WSJ article about single-pilot airliners
#1
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: No to large RJs
Waiting for ALPA's release showing support for this issue. Soon to be followed by all the ALPA supporters saying "if ALPA believes it's good for us then it must be and who am I to question it." Wait this would hurt RJ drivers too, nevermind.
#5
This discussion about a year ago sums up the problems with single-pilot airliners that rely on an operator on the ground to recover the aircraft in the event of single pilot incapacitation (essentially an unmanned vehicle):
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/te...airliners.html
You'll never get the level of safety expected from today's airliners without two pilots up front.
And start unmanned transport small, with buses, cars, trains, and other ground-based transportation before graduating to higher-level transport.
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/te...airliners.html
You'll never get the level of safety expected from today's airliners without two pilots up front.
And start unmanned transport small, with buses, cars, trains, and other ground-based transportation before graduating to higher-level transport.
#6
While the economic stimulus would not be that significant, anything that increases employment is welcomed, besides it increases market share for ALPO !
G'Dog
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,870
Likes: 667
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
A single-pilot airliner will need to be FULLY autonomous because pilots do keel over dead sometimes.
You will need new technology and extra redundancy, which will cost a lot of money to design, build, and maintain. Every nuisance computer message at an outstation will be a no-go item...for real. What is currently a minor nuisance fault will be a divert-to-nearest-suitable.
You need to massively re-engineer ground, approach, and enroute systems. Who is going to get the gubmint off their butts to do THAT??? Who's going to pay for it? The FAA is having a hard time getting nextgen up and running by 2020 and that is nowhere near capable of handling autonomous airliners.
The FAA's standard for 121 safety is that any changes result in equivalent or improved safety. It would be VERY hard to get them to buy off on something like this. And that's to say nothing of public perception and congress.
The DoD has reaped some capability and financial benefits with UAV's because of improved endurance and hardware cost savings because they don't have to meet manned safety requirements. The USAF is in hot water because they lost nearly half of their predators to non-combat accidents in the last ten years. They have also discovered (the hard way) that certain phases of flight cannot safely be conducted via SATCOM due to control response latency...this means line-of-sight between controller and UAV is required for those phases.
Embrear may be considering it, but what airline is going to pay extra money for a capability that regulators will not allow them to use?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



