SonicFlyer

Pilots are not a significant cost of practically any flight.

For redundancy purposes I don't think FOs are going away anytime in the foreseeable future.


Maybe the process becomes a lot more automated. Maybe you COULD fly it with 1 guy, but just like a lot of the 135s and 91k outfits, insurance will want a second guy there.

full of luv

Once I perfect my teleporter....it's curtains for this whole damn industry!

AirBear

And so it begins:

https://www.airway1.com/nma-the-so-c...-on-board/amp/

In a time when Boeing has been trying to deal with the negative publicity caused by the crashes of the two 737 MAX jets, rumors about a possible NMA configuration, also known as 797, emerged this week.

The idea, according to a survey by investment advisory firm Jefferies, that heard several airlines interested in the NMA, would be to certify the new Boeing jet to fly with only one pilot on board.

The technology for this would still take about 10 years to become reliable, but the impact on reducing costs would be so great that airlines would have considered the requirement as one of the top in the new airplane.

In this scenario, the “797” would fly with a pilot on board, but would have the remote support of another crew member on the ground who would monitor several aircraft at the same time.

Gap between narrow-bodies and wide-bodies

The NMA (New Midsize Airplane) is a project that Boeing has been working on for years. The manufacturer plans to launch a twin-engine wide-body jet, however, smaller than a 767, one of the planes it can replace.

The new aircraft would fill a gap between the 737 MAX 10, the model’s biggest variant, and the 787-8, its smallest wide-body currently. Two variants are studied, one with a capacity of 200 to 250 passengers, and a larger one, with up to 290 seats.

According to experts, the dilemma would be in the various roles that the jet could take. The “797” should be an alternative to long-haul flights but with less capacity and also offer high density of cabin configurations for short routes. There are companies, however, that would have asked Boeing for a hefty cargo hold, foreseeing a demand for it.

With so much uncertainty, it is hardly possible that the announcement of the NMA launch, quoted to take place at the Paris Air Show in June, is still being considered in the face of problems with the 737 MAX.

DirtyPurple

Will it have MCAS?

BobZ

Naa.....were all gona be replaced by hi speed rail.

JamesNoBrakes

How many pilots do you need per airframe? Now you've just halved it. I called this a long time ago, but I think there'd be more of a transition with a semi-technical button-pusher that can sit in the seat during takeoff and landing and serve drinks and pick up trash in cruise. If you can cut out half of your pilots, their health care and benefits, that's surely not an insignificant cost. At the end of the day, it's about bumping up the stock price.

TiredSoul

I’m guessing one FO and no Captain?

Gunfighter

If the 797 doesn't require an external pre-flight it could be one Captain. If the walkaround is required, then you are correct one FO.

climb

I think You would see two pilot long haul first.

One req in cruz

rickair7777

Not happening in the near future. Pilot incapacitation statistics mean that you'd need essentially a full-auto unmanned airliner to go single-pilot.

And there are many, many issues in the way of that... technical, regulatory (Not just US), public perception, and economics... especially the MASSIVE, VAST upfront investment for something which will not provide an ROI for decades.

On the technical end, that sort of AI simply does not exist, nobody knows how to make it, nor can anyone even predict a timeline... they don't even know enough to do that.

Only way ahead on AI now would be to use non-determinstic AI (which is not certifiable by virtue of being non-determinsitic) to educate an AI which, when deemed smart enough, would be "frozen" so that it could be tested rigorously and then certified like deterministic software. Basically the same as trying to pre-program every possible conceivable contingency, only difference is the software is teaching/programming itself. But anything which nobody thought of or the non-det AI didn't have the opportunity to learn would result in a fail.

Bottom line on that, it will need to be first built and then deployed to "shadow" human pilots for many years. Only if it produces acceptable outcomes could it be certified for single pilot ops. And to make matters worse, if they find ANYTHING wrong, and have to go back to the non-det learning mode to fix it, the ENTIRE process starts all over... you simply cannot "trust" (ie certify) non-det processes, they have to be frozen and rigorously tested to make sure the non-det process didn't develop some inadequate (or even worse yet, rogue) response.

If Boeing builds the NMA/797, they will do so to sell it immediately. So it will have two pilots. They don't have cash to pizz away on some manhattan project that might get in the black by the turn of the century. Especially right now. Honestly I'd expect it to come from Airbus first.

AI being so problematic, the only realistic option that I see would be single-pilot ops with a remote backup pilot (who could cover several flights at once). That would still require a very robust automation, which could execute a diversion autonomously. It would also require a VERY robust data comm, which doesn't exist yet, and would involve new satellites and ground-based systems.

Even then you have to adapt ATC and get the regulators to go for it.

Don't lose sleep over some journalist talking trash.