Not even remotely...his comment was right on the money. Airbus has offered and has the technology to build and deliver aircraft that are 100% automated. Thus far, no carrier has been interested in buying one. But that is only a matter of time. When the public at large can handle pilot-less airliners believe me...they'll be flying on one. In the US we are at most 5 years away from a consumer being able to purchase a self-driving car. Once that technology becomes widespread and the public has adjusted their perception of being chauffeured around by a computer it's just not that much of a stretch from self-driving car passenger to pilot-less airplane passenger.

Look at this economically, for the sake of argument if a startup airline began offering round trip tickets from NY to LA for $150 but on a pilot-less aircraft do you really believe they won't fill seats? I'm not saying those numbers are accurate insofar as ticket pricing but the airlines, ESPECIALLY, the cargo companies are salivating at the prospect of doing away with pilot salaries and labor issues.

You're vastly overstating the viability of pilotless airliners. That is a loooooong ways off. There's not even a push for single pilot airliners or freighters. Heck, the cargo airlines continue to utilize 3 pilot machines.

I do think autopilots for cars are very close to entering the general market, though.

No...I'm not. There were numerous articles last years in the trade magazines regarding Airbus's offer to build 100% automated airframes.

Here's one..I'm too lazy to dig up more: LINK

You vastly underestimate where the technology actually is because you don't want it to be true. Neither do I. You have to put your ego aside and realize that our trade is getting dumbed down and whittled down. I have an ego to. After nearly 2 decades of flying professionally it was difficult for me to admit where technology is going and where it is as well. A year ago I would have agreed with you and argued your point for you. But I read up on it bound and determined to prove a friend(an aerospace engineer) wrong. Automation is taking over. If you really don't believe that the technology isn't there yet you just aren't paying attention just like I wasn't. This is happening, we all need to come to peace with it. Though I don't think anyone flying today will loose a job to "George" outright I do think some sectors of flying particularly the cargo side will see "robot freighters" very soon.

The FAA is also running a study to determine the near term viability of requiring auto-land to be used over hand flying if so equipped. We are in an interesting period. There will be rapid changes in technology that we never saw coming implmented virtually "overnight" througout the next few decades in all walks of life and business.

Yes the technology exists....today. However what is the benefit of removing the pilot from the vehicle. In military applications it makes sense because you increase your loiter time and remove the possibility of giving up a pilot to the enemy if he gets shot down.

None of that applies to the airline sector. So what would be the benefit of removing the pilot? Airlines don't have to pay him or her? You would still need someone to monitor they just would not be on the vehicle. Does not make sense to remove the pilot.

That being said, you could easily make the argument for less pay because less skill is required.

Trains still have engineers and you could have automated that decades ago.

Those articles tend to overstate things to promote the technology. The real world viability of it is not there, despite the technology being available. Like I said, the actual implementation has proven otherwise. You mentioned robot freights, but look at what the freighters actually do- they continue to run 3 pilot airliners.

As far as autolands being required, that's downright laughable. Autolands are sloppy and highly limited in windy conditions.

Not to mention that the FAA has actually been swinging the other way, encouraging pilots to hand fly more as they've become increasingly concerned about the deterioration of manual skills - see SAFO 13002 issued this January.

Look, you guys are preaching to the choir here. But, and I mean this with the highest respect for my fellow pilots, you guys are in a bit of denial. Your points are all fair, quite poignant, concise, spot on but they are heavily biased and unfortunately irrelevant. Take your potential job loss out of the picture, remove your perspective and look at it from the pov of an airline CEO. I'm with you guys, but you are not addressing the primary driving force toward cockpit automation:

$$$$ Cha Ching!!!!

If you don't believe that airline CEO's and BOD's aren't salivating at the chance to replace pilots with Windows 20 then well...dare I say they got you fooled. Think about it, how wise would it be for say Doug Parker to publicly acknowledge a corporate policy towards acquiring pilot-less aircraft once the tech is completely viable? Airbus has not put a huge amount of effort into maturing the technology because they have no takers on it. But that is not because no one wants them, it's because no airline wants to go out on that limb today. Parker would have his house stormed with pilots holding pitchforks and torches if he placed an oder for "George jets."

But some carrier, probably much sooner rather than later will bite. And that will be all it takes for Airbus to deal with the kinks...funding is everything with aviation tech development.

The fact that some cargo carriers still fly guys sideways is also irrelevant. Old technology will always co-exist side by side with the state of the art even at the same company. I.e. that United 787 sitting on a gate parked next to a 767-3 (yes I know the 76 has no FE but you see my point) in the same livery. That comparison is meaningless. It's all about the economics. No company will park old planes overnight in lieu of new ones. Fleet integration is a never ending process of airframe renewal and timeout. Most airlines are equipped with the last 3 or 4 generations of technology at any given time.

The technology might be around the corner to allow for a pilotless airliner. However there is no computer technology to allow for hackers to not take control and start piloting an Airbus-391, 700 passenger jet, straight into the ground.

My point about the cargo carriers is that they have shown over and over again that they will buy cheaper, older aircraft in lieu of new technology. Case in point: FDX is replacing 40+ year old 727s with 20+year old 757s.

On the economics: it is (and will continue to be for some time) much more expensive to operate drone technology than a manned aircraft. They are becoming popular in the military because of the extended loiter time capability and when one get's shot down no one dies. The next generation of fighters will likely not have pilots.

Notice how even in the military, there is no plan to replace the pilots in the non-combat aircraft.

Engineers love to tout being able to replace pilots, but the economics of it and the actual moves being made by airlines and militaries don't back that up at all.

The technology is there, but as said before, it can't be secured. That means it's a no-go, end of story.

I'd resist making any predictions or saying "never" to drones. 20 years ago we fought a war in the ME with dumb bombs, no Internet and no drones. Now, drones are soon to replace most combat aircraft, the Army uses a drone helicopter lifter (Kaman Max) and drones are being tested on carriers--Top Gun will soon be Top Desktop.

Self-driving cars aren't far off and no one would have believed it 10 years ago, after 9/11, I might note. Pretty recent. As far as pax are concerned, an airliner today might as well be a drone--pilots are locked in, rarely seen. The whole process from ticketing to flying is designed to eliminate the thought of what's occurring.

GF

Well put....

They make pilotless airliners because of Les Abend. His moustache so far has pushed the idea back...

JungleBus.....awesome article!

You are a talented writer and very few APC lurkers or posters can do better. I'm shocked by the negative responses. So many wonderful sunsets and star filled skies wasted on those petty enough to miss the poetry in your piece as well as your subtle jabs at the industry.

Our generation needs a Len Morgan, and I'm happy you have taken the first step to fill that role.

Cheers brother!

I find it hard to believe anyone would have any interest in a self-driving car.

Do you realize how many texts I could send and how much I could be on FB?

The thing that always amazes me is how the military and even civilian aerospace is always a few generations ahead of what you currently see out there everyday. These are the things being designed, tested, refined, conceptualized, and so on. Who's mind wasn't blown when the B2 showed up? To this extent, we'd be downright ignorant to think that Boeing, Airbus and others are not investing in highly automated aircraft that will be single-pilot capable. They may not have it certified as such right out the bat, but you can bet they've done analysis and figured out many of the things we ask questions about on a daily basis. They'd love to have a "single pilot" operation that can be crewed by a pilot and a "helper" like an FA that will serve drinks, but be in the cockpit during critical times. The airplane would be redundant enough with enough auto-land systems that it would be able to function just fine with only the "helper", likely though commands, datalink, or just AI. There are numerous ways around most of the obstacles presented. Sure, the technology isn't ready to be fielded, but I'm sure it's being looked at heavily, behind closed doors, in secret programs, heavily guarded corporate R&D, etc. The step after that would be full automation, and we won't have that for a long while, but the march in that direction is steady.

What about "an Regional Jet pilot" as opposed to "a Regional Jet pilot" Naht so much!

Heh, yeah - it's one of those rules you usually don't have to look up because the wrong way feels so obviously wrong when you say it. But I did have to look up "an RJ" vs "a RJ" when Flying chose that title.

I don't doubt it's being developed. Flight International just reported a few weeks ago that Boeing, in conjunction with Honeywell, Thales, and a few other companies is developing a single-pilot cockpit that would use utilize a human "copilot" on the ground to monitor and if necessary override the pilot in the air. It's thoroughly doable with technology only a little more advanced than that in widespread use today. I could even see them convincing the public that it represents a safety advance, considering nobody is watching those persnickety pilots right now, much less in a position to override them. The real problem is securing the datalink. Thus far the only really foolproof way to secure networks against attack and infiltration has been to make them closed loop - and even then the larger the network, the more vulnerable. By the very nature of the system, the aircraft monitoring & control network would be open-loop and worldwide. It would be a terrorist's wet dream and the ultimate hacker challenge. The real advance in technology needed for single-pilot or no-pilot aircraft to become a reality is network security. It's not even close to where it needs to be for the FAA to dream of certifying the system. In my lifetime, maybe. But I don't see the cost savings justifying the development & certification cost + infrastructure + added risk anytime soon unless pilots get massively more expensive. We can only hope ;).

First off, is there a link to the Flying Magazine web site for the article.

Second, I'm sure that somewhere down the road, you may see either single pilot or pilotless drone flying cargo and passengers. The big question is not if they can do it, it will the public accept it and will the airlines buy it. Current military UAS programs are no cheaper to run than manned systems. The advantage is in pilot safety. Until the airlines get a picture about how much money they can save, if any, our jobs are safe. Public acceptance will be harder to get. It will come down to how many lives are lost due to pilot error vs. how many die when the computers shut down.

Airline labor costs are traditionally around 25% of the operation. This includes all labor, not just pilots. Once you add in the technology and increased insurance costs, I doubt there will be any cha chinging going on.

I see airplanes with one pilot happening in the span of our careers. Maybe even within the next 20 years. Of course, the unions will fight this, just like they did when the navigator and engineers were replaced by computers in the 70s and 80s. That will be the biggest obstacle, not the technology. Most modern digital jets could easily be flown single pilot.

As for fully automated planes, I don't see the public support there anytime in the next 50 years. You will always have the fear of computer failure, unexpected weather (who's going to see that huge buildup that's not painting on radar, and ask for 10 right?), and a host of other issues.

Talk of datalink security only applies if we're talking about drones with pilots on the ground. I see even less support for that in an airliner, because no one is going to get on a plane where the pilot isn't vested in the successful completion of the flight.

Even with full automation, someone, somewhere, would have to be in charge and make critical decisions. A true AI capable of dealing with things like WX deviations, the NAT system, compounding mechanicals, problems with the pax and crew, ATC, etc (a list a mile long) simply isn't there.

Assuming the pilot is driving the airplane while wearing dirty tighty-whiteys from his PC in a living room, it'd require immense bandwidth. With thousands of aircraft airborne, you'd have terabytes per second streaming all over the globe. What happens with a solar flare? Or intentional jamming?

Do we really want to trust our lives to a RADIO link? Because in the end, that's what it would be. There's no other method of remotely piloting an aircraft.

Sucks to read this rubbish but i tell people all the time i could teach a 5 year old to fly a 70 year old airplane straight and level without autopilot. The autopilot is to a pilot what a spreadsheet is to an office manager. The job is still there to be done, and doing it the hard way only serves to distract the manager's attention from everything else going on in the office. A pilot who believes that the autopilot is "doing everything for me" is not yet a true pilot.

Drones ? Etc ? "never happen ?"

Lets remember that the FE is a critical component of the flight crew and while the regional nature of the B-737 and DC-9s which have come into the fleet may be without one, the international and/or overwater nature of our B-707, 747, DC-8, L-1011, and DC-10 aircraft will always require one due to the international mission and associated challenges.

True, I think improvements in network security and advancements in AI will take care of the problem. There's a point at which it will probably be better to equip the plane to make decisions and "figure out" how to get down on it's own, rather than rely on the ground for the information, at the very least it will be a form of backup and simplify the security problem somewhat, but overall this is probably one of the bigger obstacles.

And that "picture" must show a prompt cost reduction. Most CEOs are unwilling to hurt today's bottom line in order to benefit some future management team.

I'm all for this! Then when they tube one into the dirt, it'll be 70% computer error or operator error. Not pilot error! All sarcasm aside, this could happen within the next 20 years or so. But I think that they would experiment with cargo first. Also, as soon as there is an accident, the whole conversation will be moot for some time after.

[raises his hand]

Heck my M37, and several other types of cars, just about drive themselves now. If I'm not paying attention it will stop for me preventing a collision, I can hop on the interstate in ATL, set the cruise at 79 and never touch the gas or the brake until I want to exit the interstate in Ft. Myers and if I drift over into the next lane it beeps and hits the opposite side brakes bringing the car back into my lane. All these toys are part of a $3,000 Technology Package.

At this point, the car is probably one ecm, a handful of sensors and an interface into an electric rack and pinion from being able to drive itself. That might be a bit of an exaggeration but not by much.

FAA and Congress, to include I am sure ICAO, would have to sign off on pilot-less aircraft. Imagine code-share Iberia pax being told, your connecting flight into Orlando will be on a pilot-less aircraft. Uh, say what ?

So, yes, our jobs are secure for probably 50 more years. Just remember, 50 years ago was 1963, the early days of the jet age and FE's, etc. So, never say never. But for those of use age 15 and older, today, the professional pilot job still will exist.

This is just like automation in the flight deck. It should be there to reduce the workload but not there to be used as a crutch. Cruise control is there to give your legs a little relief from holding 79 constant. To me all this technology of cars parking themselves (check out Audi with the mobile phone app) and whatever else is heaven sent for those who cannot stay off their phones.

I am sorry but not to bust on you, if I don't want to drive, I much rather use the train or some other mode of public transportation. I have a car to drive and not the other way around.

I take no offense. And just like you said the toys are cool to have when you want them for some relief. All I was getting at is production cars can all but drive themselves already in 2013. The technology is already here, its just a matter of demand and implementation.

This article was written by a guy with a better way with words than some long time contributors to flying. Flying, like any other magazine, has a way of getting out of touch with what's really going on in aviation from time to time.

We've had engineers, surgeons and a 767 pilot that's part of the chosen generation. Martha is always entertaining to read because she's so full of life, but it's hard for me to relate to her.

Honestly, I'd like a regional pilot with a positive outlook on things to have a regular monthly column, and a salaried position with the magazine. I may not be as positive as this writer, but he's the face of what's really going on. I'd like to read more from this guy. Martha's breakthrough article was much the same, a contribution that recieved a lot of praise, and she was given a column shortly thereafter.

Maybe if we play advocate for this guy, he can get a column he deserves.

Again with the drone thing... It either MUST have AI or it MUST have a remote pilot via datalink; perhaps a little bit of both, but I cannot see one that does not ultimately rely on data linking for at least SOME functionality. That means a radio, with all of the associated issues. What if the aircraft flies into thick WX? We've all heard radios crap themselves in a TRW.

AI suitable for complete autonomy isn't available, won't be for a long time.

Imagine even a simple problem like a flap/slat issue. Combine that with a bit of nasty WX, or maybe an ill passenger, or ATC issues, and the decision tree is going to become very complex, very quickly.

It is easy to program a simple drone to go from A to B, and it works when everything works perfectly. It doesn't do so well when there are problems. A LOT of drones have gone down in the lat 15 years.

==============================
I second that!

Wouldn't mind seeing a regular column that reflects our community. I still enjoy revisiting some of the late Len Morgan's great writings, his "Reflections of a Pilot" is a great collection of his best work from Flying, his writing's rank a close 2nd only to Ernest Gann.

While talking about aviation writers, just recently read Bill Eads, 'When Flying was Fun', and Kevin Garrion's 'CEO of the Cockpit'. Both were good reads from former line pilots.

If anyone else would like to share or suggest another good aviation read, I'm always on the prowl for another good book.

I thought it was a very honest and well written article. I always enjoy reading Les Abend's column as well. Nicely done, Sam.

I understand JungleBus' comments about the E175. The 170/175 was designed so that 500 hour, third world trained pilots don't kill themselves. It is by far, the easiest airplane that I have flown at a 121 or 135 airline!!!

FLYING magazine is a popular magazine that isn't just read by private pilots and kiddies with aspirations. It has a huge readership. This is precisely why your article was so damaging to the piloting profession, MY profession, which is already demeaned enough. We have enough misinformation spread over our profession, and then we have a "fellow aviator" decided to spread it some more. I can't tell you how many times I've had people say "well the autopilot just does everything anyways, doesn't it?" What you forgot is that after so many years, we have become so proficient that everyday operations are easy. Just like anything else. But you remember how easy it is to screw up when you go into recurrent. After hundreds of hand surgeries, I'm sure it's easy too. I once had a doctor explain that arthroscopic knee surgery is so easy it's like playing a video game! He'd done thousands of them. It became easy. And that's why he was worth what he charged. But telling me what he did kind of hurt the image of his skills. It was bad PR.

I spend a lot of time explaining to people that "autopilot" is a terrible word to describe the system. That it is NOT a pilot, it is solely a flight control manipulator that takes direct input from a PILOT, that I can command the damned thing to do whatever I want it to do, and it's sole reason for existence is to ease workload because we have so many other tasks to accomplish on any given flight, especially during the departure and arrival phases. I had one guy (a physician) at a friend's dinner party tell me he thought we just press an autopilot button and then sit back and let it do it's thing.

The biggest problem with aviation is that so many pilots have such poor PR skills and are so socially inept that they don't understand other people. Sometimes we don't understand the consequences of what we say. When you write an article about flying for an airline, you don't just have an opportunity to improve our image and fix some misconceptions, you have a duty to your peers not to do what you did. It's also a mark of maturity.

Telling the world through one of the most popular aviation magazines on the planet that our jobs can be condensed to being bored and autopilot and autothrottles is a perfect example of the social ineptitude that plagues this profession. Furthermore, it's not even TRUE! It's so far removed from the truth, that it's an insult to pilots all over the world. This kind of damage can't be easily fixed. And this sentiment is not only shared by a lot of people on this thread, I guarantee you that the majority of airline pilots who read this article will be thinking the same thing: "Oh GREAT".

You write it off as "self-effacement" in your reply...but remember that you were describing an entire profession to the world. You were an un-chosen and (obviously) unwitting representative of all of us in that article. You didn't just efface yourself. You effaced all of us.

Thanks, guy.

Wow. Can we get a little more melodramatic? Sam, want to borrow my .45? Jeez, give the guy a break. It wasn't THAT bad.

I think you're right. I was harsh in my response. But really, I'm just tired of all the B.S. I have people I've known for years tell me that airplanes "land themselves too right?" I'm tired of explaining and correcting the misinformation from the media, from non-pilots who write about pilots, and now from pilots who write about pilots. It's especially frustrating after finishing a 4 day with mostly 9 hour layovers, with the Captain and I using our years of skill and experience (not relying on automation) to manage tasks, deviate around tornadic cells, and fly multiple approaches in poor weather with at least 1 day with multiple malfunctions.... to come home and read this.

I wrote and posted that in haste. The guy obviously didn't mean any harm.

I enjoyed the article. I'd ignore all the negative comments. It seems this board is mostly made up of people whining, complaining and being d*cks etc... Sometimes I can't tell if I'm reading APC forums or 4chan.