For the younger guys
02-20-2020 | 06:49 AM
#161
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,826
Likes: 0
From: 6th place
European version of FAA updated roadmap.
Now, it's unknown if aircraft will still need to be monitored by ground based pilots like the current operation of large military drones are. So, pilots may still be employed albeit in much smaller numbers. And will they still be pilots? Maybe just a "super dispatcher" where you do the dispatcher job plus monitor the equipment. Will pilots be furloughed and then interviewed for these jobs?
I dunno. It's safe to say the next 10-15 years will be interesting and we will all enjoy a long retirement from flying commercial aircraft. I hope the major unions are coordinating efforts here...an email to my union's governmental affairs was basically met with shrugged shoulders and what seemed like a total lack of awareness of what is coming down the pike. There is a LOT of money and smart people (plus taxpayer money) going into this stuff.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/0...-systems-2025/
SpaceX and several other companies are launching satellites to beam high bandwidth internet access to the world...the US Air Force is using it in a trial for a secure link. If it's good enough for the military, you'd think it would be good enough for commercial aircraft.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKBN1X12KM
.
- 2030 single pilot large aircraft (maybe single pilot cruise to start?)
- 2035 autonomous large aircraft
Now, it's unknown if aircraft will still need to be monitored by ground based pilots like the current operation of large military drones are. So, pilots may still be employed albeit in much smaller numbers. And will they still be pilots? Maybe just a "super dispatcher" where you do the dispatcher job plus monitor the equipment. Will pilots be furloughed and then interviewed for these jobs?
I dunno. It's safe to say the next 10-15 years will be interesting and we will all enjoy a long retirement from flying commercial aircraft. I hope the major unions are coordinating efforts here...an email to my union's governmental affairs was basically met with shrugged shoulders and what seemed like a total lack of awareness of what is coming down the pike. There is a LOT of money and smart people (plus taxpayer money) going into this stuff.
https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/0...-systems-2025/
SpaceX and several other companies are launching satellites to beam high bandwidth internet access to the world...the US Air Force is using it in a trial for a secure link. If it's good enough for the military, you'd think it would be good enough for commercial aircraft.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKBN1X12KM
.
This actually makes me feel good. 15 years is a best case scenario to autonomous and that’s not including any of the myriad issues that may come up.
I think we will be ok for at least 30 years.
02-20-2020 | 07:13 AM
#162
Moderate Moderator
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
If freight trains and cargo ships aren’t autonomous...with only one or two degrees of freedom in motion, and at 50 or 20 knots....
If they make trains or cargo ships autonomous, THEN I’ll be worried. And I don’t think they will.
If they make trains or cargo ships autonomous, THEN I’ll be worried. And I don’t think they will.
02-20-2020 | 10:45 AM
#163
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 341
As far as ships go, I don't think they'll ever be man-less. Too many mechanical issues that happen for weeks at sea. As far as captainless...maybe. I haven't really been researching that area.
02-20-2020 | 10:47 AM
#164
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 341
Even 15 years gives a pretty good lead time to stack cheddar and come up with investment plans. I'm just happy I'm not coming up through the regionals now, despite their movement and pay.
Last edited by Name User; 02-20-2020 at 11:04 AM.
02-20-2020 | 12:12 PM
#165
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 482
Likes: 14
What about articles and viewpoints that go against your opinion? You’re obviously well informed, but I haven’t seen you post anything that counter argues single pilot or pilotless ops. I know that you’ve used avherald as a source on how much pilots screw up, but what about all the times pilots save the day? Stuff that doesn’t make the news or avherald. I’m not trying to call you out or anything; I’m just curious what the facts say about single pilot/pilotless (hopefully) being a pipe dream.
02-20-2020 | 01:02 PM
#166
Custom User Title
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,275
Likes: 0
It takes 10-15 years to put a conventional airliner into revenue service these days. In 10-15 years from now, we're not only going to develop and perfect the autonomous technology to an acceptable level but ALSO design and build and put into service the autonomous airplane? I don't think so.
Again, autonomous cars, ships, and trains are not mainstream ready, and they have far fewer logistical, technological, and financial obstacles to overcome. And no, your unmanned airport train doesn't count.
Edit to add, there is no point in developing a 'single-pilot' airliner. You have to go all the way to zero pilots/autonomous. Reason is simple: Single pilot on board keels over and dies/becomes incapacitated. And wouldn't you know it, the data link to a remote ground-based pilot keels over as well. What are the odds? Doesn't matter. It's a scenario that has to be accounted for. So, who is left to save the day? The airplane. Full autonomy or nothing. 10-15 years for that? Yeah, nah.
Again, autonomous cars, ships, and trains are not mainstream ready, and they have far fewer logistical, technological, and financial obstacles to overcome. And no, your unmanned airport train doesn't count.
Edit to add, there is no point in developing a 'single-pilot' airliner. You have to go all the way to zero pilots/autonomous. Reason is simple: Single pilot on board keels over and dies/becomes incapacitated. And wouldn't you know it, the data link to a remote ground-based pilot keels over as well. What are the odds? Doesn't matter. It's a scenario that has to be accounted for. So, who is left to save the day? The airplane. Full autonomy or nothing. 10-15 years for that? Yeah, nah.
02-21-2020 | 08:39 AM
#167
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,153
Likes: 341
What about articles and viewpoints that go against your opinion? You’re obviously well informed, but I haven’t seen you post anything that counter argues single pilot or pilotless ops. I know that you’ve used avherald as a source on how much pilots screw up, but what about all the times pilots save the day? Stuff that doesn’t make the news or avherald. I’m not trying to call you out or anything; I’m just curious what the facts say about single pilot/pilotless (hopefully) being a pipe dream.
As far as avherald and screwing up goes, my point with that is that aviation is not as safe as it's made out to be in the media. Yes fatalities are low but you know as well as I do that the slop in the system keeps us out of the headlines. And automation continues to save our bacon.
There have most definitely been cases where human intervention prevented a mechanical failure from snowballing. They are few and far between. And it's unknown if future automation would have been able to handle those emergencies. But even if it couldn't, the benefits outweigh the risks, similar to how safe cars will become when computers can monitor and make safety decisions.
The secretary of the US Navy said in 2015 the F35 would be the last manned aircraft they bought. Then, a couple years later, they've backed off that as "pilotless doesn't mean unmanned, we still have operators on the ground" as the operating environment on a carrier deck was chaotic. So, maybe the logistics of running pilotless for an airline might be too tough to overcome, at least initially. Maybe there will still need to be someone directly responsible to coordinate all the nuances that happen before, during, and after a flight. And if you're going to have that person there, it would make sense that they have a traditional pilot background.
Soon enough we will take on more of an ATC role regarding aircraft separation. From cruise through landing, we will be assigned an aircraft to follow and make speed adjustments to do so. Approaches will be all RNAV like combining the arrival and approach (similar to how LAX does it now). The computer will make the speed adjustments, not the pilot. AA has scheduled trial runs of this starting next year. If you are interested in seeing what is coming, watch this short video:
https://youtu.be/1-MkAlwDtTg
What you're going to find is the automation is going to be doing a lot more of the flying and decision making.
02-21-2020 | 11:50 AM
#168
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 482
Likes: 14
Yeah so that's a good question. That is how I started down this path, trying to "disprove" what I was researching was somehow pie in the sky aspirations. From what I have found, the vast majority of "it's not going to happen" articles are opinion and looking up the authors they have no real credibility to write what they do. If you find some worth reading, post here, and they can be discussed. There are lots of unknowns in how things will/could be overcome.
As far as avherald and screwing up goes, my point with that is that aviation is not as safe as it's made out to be in the media. Yes fatalities are low but you know as well as I do that the slop in the system keeps us out of the headlines. And automation continues to save our bacon.
There have most definitely been cases where human intervention prevented a mechanical failure from snowballing. They are few and far between. And it's unknown if future automation would have been able to handle those emergencies. But even if it couldn't, the benefits outweigh the risks, similar to how safe cars will become when computers can monitor and make safety decisions.
The secretary of the US Navy said in 2015 the F35 would be the last manned aircraft they bought. Then, a couple years later, they've backed off that as "pilotless doesn't mean unmanned, we still have operators on the ground" as the operating environment on a carrier deck was chaotic. So, maybe the logistics of running pilotless for an airline might be too tough to overcome, at least initially. Maybe there will still need to be someone directly responsible to coordinate all the nuances that happen before, during, and after a flight. And if you're going to have that person there, it would make sense that they have a traditional pilot background.
Soon enough we will take on more of an ATC role regarding aircraft separation. From cruise through landing, we will be assigned an aircraft to follow and make speed adjustments to do so. Approaches will be all RNAV like combining the arrival and approach (similar to how LAX does it now). The computer will make the speed adjustments, not the pilot. AA has scheduled trial runs of this starting next year. If you are interested in seeing what is coming, watch this short video:
https://youtu.be/1-MkAlwDtTg
What you're going to find is the automation is going to be doing a lot more of the flying and decision making.
As far as avherald and screwing up goes, my point with that is that aviation is not as safe as it's made out to be in the media. Yes fatalities are low but you know as well as I do that the slop in the system keeps us out of the headlines. And automation continues to save our bacon.
There have most definitely been cases where human intervention prevented a mechanical failure from snowballing. They are few and far between. And it's unknown if future automation would have been able to handle those emergencies. But even if it couldn't, the benefits outweigh the risks, similar to how safe cars will become when computers can monitor and make safety decisions.
The secretary of the US Navy said in 2015 the F35 would be the last manned aircraft they bought. Then, a couple years later, they've backed off that as "pilotless doesn't mean unmanned, we still have operators on the ground" as the operating environment on a carrier deck was chaotic. So, maybe the logistics of running pilotless for an airline might be too tough to overcome, at least initially. Maybe there will still need to be someone directly responsible to coordinate all the nuances that happen before, during, and after a flight. And if you're going to have that person there, it would make sense that they have a traditional pilot background.
Soon enough we will take on more of an ATC role regarding aircraft separation. From cruise through landing, we will be assigned an aircraft to follow and make speed adjustments to do so. Approaches will be all RNAV like combining the arrival and approach (similar to how LAX does it now). The computer will make the speed adjustments, not the pilot. AA has scheduled trial runs of this starting next year. If you are interested in seeing what is coming, watch this short video:
https://youtu.be/1-MkAlwDtTg
What you're going to find is the automation is going to be doing a lot more of the flying and decision making.
With all the research you’ve done, what do you think the airlines would do if they went single pilot or pilotless? Shrink pilot groups via attrition? Furlough with some sort of severance package? Or just straight up furlough? If it goes the way they (technology companies and manufacturers) want, this is some pretty disruptive technology.
02-21-2020 | 12:35 PM
#169
On Reserve
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Yeah so that's a good question. That is how I started down this path, trying to "disprove" what I was researching was somehow pie in the sky aspirations. From what I have found, the vast majority of "it's not going to happen" articles are opinion and looking up the authors they have no real credibility to write what they do. If you find some worth reading, post here, and they can be discussed. There are lots of unknowns in how things will/could be overcome.
As far as avherald and screwing up goes, my point with that is that aviation is not as safe as it's made out to be in the media. Yes fatalities are low but you know as well as I do that the slop in the system keeps us out of the headlines. And automation continues to save our bacon.
There have most definitely been cases where human intervention prevented a mechanical failure from snowballing. They are few and far between. And it's unknown if future automation would have been able to handle those emergencies. But even if it couldn't, the benefits outweigh the risks, similar to how safe cars will become when computers can monitor and make safety decisions.
The secretary of the US Navy said in 2015 the F35 would be the last manned aircraft they bought. Then, a couple years later, they've backed off that as "pilotless doesn't mean unmanned, we still have operators on the ground" as the operating environment on a carrier deck was chaotic. So, maybe the logistics of running pilotless for an airline might be too tough to overcome, at least initially. Maybe there will still need to be someone directly responsible to coordinate all the nuances that happen before, during, and after a flight. And if you're going to have that person there, it would make sense that they have a traditional pilot background.
Soon enough we will take on more of an ATC role regarding aircraft separation. From cruise through landing, we will be assigned an aircraft to follow and make speed adjustments to do so. Approaches will be all RNAV like combining the arrival and approach (similar to how LAX does it now). The computer will make the speed adjustments, not the pilot. AA has scheduled trial runs of this starting next year. If you are interested in seeing what is coming, watch this short video:
https://youtu.be/1-MkAlwDtTg
What you're going to find is the automation is going to be doing a lot more of the flying and decision making.
As far as avherald and screwing up goes, my point with that is that aviation is not as safe as it's made out to be in the media. Yes fatalities are low but you know as well as I do that the slop in the system keeps us out of the headlines. And automation continues to save our bacon.
There have most definitely been cases where human intervention prevented a mechanical failure from snowballing. They are few and far between. And it's unknown if future automation would have been able to handle those emergencies. But even if it couldn't, the benefits outweigh the risks, similar to how safe cars will become when computers can monitor and make safety decisions.
The secretary of the US Navy said in 2015 the F35 would be the last manned aircraft they bought. Then, a couple years later, they've backed off that as "pilotless doesn't mean unmanned, we still have operators on the ground" as the operating environment on a carrier deck was chaotic. So, maybe the logistics of running pilotless for an airline might be too tough to overcome, at least initially. Maybe there will still need to be someone directly responsible to coordinate all the nuances that happen before, during, and after a flight. And if you're going to have that person there, it would make sense that they have a traditional pilot background.
Soon enough we will take on more of an ATC role regarding aircraft separation. From cruise through landing, we will be assigned an aircraft to follow and make speed adjustments to do so. Approaches will be all RNAV like combining the arrival and approach (similar to how LAX does it now). The computer will make the speed adjustments, not the pilot. AA has scheduled trial runs of this starting next year. If you are interested in seeing what is coming, watch this short video:
https://youtu.be/1-MkAlwDtTg
What you're going to find is the automation is going to be doing a lot more of the flying and decision making.
02-21-2020 | 09:24 PM
#170
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 462
Likes: 8
I don’t think you need to look any further than the roll out of CPDLC. How long has it taken and we are only up to 3 centers now actively using it. The timeline is out to at least another year and a half before all centers are up and running with it.
Relatively speaking that’s basic technology yet NameUser is anticipating them to stand up a fully functional autonomous system guiding thousands of pilotless airliners around the country in 10 to 15 years.
The premise is laughable.
Relatively speaking that’s basic technology yet NameUser is anticipating them to stand up a fully functional autonomous system guiding thousands of pilotless airliners around the country in 10 to 15 years.
The premise is laughable.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
