He says he's 74. Maybe its the only font he can proof read. Maybe they use the same AI to power his hearing aid.:D

Flimsy school desks were supposed to protect us from nuclear war, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc….what makes you think a big, solid desk won’t protect us from everything else??

I didn't say it won't.

Easy trigger, just admiring you calling me to the carpet regarding the younger workforce who will be subject to increased job security issues with the possible advent of technology. As far as “your mockery of a unionized workforce” narrative or whatever you pulled out of my 2 cents that was not the intention - probably wrong for bringing in an old school penitentiary tool into the discussion. So let’s just say well done tapping me on the shoulder or head and bringing forward that the late model hires (car term for the newest) may need to worry about the tech which I neglected. I agree truly “hollow” advice for them. Godspeed for them and I mean it.

This is what they tell us so what can they really do? We all know certification has a built in safety factor so is it maybe 170 hours or 1700 hrs?

And this is reason to oppose sections of the faa reauthorization bill that fund research for single pilot and zero pilot operations.

Research means "let's find out." Another way of putting it is, "let's learn the truth."

If research reveals that single pilot or no-pilot operations can be conducted safely, are we to deny a truth because it's inconvenient, or threatens our jobs?

If research shows that pilotless or reduced-pilot cockpits are unsafe, then so be it. If research shows otherwise, then so be it. We can't really argue that reduced-pilot or unmanned cockpits are unsafe, if they really aren't, and it's disingenuous to suggest that the truth shouldn't be known, simply because we're protecting jobs.

I've operated in swarms of unmanned assets; I've seen the foibles, dangers, hazards, and risks, and I have very little respect for what they can and can't do: more importantly, I've a very healthy concern for the mid-air risks, having experienced, on the average, a near mid-air three times a night in environments that were saturated with unmanned assets. I don't like them.

There are jobs that I do that absolutely cannot be done by unmanned assets; they are purely seat of the pants operations that rely on judgement due to dynamic, changing conditions.

The push to remove a person from the cockpit isn't necessarily a safety-related one: it's economically driven. I stand by that premise. We've enhanced safety with EGPWS and varying degrees of automation. We fly aircraft that are capable of autoland, and yet, the most critical component in automated systems still relies upon the pilot, as automation is a workload-reducer, but more accurately, just another means of a person to control the machine. Not the machine to control the machine. We can fly-by-wire-it, automate it, enhance it, even remote pilot it, but we're not getting rid of the pilot. At most, we're relocating the pilot. The pillot remains integral, and a critical component central to the entire operation. Autonomous operation is another matter and I'm not afraid of research that develops it and tests it, so long as that research is tempered by experienced hands who truly understand the environment and all its implications (as opposed to college kids, who don't).

Fund the research. Test, learn, try, prove. Disprove. Show. The pilot still remains a necessary component, not because he wants a job or an income that funds a private baseketball court in company colors, but because when things truly go to ****, and they will, the pilot doesn't require batteries or a reboot, and the pilot has something that cannot be programmed, but only learned: experienced judgement. That is, after all, why we get paid; not for the monkey skills of manipulating the control, but for our decisions.

This is about money. Not safety. Money. In a just world your points would be valid. This isn’t such a world. It’s entirely about the Benjamin. So delaying it is a valid tactic no matter the means. But on this front we are our own worst enemy. The computer will make fewer mistakes. Every pilot error that generates an accident brings us closer to removing the pilot. I’m not saying the outcome if that will be safer! It’s the 3 pct of edge cases if complex weather, mechanical failure etc where we need the human decision making skills and intuition. Intuition to know we need to conserve gas now because we hear an issue up ahead that the computer just won’t understand. That intuition is judgement and no AI has that because some of it is emotional.

But the drive to get to the pilotless transport aircraft has zero to do with safety. It’s money.

That's exactly the justification that the Wright Brothers used with their law suits in setting back aviation in the US for a decade and a half.

Are you suggesting that single pilot or unmanned cockpits are safe, and the only justification for forestalling progress is to line your pocket and give you a job?

You've just made the case for those who seek to remove pilots from the cockpit. Congratulations.

Was this directed at me? Because I said nothing like that and if that’s what you got out of it let me clarify. The airlines want single and no pilot operations in order to save money at the EXPENSE of safety. People will die.