Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Aviation Technology
Two Pilot Long Haul Ops? Airbus & Cathay >

Two Pilot Long Haul Ops? Airbus & Cathay

Notices
Aviation Technology New, advanced, and future aviation technology discussion

Two Pilot Long Haul Ops? Airbus & Cathay

Old 06-22-2021, 10:35 AM
  #91  
Banned
 
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,012
Default

Total autonomy in all situations is a straw man.

good enough to replace a relief pilot is easier and still very disruptive.
ZeroTT is offline  
Old 06-22-2021, 11:27 AM
  #92  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CAirBear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,180
Default

Originally Posted by Profane Kahuna View Post
Pretty sure everyone can see the dollar signs of eliminating one expensive pilot per plane across an entire fleet. Passenger airlines won’t go for it because Germanwings, etc.

But how does it go? “Boxes don’t complain”
But it’s actually not. I mean you really think CA legacy rates (All types) are going to stay in the mid $200s ($300s for WBs) with one less pilot? Hell no. CA rates across the board are going to increase because of this (IF it ever happens). I can see a ton of people straight up retiring if this BS gets implemented and they are already late in their career (or even midway through and can afford it).

Say CA rates increase $80-100 (they absolutely are going to be increased) plus the cost of all the implementation for this crap. There’s no way your actually seeing an ROI for a very long time.
CAirBear is offline  
Old 06-22-2021, 12:17 PM
  #93  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TrojanCMH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,269
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Because their planes tend to sit a lot more more than pax airliners.

If your plane flies a lot, better to pay a high acquisition/lease cost to get the best efficiency possible, which will pay dividends anytime the plane is moving.

If it sits a lot, better to go with older, cheaper, or even second-hand equipment. The less it flies, the lower the ROI on the tech.

That would apply to pilot autonomy too in theory, but in reality that will skip the pax airlines until it's been proven elsewhere... and cargo is the obvious "elsewhere" since mil technology will always be a hybrid man/machine approach since human creativity and flexibility is indispensable in warfare.

If someone makes an avionics upgrade like they did with MD-10 at FedEx that implemented this theoretical technology then I think you’d see it at cargo first. If not then who knows… Maybe a startup.
TrojanCMH is offline  
Old 06-23-2021, 06:50 AM
  #94  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH View Post
If someone makes an avionics upgrade like they did with MD-10 at FedEx that implemented this theoretical technology then I think you’d see it at cargo first. If not then who knows… Maybe a startup.
It will not be a retrofit to existing airframes, it will have to be clean-sheet. Too much integration with existing systems, plus additional backup systems. At least for pax ops. You *might* be able to retrofit an existing airplane, but it seems that would cost too much... more economical to bake into a new design, or at least a major update of an existing design.

Also... the airframe industry is currently jumping through hoops to be ready for possible (likely) future draconian carbon mandates. How much R&D cash do they have to blow on hypothetical autonomy that requires an AI that doesn't exist, which they wouldn't know how to certify if it did?
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-23-2021, 11:06 AM
  #95  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 774
Default

Sounds like there just gonna modify SOP. The Airbus technology is just an excuse and nothing magical. If relief rest is interrupted for any reason, can’t continue past unaugmented max flight time of 9 hours. Seems like ETOPS logic applied to crew. If flight was normal and rest was achieved during single pilot opps continue to destination, anytime there’s forecasted weather add 3rd pilot to release.

Last edited by Happyflyer; 06-23-2021 at 11:38 AM.
Happyflyer is offline  
Old 06-23-2021, 03:56 PM
  #96  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by Happyflyer View Post
If relief rest is interrupted for any reason, can’t continue past unaugmented max flight time of 9 hours.
I'm sure mgt is cool with that, by the time you figure that out, you'll probably be past CP/ETP anyway... "divert" to destination.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 06-23-2021, 04:36 PM
  #97  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Posts: 57
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I'm sure mgt is cool with that, by the time you figure that out, you'll probably be past CP/ETP anyway... "divert" to destination.
But what day the FAA about the number of diversions?
UpUpUpNaWaYs is offline  
Old 06-23-2021, 05:02 PM
  #98  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: UNA
Posts: 4,408
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I'm sure mgt is cool with that, by the time you figure that out, you'll probably be past CP/ETP anyway... "divert" to destination.
i mean, you are never more than 3 hours ( assuming 180 minute ETOPS) from an airport right? If you are flying HKG-JFK or HKG-LHR there are plenty of airports closer than the destination. Diverting to SFO (or ANC or YYZ) instead of JFK with no crew there to continue the flight would be quite disruptive.
Gone Flying is offline  
Old 06-23-2021, 05:08 PM
  #99  
Gets Weekends Off
 
TrojanCMH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,269
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
It will not be a retrofit to existing airframes, it will have to be clean-sheet. Too much integration with existing systems, plus additional backup systems. At least for pax ops. You *might* be able to retrofit an existing airplane, but it seems that would cost too much... more economical to bake into a new design, or at least a major update of an existing design.

Also... the airframe industry is currently jumping through hoops to be ready for possible (likely) future draconian carbon mandates. How much R&D cash do they have to blow on hypothetical autonomy that requires an AI that doesn't exist, which they wouldn't know how to certify if it did?

I don’t know if I agree. Connect the older airplane’s autopilot and other systems (ecam/eicas, radar, cpdlc, gpwrs, etc…) to this “brain” AI computer and let it do its thing. It’s all theoretical as the technology isn’t there yet but there are videos of a robot first officer that flew a 737 on the internet. Full pilotless airplanes are a long ways off but having something like this while the other pilot is resting isn’t out of the realm of possibilities.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TrojanCMH is offline  
Old 06-23-2021, 08:23 PM
  #100  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by TrojanCMH View Post
I don’t know if I agree. Connect the older airplane’s autopilot and other systems (ecam/eicas, radar, cpdlc, gpwrs, etc…) to this “brain” AI computer and let it do its thing. It’s all theoretical as the technology isn’t there yet but there are videos of a robot first officer that flew a 737 on the internet. Full pilotless airplanes are a long ways off but having something like this while the other pilot is resting isn’t out of the realm of possibilities.


That's plausible as an automated IRO, with a human in the bunk.

For anything more robust than that, it probably does not make sense to add the extra complexity of having to identify and manipulate human controls... far better to just network into the system and eliminate multiple potential failure modes.

It would be plausible for full autonomy only if the brain was a full artificial general intelligence (AGI), ie human-equivalent in most respects. Nobody knows how far off that is, and there are very real, and very serious ethical and safety issues associated with going there. To say nothing of certifying something like that, which is inherently non-deterministic... and unlike avionics we're used to you'd also need to certify it's sanity. Ie, how do you know it's not going to spontaneously do something we'd consider irrational, possibly for reasons which make perfect sense to the AGI?
rickair7777 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
blastboy
Cargo
42
04-11-2007 04:27 PM
CRJ-200
Major
7
08-13-2006 05:12 PM
byrdseyeviewinc
Cargo
4
06-14-2006 04:42 PM
fireman0174
Major
4
05-24-2006 08:44 AM
Savannahguy
Cargo
9
03-02-2006 12:29 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices