The Great Drone Debate

[HiFlyer 9,361]

I usually try to stay on the logical/rational side if I can, but I have to admit that this is very visceral for me. Years of close up and personal use of all sorts of electronic devices and their tendencies for failure make me deeply distrustful of this concept.

 

I just wont do it unless I had literally no other choice. I would try to drive, or take a boat or something first.

 

And if there was another non-drone airline available, guess where I would go? (And I suspect a LOT of other people would feel the same)

[KevinAu 441]

By 'disturbances' I'll take it you mean things like weather avoidance, traffic avoidance, atc instructions, etc. I don't see any of that as issues. On-board radar would be available to both the on board single pilot and downlink to dispatch, the pilot can see out his window and dispatch will have video downlink as well to make avoidance decisions. Tcas will still be available to the one pilot and to dispatch to take action with if necessary. And ATC can even datalink routing, headings, altitudes, speeds, etc directly to the fms and autopilot, removing one element of threat and error.

 

The main issues to overcome will be public perception and acceptance, and union pushback to preserve pilot jobs.

I usually try to stay on the logical/rational side if I can, but I have to admit that this is very visceral for me. Years of close up and personal use of all sorts of electronic devices and their tendencies for failure make me deeply distrustful of this concept.

 

I just wont do it unless I had literally no other choice. I would try to drive, or take a boat or something first.

 

And if there was another non-drone airline available, guess where I would go? (And I suspect a LOT of other people would feel the same)

But it wouldn't be that much more reliant on electronics than the airliners you are willing to climb aboard right now. There would still be one human pilot for your assurance and ground support. The advantage of the airline that operated aircraft with one pilot versus those that operated older 2 pilot aircraft will be cost. They will be able to sell cheaper tickets or book more profits. Unlike the diehard flightsimmers and airplane junkies who as you say, are viscerally against this, most people will probably eventually decide that they would rather take the cheaper fare. That's just my guess.

[Holdit 551]

I usually try to stay on the logical/rational side if I can, but I have to admit that this is very visceral for me. Years of close up and personal use of all sorts of electronic devices and their tendencies for failure make me deeply distrustful of this concept.

 

I just wont do it unless I had literally no other choice. I would try to drive, or take a boat or something first.

 

And if there was another non-drone airline available, guess where I would go? (And I suspect a LOT of other people would feel the same)

 

Exactly. The truth about the capabilities of the technology pale are insignificant compared to people's perceptions.

 

People haven't forgotten the "unsinkable" Titanic. That was supposed to be state of the art technology too.

[ViperPilot 81]

By 'disturbances' I'll take it you mean things like weather avoidance, traffic avoidance, atc instructions, etc. I don't see any of that as issues. On-board radar would be available to both the on board single pilot and downlink to dispatch, the pilot can see out his window and dispatch will have video downlink as well to make avoidance decisions. Tcas will still be available to the one pilot and to dispatch to take action with if necessary. And ATC can even datalink routing, headings, altitudes, speeds, etc directly to the fms and autopilot, removing one element of threat and error.

 

The main issues to overcome will be public perception and acceptance, and union pushback to preserve pilot jobs.

But it wouldn't be that much more reliant on electronics than the airliners you are willing to climb aboard right now. There would still be one human pilot for your assurance and ground support. The advantage of the airline that operated aircraft with one pilot versus those that operated older 2 pilot aircraft will be cost. They will be able to sell cheaper tickets or book more profits. Unlike the diehard flightsimmers and airplane junkies who as you say, are viscerally against this, most people will probably eventually decide that they would rather take the cheaper fare. That's just my guess.

But then, you bring the debate back full circle...

 

I highlighted a couple of sentences in your post because the entire issue of human vs. automation is to reduce pilot fatigue to some degree, by introducing more automated systems.

 

Therein lies the issue; if you reduce the crew down to one pilot, that one pilot is now responsible for monitoring more systems, which adds to his overall workload.

The increased workload actually increases, rather than decreases, the fatigue threshold. Sort of like two crew warplanes (F-14, F-15E, A-6) vs. single crew (F/A-18E, F-16C, A-7D/E)... the GIB can take the workload off the Pilot, so the Pilot can concentrate on flying the airplane. Another set of eyes doesn't hurt, either.

 

[Top_Gunn 0]

Some of these posts seem to assume that pilotless planes will be flown by somebody on the ground, the way military drones like the Predator are. But the technology is already getting past that stage, to where a computer will fly the plane with no human assistance at all. The Navy has already tested systems that can land an F-18 on a carrier that way, and that's probably the hardest job in aviation. I suppose there will be somebody called a pilot on passenger planes for a long time, though I'd bet against cargo planes having pilots in 15 years. But even on passenger planes, the "pilots" will mostly just monitor instruments and talk on the radio. Which, come to think about it, is a big part of what they do now.

 

I'd also bet on driverless cars, but probaly in countries with fewer lawyers than we have, at least at first.

[KevinAu 441]

But then, you bring the debate back full circle...

 

I highlighted a couple of sentences in your post because the entire issue of human vs. automation is to reduce pilot fatigue to some degree, by introducing more automated systems.

 

Therein lies the issue; if you reduce the crew down to one pilot, that one pilot is now responsible for monitoring more systems, which adds to his overall workload.

The increased workload actually increases, rather than decreases, the fatigue threshold. Sort of like two crew warplanes (F-14, F-15E, A-6) vs. single crew (F/A-18E, F-16C, A-7D/E)... the GIB can take the workload off the Pilot, so the Pilot can concentrate on flying the airplane. Another set of eyes doesn't hurt, either.

 

But then to say that also means that we've forgotten the point that the aircraft is basically a drone that is perfectly capable of getting from here to there, avoiding thunderstorms and responding to ATC instructions without a pilot at all. You have to shift away from the mindset that this is a manned plane. This is a uav with a pilot.

[thibodba57 462]

 

 

There would still be one human pilot for your assurance and ground support. The advantage of the airline that operated aircraft with one pilot versus those that operated older 2 pilot aircraft will be cost. They will be able to sell cheaper tickets or book more profits. Unlike the diehard flightsimmers and airplane junkies who as you say, are viscerally against this, most people will probably eventually decide that they would rather take the cheaper fare. That's just my guess.

You are kidding yourself if you think that the airlines will reduce fares because some dispatcher/monitor is on the ground in some building monitoring several flights at once.  For one, pilots aren't the biggest expenditure airlines face.  Fuel and maintenance are.  Second, insurance premiums will undoubtedly go up with just one pilot on the aircraft.  Just the way things are, don't try to argue with it, just the way it is.  In fact, the increase in premiums will probably be more expensive than the pilots themselves.  Then there is the cost of developing the infrastructure on the ground.  Satellite uplinks, thousands upon thousands of computers running at all times.  Crew scheduling and reservists for these operators on the ground. I mean lets face it you can't use the existing pilot pool to staff it, ALPA will have an Aneurysm trying to fight it.  That isn't even including all the equipment that needs to be developed for the aircraft for the operators on the ground to monitor the flight.  Not only develop for the aircraft but then there's testing, FAA certification.  Most likely the TSO process.  I'm sure there is tons I'm not even thinking about.  Do you honestly TRULY think that airlines are going to put aside a working system to FUND all this?  And then NOT increase fares to compensate themselves for it.  Not going to happen.

 

 

 

The increased workload actually increases, rather than decreases, the fatigue threshold.

 

Why did you have to bring up fatigue....he doesn't believe in it.  Non-existent. 

 

Kevin you seem to be a die hard UAS fan or a operator is my guess.  You need to understand there are limitation to the UAS technology.  There might be more openings in about 40 or 50 years.  Time will tell.  But no airline is going to eliminate the FO position given all the technological development and certification that is still needed.  But I feel like I'm talking to a wall.  Your really willing to discuss what you think but I don't really think you are hearing anything we are saying.  So I'm done commenting on this thread. 

[KevinAu 441]

You are kidding yourself if you think that the airlines will reduce fares because some dispatcher/monitor is on the ground in some building monitoring several flights at once. For one, pilots aren't the biggest expenditure airlines face. Fuel and maintenance are. Second, insurance premiums will undoubtedly go up with just one pilot on the aircraft. Just the way things are, don't try to argue with it, just the way it is. In fact, the increase in premiums will probably be more expensive than the pilots themselves. Then there is the cost of developing the infrastructure on the ground. Satellite uplinks, thousands upon thousands of computers running at all times. Crew scheduling and reservists for these operators on the ground. I mean lets face it you can't use the existing pilot pool to staff it, ALPA will have an Aneurysm trying to fight it. That isn't even including all the equipment that needs to be developed for the aircraft for the operators on the ground to monitor the flight. Not only develop for the aircraft but then there's testing, FAA certification. Most likely the TSO process. I'm sure there is tons I'm not even thinking about. Do you honestly TRULY think that airlines are going to put aside a working system to FUND all this? And then NOT increase fares to compensate themselves for it. Not going to happen.

 

 

Why did you have to bring up fatigue....he doesn't believe in it. Non-existent.

 

Kevin you seem to be a die hard UAS fan or a operator is my guess. You need to understand there are limitation to the UAS technology. There might be more openings in about 40 or 50 years. Time will tell. But no airline is going to eliminate the FO position given all the technological development and certification that is still needed. But I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Your really willing to discuss what you think but I don't really think you are hearing anything we are saying. So I'm done commenting on this thread.

Not a fan of them at, I'm just an airline pilot and would probably be negatively affected by it. But from what I see of the technology progression on aircraft such as mine, an E190, and what I know of uav development, it looks increasingly like the second pilot will be dispensable by the time of the generation of aircraft after the maxes and neos.. I have 25 years left until mandatory retirement and I believe that my last 10 years will be in a dwindling profession. No pilot I've had this discussion with disagrees like the flightsimmers here do. We in the industry can see it coming. The technology is here. We use it everyday. The debatable question when this comes up in the cockpit with other pilots is how will the public accept a single pilot airliner and how much fight labor groups will put up.

 

And just because pilots may not be the biggest cost item does not mean airline management will not want to cut it if they can. The technology and concept of operations will provide an equivalent if not better level of safety, thereby making a case for lower insurance costs. And finally, the infrastructure to support this is within reach. You would be kidding yourself if you don't think that connectivity is not increasing throughout the world. Some of the airlines even now have live tv and internet access for their customers on transoceanic flights. Connectivity is only going to get even more widespread a decade from now.

[january 19]

People haven't forgotten the "unsinkable" Titanic. That was supposed to be state of the art technology too.

The Titanic disaster occurred BECAUSE of human failure, when the captain ignored reports of ice in his vicinity. If he had embraced the latest technology (Wireless), he would have slowed his ship and altered course. 

Hopefully we don't have pilots who disregard danger warnings from anti collision devices- which now are becoming common on automobiles- to the extent that they apply braking BEFORE the human driver can react or even be aware of the danger.

january

[Holdit 551]

The Titanic disaster occurred BECAUSE of human failure, when the captain ignored reports of ice in his vicinity. If he had embraced the latest technology (Wireless), he would have slowed his ship and altered course. 

 

 

That's only partly correct. Human error allowed the Titanic to strike the iceberg, but it sank despite all the claims that the technology wouldn't allow it that to happen. 

[mgh 89]

 

 

Therein lies the issue; if you reduce the crew down to one pilot, that one pilot is now responsible for monitoring more systems, which adds to his overall workload.

 

That's not the case because reducing the crew would be accompanied by an increase in automation. this would reduce overall workload.  Also, the systems would monitor themselves and warn the pilot when intervention was needed. This effectively already happens in the cruise. The pilots don't sit there monitoring systems all the way across the Atlantic. They turn on the autopilot and sit back..

[january 19]

Perhaps a thought to refine this debate-

 

Could Capt. Sullenberger have landed his airplane so spectacularly on the Hudson River without a First Officer assisting ??? 

Or in the case of total automation and NO flight crew aboard, could a remote pilot on the ground, have achieved a similar outcome?

january

 

[january 19]

That's only partly correct. Human error allowed the Titanic to strike the iceberg, but it sank despite all the claims that the technology wouldn't allow it that to happen. 

That unsinkability claim was promotional puffery. (O' Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way!)

The Engineers and Naval Architects who designed Titanic certainly knew that she would sink if her hull integrity was breached sufficiently. 

Perfection is often claimed but never achieved!!!

january

[KevinAu 441]

Not sure if it would refine or just heap speculation upon speculation, but I would bet whatever clean sheet single pilot airliner design we are speculating about would be perfectly capable of allowing a single pilot to deadstick as well as an A320 does. I don't see why a remote pilot, with real time video feed and full control, shouldn't be able to deadstick an airplane either. There really wasn't much that the FO did that day. All he did was hit the birds, then give the plane to Sully. Afterwhich, he was just along for the ride. What exactly did he or could he do afterwards except close the ditching valve? I think you see in your mind a 737 being flown by one pilot. That of course won't work. Whatever aircraft that will be single pilot will have to be a clean sheet with the appropriate automation and human interface.

[mgh 89]

Perhaps a thought to refine this debate-

the choice isn't going to be based on a single incident. Aviation accidents can't be eliminated totally - they can only be minimised. The decision will be based on whether increased automation will improve safety overall. If it does then it will be used. there can be no other choice where lives are at risk.

 

Remember, there are many instances where a Captain and First Officer have managed to kill everyone on board.

 

.