Someone mentioned "Future generations"
02-02-2014, 08:01 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
Nov 2006 I did moving map display tech testing with Boeing and Jeppesen through AA volunteer. While on breaks with Jepp wooing my CA, I had time to quizz the Sim techs. I asked if they had friends in R & D at Boeing. They said Yes.
At the time the big talk was "the plastic 737"
They reminded me 777 first design keystroke to 1st delivery. 5 years. Plan for 787 was 3 years. 737 replacement 18 months. This was in 2006.
We know what happened with the 787.
They said their buds in R&D were just waiting on engine advancement. The GTF which in early 2007 became publicly known via P&W.
But these guys also told me I think it was part 23 a/c certification (?)
You cannot change the landing gear (main) the last was the DC9/80 to change the main gear and keep same certification.
Look what they did with the 737 MAX, extend the nosewheel.
They also told me Nov 2006. B and AB were both currently testing a Hijack switch. 1 press cannot be undone. Aircraft lands at nearest suitable.
Switch could not be UNDONE. You could crash ax the whole upper and lower panels. The said one was a 757 under test.
I'm not a conspiracy guy. Never have been. But just passing on what I was told by a couple sim techs back in 2006. Most of what they said became true.
Just a couple months ago the evening news reported cars testing autopilots on I95 in Fort Lauderdale to Miami.
With that I want the Auto-Autopilot with the Carribean Cab driver software.
Also someone mentioned the current ATC system is 1970's technology. It is not. It's design is late 90's . Implemented early 2000-2001.
Visit a tower/ Center.
The significance is the same as the 777. 777 design 1993 used 1994 computer software. Think back. 1993 I was using 186, 286 chips?
The 777-300 has faster processors. But the 777X will correct this.
Late 90's for ATC would be at least Pentium 4.
Look at how much more lenient the FAA is over pilot medicals? In the late 70's or early 80's heart problem? You're done.
Now, back in a week in some cases.
General aviation, I believe the technology will be there sooner, but pilotless corporate travel? Different issues on embark/disembark.
At the time the big talk was "the plastic 737"
They reminded me 777 first design keystroke to 1st delivery. 5 years. Plan for 787 was 3 years. 737 replacement 18 months. This was in 2006.
We know what happened with the 787.
They said their buds in R&D were just waiting on engine advancement. The GTF which in early 2007 became publicly known via P&W.
But these guys also told me I think it was part 23 a/c certification (?)
You cannot change the landing gear (main) the last was the DC9/80 to change the main gear and keep same certification.
Look what they did with the 737 MAX, extend the nosewheel.
They also told me Nov 2006. B and AB were both currently testing a Hijack switch. 1 press cannot be undone. Aircraft lands at nearest suitable.
Switch could not be UNDONE. You could crash ax the whole upper and lower panels. The said one was a 757 under test.
I'm not a conspiracy guy. Never have been. But just passing on what I was told by a couple sim techs back in 2006. Most of what they said became true.
Just a couple months ago the evening news reported cars testing autopilots on I95 in Fort Lauderdale to Miami.
With that I want the Auto-Autopilot with the Carribean Cab driver software.
Also someone mentioned the current ATC system is 1970's technology. It is not. It's design is late 90's . Implemented early 2000-2001.
Visit a tower/ Center.
The significance is the same as the 777. 777 design 1993 used 1994 computer software. Think back. 1993 I was using 186, 286 chips?
The 777-300 has faster processors. But the 777X will correct this.
Late 90's for ATC would be at least Pentium 4.
Look at how much more lenient the FAA is over pilot medicals? In the late 70's or early 80's heart problem? You're done.
Now, back in a week in some cases.
General aviation, I believe the technology will be there sooner, but pilotless corporate travel? Different issues on embark/disembark.
02-02-2014, 08:54 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
The pilotless craze that's hit the military has done so for a few specific reasons: removing the pilot saves weight, reduces the requirements for life support systems (pressurization, O2, etc) and removes the issue of casualties. Those benefits don't apply to pax aircraft. The only benefit to pax aircraft is saving $ on training and salaries.
But don't think something else won't take up those savings. As someone else pointed out, there will always be an operator of some type somewhere. Whether they sit in the airplane and babysit or are located in a central location, those people still need to be trained how to get the airplane from A to B without killing everyone. And the computer and programming reliability will have to be spot-on perfect to avoid liability.
I worked around military unmanned aircraft for a bit and the reality hit me that no matter how much the tech pundits keep saying it'll happen, the technology is no where near reliable enough to put people on unmanned airplanes, specifically a flying public that is already suspicious of airline management practices. We lost unmanned aircraft (MQ-1/9s) with alarming regularity. Leaving prepared surfaces on taxi/takeoff/landing happened all the time...landing short, botched landings resulting in gear failures, engine failures, lost link...the list goes on. That's fine and all if you've got a camera on board, but with 100+ people?
I can foresee pilots being relegated to simply monitoring systems. But completely pilotless airliners? Too much liability and you really wouldn't be saving that much anyways.
But don't think something else won't take up those savings. As someone else pointed out, there will always be an operator of some type somewhere. Whether they sit in the airplane and babysit or are located in a central location, those people still need to be trained how to get the airplane from A to B without killing everyone. And the computer and programming reliability will have to be spot-on perfect to avoid liability.
I worked around military unmanned aircraft for a bit and the reality hit me that no matter how much the tech pundits keep saying it'll happen, the technology is no where near reliable enough to put people on unmanned airplanes, specifically a flying public that is already suspicious of airline management practices. We lost unmanned aircraft (MQ-1/9s) with alarming regularity. Leaving prepared surfaces on taxi/takeoff/landing happened all the time...landing short, botched landings resulting in gear failures, engine failures, lost link...the list goes on. That's fine and all if you've got a camera on board, but with 100+ people?
I can foresee pilots being relegated to simply monitoring systems. But completely pilotless airliners? Too much liability and you really wouldn't be saving that much anyways.
02-02-2014, 08:57 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2011
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by Hueypilot
The pilotless craze that's hit the military has done so for a few specific reasons: removing the pilot saves weight, reduces the requirements for life support systems (pressurization, O2, etc) and removes the issue of casualties. Those benefits don't apply to pax aircraft. The only benefit to pax aircraft is saving $ on training and salaries.
But don't think something else won't take up those savings. As someone else pointed out, there will always be an operator of some type somewhere. Whether they sit in the airplane and babysit or are located in a central location, those people still need to be trained how to get the airplane from A to B without killing everyone. And the computer and programming reliability will have to be spot-on perfect to avoid liability.
I worked around military unmanned aircraft for a bit and the reality hit me that no matter how much the tech pundits keep saying it'll happen, the technology is no where near reliable enough to put people on unmanned airplanes, specifically a flying public that is already suspicious of airline management practices. We lost unmanned aircraft (MQ-1/9s) with alarming regularity. Leaving prepared surfaces on taxi/takeoff/landing happened all the time...landing short, botched landings resulting in gear failures, engine failures, lost link...the list goes on. That's fine and all if you've got a camera on board, but with 100+ people?
I can foresee pilots being relegated to simply monitoring systems. But completely pilotless airliners? Too much liability and you really wouldn't be saving that much anyways.
But don't think something else won't take up those savings. As someone else pointed out, there will always be an operator of some type somewhere. Whether they sit in the airplane and babysit or are located in a central location, those people still need to be trained how to get the airplane from A to B without killing everyone. And the computer and programming reliability will have to be spot-on perfect to avoid liability.
I worked around military unmanned aircraft for a bit and the reality hit me that no matter how much the tech pundits keep saying it'll happen, the technology is no where near reliable enough to put people on unmanned airplanes, specifically a flying public that is already suspicious of airline management practices. We lost unmanned aircraft (MQ-1/9s) with alarming regularity. Leaving prepared surfaces on taxi/takeoff/landing happened all the time...landing short, botched landings resulting in gear failures, engine failures, lost link...the list goes on. That's fine and all if you've got a camera on board, but with 100+ people?
I can foresee pilots being relegated to simply monitoring systems. But completely pilotless airliners? Too much liability and you really wouldn't be saving that much anyways.
02-02-2014, 09:22 AM
#24
Working weekends
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: Left Seat
Posts: 2,384
There will never be pilot-less airliners. This industry is not about data links, sat-com, redundancies, technology, military proving trials, or anything like that.
We forget that this business is about making money and filling planes. Yes, we know, that most likely, from a technology standpoint, an unmanned 747 can be flown via remote control. But that does not pay the light bill over at corporate HQ.
Take a wild guess if the planes will be fuller, or less full, when the pax figure out no pilots up front.
Period, the end.
We forget that this business is about making money and filling planes. Yes, we know, that most likely, from a technology standpoint, an unmanned 747 can be flown via remote control. But that does not pay the light bill over at corporate HQ.
Take a wild guess if the planes will be fuller, or less full, when the pax figure out no pilots up front.
Period, the end.
02-02-2014, 11:37 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
Follow the money! Duh... Crew meals for pilots? That's the big money management wants to save...
Pilot Talk: Barely Air #1 - YouTube
Pilot Talk: Barely Air #1 - YouTube
02-07-2014, 06:05 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Position: B-757/767 Capt.
Posts: 219
I agree that it would require acceptance from the traveling public that may or may not be possible to achieve. If they ever pull it off we can blame a lot of it on ourselves. We as a group have contributed to the misconception that a person is as safe in the back of an airliner as he is at home in bed. He is not!
We don't get paid for what we do, we get paid for what we CAN do!
Something I wish some in our group would consider when they make a PA saying that the "computer says" we will be in Dallas at 2:15. Does it hurt to let them believe that YOU may have had something to do with that ciphering, or the guy that won't say the dreaded fog word ("why this big jet can land itself") or calls thunderstorms "sun showers", how cute.
I'm the last one to want to alarm or dramatize but if it's fog, it's fog, if Chicago is reporting thunderstorms then there are damn thunderstorms there. I will do all I can to assure them they are safe but I won't hide the FACTS. If they are anxious because of the truth then so be it. Maybe they will have a little more respect for what we do.
I will say this. You can call me a dinosaur but I will never board a pilotless airliner. I'm all for automation but I want the reasoning and prioritizing overseen by a HUMAN. A human on board the aircraft with their own a$$ in the game!
CG
We don't get paid for what we do, we get paid for what we CAN do!
Something I wish some in our group would consider when they make a PA saying that the "computer says" we will be in Dallas at 2:15. Does it hurt to let them believe that YOU may have had something to do with that ciphering, or the guy that won't say the dreaded fog word ("why this big jet can land itself") or calls thunderstorms "sun showers", how cute.
I'm the last one to want to alarm or dramatize but if it's fog, it's fog, if Chicago is reporting thunderstorms then there are damn thunderstorms there. I will do all I can to assure them they are safe but I won't hide the FACTS. If they are anxious because of the truth then so be it. Maybe they will have a little more respect for what we do.
I will say this. You can call me a dinosaur but I will never board a pilotless airliner. I'm all for automation but I want the reasoning and prioritizing overseen by a HUMAN. A human on board the aircraft with their own a$$ in the game!
CG
03-31-2014, 08:44 PM
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 35
First of all, I do not believe there will ever be one piloted airliners for medical reason, even the healthiest people can have issues whether it be a serious medical issue or just a bad tired day where the pilot cannot operate the aircraft safely. One factor that must be considered is public perception, convincing the passengers that they are safe with an automated system flying them 35,000 ft in the air. I don't believe any automated system hasn't failed multiple times.
04-01-2014, 07:36 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Position: CFIT cannot be logged as a landing?!
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by kingairip
Exactly. But, everyone wants to live in a Jetsons' world...
And here I thought the topic of this thread was about how the future generations of kids are little turds.
04-01-2014, 08:16 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 490
Originally Posted by satpak77
There will never be pilot-less airliners. This industry is not about data links, sat-com, redundancies, technology, military proving trials, or anything like that.
We forget that this business is about making money and filling planes. Yes, we know, that most likely, from a technology standpoint, an unmanned 747 can be flown via remote control. But that does not pay the light bill over at corporate HQ.
Take a wild guess if the planes will be fuller, or less full, when the pax figure out no pilots up front.
Period, the end.
We forget that this business is about making money and filling planes. Yes, we know, that most likely, from a technology standpoint, an unmanned 747 can be flown via remote control. But that does not pay the light bill over at corporate HQ.
Take a wild guess if the planes will be fuller, or less full, when the pax figure out no pilots up front.
Period, the end.
04-01-2014, 08:48 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by chignutsak
This. Of course it is all technically achievable, but it's all moot if you are afraid to put your family in the back of the drone.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
