Elliot

Without being deleted by the "mods" for "flaimbait". I'll just say, your opinion is misinformed at best. If you'd like some of your statements quantified, feel free to PM me. If not, please don't post about what you know nothing about.

Thank you, and as always, fly safe.

GJ

Grumble

Most common phrase I heard used on the floor of the 'died. "Well, try and get it back again." Watched more pred porn on the wall than I care to admit wondering where is was going to flame out. Someone actually tried to start a pool one day of what kill box it would be, but alas they got it back just as it was gaining momentum, pretty funny. This was a few years ago. We can chat high side about the info coming from east of LA about shoring up the connectivity. No doubt UAV's have their place, moving paying pax isn't one of them. Bottom line is the risk + cost vs reward of trying to implement UAV people movers is way beyond what it costs to have to actual yoke movers sitting up front.

Elliot

Watching FMV, "Predator Porn as you call it, from a non-operator standpoint it is quite different than actually "operating" the a/c and understanding "why you need to get it back in the first place". (i.e. whose connectivity issue it is.)

I'm glad you know what "high side" is, but unless you're current and qualified in the equipment, I wouldn't expect you to understand or be familiar with next generation technologies.

No disrespect intended, thank you for your service.

GJ

forgot to bid

So Embraer's plans are to come out with a single pilot airliner to use post nextgen being implemented which should be complete around 2025. GE wants to have a single pilot cargo airliner flying by 2020. Thales is working on something as well. All single pilot.

The capabilities of the UAV are something to discuss but given the cost, complexity and PR of it I doubt it'd come to the airlines. But it looks as if Embraer, GE and so on are all focused on single pilot post Nextgen that uses technology from the UAVs as the backup. Which mind you, is a backup we don't have now such that you could get the public to buy in "we don't need two pilots, one will do, cheaper tickets anyways, we'll only take the best pilots, shortage of them anyways AND if both pilots assume room temperature now you're all screwed but not with this system."

Whether we like it or not, single pilot or not, FMS' and the aircraft being adjusted by the ground seems to be well on the way whether we like it or not. They're going to get control of it. And its worth noting that there is an incredible push even on elongated quasi updated DC-9s to fly off the FMS from a few hundred feet after takeoff all the way to the marker and then autoland.

Will the FAA sign off on it? It's the FAA working with GE on it. And it's the same FAA that signed off on single pilot corporate jets decades ago.

So, Embraer slaps 4D FMSs on an E190, puts in a system that allows dispatch to have open voice communication at all times, puts in an 'out of office' reply on the ACARS for lav breaks, adds cameras to help the pilot taxi even better than they do now just as they do on the 380, even further automated systems on an overly automated jet to say the $3M Phenom simplicity and a requirement for two pilots depending on the MEL or theatre of operation and Embraer will have achieved what the press termed a solution to pilot shortages and pilot costs. And to provide airlines what they really want, true operational control over their equipment as in our goals trump your goals of landing 30 early to catch the last commute home that leaves 10 min prior to your original arrival time.

I guess we all hope for a pilot shortage, unless the solution to a pilot shortage is not higher pay but single pilot ops. Not to mention, up the pay by probably 20% and there will be plenty of pilots to say yes.

Now Gearjerk, does that sound plausible to you as not just something for 2020-2025 but today? Not would the FAA sign off on it today, but could it be done, today?


.

forgot to bid

And GJ, time crunch here on google searches, but could a UAV be equipped with a... VHF repeater of some sort?... that would allow a guy in Las Vegas flying it to talk to MIA tower and everyone here it? Not that is necessary for anything other than the SA of pilots and controllers.

Elliot

FTB,

Sorry, I guess that I don't fully understand the question, but to the best of my ability will give you a scenario which I think best answers it.

There are basically two separate types of "operators". Airman involved with launching/recovering the vehicles are commonly referred to as a Launch & Recovery Element (LRE). Others who are involved with daily flight operations of the vehicles are Mission Control Elements (MCE's).

Simply put, an MCE uses satellite signals, while an LRE uses Line-of-Sight (LOS) signals for control of the aircraft. (This is the primary means of controlling the aircraft. Logic and redundancies built into the aircraft allow for signal precedence, but due to latency of control and signal distance while being operated from an MCE station, the LRE's will always have signal priority over MCE's.)

If I am then operating the vehicle from an MCE station, I can "key the mic" just like I would if I was sitting in the aircraft itself and transmit to any location the aircraft radio is able to reach itself. The UAV/RPV radios have the same limitations that today's aircraft radios do. (i.e. atmospheric interruptions, Line-of-Sight capabilities.) The vehicle can have a UHF/VHF/FM or whatever type of radio you want in it. The radio itself is located in the aircraft. The control head is located at the operators station. Very similar from what I understand to be the workings of the ERJ radios. The "control heads" are in the cockpit, the actual radio itself sits in the "avionics bay" below or aft of the pilot station.

Again, hope this answered your question. My bad if I misunderstood the question posed.

GJ

forgot to bid

Nope, you answered it. I was curious.

tortue

This still seems like a very old school / low tech approach at communicating with ATC. It seems eventually that the operator will have a direct landline based method to communicate with the controllers station. Even adding some "nice" features such as having the UAV operator transmission be delayed/cached if another person is transmitting on the frequency at a given time to prevent people from being stomped over each other and to permit the controller to be able to hear them in order, versus two people talking at the same time.

embraer

Just like to say that Rick is 100% correct.

The public ( among other sectors) would be very resistant to boarding an aircraft with no crew on board.

The military is another story. Cargo aircraft notwithstanding, it makes sense for combat aircraft to be UAVs for a number of reasons. For starters, you are not flying passengers around. Second, you are flying into combat situations.

Worse case scenario you lose a UAV. Current worse case scenario you lose a very expensive manned aircraft plus a pilot who was very expensive and time consuming to train..not to mention a person is now dead.

So...UAVs in the military replacing manned aircraft are a reality. One which I would bet still happens in our lifetime. The same thing happening in the civilian, passenger flying world? Unlikely. Not because the technology or know-how is out of reach. But for many other factors...most importantly public opinion and cost to revamp the entire world-wide aviation network.

forgot to bid

Thales Investigates Single-crew Flight Decks

By: Bill O'Connor
July 11, 2010
Avionics, Air Transport and Cargo, Aerospace Industry

Thales Aerospace is following Embraer’s lead in researching single-crew airliners as part of a program called Cockpit 3.0, which is targeted for the 2030 time frame. Embraer has indicated an interest in an airliner that can be flown with a single pilot, instead of conventional two-pilot crews.

“Of course the convenient answer is to say ‘forget it, it will never happen’ and certainly the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 replacements will have two crew in the cockpit,” said Thales innovation director Joseph Huysseune, “but looking far to the horizon we have clever ideas to go in that direction. As an equipment and systems supplier, we have got to be ready when it comes, and to be proactive in proposing solutions.”

The goal of Cockpit 3.0 is to reduce crew workload and complexity, which in turn could reduce human error. Thales is also looking at reducing the physical size of the flight deck to maximize payload.

By 2030, the company hopes to have simpler and safer aircraft cockpits that are easier to train on while being single-crew capable. As a bridge to this ultimate goal, Thales will study workload reduction for standard two-pilot crews.

Gil Michielin, Thales’ vice president and general manager for commercial aircraft solutions, noted, “The answer may not be the same for all sectors. For instance, the single-pilot crew for freight transport might happen earlier than for passenger transport. Obviously we have a say, but in the end the market will decide.”