Skylover,

You may "love" flying and that is great. The question is will flying love you back? The answer is most likely not.

To put things in different terms:

Aviation is like a trashy cigarette smoking girlfriend who is unfaithful, drunk most of the time, spends your money recklessly and loves to humiliate you. Sure she is hot and fun to be with when she is in a good mood but eventually you are going to find her with one of your friends and those tattoos that look so cool now will not be so in ten years once weight gain and time begins to distort them.

A better career demands more from you up front. Often they are not glamorous and are not all that much fun. It can take a lot of work to get there. However in return for your hard work and respect it will faithfully offer a solid return that grows over the years. A healthy mutually appreciated relationship that supports you and your personal goals. Children do not often dream of growing up to be accountants but then again they are kids. A grown up career that demands a lot from you offers grown up compensation and rewards.

Skyhigh

 

The last statements are not true yet. Anyone in high school today should have an aviation career essentially free of unmanned airliners as a threat to your job.

The first statement is true but the operative word is "when". My informed opnion is 100 years and I'm educated and experienced in government and technology, neither of which are ready to to deploy a COST-EFFECTIVE unmanned passenger plane. Even cargo is a long ways off since it has to operate in the same airspace as manned aircraft. The military is already using unmanned cargo helos, but only in war zones where they own the airspace and the risk equation is entirely different.

 

If I were to place a wager, this is where my money would go. Speaking of sleeping, here's a link for you:

Meet Captain Ikeda ANA Check Pilot that can command and review while sleeping. - YouTube


Sorry, but you're way behind the times. UAV's are patrolling the U.S. border with Mexico:

CNN.com news Drones silently patrol U.S. borders Predator B UAV unmanned aerial vehicle.mp4 - YouTube

Granted, one could make the argument that is a war zone, but nonetheless it's here in the U.S. AOPA is busy trying to control the threat of UAV's to civilian aircraft - they know this is not far around the corner:

Unmanned aircraft tests must ‘do no harm’

There is a great deal of interest in UAV's for not only law enforcement, but also pipeline/powerline patrol (which will remove another option for up and coming aviators to gain experience).

I wish I could say the future looks bright, but I'm not convinced it does. Like I said before, technology is advancing almost exponentially, I wouldn't be surprised to see the beginnings of pilot-less airliners before the end of my career (and I'm 45). On the other hand, if you have an interest in being a UAV operator, that appears to be a growth field.

 

I've made a similar post in another thread but since this one has devolved into UAV's and lawyers I though it appropriate.

My degree background is IT and i absolutely believe the technology is there today to remove pilots from the flight decks. However the question is at what cost. Today's UAV's fill a need that is unmet by current resources. Military and law enforcement do not have the resources or $$$ to monitor war zones/border area's wih their current fleet of pilots and aircraft. Drones fill this void very well at relatively low cost. The drones are a solution to a problem without any other cost effective answer.

In order to replace (airline) pilots, the technology would have to more than offset the huge expense to implement by the lower operational costs. I know several people flying both fixed wing and helo UAV's. They are all very experienced pilots who are making 6 figure salaries flying them. Right now it wouldn't seem that the benefit isn't worth the cost for an airline application.

However, the biggest issue I see with UAV airlines is the liability question. UAV's have a higher mishap rate than manned aircraft. Even if it improves, can you imagine the lawsuit damages that would result in a crash flown by a computer (designed and implemened by tech companies with deep pockets) where hundreds of people are killed? Its not uncommon for a major crash to force airlines into bankruptcy. The same would likely happen to the first company that killed a plane load of people which is exactly what the lawyers are telling those same companies today.

This is to say nothing of the hurdles regarding public acceptance or the ability to integrate UAV's with other aircraft. There was a hearing in Congress last week that didn't go too well for the UAV proponents.

 

The biggest threat to fully automated airliners is an unending supply of cheap pilots. Work for less than a computer and stay employed. If we can get two pilots up front earning 30K each then they will be up there in some capacity for sometime yet.

Perhaps they could switch into FA uniforms and serve food and drinks at altitude? I am certain that management is brainstorming all kinds of ideas like that.


Skyhigh

 

Yes, but your Sony robot captain and co-pilot don't need per diem, they don't need to dead-head and take revenue away, they don't non-rev, they don't need a pension, they don't need the company to match a 401K, they don't get cancer, they don't need recurrent or upgrade training (maybe some software updates every once and a while), they don't need to go through an interview process, the company can fire some HR people (amongst others) and no need to ever go to pilot recruiting events ever again, and so on. Even when paying pilots only 30K, the costs associated are far greater.

This is how airlines work anyways, they don't actually have the money to buy airplanes, they have to lease them, then they have to control the operating costs and such. If it looks like it will pay off in the long run, they'll get someone to finance their course of action (such as fleet replacement, etc).

In the long term, this will make far better business sense. In the short term, it won't be worth it, but the usage and development that is happening right now is setting the stage for the long term, and it will gradually change over, as you say.

 

Don't forget that an automation upgrade goes on the books as an asset to be counted towards the companies net worth for years to come. Pilot wages are an expense. No lasting benefit there.

I learned this lesson long ago when my employer choose to add a heads up display to every plane over additional training and wages for the pilots.

Investment in automation makes more sense to management. As a defense pilots will need to work cheaper in the future to stave off automation in the years ahead.

Skyhigh

 

Which former employer of yours installed HUDs in the aircraft?

USMCFLYR

 

No, I'm not way behind anything, I'm well plugged in into the UAV industry and the military operators.

This is not widespread use like the military. They have had significant airspace issues, and they do NOT operate freely in manned airspace. The only reason they are able to get the airspace they need to do this is because it's low altitude near the border...ie nobody wants to use that airspace except drug smugglers and federal agencies.


AOPA isn't trying to stop UAVs, they are just trying to keep various federal, state, and local agncies from permanently locking up civilian airspace for their own convenience.


There is a lot of INTEREST in UAVs but not a lot of practical means to de-conflict with civilian traffic (other than flat-out banning civilian traffic).
UAV Pipeline patrol has the same airspace issues, unless you fly the thing at 200'.

But you are WAY behind the big picture here...the fact that law enforcement can fly large, uncertified model airplanes in deserted US airspace does not mean unmanned airliners are around the corner...those military UAVs that law enforcement is so excited about have an approximately 50% NON-COMBAT loss rate! (CBP doesn't have a better track record than the military either) And they cost as much as a new RJ!

The real-hurdle is not the technology (most it exists) but rather the COST of building in the required redundancy and reliability to make for the LOSS of flexibility and adaptability incurred by removing human pilots. This will require mind-boggling up-front expense, and will require complete re-engineering of world-wide ATC systems and ground handling as well. Who's gonna pay for all of THAT (this is in the range of HUNDREDS of billions $). I'll give you a little hint...not the airlines.

The real challenge is cost and government. Even after all of the development, the airplanes themselves will be so expensive that pilots will probably be cheaper anyway!

The game-changing technology would be an adaptive artificial intelligence which could replace some of the flexibility that pilots bring to the table. But the catch-22 is certifying such a system...by it's very nature (adaptive) it will be very hard to fully predict what it will do in every situation! The FAA (or their foreign equivalents) is not going to readily sign off on that...

But in any event, you'll see it come at least 30 years in advance. When they start operating large (airliner size) unmanned cargo airplanes in US domestic airspace on a regular (not experimental basis) then you have about 30-50 years before they start doing the same with airliners. A few freight dogs might get caught short at the end of their career someday, but pax pilots will see it coming far enough out to steer your kids to medical school vice flight school.

Bottom Line: There are plenty of things to worry about in an aviation career, but this is not one of them if you are old enough to read this.

 

Good...at least I don't need to worry about that.

I think the biggest hurdle will be getting passengers to be accepting of this new technology. There are so many aviation incidents where the PILOT saved the day, not the autopilot. The Hudson Crash? Sully made the decision to ditch - would a computer do the same? Hmm...