CoefficientX

Highly likely? 5 years? No way. Simply no way.

qball

Just the cost of modifying the cockpit on an existing airframe to a single pilot configuration would be significant.

123494

I'm also a little confused as to the added benefit of having one pilot in the cockpit and one "monitor" on the ground somewhere. The monitor would only be able to handle a couple of flights at once, I would imagine. How much of a savings is that? And what if the one on board has a heart attack or goes suicidal? Will the monitor be able to override him? Lots of factors here that people gloss over.

UAL T38 Phlyer

Exactly.

It's one thing to make an autonomous system that can fly a route that was planned by Dispatch.

But has anyone seen an algorithm than can figure out the best way to avoid/circumnavigate a line of thunderstorms?

Playing the radar is still an art, with tilt, gain, and visual observation (lightning, or cell-growth in daytime; anvil, etc) all factoring in. No radar nor combination of systems currently fielded can do that. (Including a weather link such as WSI).

What about diversion logic? Legal to start an approach, but field is at mins, and last jet just went missed. Manned airplane crew hears this and says...you know, I think we'll divert early. Mr. Roboto, on the other hand, flies the approach, gets "No Autoland," and diverts...to an airport plugged with other jets doing the same. How does the automation deal with low fuel, stacked in sequence, and systems failures?

Tailpipe fire during start, or rejected takeoff...who makes the evacuate call? The Lead Flight Attendant? The remote pilot, who doesn't know the right wing melted? (Re: American 767, ORD, Oct 28, 2016).

Passenger disturbance? Medical emergency? Regular crew meal instead of a Special?

Manufacturers can absolutely make an airliner that can go from A to B safely under controlled circumstances.

It's the normal weather or vagaries of day-to-day flying that make this a foolish proposition.

I still think we're a long way from being replaced (as much as they'd like to).

Bigapplepilot

Yea but...

C130driver

No it's not that plain and simple: you're not going to cut that other pilot, you'll send him to a ground station somewhere to help in case the 1 pilot you have or the "computer" goes TU. I'm assuming he will still have a salary. Second, any cost savings by eliminating the cost of salaries for FOs would be easily offset by the initial costs of fielding and mitigating the risks, legal, regulatory demands, etc. The only real driver for when (which it probably will but not in our lifetimes) it happens is cost. Air traffic demand is pretty constant (barring a black swan event) so even if there were cost savings, how much of a lower ticket price would pax really see if the execs making these decisions, motivated by cost wanted to increase profit margin?

I can't believe we are still talking about this.

horrido27

John asks an honest set of questions...
here's my opinion!


There are 4 major issues that need to be discussed-
1) New/next generation Aircraft built with single pilot/reduced crew in mind, with secure comm and computer architecture to grow.
2) Government approval.
3) Public opinion to support it.
4) Pilot/workforce acceptance.

1) New Aircraft-
Boeing is talking about the MOMA/NMA [B797?]. A 757-767 replacement with new technology. They have already talked about it being (possibly) autonomous. Personally, I think they only stated that to create hype. But if they are serious, they will start with a conventional cockpit that has everything built in (and secure) to allow full monitoring and possible remote controlled.
When Boeing actually does this, then we need to be really concerned!
Of course, Boeing is talking about a 2025 timeframe.. and Airbus hasn't mentioned anything yet. Therefore, it's safe to say that it's still a good 7-10 years away.

2) Government approval-
It will take the FAA and the EASA time to figure this out. Again, if the (new) planes are built from the get go with this in mind, you have to think that the aviation authorities will be involved. Keep in mind, we (in the USA) have a huge leap on those in Europe. We have YEARS of data from the DOD/USAF who have been flying remote/drone aircraft for years, over long distances. Just how much data they share? Unknown..
But expect to see the FAA/EASA work with the manufactures to allow some sort of limited crew with remote oversight on cargo aircraft first. How long till that results in actually allowing single pilot/reduced crew? Unknown.. but I would say, we could be talking about 2027ish~

3) The Public-
That's an unknown quantity but if we are talking about 2025+, the reality is that those in positions of power/control will be the same ones who graduated college in the past few years. That generation is already more comfortable with technology and automation than me and my generation! (born '66). When they start talking about single pilot flying cargo, at night.. on a temporary basis, many people may not blink an eye. Fast forward to 2030+ and it's a single pilot flying up and down the coast, or transcons? Not an issue. At that point, we will probably be on our 3rd Generation of Electric/Autonomous cars and Drones delivering some items that you purchased online!
Why do you need two pilots (one paid 300K, the other 150K) when you can have one guy in the cockpit and someone at a remote station following a few aircraft?! (Making 120K!) The public will not be on our side on this one.

4)The Workforce-
Another major unknown. Obviously, every pilot union will come out screaming against it. But lets be honest. The unions and pilot groups screamed about age 60>65 but couldn't stop it. Time invariably forces change. It will be interesting to see how this all works out. Is it one pilot in the cockpit and one at a remote station? Or does the remote station pilot oversee 2, 3, 5? aircraft at a time? What is his/her limits and duty times?
What about the pilot in the cockpit? Certain age limit? higher medical standards? ALOT to be figured out.. but it's coming. Again, 2030ish?

If I were a betting man, here's what I think will happen.

B797 comes out with secure comm, full cockpit but the ability to be flown with single pilot or reduced crew (3 man international down to 2). They will also offer a remote pilot station to be installed at numerous locations.
A cargo company will sign up to be the testbed (Amazon Air?) (Elon Musk company?). They will do the heavy lifting and work with Boeing and the FAA/EASA to start reduced crew ops. They will do this for a few years till the FAA/EASA buys off on it. After that, you will see the next set of new airlines pop up. Boeing will be glad to sell their new aircraft to anyone (just look at ME3, NAS, Iran Air, etc...)
Of course all the pilot unions will be against it and the legacy carriers will try to figure out how to implement this shift. But don't kid yourself.. someone will be first to say they will be shifting to this new way of flying.

In the end, it may take 10-15 years till it affects anyone reading this thread now. But it will happen. History has shown us that technology affects manning and how we work/operate.
Anyone how thinks that in 2032 we will be flying the same way as we do today merely need to look back at 1997 (-20/+15) to see the changes that have happened.

Always
Motch

Mesabah

Fully autonomous is impossible with current machine code. However, single pilot is ready now, it just needs FAA approval, which is a massive hurdle.

The true savings in automation is the ability to reduce any and all traffic delays, not related to weather conditions. With Doppler LIDAR, separation minimum is eliminated, allowing aircraft to be stacked a few hundred feet apart instead of thousands.

Aero1900

I'm just guessing of course, but I bet the new Boeing won't be designed for single pilot or remote operation in any way. In fact, I bet it's an exact copy of the 787 flight deck.

In my mind, one of the hurdles is simply making the decision as to which road to go down, single pilot, remote operation, or autonomous operation. I see at least 3 different paths technology could go to, but I don't see anything near a consensus.

The industry will need to settle on one of these paths, before you can begin to discuss a time table for implementing anything. My bet would be single pilot with remote backup from a joint dispatcher/ pilot type person. The remote guy just monitors the progress of 5 flights at a time, each being flown by a single pilot. The guy on the ground can takeover, or assist in any way. This way you can work towards cutting costs wile still leaving a captain in the plane.

The accident rate for single pilot corporate jets is worse than in crew cockpit corporate jets, and I think that fact will be a compelling argument against getting rid of the FO.

I think this is all farther into the future than some have suggested. I'm young, and I'm confident my career will be safe. I wouldn't recommend my young children to pursue being professional pilots though

PowerShift

The question is not a matter of science or "if" it's an economical question? What's cheaper? You should be speaking with an actuarial department at an insurance company. What are the insurance rates going to be for single pilot? That coupled with the cost to retrofit thousands of airframes to "single pilot ops" or single pilot with a virtual F.O. in some capacity may be cost prohibitive.