "other forms of communication" we use in the UAV/RPV world, which I can't comment on here, as they're "classified". These types of communications would allow for the UAV/RPV community to more effectively transmit/receive and ensure proper communication. The closest analogy I could draw would be something like an "ACARS" message to the crew, with the crew "free texting" the ATC station again.
V/R,
GJ
Are you a Delta employee BTW? If not, which company?
02-16-2011, 06:33 AM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by embraer
Just like to say that Rick is 100% correct.
The public ( among other sectors) would be very resistant to boarding an aircraft with no crew on board. Why do you assume that there would be "NO" crew on board? How about only having a crew of two pilots, when normally the flight in today's regulations would require four? (Reduces the need for pilots by half with my math.)
The military is another story. Cargo aircraft notwithstanding, it makes sense for combat aircraft to be UAVs for a number of reasons. For starters, you are not flying passengers around. Second, you are flying into combat situations. You're flying into combat situations to save lives, search for IED emplacers, or produce real-time "full motion video" (FMV) for the troops on the ground and that should warrant pilot-less aircraft, but flying boxes around doesn't? Or reducing the required amount of pilots on board an airplane doesn't either? (Think your logic needs reexamined sir.)
Worse case scenario you lose a UAV. Current worse case scenario you lose a very expensive manned aircraft plus a pilot who was very expensive and time consuming to train..not to mention a person is now dead. Not following your assumption of losing a manned asset? Yes, UAV's/RPV's are lost in combat scenario's. Just like any other machine, they break too. Assuming that an aircraft that would normally have four pilots, now has only two due to the possibility of remote operations, I'm not understanding your stance on how that aircraft is now "lost"?
So...UAVs in the military replacing manned aircraft are a reality. One which I would bet still happens in our lifetime. The same thing happening in the civilian, passenger flying world? Unlikely. Keep those blinders on. Let me know your thoughts in another 20 years when it might be more "accepted" by the flying public to fly with "less" pilots for a "cheaper" ticket".
Not because the technology or know-how is out of reach. But for many other factors...most importantly public opinion and cost to revamp the entire world-wide aviation network.
The public ( among other sectors) would be very resistant to boarding an aircraft with no crew on board. Why do you assume that there would be "NO" crew on board? How about only having a crew of two pilots, when normally the flight in today's regulations would require four? (Reduces the need for pilots by half with my math.)
The military is another story. Cargo aircraft notwithstanding, it makes sense for combat aircraft to be UAVs for a number of reasons. For starters, you are not flying passengers around. Second, you are flying into combat situations. You're flying into combat situations to save lives, search for IED emplacers, or produce real-time "full motion video" (FMV) for the troops on the ground and that should warrant pilot-less aircraft, but flying boxes around doesn't? Or reducing the required amount of pilots on board an airplane doesn't either? (Think your logic needs reexamined sir.)
Worse case scenario you lose a UAV. Current worse case scenario you lose a very expensive manned aircraft plus a pilot who was very expensive and time consuming to train..not to mention a person is now dead. Not following your assumption of losing a manned asset? Yes, UAV's/RPV's are lost in combat scenario's. Just like any other machine, they break too. Assuming that an aircraft that would normally have four pilots, now has only two due to the possibility of remote operations, I'm not understanding your stance on how that aircraft is now "lost"?
So...UAVs in the military replacing manned aircraft are a reality. One which I would bet still happens in our lifetime. The same thing happening in the civilian, passenger flying world? Unlikely. Keep those blinders on. Let me know your thoughts in another 20 years when it might be more "accepted" by the flying public to fly with "less" pilots for a "cheaper" ticket".
Not because the technology or know-how is out of reach. But for many other factors...most importantly public opinion and cost to revamp the entire world-wide aviation network.
GJ
02-16-2011, 06:35 AM
#55
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
How UAVs Will Change Aviation, Business and Commercial Aviation June 2010
"In researching this report, we heard of studies by major cargo airlines involving optionally piloted freighters, supposedly crewed on transoceanic flights by a single pilot, or none at all. We queried Federal Express on the subject and received a friendly but dismissive response from corporate spokesman Jim McCluskey, who said, "I'm in touch with our research people all the time, and I've never heard anything like that."
Nevertheless, he said, he'd run it up the executive chain of command to see what came back. In a follow-up conversation a few days later, his tone had changed somewhat. "I have an official statement from the company concerning alleged studies of minimally piloted or pilotless air freighters," he said. "'FedEx is always interested in new technology that will help us improve service to our customers, but we do not disclose the nature of our research.'"
"In researching this report, we heard of studies by major cargo airlines involving optionally piloted freighters, supposedly crewed on transoceanic flights by a single pilot, or none at all. We queried Federal Express on the subject and received a friendly but dismissive response from corporate spokesman Jim McCluskey, who said, "I'm in touch with our research people all the time, and I've never heard anything like that."
Nevertheless, he said, he'd run it up the executive chain of command to see what came back. In a follow-up conversation a few days later, his tone had changed somewhat. "I have an official statement from the company concerning alleged studies of minimally piloted or pilotless air freighters," he said. "'FedEx is always interested in new technology that will help us improve service to our customers, but we do not disclose the nature of our research.'"
- Boeing or Airbus willing to build and certify it.
- FAA willing to modify regs and NAS to support such a system.
- Congress willing to fund and allow the FAA changes, and a President willing to sign it.
Plus...the largest benefit would be on long-haul routes where you pay relief pilots, and only a small percentage of time is spent in departure/arrival mode. That would require the REST of the world to adapt their ATC and regulations. Good Luck...
I know of several previous incidents where airlines have made noises about unmanned or single-pilot airliners...this is total BS and the airlines know it. The only reason they even make these noises is to put the Fear of God in pilots who may have a contract coming due! Do not believe this crap, you are an idiot if you fall for their little mind-games!
If Boeing announces the FORMAL LAUNCH of such a project, and the President announces a manhattan-project to re-engineer the FARs and NAS to support it, then you can worry. But it will still take them 20-30 years to do (at least).
Make no mistake...current airliners CANNOT be modified for unmanned operations with FAR required safety levels. They will need to be re-engineered from the ground up for vast increases in redundancy and reliability.
Ever flown an A320 or an CRJ? How often do those computerized wonders throw a fit...at least every leg
Look at ADS-B...how hard can that be? It's just one little box and not very expensive by 121 standards. It still took 20 years (assuming they finish on time).
There are plenty of things to worry about in this industry, but this is not one of them (during our careers)
02-16-2011, 06:41 AM
#56
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MSP7ERB
Posts: 1,886
GJ, what is the Class A mishap rate for the Predator? How many have been lost? If you're unwilling to say, I will: 1 in 3. They "break" far more than the most dangerous manned asset. Once we start talking in terms of reliability on the order of a 737 or Airbus 320, then I think your vision of the future may occur. Until that time, it will not happen.
02-16-2011, 06:42 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Elvis90
Let's say commercial RPAs/UAVs take off and are produced in huge quantities. Do you see bandwidth communications limitations in the Ku-band? Would this be a limiting factor?
Are you a Delta employee BTW? If not, which company?
Are you a Delta employee BTW? If not, which company?
Good question. I absolutely think it'd be a hurdle to overcome with a proliferation of RPA's/UAV's congesting the skies. I personally think the concept is "approachable" though.
This example is exaggerated for explanation purposes, but imagine a 777 flying over the ocean with what would normally be a four-man crew. Now reduce that crew requirement to a two-man crew by having the plane on "remote operation" for a portion of the flight. I think satellite ops could effectively and efficiently "schedule" Ku Band operations, so as to not be overwhelmed, but still allow everyone to have a "piece of their own pie" so to speak.
With regard to your other question. Check your PM's.
Fly safe,
GJ
02-16-2011, 06:44 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Elvis90
GJ, what is the Class A mishap rate for the Predator? How many have been lost? If you're unwilling to say, I will: 1 in 3. They "break" far more than the most dangerous manned asset. Once we start talking in terms of reliability on the order of a 737 or Airbus 320, then I think your vision of the future may occur. Until that time, it will not happen.
I appreciate your numbers. I'm not at work right now, so can't give you the most accurate, but can tell you your numbers are "skewed" by "training events at the FTU". The number of Class A's for aircraft performing the mission is nowhere near a 1 to 3 average.
V/R,
GJ
To add: I don't think anyone is talking about "completely pilot-less aircraft". I say again, nobody is propositioning having an aircraft with "ZERO" pilots in it, but think about the plausibility of "reducing" the pilots required on a long haul flight because now you have the aircraft piloted "remotely" for a short time during that 14-16 hour transit.
I personally don't think we'll ever, at least in my lifetime, see "true pilot-less flights". Will we see operations that allow companies to "reduce" the amount of pilots required? Why not? The auto industry has done it with automation of the assembly line.
02-16-2011, 06:52 AM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,192
Originally Posted by Gearjerk
Elvis,
I appreciate your numbers. I'm not at work right now, so can't give you the most accurate, but can tell you your numbers are "skewed" by "training events at the FTU". The number of Class A's for aircraft performing the mission is nowhere near a 1 to 3 average.
V/R,
GJ
To add: I don't think anyone is talking about "completely pilot-less aircraft". I say again, nobody is propositioning having an aircraft with "ZERO" pilots in it, but think about the plausibility of "reducing" the pilots required on a long haul flight because now you have the aircraft piloted "remotely" for a short time during that 14-16 hour transit.
I personally don't think we'll ever, at least in my lifetime, see "true pilot-less flights". Will we see operations that allow companies to "reduce" the amount of pilots required? Why not? The auto industry has done it with automation of the assembly line.
I appreciate your numbers. I'm not at work right now, so can't give you the most accurate, but can tell you your numbers are "skewed" by "training events at the FTU". The number of Class A's for aircraft performing the mission is nowhere near a 1 to 3 average.
V/R,
GJ
To add: I don't think anyone is talking about "completely pilot-less aircraft". I say again, nobody is propositioning having an aircraft with "ZERO" pilots in it, but think about the plausibility of "reducing" the pilots required on a long haul flight because now you have the aircraft piloted "remotely" for a short time during that 14-16 hour transit.
I personally don't think we'll ever, at least in my lifetime, see "true pilot-less flights". Will we see operations that allow companies to "reduce" the amount of pilots required? Why not? The auto industry has done it with automation of the assembly line.
02-16-2011, 07:02 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: "Prof" button manipulator
Posts: 1,685
Originally Posted by Grumble
You're right, last time I was in PMD they said the number was actually much higher, and one of their biggest hurdles. However with the readjustment of criteria and the monetary value of a Class A going up, not quite as many "mishaps" qualify for class A status. Not that Class A is a goal one should try to attain.
I don't have the exact numbers/percentages, but will post when I return to work and am able to log onto AFSAS.
Lets not confuse the types of operations the "unmanned" assets perform now to the "limited operations" that future operations would perform, "reducing a requirement for the same number of crews."
I say again. Nobody is saying that we'll be flying a 777 around the globe with 280-300 passengers on board with zero pilots. Do you think it's plausible to fly that same 777, with a two-pilot crew instead of a four-pilot crew, with tomorrow's "remote" technologies? How about "operating" that 777 with a two-pilot/two-"operator" crew?
Just food for thought.
Thanks for the insightful discussion,
GJ
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
