I would most definitely want someone to back up Otto if he ever ends up flying my airliner across the pond.
HAL, on the other hand, I would trust.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Is this guy dumb, or just retarded?
- Thread starter scoolbubba
- Start date
HAL, on the other hand, I would trust.
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
This is pretty much an emotion versus reason argument. We COULD go to single pilot setup right now. It would increase the risk of each flight from "one in a kajillion" to "one in a bazzillion" chance of dying in a plane crash. The whole "unmanned airliner" concept could be technically sound in a few short years, moving us from "one in a bazzillion" to "one in a billion" chance of dying. Many of the other "innovations" that this guy suggests could be implemented right now as well (standing room areas, no sky-waitresses, etc) if the regulations allowed that.
The problem is that people aren't comfortable with that yet. They may never be. It just "feels wrong". Many believe (rightly or wrongly from a statistical standpoint) that having an actual human being who is trained and experienced in handling an airplane up front at the controls is worth the extra cost.
As soon (if ever) they allow a carrier to try some of these cost savings schemes, somebody is going to do it. It'll be interesting to see how they do. Not so much from the technical side. I'm sure it'll work 99.999% of the time, and I'm equally sure that 0.001% of the time some computer/kid with a PS3 controller is going to screw up and drive the plane into a mountain or run it out of gas. I'm more interested in how many travellers are willing to bet their life on those odds for a $50 ticket from LA to New York.
As a halfway solution, here's what I'd like to try if I ever get to run my own airline (and change a crap-ton of FARs):
Greyhound Air. Our slogan is "We'll get you there cheap, but it's going to suck."
I'd have internet-only sales of tickets (eliminating the checkin folks) and a "carry whatever you want" luggage system (eliminating the baggage handlers). Guns are fine, but no explosives allowed on the plane. The planes would be set up like a subway car. Bench seats along the sides and standing room in the middle. Perhaps some kind of security guard with a pistol and a nightstick could ride back there with the unwashed masses to break up fights and keep some sense of order.
Up front you'd have some kid fresh out of flight school with a couple of hundred hours ME time making about $20K/year. His sole job is to be a backup for the autopilot/UAV system that drives the plane. He would be sealed in the cockpit before the unwashed masses get there with absolutely no way of opening the hatch to the passenger compartment, or vice versa.
The only real expenses I'd have would be gas, maintenance, and the deathstar computer system that would sell the tickets, schedule the runs, and fly the planes. I wouldn't skimp on those ends.
My guess is that I'd make a ton of money until some calamity happens in the back (robbery/rape/murder) or if the plane crashes and they can pin it on my "pilot" system. Then the lawyers get involved. That's when most good ideas come crashing to a halt anyway.
The problem is that people aren't comfortable with that yet. They may never be. It just "feels wrong". Many believe (rightly or wrongly from a statistical standpoint) that having an actual human being who is trained and experienced in handling an airplane up front at the controls is worth the extra cost.
As soon (if ever) they allow a carrier to try some of these cost savings schemes, somebody is going to do it. It'll be interesting to see how they do. Not so much from the technical side. I'm sure it'll work 99.999% of the time, and I'm equally sure that 0.001% of the time some computer/kid with a PS3 controller is going to screw up and drive the plane into a mountain or run it out of gas. I'm more interested in how many travellers are willing to bet their life on those odds for a $50 ticket from LA to New York.
As a halfway solution, here's what I'd like to try if I ever get to run my own airline (and change a crap-ton of FARs):
Greyhound Air. Our slogan is "We'll get you there cheap, but it's going to suck."
I'd have internet-only sales of tickets (eliminating the checkin folks) and a "carry whatever you want" luggage system (eliminating the baggage handlers). Guns are fine, but no explosives allowed on the plane. The planes would be set up like a subway car. Bench seats along the sides and standing room in the middle. Perhaps some kind of security guard with a pistol and a nightstick could ride back there with the unwashed masses to break up fights and keep some sense of order.
Up front you'd have some kid fresh out of flight school with a couple of hundred hours ME time making about $20K/year. His sole job is to be a backup for the autopilot/UAV system that drives the plane. He would be sealed in the cockpit before the unwashed masses get there with absolutely no way of opening the hatch to the passenger compartment, or vice versa.
The only real expenses I'd have would be gas, maintenance, and the deathstar computer system that would sell the tickets, schedule the runs, and fly the planes. I wouldn't skimp on those ends.
My guess is that I'd make a ton of money until some calamity happens in the back (robbery/rape/murder) or if the plane crashes and they can pin it on my "pilot" system. Then the lawyers get involved. That's when most good ideas come crashing to a halt anyway.
It's definitely more of an emotional issue than a technical one. I think there's even a case to be made that machines will someday fly more safely than people. There are plenty of aircraft mishaps without robot pilots and, as the Safety Center is quick to point out, most of them involved pilot error.
For every time a pilot pulled some outside the book, intuitive solution to an emergency, and saved everyone there's that airliner that crashes into the ground because all three of the crew are staring at an inoperative light bulb. Computers don't get drunk, computers don't have heart attacks, etc., etc.
It can be done. I think someday it will actually be the more logical choice, at least from an efficiency and safety standpoint. The question will be if we actually ever do it.
For every time a pilot pulled some outside the book, intuitive solution to an emergency, and saved everyone there's that airliner that crashes into the ground because all three of the crew are staring at an inoperative light bulb. Computers don't get drunk, computers don't have heart attacks, etc., etc.
It can be done. I think someday it will actually be the more logical choice, at least from an efficiency and safety standpoint. The question will be if we actually ever do it.
I think it'll happen in my lifetime. With what is seemingly a huge shift to regional jets in the airline biz I'd prefer the machine over the meathead making 20k a year up front. I also believe that cargo airlines will hop on board with this concept first and once it proves itself in the business it will trickle over to the people toting business as phrogdriver has described already.
Airlines like cutting people out of the equation because it lowers costs. Kiosks at airport ticket counters are a great example of that. Tons of jobs slashed by machines that do exactly the same thing. I would agree that it does make it a bit less of a personal experience but having been on both sides of the counter I'd rather be dealing with the machine in most cases.
I'd imagine having unmanned aircraft flying people around with a guy sitting at a hub there with an ability to take control remotely if something were to go awry. Maybe that's a bad concept, maybe not. Who's to say until it's been done.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Harrier Dude said:
This already exists:
punx_clever
New Member
Totally speaking out of my ass here, seeing as I have no REAL experience beyond that $100 an hour Piper Areo that I flew in College... But I can see something along these lines happening:
Cargo goes unmanned. If HAL ditches a couple million dollars into the Pacific, no big deal. Just hope he doesn't get his wired crossed and land on the white house. Of course there would be the pilot with remote control back in India pulling the strings if need be, but communication can still be lost. For that reason, airlines would still have the man in front.
I just can't shake the, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that," feeling.
Cargo goes unmanned. If HAL ditches a couple million dollars into the Pacific, no big deal. Just hope he doesn't get his wired crossed and land on the white house. Of course there would be the pilot with remote control back in India pulling the strings if need be, but communication can still be lost. For that reason, airlines would still have the man in front.
I just can't shake the, "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that," feeling.
ryan1234
Well-Known Member
I doubt any of us will ever see Single Pilot ops in 121 operations..... soooo many things would have to be done
Aircraft certification is one of them.... Does anyone really think the FAA/JAA will let a 737 on a 121 ticket go solo pilot? Also insurance.... so there's, say, part 135 single pilot ops (King Air 350, CE-500-SP, etc).... but that's a whole 'nother can of worms - it isn't just about airlines crashing and killing people... it's about the likelyhood of any incident occuring. The rise in insurance costs (even if the airframe was capable) would outweigh the salary of the FO. =... not to mention that if the Captain is going to take all the load himself...he'll want to be compensated for it.
Some part 91 ops that have SP capable CE500s, etc... still require two pilots.
The RyanAir CEO is an idiot. Standing room only... yeah... ok.....
Aircraft certification is one of them.... Does anyone really think the FAA/JAA will let a 737 on a 121 ticket go solo pilot? Also insurance.... so there's, say, part 135 single pilot ops (King Air 350, CE-500-SP, etc).... but that's a whole 'nother can of worms - it isn't just about airlines crashing and killing people... it's about the likelyhood of any incident occuring. The rise in insurance costs (even if the airframe was capable) would outweigh the salary of the FO. =... not to mention that if the Captain is going to take all the load himself...he'll want to be compensated for it.
Some part 91 ops that have SP capable CE500s, etc... still require two pilots.
The RyanAir CEO is an idiot. Standing room only... yeah... ok.....
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
Regulations don't dictate the laws of physics, or economics for that matter.
I think that the whole point of this is that IF the regulations went away, somebody could make this work, albeit at a higher risk.
I agree that captains would want more money, but with the job market cut in half and a crap ton of FOs suddenly out of work, I'm sure that the wage for a captain would go down, not up.
Unfortunatley for this discussion, all of those regulations DO exist, along with labor law, union lobbying influence, and insurance interests.
It's almost certainly never going to happen. That's a political/regulatory thing, though. Not an issue of capabilities.
Thanks! :icon_zbeeHAL, on the other hand, I would trust.
Single piloted or UAV airline? Ain't going to happen anytime in the near (or distant) future. Pax, insurance and public opinion isn't going to let it happen even if the technology is there. Too many instances of pilot incapacitation and equipment malfunctions. Plus I bet the accident rate of military UAVs is a lot higher than manned aircraft. Single piloted aircraft have higher accident rates than mult-piloted too.
The corporate jets that fly around single piloted are doing so on an aircraft and pilot waiver to the regulations. This waiver is only valid in the U.S. ICAO doesn't recognize it and doesn't allow it.
Part 135 single pilot is, as HAL has stated, waived by the FAA and can only take place with an operating. approved autopilot. (At least in the Part 135 op I fly for, so I'm guessing it's a good bet the same goes for others) I've seen autopilots fail or go wonky too many times to trust it to fly the airplane on it's own without adult supervision, especially on a dark and stormy night with a 200' ceiling and a 1/2 mile vis...
Is it just me, or does that sound like the best carnival ride Evette.
pepe silvia
New Member
RyanAir isn't the only company proposing this...http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,716225,00.html