FAA bill and single pilot ops
06-02-2018 | 01:30 PM
#32
Banned
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,182
Likes: 0
From: Tom’s Whipping boy.
This is gonna happen. It's just a matter of how soon.
The technology has existed for years to automate and remote takeoff to landing with NO pilot on board. Having one Captain on the deck watching every thing is a no brainer.
Most of you are too young to remember the fight over the loss of the flight engineer and before that, navigators.
When the Air Force got INS, the navigators clung on for a few years for air drop missions. Most of the time they slept or did busy work.
Cabin service will be automated as well.
The technology has existed for years to automate and remote takeoff to landing with NO pilot on board. Having one Captain on the deck watching every thing is a no brainer.
Most of you are too young to remember the fight over the loss of the flight engineer and before that, navigators.
When the Air Force got INS, the navigators clung on for a few years for air drop missions. Most of the time they slept or did busy work.
Cabin service will be automated as well.
06-02-2018 | 05:50 PM
#33
Gets Everyday Off
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 1
From: Fully Retired
06-03-2018 | 04:45 AM
#35
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
06-03-2018 | 04:49 AM
#36
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 547
Likes: 31
From: 756 left...
This is gonna happen. It's just a matter of how soon.
The technology has existed for years to automate and remote takeoff to landing with NO pilot on board. Having one Captain on the deck watching every thing is a no brainer.
Most of you are too young to remember the fight over the loss of the flight engineer and before that, navigators.
When the Air Force got INS, the navigators clung on for a few years for air drop missions. Most of the time they slept or did busy work.
Cabin service will be automated as well.
The technology has existed for years to automate and remote takeoff to landing with NO pilot on board. Having one Captain on the deck watching every thing is a no brainer.
Most of you are too young to remember the fight over the loss of the flight engineer and before that, navigators.
When the Air Force got INS, the navigators clung on for a few years for air drop missions. Most of the time they slept or did busy work.
Cabin service will be automated as well.
06-03-2018 | 05:03 AM
#37
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Under the current plans of the Air Force they are set to fly the B-52 until 2050, that’s almost one hundred years in service. Haha...kind of funny. A baby just born yesterday, baring good health, should get a chance flying that beast if he’s interested.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latim...outputType=amp
https://www.google.com/amp/www.latim...outputType=amp
06-03-2018 | 06:02 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,526
Likes: 125
This is gonna happen. It's just a matter of how soon.
The technology has existed for years to automate and remote takeoff to landing with NO pilot on board. Having one Captain on the deck watching every thing is a no brainer.
Most of you are too young to remember the fight over the loss of the flight engineer and before that, navigators.
When the Air Force got INS, the navigators clung on for a few years for air drop missions. Most of the time they slept or did busy work.
Cabin service will be automated as well.
The technology has existed for years to automate and remote takeoff to landing with NO pilot on board. Having one Captain on the deck watching every thing is a no brainer.
Most of you are too young to remember the fight over the loss of the flight engineer and before that, navigators.
When the Air Force got INS, the navigators clung on for a few years for air drop missions. Most of the time they slept or did busy work.
Cabin service will be automated as well.
The USAF has been doing this for decades, thrown billions at it, they still have an abysmal safety record. For the record when one of them takes off or lands, there are hundreds of man hours in that loop to make that happen, not just two up front.
If you’re talking about going to a single pilot operation with a networked copilot... find me two networked computers that can’t be hacked.
06-03-2018 | 06:18 AM
#39
Banned
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
The USAF has been doing this for decades, thrown billions at it, they still have an abysmal safety record. For the record when one of them takes off or lands, there are hundreds of man hours in that loop to make that happen, not just two up front.
If you’re talking about going to a single pilot operation with a networked copilot... find me two networked computers that can’t be hacked.
If you’re talking about going to a single pilot operation with a networked copilot... find me two networked computers that can’t be hacked.
If it’s the other branches I’m under the impression the USAF has a better safety record in part due to the corporate cultures differences on whether there are “allowable” losses.
Cheers,
Biff
06-03-2018 | 06:42 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Likes: 0
The USAF has an abysmal safety record as compared to what? The Airlines? The other branches? If it’s the airlines the it’s not an apples to apples comparison. The closest to Airlines in the USAF is the C5. Otherwise there is the tactical forces doing night attacks in a contested environment is infinitely more dangerous than a EWR BOS turn or one leg from IAH to SIngapore.
If it’s the other branches I’m under the impression the USAF has a better safety record in part due to the corporate cultures differences on whether there are “allowable” losses.
If it’s the other branches I’m under the impression the USAF has a better safety record in part due to the corporate cultures differences on whether there are “allowable” losses.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
