My teacher would talk about how they can just download the data from the flight recorders onto a jump drive from the cockpit and review the results of your flight.

trains are easy. There are only a few variables that are largely controlled or planned for.Until humans can control all the variables of flying such as weather and gravity, automated air travel will never happen

The Space Shuttle was able to fly soley on autopilot. And the Russian Buran (their Shuttle knockoff), flew its sole flight unmanned. Auto launch, auto orbit, auto de-orbit, auto land.If the Space Shuttle can do it, a 737 can do it.

The Space Shuttle was able to fly soley on autopilot. And the Russian Buran (their Shuttle knockoff), flew its sole flight unmanned. Auto launch, auto orbit, auto de-orbit, auto land.If the Space Shuttle can do it, a 737 can do it.

Only problem to that is that someone has to take the blame when something goes wrong. That way they can claim pilot error. I doubt many passengers would fly without pilots. One crash the whole fleet is grounded for a while.

Captains-This was always an interesting topic to me during my days in Flight Operations Management.Personally, I have never cared if my flight data was being monitored. Fact is that the manufacturer, the airline and the FAA define some very clear limitations and as Captain I am expected to adhere to them.Failure to do so should be brought to my attention by the First Officer, but the fact is, we are all human, and the human-human interface in this equation is where the breakdown will most often occur. If the FO won't speak up when it is required, perhaps a short chat with my boss about the circumstances of any deviations will make me more mindful of the limitations in the future?It was my experience that the folks who cried the loudest about FOQA were the ones who tended to violate the rules the most frequently. (The cheating husband accusing his wife of not trusting him, for example...)When you run statistical analysis on FOQA data, you very quickly reach the conclusion that we can start predicting with a fair degree of certainty when we are going to see a crew-caused incident/accident take place because you start to see an increase in "little stuff." Altitude deviations, heading deviations, airspeed and configuration deviations, excessive braking events, etc.The Comair and Colgan crashes of the past few years were *very* likely preceded by a rash of smaller events that statistically signaled that crews were overly relaxed, operating carelessly or letting their guard down. (note: I do not know this for a fact. I am speaking from my own experience in dealing with such things.)When I am putting my wife and daughter on another man's airline- I like knowing that FOQA is in place- because it means that the leadership at the airline cares about the outcome.I know my union bristles when we speak candidly and without permission- but as a passenger, a pilot or a flight operations manager- I don't care one whit about the crew's privacy or their fear of being "spied on." I care about the safe outcome of the flight...

The Space Shuttle was able to fly soley on autopilot. And the Russian Buran (their Shuttle knockoff), flew its sole flight unmanned. Auto launch, auto orbit, auto de-orbit, auto land.If the Space Shuttle can do it, a 737 can do it.

That's probably where we are going in civil aviation as well.It'll take some time, but ultimately we might no longer have two pilots sitting upfront, but only even more computer systems that are monitored from the ground. They'll probably try with cargo first, and if it works out, we'll get a fully automated aircraft for the ride to our destinations.This also could mandate that all manual flying, especially the private/recreational flying, be restricted to lowest airspace with huge safety buffers or be abandoned altogether.Sounds weird? Well, if business people want this to happen, it will happen.

Spot on Robert!In ATC being monitored is whats happened long before flight deck monitoring took place, whether that's by an examiner on a daily basis or through recording devices and technology. In the safety critical operation that is aviation, it's a must. Quite simply as Robert says the small errors or non conformities are often what eventually lead to major incidents. It's the Swiss cheese model. Nobody should be concerned at being reported on, if any deviations are justified then it will always be seen in the investigation. If they not justified then quite simply why should someone be moaning for being questioned for doing the wrong thing? If you turned up for work late by 5 mins, and nobody said anything, and then again the next day, and so on, then you'll probably then be 10mins late the day after, 30 the next.It's all simply a way of maintaining or improving standards. SOPS are there for a reason, standards are there for a reason. If the SOPS are unrealistic or wrong then they should equally be challenged, but otherwise they should be complied with. Virtually all major incidents are related to the human interface, and the errors of that. And the more human interfaces there are the more errors there will be. Both ATC and pilots will find themselves removed more from the decision making with time. They have already done many fully automatic flights, quite simply the reason it hasn't become the norm as quickly is the public perception of being on a plane with no pilot. Most of the public think pilots now sit there flying the plane, unaware of how much automation goes on already. Economics, advances in technology and reeducation of the public will see the removal of humans from ATC and flying...and pilots who non conform and moan when the snitch machine goes off are what will ensure that happens quicker, because they are providing the evidence as to why they should be replaced

And then some of us wonder where our jobs go Technology I tell ya.

So, why not - the day when there will be no pilots in the cockpit maybe coming, huh..

Personally, I take comfort in the fact that the pilot's own lives are at stake when piloting an aircraft. I don't think I'll ever set foot on an aircraft that is controlled from the ground or even automatically.

Very interesting read. However I do hope that this feature is not being simulated in the NGX :-)

Virtually all major incidents are related to the human interface, and the errors of that. And the more human interfaces there are the more errors there will be. Both ATC and pilots will find themselves removed more from the decision making with time. They have already done many fully automatic flights, quite simply the reason it hasn't become the norm as quickly is the public perception of being on a plane with no pilot. Most of the public think pilots now sit there flying the plane, unaware of how much automation goes on already.Economics, advances in technology and reeducation of the public will see the removal of humans from ATC and flying...and pilots who non conform and moan when the snitch machine goes off are what will ensure that happens quicker, because they are providing the evidence as to why they should be replaced

One thing most of the public is unaware of (this is includes you) is how often the pilots have to click off the autopilot because it's doing something wrong. Example: (RW) Two nights ago we had joined the localizer for rwy 3R into KDTW at 4000 ft MSL. Weather was "07016G25 OVC008 2SM VIS +RA BR". Not a minimums approach by any means, but it was certainly an approach in which we were both watching everything like hawks, espicially with the rain and turbulence. As the glide slope came down the autopilot captured it early, and began to pitch up. At the same time the glide slope went back up about half a dot causing the autopilot to pitch further up. Not all airliners have autothrottles, and even the ones that do wouldn't respond fast enough to these cues. We had already been slowed to slowest practical speed, so the margins were already decreased. The autopilot was quickly clicked off and the pitch was brought back down while power was applied.That is one example, every RW pilot out there can site numerous personal scenarios. So no, taking humans out of the equation isn't going to alleviate all the crashes. You should know this, or has your computer never locked up on you?Baaaaack to the real topic... I guess we are fortunate at my airline to have union reps who understand when it's the right time to draw a line in the sand. We have FOQA, and numerous other monitoring and reporting systems. The amount of data collected on our flights is substantial. Any reading a pilot can see on any instrument in the cockpit is collected, plus others that the pilots don't have readouts for (such as numerous engine readouts). They also see control deflections, thrust settings. It wouldn't surprise me if they see exactly how far forward/aft I have my seat set and what angle I have the seatback at. :-P BUT! ALL of that data is de-identified before management and the training department are allowed to see it. Our union has the ability to connect the de-identified flight back to the pilots who flew it, and they have the ability to contact us and talk to us about it. The data collected cannot be used in any sort of punitive action against our pilots. We want the safety, and our safety department keeps us up to date with regular publications about current trends from the data. That is the intent of these programs, not to create witch hunts against pilots. Our programs have been going for a few years now, and so far the results have been good.