I'm referring only to the example of in the video above. I have no doubt that in the next 20 years, there would be the potential for fully automated airplanes. But they cannot exist in the current environment. It would take a momentous shift in the entire aviation infrastructure and that takes time....and A LOT of money. There are still airlines that operate on 1970s IT systems flying aircraft built in the 90s.

Right now and in the near to mid term future, the infrastructure is not there to support it. It is going to take several decades of testing and technology improvements before we ever see one enter service. Yes, a robot can program an autopilot to land a 737. Good for the programmers. Many, many airports have inadequate approach procedures. They would need to be developed and built to suit the new aircraft. And then there is the capital needed to replace every aircraft currently flying. That 737 that the robot landed has very limited Autoland capabilities. Toss in some windshear and a snow covered runway and things get really interesting. And remember, robots can't see weather beyond what the radar tells them...which is still a limited resource in a lot of cases. The only thing that would have saved the Air France flight in the Atlantic was better training. The Autopilot is of no help when all the sensors fail...

Well, probably not all aspects....:D

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDxBnYsjdKM

The system is already in testing in Europe.

Our dispatchers went from working 6 flights at a time to 18 ... I could see a remote pilot backing up 18 flights at a time. What could happen?

What about AI ATC(monitored by a human). Pushing instructions to planes with CPDLC like commands and the pilots just acknowledging unless they see different. Borrrrrrring

Dispatchers are working more flights due to greater automation. The ratio will just continue to increase until they disappear.

I just love the mission of putting the population out of work. If people don’t have money how do they buy things. The middle class American dream is already harder and harder to attain because jobs that can support a family are few and far between. This leads to social issues because both parents have to work and no one is minding the shop at home. Now we are trying to eliminate one of the few well paying middle class lines of work left out there? For what? I honestly have no idea what my kids (kindergarten) are going to do for a living that makes any kind of decent money.

2 minds are better than one. It's a pretty simple rule of thumb that has been time tested, but it's the hype behind driverless vehicles that I think is driving much of this.

The problem is some politicians and others who probably haven't spent much time in a flight deck recently are buying the hype. I do worry that they will make financially driven decisions that will compromise safety.

Even driverless cars have significant hurdles, and I think some politicians, engineers, and regulators have rushed its technology.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ash-in-Arizona

Unfortunately it takes an accident for people to start appreciating the limitations of technology.

The problem is with aircraft accidents consequences are far worse when things go south... even on a cargo aircraft. Which is why I think its good ALPA and others work to slow this research way, way down, before someone gets the crazy idea to try this thing on 121 ops and someone gets hurt.

I think huge problems remain even from a single pilot perspective

Security
- One person at the controls of a potential WoMD. (German Wings)
- Hackable interfaces (all remote tech will have vulnerabilities, if they don't today they will tomorrow)

Redundancy
- We take flying aircraft for granted because we do it all of the time, but just talk to a new student and one will discover it is not a "simple learning experience" a lot of intuition "experience" goes into dealing with (People, Equipment, Weather, Equipment Failure, regulation, and other components)
- Single pilot ops are much more prone to fatigue (judgement errors)

Judgement
-Common sense isn't so common, and computers rank near the bottom of the rating scale when it comes to having it, which includes AI.

Technology
- Equipment failure...
- The AI of today are essentially graphics processors that use inputs (experience) to slowly derive the weightings of a formula to learn the right outputs for a given input.

The problem is as most humans know, no formula can accurately model the proper output in all cases, no matter how careful weighted the components of the formula are, because no formula or sets of formula will be comprehensive enough to compare with humans. Our brains were developed over long, long periods of time, in ways engineers can't even dream of right now with current tech. (Just the placement of our neurons, or the folds in our brains are unique) Graphics processers are well.... very rigid.

Our judgement in the flight deck stems from a lot more than just inputs and outputs from flying. It comes from life experience, of simple stuff we take for granted.

If it turns out AI has been developed good enough to exercise the necessary judgment in our crazy world, to fly aircraft, then we might as well have robots for senators or CEOs.

In the end people need to work with people, which is why 2 is such a strong team. They both bring different perspectives, and often can act synergistically when it comes to good judgment, while providing a level of redundancy that R2D2 simply can't match.

If the seats are cheap enough, management keeps or increases their bonuses, shareholders are kept happy, all of these will be acceptable risks. Acceptable losses if something happens.

Many in Congress will support this. The Senator from Arizona used to comment while boarding that what we do is easy.

To smooth things over Congress will ensure everyone is provided with LPPs ... Labor Protective Provisions ... They have done this before.

Everyone wins.