galaxy flyer

The military is the most hidebound, spare no expense operations going and I watched in my career, navs and engineers being eliminated by technology. I’m not saying it’s happening soon, but money talks and people are expensive.

GF

Bahamasflyer

Money sure does talk!

It will be MORE expensive for the carriers to pay an incremental increases in insurance premiums for single pilot than it will be to pay a 2nd pilot.

Just ask any Corp flight dept how much more $$$ they pay for SP insurance in a CJ2 vs a crew of two.

Remember that part 121 flying is the safest it’s been in history. 9 years straight without a single fatality on a US airline until the unfortunate SWA incident last spring.......so it be exceptionally silly to mess with that.

Oh, and on that note.....I’d loveeeee to know how AI or even a single pilot would have handled an explosive decompression and simultaneously uncontained engine failure as that SWA crew did!!!

I just cant believe it would make economic sense (money DOES talk!) for an operator to save a measly $300 per hr cost (roughly highest WB CA pay) only to be offset with staggeringly higher hull and liability premiums, not to mention the staggering upfront cost for R&D before getting a single dollar in ROI

galaxy flyer

The answer could just as easily framed with the fact 80% of accidents involve human error. The Asiana SFO, AF447 and most other accidents in the last 18 years have involved planes in perfect order crashed by the humans.

GF

tomgoodman

Right here is the deal-breaker. The CEO that endures the “staggering upfront cost” is not the same one who will reap the ROI many years later. Managers need bottom line results now, lest they be ousted by their own BOD, or by a raider.

Wink

This argument negates the countless times crews have handled imperfect aircraft/weather/you name it with exemplary results.

Also, what criteria did you use to come up with that 80% figure? Domestically and Internationally for commercial aircraft, I think that number is extremely misleading

galaxy flyer

Here’s Boeing on the subject, wink.. That figure has been a constant for awhile. Now, why was the human error occurring is a more subtle, less headline making, question.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...icle_03_2.html

I’m not in favor of AI, I doubt it will happen in commercial aviation anytime soon, but we’re not infallible, either. We see ourselves as indispensable, so did lots of other jobholders.


GF

ASACapt

The single pilot provision was removed from the current FAA bill up for vote in the senate.

V12Merlin

No way I’ll EVER put my family or myself on one. If that means driving to wherever or a boat—so be it. Mgt greed never trumps my families safety.

Don’t have enough pilots?—I’ve got some ideas in that direction too.

rcole

Airplanes can of course be controlled by remote control as long as everything goes according to flight plan - which never happens. And we have to ignore pesky little details like accident rates, (look at the military's accident/incident rate with remote controlled aircraft) airspace congestion, (remote controllers are not going to be able to adapt as quickly and efficiently to control airplanes in the dynamic environment that is the air traffic system), weather avoidance and/or the ability to synthesize and respond efficiently and correctly all of the information an experienced on-board pilot can do. As for the idea of a single pilot... I've flown extensively as a crew member on single, 2 pilot, 3 pilot and 4 pilot crews and can say without a doubt that extra eyes/ears/hands on deck are a help when things get busy. I've been in situations multiple times when all four pilots were busy flying/coordinating/communicating all the way to and even to the gate. Trying to communicate with a remote pilot would involve way too much of a time delay even with a live comm link.



I also spent several years helping to oversee the implementation of a computerized bidding system for our airline. What we learned very quickly was that computers are nowhere near the equal of the human brain in dealing with even relatively simple problems that a human brain could easily grasp and solve with one quick glance. Even with all the whoopla about automation since then that has not changed.



So yes, flying an airplane remotely is possible, but throw thousands of airplanes into complex airspace in the dynamic situation that is flight and it is a completely different problem. In order to maintain a level of safety anywhere near that of piloted airplanes the numbers of aircraft would have to be greatly reduced - and even then remote pilots could never do as well.


Ron - CFI, ATP, A&P

35,000+ hours and 40+ years of GA and Airline flying both domestic and longhaul international...

DirtHead

http://amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/24546/army-chopper-pilots-fly-with-digital-co-pilot-that-could-revolutionize-flight-as-we-know-it?source=dam it's amazing how fast this technology seems to be evolving.