We have the technology at this very moment to do everything needed to operate the aircraft from block out to block in with zero human interaction. It's a matter of programming and hardware.

The issue of single pilot or pilot-less is not so much one of what technology can do and more one of certification costs, insurance, and public perception. I think we have Andreas Lubitz to thank for eliminating single pilot as a certifiable, insurable operation for many years to come. And we have Boeing's MAX certification debacle to thank for pilot-less operations being next to impossible to certify for many decades. No FAA official that can remember the MAX will want to be anywhere near the certification process for the first pilot-less airplane. I will bet next month's paycheck on that.

 

I totally agree, this is all a matter of regulation and policy now. Before the tech wasn't even remotely ready for prime time. Cargo flights will most certainly be the first casualty, such as the feeder flights that UPS and FedEx have on props.

In this case we're lucky the government moves slowly.

 

[QUOTE=Name User;2902551]

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.

Wow I would hate to have you as a student in the sim or IOE. IF you really think skilled airmanship is not required today you need to quit. Things break you still have to land the jet in crosswinds or degraded conditions the automation cannot. I have yet to see a button for a 32knot crosswind for takeoff or landing, stuck flap and many other failures. Also one that can look out the window and that just does not look right so i am doing X instead of Y. God forbid you are dispatched for a flight with a autopilot inop and the other one fails.

 

But 5 years, right?

 

[QUOTE=HIFLYR;2906605]Don't confuse lack of certification (on paper) for lack of ability. The 757 is limited to a 15 knot xwind, but can do 40. But it wasn't certified as that so there is that limitation, just as an example. Another one, auto land capability allows aircraft to land in conditions humans cannot.

You're completely missing the point here. We don't need pilots to fly airplanes anymore. Computers are better at it and safer. They don't break limitations. Pilots have already been removed from the equation in Airbus logic. Boeing will follow suit after this MAX fiasco.

 

I've given links to examples of it currently being done. I can only lead you to the water, I can't make you drink. Actually the whole field is really exciting to me.

 

Anytime someone brings up this question or the "you just push the take off and landing buttons" point, I ask a simple question: do we keep firefighters around to make five alarm chili? No, we keep them around to handle emergencies.

When a failure occurs, a computer will run a checklist and stop when it gets to the end. It doesn't care if the problem is solved, it has done it's job and goes idle. Humans, on the other hand, will keep fighting to correct the issue or at least mitigate the failure until they hit the ground.

Oh, and about the "one stall a day" comment. Does that include entering an area of unforecast and unreported turbulence strong enough to at least momentarily induce a shaker? Does it account for aircraft that rotated just before a windshear/microburst warning is issued?

 

What’s exciting about losing a really good job?

 

[QUOTE=Name User;2906646]Name the aircraft that has a higher crosswind limitation for the autoland system than the pilot can do. Airbus computers can break I know I fly one. I am not missing the point I train and evaluate pilots in the sim and actual aircraft for a living and you still need skills to fly todays aircraft. Who is going to fly the aircraft in a degraded condition? I understand how the certification process works and certification is sometimes limited by finding known xwinds. I think my current Airbus aircraft could be landed in a higher wind than 32 kts but don't know it can because 32 is the limit. So how do you KNOW a 757 can do 40 KT crosswind if it was not certified to do it?

I hate when guys like you say something like you said here
"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."

I see the opposite every day in the sim or when giving IOE.

 

Ok so picture this. You select the ILS or RNAV X approach to an airport. The box loads it and calculates exactly where the aircraft needs to configure based on present position. You tell it to go direct to the IAF and it does everything, including configuring on schedule. It lands. It taxis to the gate. What skills did the pilot need? Even the approach can be selected by the computer automatically based on METAR data or a digital broadcast from the station that broadcasts to aircraft which approach should be used.

While that sounds far fetched so did being able to pull full aft on the elevator and not stall a couple decades ago. Or being able to tune a radio yourself. Or engines that start themselves. My point in all of this is technology has caught up to us.

As far as auto lands go yes you are correct, aircraft are artificially limited (generally by the FAA here) by current certification standards. That doesn't mean they are not capable of higher limits, don't confuse the two. And don't think that will stop future progress.

This is a pretty quick read about using AI and machine learning to execute go arounds automatically.

http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/h.baomar/files/RP4.pdf