Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

It will not be my problem. It will be your problem.

Think grasshopper... Think. ;)

Yes, but the point he was making...

- You can't *economically* retrofit old airplanes. If you disagree, go get a systems engineering degree and then back and we'll discuss.

- Airlines are major capital investments, typically amortized over 20-30 years.

Even if someone could and would build and sell an automated airliner today, nobody could afford to just swap out all the planes they have... they need to fly them for a couple decades to pay down the mortgage.

Could you imagine having a hydraulic failure? Running that checklist, flying the airplane, setting up the approach, communicating over the radio and configuring the aircraft for landing by yourself. Scarry

Humans are humans and being by yourself in that situation that's not going to work.

Yes. The only way you'll get single pilot is when the airplane is fully autonomous anyway. You'll just be a backup to the backups, until they have enough operational experience to show they don't need you, and the public will go for it.

This is all a very long way off... to make it happen rapidly would require a vast manhattan project costing Trillions of dollars, but the ROI on that is negligible by comparison. There are less than 100,000 airline pilots in the US. Nobody has an incentive to drop the coin now, certainly not the government (which would have to develop roadmaps for certification, change laws, and COMPLETELY re-engineer the ATC infrastructure).

Public acceptance may take decades, so in the meantime we could fool them with a curtain, sound effects, etc:

“I am Captain Oz, the great and powerful! Whooo are yooou?! :cool: :D

Cool. Ours did too.

And the result is they are near worthless.

Automation is infinitely scalable. So while financial planning and the legal field are taking the hits right now as it relates to AI. AI is AI so when it can figure out how to invest your money and divorce your third wife, landing in a 150kt cross wind with both wings on fire won’t be an issue.

Nobody is going out and designing a replacement pilot, they are designing a human replacement.

Good lord guys it’s a freaking study! You know how many “studies” the government spends money on? No joke, 20 years ago the Air Force studied “Gay Bombs,” where they would drop bombs that would spread a chemical that would make the enemy homosexual and allegedly less likely to attack. The sky isn’t falling.

How many of the next gen airliners have even hinted at being single pilot or autonomous? A whopping zero. How many airline CEOs have given serious consideration to this? Zero. The technology is simply not there to handle the multitude of emergencies that an average pilot is tasked with being ready for. Even when the technology is there, you’re talking about fielding, investments, regulation, insurance, major infrastructure ..at an international level! That takes time, not 5-10 years as people here so ignorantly think. It also takes money, which completely negates the only reason why this would make sense.

While we are still crashing drones and driverless cars, I think I’ll find some security in this job until I retire.

This ^^^^^^^^
Thank you.

You are correct, and that is exactly what it will take, a generalized AI.

But that's still a long way off, and frankly no one really even has any idea how to do it. They're still just trying to design systems which can function reliably on a narrow scope of problems. Windows software which can fill out a boilerplate legal pleading is not the same as one that can represent you at trial...

I've never said it won't happen, to the contrary, I just have a better understanding than most of what it will take, and where we actually stand today.

But a generalized AI will raise a whole host of other issues, since it could probably replace every profession known except for one (the oldest one... ). In order to function at that level it will also need a lifetime's worth of experience (either real or copied), and a conscience/awareness. Ethical dilemma anyone? Not the mention the whole terminator problem which gets very, very real if a machine becomes aware.

Incorrect. At least one prominent cargo CEO has famously stated that single-pilot airliners is his objective. This study proposal didn't get into the bill by accident; it was included because of special-interest lobbyists.

It's becoming increasingly obvious how strongly the elitists, politicians, and the technology crowd despise employees and humans in general.

Who? What carrier?

Memphis....

Uber considers human drivers a temporary, annoying, inconvenience too.

The problem some of these "visionary" leaders have is not some much the vision, but the timelines and realities of making it happen.

They also think they'll benefit from ANY quasi-official background noise about automation, on the premise that it might scare labor a bit. Don't fall for it (at least not this century).

..........

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Good lord help us the sky is falling!

The last generation of military fighter pilots has probably been born already. Mil is pushing unmanned cargo ops and the FAA has recently certified an optionally manned UH-1 helo. It's going to happen on the civilian side as well, it's just a matter of time. Guys in the business now are probably pretty safe, but the future of aviation is going to be vastly different from today. There might not even be much of a future of aviation. Why travel to Orlando when you can experience the sights, sounds, and feel of Disney in your own virtual reality world? Do you really need that widget from Amazon delivered when you can 3D print one at home?

My 5 year old said the other day he wanted to be a pilot (although he may have said pirate, I'm not too sure). I don't think he will retire 60 years from now after a career in manned aviation. There's better odds of him being a pirate than that happening.

No. Definitely No. While some senior DoD political appointees talked out of their arses about unmanned tacair a few years ago, both USN and USAF are starting 6th gen fighter programs and both are manned.

The only real benefits to be gained are slightly better endurance and higher G's. But you if you really need a 15 G dogfighter, you can have an AP mode that pulls the turn and takes the shot and then gives the jet back to the pilot when he wakes up. Never say dogfighting is dead but most future a2a combat (and recent historical examples) involve missiles at longer range. Reality is that AI type advances will be used to augment human pilot capabilities, the human may become battle-manager, adult supervision, and installed backup. But he'll still be there.

The risks are legion. We don't have AI that can adapt on the fly so if they bad guys figure out how to defeat it they'll have a window of opportunity to do a lot of damage. Hacking, jamming are more significant issues. A human can go into autonomous lone wolf mode but that would be very risky to let automation do that. There are also major unresolved ethical, political, and legal issues.

The ONLY way this is happening in the near future is if somebody else does it and succeeds... we might conceivably need to react to that. But there's only two players of concern and we generally know what they're up to.

Mil is exploring unmanned cargo in the TACTICAL realm. They are not even REMOTELY considering unmanned airlift in the real world, for all the same reasons that airlines aren't.

There is no consideration for unmanned aircraft with pax on board, except for battlefield medevac where the only other option is to die while waiting.


Future generations may well be less inclined to travel because they have more entertainment options at home. But population growth and increasing affluence will probably more than offset that. I would anticipate that living one's life primarily in a VR world would be the province of the dregs of society.

Home 3D printers will work for some things (like a spatula), but not for any of the highly complex consumer products (particularly anything with embedded digital computers) which we take for granted. The technology to 3D print something like a computer monitor at home is centuries away. That's comparable to leaping from hammering out iron horseshoes to making a titanium jet engine N2 core in your garage.

I would say the only real benefit of unmanned tacair is not risking the political fallout of a shootdown. Look at the latest Syrian strike - no one came close to penetrating their airspace. Why risk it when you can launch missiles or a wave of drones from over the horizon? I thought I heard that the next gen fighter was going to be optionally manned. I could be wrong there.

How are people going to feel when you can get them LA to Paris in an hour on an unmanned scramjet? Oh it's a fully configurable detachable cabin equipped with a ballistic escape system in case of any issues. Or you can sit with your knees in your chest for 14 hours on the current fleet of aircraft because it's got a pilot up front. Maybe Musk is going to bore tunnels across the US and link cities together with 700 mph mag lev trains running off green energy.

I don't know what the future is for airline travel. I do know we went from a powered kite with one dude laying on it to landing on the moon in 65 years. 20 years ago no one was thinking you would be walking around with a powerful computer in the palm of your hand that instantly connected you to the entire world. Something will come along to revolutionize travel. I'm not smart enough to know when and what form that will take.

The horse and buggy manufacturers never thought the automobile would catch on.

Interesting conversation though.

You're confusing low-intensity, politically-sensitive, stand-off meddling with war. Nobody in the military is making that mistake.

The priority for combat aircraft is winning against peer competitors. They can use MQ-9 if they need to bomb third-world ground formations and ensure none of our people get hurt.


You can do that with manned aircraft. Getting rid of pilots doesn't make it faster. From a technology readiness level, supersonic airliners or even scramjets are far more plausible than un-piloted pax aircraft. Artificial Generalized Intelligence does not exist, and no one knows how to make one. To say nothing of the ethical, certification, and reliability/safety issues if it did exist.


Maybe someday. But that infrastructure is going to cost about $1 Billion per mile (in the flatlands). The flight levels are free, and you can stack and offset planes. You need to break this down to the basics: Greed. Who's going to pay for it, and what do they expect to get out of it? If you can't answer that, it's not happening.

Kind of like going to the moon... we did that to beat the Ruskies. If Uncle Sugar is going to write the check, he'll need a darn good reason. If businesses are going to write the check, they'll need to be able to articulate technology readiness and an ROI timeline to the BoD.


I'm not saying it's not going to happen, I'm saying many folks don't understand all the hurdles. I am by no means going to ignore history and make blanket statements about what cannot happen in the future.

Frankly I'm a tad disappointed in the lack of progress in aerospace and space since I was a kid. I expected more by now. Politics and economics got in the way of cool whiz-bang new stuff.

Huh? :confused: Putting a Pilot who has specific local knowledge of a harbor, aboard a ship when that ship is operating into or out of the harbor is nothing remotely like what's being proposed.

With single pilot, they would put in a second pilot virtually, during high workloads. That may even not be necessary.

the pilots are put on board because they have specific knowledge of the channels, procedures, markings hazards and other local conditions of that particular location, that the crew of an oceangoing vessel wouldn't have, and couldn't be expected to have. The pilot isn't put on board because they are shorthanded by 1 person on the bridge.

The current system is even better: Two pilots on board, and during periods of low workload, they “virtually” go to one pilot while the other one takes a nap. :D

Yes that's an apples to oranges comparison with aviation. No relevance.

They don't do it by remote control either, in fact they occasionally die getting on and off the ships.

As long as Teslas keep hitting semi trucks and swerving into concrete barriers, our jobs are safe.

Wasn't NextGen and RNP introduced back in '96? Yet here we are, still getting vectored for a 20nm ILS in 2018.

Mgt: "How can we seamlessly enhance trafflic flow and improve our approach capabilities?"
ATC/FAA/Pilots: "Spend money."
Mgt: "Nevermind."

Our airline has an RNP 0.1 approach to almost every airport we fly into. How often do we get to use them? Maybe 5% of the time because no one else can.

Come on man! Kit Darby was just dusting off his briefcase!

None of what you said is factually correct, especially unmanned cargo ops? That is simply untrue. We are still flying 40 year old C-130Hs.

Never said it was happening now, said military is pursuing it.

On the cargo side...

https://www.military.com/defensetech...elicopter.html

AACUS is designed to deliver vital combat supplies such as ammunition, fuel, food, water and even blood to Marines and other combat troops operating in remote locations that are inaccessible by vehicles and greatly increase the risks to pilots flying resupply missions, Aurora officials said.

"It has a software package that enables it to make mission decisions on its own; it has a suite of sensors that allows it get information from the environment to inform its decision, and it is pushing the envelope on autonomous capabilities," Walter Jones, executive director of the Office of Naval Research, told an audience at the demonstration. "It can navigate to the location, even in a GPS-compromised area; it can determine the best location for a safe landing ... in low-visibility conditions.”

Challenger Aerospace readies newest cargo unmanned aerial vehicle - Defence Blog

“The Titan is an innovative cargo UAV designed for carrying out military transport missions. With a maximum take-off weight of around 3.5 tonnes, the Titan is one of the biggest cargo UAV int the World.”

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...hip-based.html

“Marine Corps leaders intend the future MUX unmanned aircraft to have an unrefueled combat radius with payload of 350 to 700 nautical miles; cruise speeds between 200 and 300 knots; time on station of 8 to 12 hours; internal payload capability of 3,000 pounds; external payload capability of 3,000 to 9,000 pounds; ability to operate from ships and austere fields; ability to receive aerial refueling; operate in all weather; and ability to operate in national air space.”

And fighter side from the Air Force Research Lab...

“Loyal Wingman, or unmanned fighters that can think autonomously, will be sent out alongside F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to scout enemy territory ahead of a strike, or to gather intel for the pilot in the formation. A flight demo is expected sometime in 2022.”

https://www.military.com/defensetech...ght-suits.html

AIA: Large Passenger/Cargo UAS Market To Reach $30 Billion By 2036

Feb 26, 2018 Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology

The advent of large commercial unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), for cargo and passengers, is closer than most people believe, and legislators and regulators should begin work now to enable their certification and introduction over the next 20 years, says a new report by the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA).

Annual spending on large commercial UAS, now a few hundred million dollars on research and development, is forecast to rise to $4 billion by 2028 and reach almost $30 billion by 2036, forecasts the report by the U.S. trade group and consultancy Avascent.

Growth will be driven by demand from airlines for unmanned cargo and passenger aircraft, with their lower cost of operations, the report projects. This will begin around 2025 with short-haul cargo flights at relatively low altitude over rural areas.

Sensor-carrying large UAS will lead the way, from 2018-24

Short-haul cargo flights in rural areas will follow in 2025-31

Long-haul cargo and passenger UAS will appear around 2032

Prototypes of long-haul passenger and cargo UAS will roll out early in the 2030s, with freighter aircraft entering service on international and domestic routes by the mid-2030s. UAS will account for a small, but increasing share of passenger aircraft deliveries by 2040, the report forecasts.

The report was drawn up in consultation with manufacturers, service providers and likely users of large UAS including package delivery companies, says David Silver, vice president for civil aviation at the AIA.

“Technology paces the time line, and it should. We do not want regulation to pace innovation,” he says. “The technology is a lot nearer than people imagine. We need to start thinking about rulemaking now—how we are going to certify an unmanned aircraft for cargo or passengers—and not leave it to the end.”

Because of the time required to develop large commercial aircraft, the AIA is calling for work to begin on defining the regulations. “We can see unmanned passenger aircraft in a 2030s time frame. But given the time to design a large aircraft, for OEMs to discuss this they need to have certification targets,” he says.

Today commercial use of UAS is limited to vehicles below 55 lb. In the near term, the report expects UAS heavier than 55 lb. to be introduced for sensor-carrying missions such as infrastructure inspection, agricultural monitoring and firefighting. But the AIA believes the real value will be at the upper end of the market, says Silver.

While manufacturers of military surveillance UAS are struggling to create an equivalent commercial business, cargo and passenger UAS may prove an easier sell. “If you think about larger aircraft, the rules of the road are already there, and it comes down to the means of compliance [with certification requirements],” says Silver. “If you can drive out cost [by removing the pilot], there is an incentive for airlines to purchase them. The monetization is already built in.”

The new document—the AIA’s first market report in 20 years, Silver says—is intended to show that large commercial UAS are closer than many realize but that action will be required to enable their development and operation.

“Regulations tell us what we are allowed to do and what the limits of operation are. For manufacturers to invest in R&D, they need to know the high-level targets for meeting those regulations,” he says.

The report makes three recommendations. First is for regulators to codify near-term needs for detect-and-avoid operations, autonomous systems certification and spectrum allocation for command-and-control links. Regulators also should focus increasingly on large certifiable UAS operating alongside manned aircraft in airspace above 18,000 ft.

Secondly, international efforts should be harmonized to avoid what the AIA calls “confusing, contrary and duplicative” regulatory regimes. “There should be increased regulatory reliance to performance-based international consensus standards,” the report says. But the work of the many different industry groups developing these standards must be coordinated. Silver says.

Thirdly, the multinational Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), intended to prevent the proliferation of cruise missiles, “must be reformed to distinguish between missiles and civilian UAS,” the report recommends. The U.S. government has already launched a review of the MTCR to ease the export of military UAS, “but we need to work to make sure the guidelines are appropriate to what they are being applied to,” Silver says.

For the AIA, he says, a good outcome from release of the new report would be the creation of an FAA advisory rulemaking committee, or ARC, to make recommendations to the agency on how certification regulations could be changed to enable the development of large commercial UAS.

One possibility, he says, could be to leverage the FAA’s new Part 23 regulations—revamped in 2017 to allow the use of industry-developed consensus standards for certification compliance—to be “built upward” to include large UAS.

The report concludes that almost $150 billion could be spent on large unmanned aircraft in 2018-36. “There is a huge market out there that manufacturers are not talking about publicly, although they are privately,” says Silver. “We wanted to bring it to the attention of legislators and regulators so they can get to work now. The U.S. either leads this market, or we end up playing catch-up to Airbus or China.”

One pilot on flight deck duty, no pilot at all. Fine. But with the maneuvering, navigating and communicating accomplished, what's left? Decision making for one thing. On site accountability. The perception of control. Consider all the verification, confirmation & reassignment of tasking as even minor change forever finds its way into the most impervious flight plan. On a really chitty night, with a terrified cabin or Dr. Dao's evil twin shrieking his lungs out. How does that happen remotely, in a universe of hair triggered, liability pitfalls, when big smoking hulls are broadcast in real time? No bucks, no Buck Rogers. My God, who would eat all those crew meals?

This is where it will happen first, in a combat zone. They can fly on military reservations and in combat, but not in national airspace mixed with other aircraft. Nothing new, preds have been doing this for years.

And fighter side from the Air Force Research Lab...

It doesn't replace fighters, or pilots. It supplements the capability of the fighter. Certainly a small step in the autonomous direction, but it is a very huge gulf away from replacing human pilots in fighters.

Let me summarize: A trade group would like to sell un-piloted cargo and pax aircraft because it would make their customers (the airlines) happy to reduce labor costs. Naturally they want the government to pave the way for them. The catch is that nobody knows how to regulate or certify highly-flexible artificial intelligence systems which don't exist.

You can worry when a senior congressional leader announces that it's absolutely imperative that the federal government ELIMINATE 100,000 well-paying airline jobs (the majority of which are held by veterans), and moves to commit $200 billion to R&D and a complete re-engineering of ATC in the US. Even that might not be enough... the US is a big market, but it would be hard to justify the R&D ROI on a state-of-the-art airliner which can only be sold in the US... might need the rest of the world onboard too.