Will P3D be affected? Another blow for our flightsim community?

Nobody knows the answer to that except people in LM. I guess we'll find out quite it quite soon as a company in that level probably releases announcments if something will happen in near or longer term considering the developement and/or support (I believe some of the LM layoffs happen till the end of 2014).

 

In any case, nothing we can do about it.

From what I've read these layoffs will occur in their drone training facilities and should not affect the P3D team at all.

From what I've read these layoffs will occur in their drone training facilities and should not affect the P3D team at all.

its sad that people are losing their jobs but I wish drones would go away. I know the airlines are eyeing them and would love to have pilotless planes which means I wont have a job.

 

 

airlines are eyeing them and would love to have pilotless planes which means I wont have a job.

 

May be off topic, but this is something I have never understood. Why in the world would a large corporation want to risk so many millions (billions maybe) of dollars in liability by not having a flight crew at the very least *managing* the aircraft? I do not see how this could ever come to pass. But then again, folks were at one time convinced that the world was flat too.  :wacko:

If you are in a modern airliner, you are already flying in pilot-less aircraft (the pilots are over seers). A computer flies the plane from Take off to landing and don't think for a moment anything in that cockpit can't be made to be remotely operated.

 

FAA requires a crew, until that changes, you will have a pilot and crew on board.

 

PS: Drones / UAV's /RPV's do not need to go away. They do have their uses.

If you are in a modern airliner, you are already flying in pilot-less aircraft (the pilots are over seers). A computer flies the plane from Take off to landing and don't think for a moment anything in that cockpit can't be made to be remotely operated.

 

FAA requires a crew, until that changes, you will have a pilot and crew on board.

 

PS: Drones / UAV's /RPV's do not need to go away. They do have their uses.

Yea they do but mark my word they will remove pilots from the cockpit one day. My dad refused to turn the autopilot on till he was at cruise when he flew 747s for United and Ill do the same when I get to the airlines. Turning the AP on at 200 feet isn't very smart.

If you are in a modern airliner, you are already flying in pilot-less aircraft (the pilots are over seers). A computer flies the plane from Take off to landing and don't think for a moment anything in that cockpit can't be made to be remotely operated.

 

FAA requires a crew, until that changes, you will have a pilot and crew on board.

 

PS: Drones / UAV's /RPV's do not need to go away. They do have their uses.

While you may have computers translating the inputs, especially on Airbus aircraft, but they certainly do not fly the aircraft in the truest sense of the term; unless of course the Pilot decides to engage the autopilot. Even when the a/p is on the pilot is still monitoring and can disengage as required and hand fly the plane. For me personally it will be a cold day in hell before I got on a pilotless aircraft.

 

 

My dad refused to turn the autopilot on till he was at cruise when he flew 747s for United and Ill do the same when I get to the airlines. Turning the AP on at 200 feet isn't very smart.

 

That would very much depend on what the airline's SOP's are. I would think that if you fail to comply with the SOP's then you're out of a job.

May be off topic, but this is something I have never understood. Why in the world would a large corporation want to risk so many millions (billions maybe) of dollars in liability by not having a flight crew at the very least *managing* the aircraft? I do not see how this could ever come to pass. But then again, folks were at one time convinced that the world was flat too.  :wacko:

 

 

Well, pilots in fighter jets are the reason jets can't do more than they currently can (performance wise).  Additionally, I don't think you realize how much it costs to create life system supports on an aircraft - not to mention the billions spent on pilot training per year by the government.

 

How this discussion turned to pilotless airliners I will not know...

Turning the AP on at 200 feet isn't very smart.

 

I don't know what point you're trying to prove but if you don't know anything about the regulations or policies governing such restrictions than please don't spew absolute garbage.

its sad that people are losing their jobs but I wish drones would go away. I know the airlines are eyeing them and would love to have pilotless planes which means I wont have a job.

 

@_@   I refuse to EVER ride in a aircraft driven by a computer exclusively or even remotely by a pilot on the ground.   If I have to risk my life inside the plane then the pilot of said plane needs to be in it as well to share the same risk.    That is CRAZY to even consider a pilotless civilian airliner.  I can understand combat craft but this whole concept of 'removing' the pilot error factor by making the systems more automated with computers is non-sense because the errors are still there, still created by man but just in the form of bad programming on a computer or making a bad parts.   No thank you airlines.  Keep your SkyNet killer robot airplanes.

Yea they do but mark my word they will remove pilots from the cockpit one day. 

 

I can imagine plenty of business for those airlines that keep the pilots on board. It's all hypothetical until the world's aviation authorities sign off on it anyway and it's hard to see that happening any time soon.

 

As part of Ryanair's never-ending thirst for publicity, it was announced a year or two ago that they were thinking about doing away with co-pilots. After all, everything was automated and couldn't the cabin crew be trained to help out in the cockpit in the event of an emergency? Like the "standing seats" idea, nothing came of it. But that was never the point anyway... 

Well, pilots in fighter jets are the reason jets can't do more than they currently can (performance wise). Additionally, I don't think you realize how much it costs to create life system supports on an aircraft - not to mention the billions spent on pilot training per year by the government.

 

How this discussion turned to pilotless airliners I will not know...

 

 

I don't know what point you're trying to prove but if you don't know anything about the regulations or policies governing such restrictions than please don't spew absolute garbage.

Remember that Air France flight a few years ago that stalled into the sea that's what happens when pilots forget how to fly the plane and that happens when all they do is use the autopilot.

Remember that Air France flight a few years ago that stalled into the sea that's what happens when pilots forget how to fly the plane and that happens when all they do is use the autopilot.

 

And what about the hundreds of thousands of flights that arrive every day without a hitch?

 

So you're now attributing using the autopilot at cruise to the fact that the particular Air France crew in question used the autopilot from 200 ft. on departure all the way to landing, and they therefore used the autopilot too much and that was the leading contribution to the crash?

 

The Air France crew in that accident most likely did what they were probably taught.  The problem with flying modern airliners is that most people are taught incorrectly in FSTDs because of the limited envelope an FSTD offers.  What about CFIT and LOC-I?  You want to blame those on autopilot usage too?

Remember that Air France flight a few years ago that stalled into the sea that's what happens when pilots forget how to fly the plane and that happens when all they do is use the autopilot.

 

Exactly. And KSFO and the Colgan Air thing, too.