Airline Pilot Central Forums - Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Hangar Talk (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/)

- - Obligatory Pilot Shortage Article (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/hangar-talk/56936-obligatory-pilot-shortage-article.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 950166)

It doesn't work that way now, (crashing into a "control station" to assume control) and wouldn't in the future either.

I don't know what kind of security that Lockheed/USAF/etc currently has around the UAV piloting station; nor am I asking.

That said, I can see two major differences between a military UAV program and an airline's drone Boeing/Airbus program -

1) A jihadist could care less about crashing a MQ-1 into the Afghan desert when there will be another one right behind it. But a dozen airliners over the US east coast packed with fuel and infidels? Very lucrative target.

2) Can we depend on GoJetsss, SkyBus, or RyanAir to spend sufficient money to provide their "pilot stations" with security that would rival a cold-war era ICBM silo?

Maybe I've just watched too much "24"...

Sorry guys, didn't mean to put a stop to the discussion...

It's all your fault boomer.

:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gearjerk (Post 949938)

Shiz,

Without going any further than the 2nd line, your post lacks all credibility. We could compare resumes, but I'm pretty sure I have just as much, if not more "hostile fire/imminent danger" pay as a "rated pilot" of a "manned asset" as you do?

I'm not a UAV/UAS/RPV cheerleader by any means, but to equate those operations to billets filled by "non-rated" personnel proves your lack of understanding beyond what I can teach you here on an anonymous web based forum.

I'm not advocating the "last pilot being born" scenario, not sure where you get that idea? If you'd like, read the previous ten pages and then return with better "reading comprehension" skills. What people are asking/saying for in-depth discussion purposes, are whether crews can be reduced or in other words, "augmented" by "remote operations". Before you reply with, "the technology isn't ready yet", or "the flying public would never allow it", I've heard it all before, and all others, to include FTB's posted links, see this being a plausible effort in the next two decades, read - 20 years. Not tomorrow, not without improved technologies, not without other factors allowing the "slippery slope" of "remote operations" taking hold.

As always, thank you for your service, no offense taken. :D

GJ

OK, you got me:D. My emotional outburst was not directed at you, just the technoweenies in a general sense who jump onto the latest technology and try to drive it to become the end-all be-all of everything aviation (or whatever else). I actually heard that "last pilot" bit when I was in commissioning training....:rolleyes:

I could really care less about the technical innovations or whatever to get remotely piloted/reduced crew airplanes in the air and I'm sure it will happen if it makes sense economically.

If you look at the fact that the same widget that is used on your car is used in an airplane but is "aviation approved" it costs 10-100 times more money, I think it quickly becomes a level of technology that becomes prohibitively expensive in relation to having a flesh and blood stick actuator. Where that break even point lies is a mystery to most who aren't crunching numbers for an aircraft manufacturer or airline. What is the differential where you remove the lowest paid from the cockpit and replace them with someone higher paid (albeit used more productively) on the ground and cost that out versus paying x much more per aircraft to make it more cost effective? That I think is the billion dollar question and my short reference to a "bijillion" technical issues means more along the lines of how many "bijillion" dollars is involved in overcoming those obstacles.

Note that also, the winds are blowing in the pentagon that military R&D is going to be cut significantly, so it's possible that Uncle Sucker isn't going to foot the bill for this stuff anymore.

Along the lines of FexEx "researching" pilotless aircraft or Embraer looking into single-pilot aircraft...Boeing, Tupolev, and the Britts/French were all working to build SST's in the 60's and it was going to be the next big thing, but it turned out to be impractical in application.

P.S. Thank you for your service, beers are on me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boomer (Post 950183)

I saw Die Hard II, that sh!t could HAPPEN! Ha Ha!!!:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastoff (Post 947694)

People with less time than that were getting hired at UAL in the Mid-90's. Sounds like a pilot shortage as well.

err... "women with less time"....