Why the World is Running Out of Pilots

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

The other point I was going to make the other day but it slipped my mind, this next generation of youth have the lowest rate of drivers licences for decades, reason for that is kids are now connected to social media so they have less desire to leave the house or drive anywhere, when I was a kid we didn't have that so I couldn't wait to get my licence so I could get out of the house and actually see my friends, or go to a drive in movie etc. If you don't care to drive a car how likely are you to want to fly a plane?

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/316897/fewer-young-people-learning-to-drive

Edited October 5, 2018 by Matthew Kane

[G-RFRY 1,712]

Monarch Airlines now in trouble got to pay the tax man.

[MarkW 1,493]

On 10/2/2018 at 8:57 PM, tamsini said:

The one main reason I grasped for the pilot shortage is the refusal to invest in a 300K education and only getting a 30K salary - and only getting paid for when you're in the air. That's a bit too much to sacrifice.

Exactly,  I am on a pilot forum in Canada and I can tell you that based on reading what goes on I would never in a million years sign up to be a pilot.  Low salaries, high expenses when based in very expensive cities and completely insane scheduling.  One scheduling example would be early morning flight from Toronto to Montreal (1 hour) and then 36 hour layover until the next flight.  Who would want that.  The good news is that hopefully a real shortage will push up wages and scheduling improvements to attract more people to the industry.

[KevinAu 441]

No, the shortage would be used to justify raising the retirement age and deploying single or pilotless aircraft.

[HiFlyer 9,360]

27 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

No, the shortage would be used to justify raising the retirement age and deploying single or pilotless aircraft.

I doubt the general public is going to swallow the idea of pilotless jumbo jets anytime soon. Heck, if even one crashed that would probably be the end of that. A couple of hundred people wiped off the planet by a rounding error would not be popular. (understatement)

I'm a computer geek, and even I wouldn't fly in one, and would fully support congress-critters banning them.

[KevinAu 441]

We went from four to three to two. The trend is clear. Technology advances and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. We’ve got probably thirty more years of piloting as a profession before it will be over. Most crashes are pilot error anyways. And a few have even been deliberate. You’ll see the first single pilot passenger liner within fifteen years, despite alpa’s efforts. And people will accept this just as they accept driverless trains and driverless cars.

Even if alpa succeeds in getting congress to require two pilots, it would only delay the inevitable. When other airlines around the world cut out their pilots and make our airlines uncompetitive, they will rescind it.

Edited October 5, 2018 by KevinAu

[Holdit 551]

5 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

We went from four to three to two. The trend is clear. Technology advances and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. We’ve got probably thirty more years of piloting as a profession before it will be over. Most crashes are pilot error anyways. And a few have even been deliberate. You’ll see the first single pilot passenger liner within fifteen years, despite alpa’s efforts. And people will accept this just as they accept driverless trains and driverless cars.

Even if alpa succeeds in getting congress to require two pilots, it would only delay the inevitable. When other airlines around the world cut out their pilots and make our airlines uncompetitive, they will rescind it.

There are two things that this assessment is missing, though...

1. How many crashes have been prevented because timely pilot intervention prevented an automation-caused crash?

2. Market forces. The adoption of pilotless air travel will be as much driven by public adoption as it will by technological advances. Just because science can do it doesn't mean enough people will entrust their lives to it to make it a viable means of operating.

[Luke 782]

12 minutes ago, Holdit said:

There are two things that this assessment is missing, though...

1. How many crashes have been prevented because timely pilot intervention prevented an automation-caused crash?

2. Market forces. The adoption of pilotless air travel will be as much driven by public adoption as it will by technological advances. Just because science can do it doesn't mean enough people will entrust their lives to it to make it a viable means of operating.

1) Probably fewer than prevented by automation. There are certainly going to be new classes of fatal incidents created by automation; so long as they are fewer than caused without it's a net win.

2) If the airfare is 5% cheaper, people will likely do it. I've seen no evidence that people consider much beyond price.

Cheers!

 

[KevinAu 441]

54 minutes ago, Holdit said:

There are two things that this assessment is missing, though...

1. How many crashes have been prevented because timely pilot intervention prevented an automation-caused crash?

2. Market forces. The adoption of pilotless air travel will be as much driven by public adoption as it will by technological advances. Just because science can do it doesn't mean enough people will entrust their lives to it to make it a viable means of operating.

1. The thing you’re assuming incorrectly is that just because there is no person on board, there is no human intervention. The single pilot liner will just be a uav with a cockpit. With all the monitoring, control and backup capabilities of the ground station. You’ll actually have a pilot onboard and pilots on the ground to watch over. With a pilot on board and also the ability of ground personnel to monitor, operate, and intervene as if it was a uav, I would say that the single pilot plane will be even more safe than current aircraft. And in a decade or two time, and the confidence gained from operating single pilot this way, it would be a small step to pilotless.

2. Exactly the point of my second paragraph previously. Once it deploys somewhere, the economic advantages from the cost reductions that are possible will force others to adopt or lose.

Edited October 5, 2018 by KevinAu

[Holdit 551]

1 minute ago, Luke said:

1) Probably fewer than prevented by automation. There are certainly going to be new classes of fatal incidents created by automation; so long as they are fewer than caused without it's a net win.

2) If the airfare is 5% cheaper, people will likely do it. I've seen no evidence that people consider much beyond price.

Cheers!

 

1. Not necessarily in the mind of a public fueled by a media that's addicted to sensationalist reporting of air accidents.

2. ...when there has always been a pilot at the controls. 

[Holdit 551]

2 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

1. The thing you’re assuming incorrectly is that just because there is no person on board, does not mean there is no human intervention. The single pilot liner will just be a uav with a cockpit. With all the monitoring, control and backup capabilities of the ground station. You’ll actually have a pilot onboard and a pilot on the ground to watch over. With a pilot on board and also the ability of ground personnel to monitor, operate, and intervene as if it was a uav, I would say that the single pilot plane will be even more safe than current aircraft. And in a decade or two time, and the confidence gained from operating single pilot this way, it would be a small step to pilotless.

2. Exactly the point of my second paragraph previously. Once it deploys somewhere, the economic advantages from the cost reductions that are possible will force others to adopt or lose.

1. Good point, but how reassured are people likely to be when the pilot/controller isn;t actuall yin the aircraft with them?

2. Not if the others are getting most of the business because they still have humans in the cockpit.

[KevinAu 441]

1 minute ago, Holdit said:

1. Not necessarily in the mind of a public fueled by a media that's addicted to sensationalist reporting of air accidents.

2. ...when there has always been a pilot at the controls. 

I remember the media touting the possibilities of pilotless aircraft after the germanwings suicide crash.

[Holdit 551]

1 minute ago, KevinAu said:

I remember the media touting the possibilities of pilotless aircraft after the germanwings suicide crash.

And I guarantee you the same media will forget they ever did that the day the first pilotless aircraft falls from the sky. 

[KevinAu 441]

7 minutes ago, Holdit said:

1. Good point, but how reassured are people likely to be when the pilot/controller isn;t actuall yin the aircraft with them?

2. Not if the others are getting most of the business because they still have humans in the cockpit.

1. I don’t know. My guess is probably assured as anybody is getting into a driverless train or car.

2. Sure, just like people always choose virgin atlantic over all others because of four engines for long haul. price, schedule and convenience doesnt hold a candle to that safety notion.

Edited October 5, 2018 by KevinAu

[KevinAu 441]

5 minutes ago, Holdit said:

And I guarantee you the same media will forget they ever did that the day the first pilotless aircraft falls from the sky. 

And they’ll bring up the pilotless plane again the next time someone commits suicide with an airliner. How long has it been since we had one of those? A month maybe?