Brillo

I also tend to think that we are a long way off (probably multiple decades) before we see single/no-pilot 121 ops, if ever. It's not a technical/engineering problem, however. I think the guys that say "it will never happen because it's impossible to do X, or what about how hard it would be to do Y" are missing the mark a bit. Any type of technical challenge or hurdle could be overcome eventually. Sure, it's great to list all of the things that would be hard to do, but they could be done given enough resources.

I think the far more compelling reason is economical vice technical, along the lines of what Rickair was talking about. We can overcome any technical challenge, but we can't overcome any technical challenge for the same or lessor price then an FO can do it for. It's one thing to be able to do it. It's alot harder and much farther off to be able to do it for less money.

Red Forman

Nice deflection. ATC hasn’t even fully gone to Nextgen (which is 80’s technology) and you still think we are 5 years away from new technology that would only be possible if we replaced the entire system that has taken decades to upgrade. Not to mention replacing/upgrading the entire worldwide fleet of airplanes in 5 years?

Name User

Honestly not sure it wasn't specified, but to me a stick shaker in a jet is a stall. It might as well be the same.

FAA statistic quoted during my EET training

Name User

So your argument was that Boeing screwed up implementing MCAS. Which they did obviously.

But WHY was MCAS installed in the first place? Because humans stall airplanes...

We are obviously nowhere near aircraft thinking for themselves and making decisions. That is Skynet stuff. But cockpits in use today have been designed for human input - flap levers, gear handles, switch lights and push buttons.

No, I don't think the entire worldwide fleet will be gone in five years. But Airbus has stated they already have the tech and equipment now. The only thing holding them back are regulators.

Unfortunately for us flying an airplane is no longer the domain of skilled aviators. With the adaption of computer assisted controls and limits, manufacturers can make "flying" a plane as simple as pressing a button to takeoff, and one to land.

What remains is how well it can improvise in the advent of an emergency or failure. Which do happen on occasion. I think there will be seemingly little progress on single pilot and then bam out of nowhere we'll see it hit.

Countries that are more open to this stuff are already gearing up to use Cessna Caravan sized drones to operate cargo flights. Completely autonomously.

Red Forman

And public opinion, and an entirely revamped ATC system, and airplanes that currently do not exist, and infrastructure, etc.

But we are totally 5 years away from all this revolutionary stuff.

threeighteen

ha, no. A stall is a stall. a stick-shaker is a stick-shaker.

Name User

In your opinion, in which scenarios would it be OK if you received a stick shaker in a transport category jet? Outside of course a bad AOA which wasn't what the FAA was tracking.

hydrostream

Obviously getting a shaker is no bueno, but getting to a true stall would mean ignoring the shaker. So if we're getting that many actual stalls that would be insane.

Name User

Ok I think you are missing the forest through the trees here.

Human pilots are putting airplanes in the position of either imminent stall or full on stall.

Therefore, systems like Airbus's software logic or Boeing's MCAS were developed.

Same goes for GPWS and CFIT.

The list goes on. Human factors are the source of the vast majority of crashes. The argument can be made that further increasing automation will actually make aviation even safer. And just because people haven't died in a decade doesn't mean unsafe events have not happened, ie the EET we are doing now.

Bigapplepilot

And all soccer games are lost because of goalie error. Should we get rid of the goalie?

When human factors prevents an incident, like it does multiple times per day, these aren’t included in the statistics.

Saying we can reduce the astronomically low accident rate to zero, without taking into account the accidents that are prevented by humans, misses the mark by a very wide margin.