Another thing to consider is that the more automated airplanes become the safer they are.

FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt made those statements. Not me.

Skyhigh

Only in the sense that automation reduces pilot workload to allow them to maintain the big picture.

Automation to actually replace pilots with an equivalent level of safety would be hideously expensive.

Well using your logic then what would be safer than two pilots who are completely liberated from having to fly the plane? Both of them could stare out the window looking for traffic.

In addition I don't know a lot about WAAS or free flight however it seems to me that they would work wonderfully with a fully automated and ground controlled aircraft. Often I have wondered when ATC was going to do away with clogged frequencies and the errors due to spoken communications. ATC could send instructions via land line/email to the UAV pilot on the ground.

Skyhigh

I think you've been out of the loop too long my friend. It's all about cost. Anyway, we have non-verbal comm already. Google CPDLC

With respect, it's clearly evident that you have some deep-seeded bitterness towards this profession. Everyone is entitled to choose his/her own path in life and I, personally, will not try to disparage your own personal career decisions. That being said, I don't think it's right how you continue to dig for articles such as these in a way to discourage any and all aviators from pursuing this profession.

It may have not worked out for you, but it's has worked out for many others. Where you might see a disillusioned person mesmerized by a career that may never be, I see a person with a dream and aspiration to pursue a career they love.

Every career path in existence begins with innate interest in that specific field. The mentality that pilots are pursuing a career that is nothing more than a hobby, that will in time become obsolete, is a complete disrespect to any pilot who fought, stressed, and sweat his/her way towards achieving a certificate. I hate that mentality more than anything else in this industry because it's used to offset an increase in pay, improvement in work rules, or a better quality of life for a pilot.

Aviation is on some levels a hobby, but on many different levels it's a strong committed career path that many dedicate their entire lives trying to achieve. Should professional athletes be compensated less on the basis that the career path they choose is perceived as a hobby?

Do yourself a favor, go watch the movie Wall-E, and ask yourself if that is the society that you one day envision. I personally have strong faith in human kind, and truly believe that we will not become slaves to our own technologies.

One of the benefits of not having to rely on this profession as a source of income anymore is that I am free to see things as they are and not as how I would wish them to be.

If DC-3 pilot from the 1950's were able to take a look at a modern flight deck his assumption would be that the pilot had been removed from the airplane long ago. Moving map GPS, TCAS, live weather radar, autopilots that can land the plane and flight computers that can managed the entire flight would have blown their minds.

Technological advancements are perpetually removing the pilot from the equation. As a result airlines do not have to hire a pilot based upon his/her skills and experience anymore. Today airlines are staffed according to other criteria. They can lower minimums instead of raising wages to attract more experienced pilots. The regionals have proven that pilots with 300 hours total time can effectively serve as first officers on modern jetliners.

As a professional pilot I agree that the world should treat us better, but they will not. And no amount of professionalism or wishful thinking will change that. Airlines will choose to invest in new technology over paying more for better pilots. New technology is an asset that adds to the companies net worth. Paying more for better trained and experienced pilots is a drain on the balance sheet. Managements motivation is to continually find ways to reduce costs.

It hurts me too to come to these realizations, but to me putting a head in the sand is not going to help. Like it or not ground control is on its way. If a new pilot were to start today at 21 then they could have as much as 44 years of career ahead of them. 44 years is a long time. Undoubtedly aviation will not hardly resemble what it is today by then. Just think of how far we have come since 1965. It is totally realistic to think that over the next 20 years ground controlled airliners will be the norm.

It does not make me happy to consider the future of aviation either. I too wish things were different and that we all could be well respected and well compensated professionals again however I believe in trying to take an honest view and adapt to change rather than to resist the obvious. Sometimes that means changing your game plan and other times it means getting out of the way entirely. The heyday of the professional pilot is passing. Pilots in the future will not have it as good as they do today.

Unless of course they are former military UAV pilots. I hear those guys will be in huge demand.

Skyhigh

I am not a military pilot nor do I keep up with what they are up to however it seems to me that ten years ago if you were to tell a typical fighter pilot that in 2007 UAV's would rapidly take over the skies they would say you were nuts.

How could a UAV see and avoid enemy planes? How could they insure a positive link with the control center? How effective could an unmanned combat aircraft really be anyway? It would cost too much And be too difficult.

Yet here we are with an Airforce that is rapidly going UAV and respected regional airlines that hired pilots right out of flight school. Things change. Sometimes rapidly.

Skyhgih

Apples to Oranges.

Military UAV's operate almost exclusively in military controlled airspace, or by special arrangement with civilian ATC...or with a manned chase plane to supervise them.

They are effective in certain roles because they have long endurance and are cheap (relative to other military platforms) and relatively expendable (unlike a human pilot).

If you are willing to lose the airframe, you can make it cheap with little or no redundancy. Today's UAV's could never be certified to carry pax.

Could it be done? Sure. But human pilots are still the cheapest way to achieve the required safety levels.

All I have to say is that if airlines ever switch to computer-only flights I'm taking the bus. There's no algorithm, programming, or any other fancy mathematical concept that I don't understand, in this world that would give me peace of mind at FL350 going .80 with a computer in charge. I'll stick to the risk of pilot error. My computer has crashed way too many times for me to ever feel comfortable with this in my lifetime. At least when humans are "crashing" there are signs of stress, depression, anxiety, fatigue...

I think the majority of people in the world share your sentiment.

I love how people always love to throw out that age-old statistic of how the majority of plane crashes are due to pilot error. I guess the opposite to pilot error would mechanical/equipment error. The percentage of plane crashes due to mechanical/equipment error is far less because their is always a well qualified pilot in the control seat.

Anyone who thinks that technological advancements have made equipment/mechanical failures a thing of the past is both ill-informed as a person and inexperienced as an aviator.