The Technological Future of the Profession

[Raymond Hall]

In Tom Wolfe’s book, The Right Stuff, he describes a revolt by the first astronauts, training in the 1960’s, where they collectively refused to agree to undertake their missions unless NASA agreed to forego its attempt to remove the flight controls from their capsule, effectively making them ‘monkeys in space.’

Today, Elon Musk, with his successful completion of his “Space Tourist” flight, with no-one on board having any flying qualifications whatsoever, moved science beyond that moment by successfully completing a much more complicated mission with astronauts who had not only no controls over their spaceship, but no training or requirement for any knowledge of manipulating those controls. Convincingly, he proved beyond any doubt, that the most complex of flights can be executed without the presence of any "pilot" on board.

To this I have only one thought. Do not, under any circumstance, underestimate the significance of this event. While we contemplate our navels, including arguing about whether our unions are effectively representing us, science, government, technology and business management are focused on eliminating our presence from the business equation.

When I was 17, immediately after passing my PPL tests (only a short time after those initial astronauts were undergoing their training missions), I was asked why I chose to pursue a career as an airline pilot, because as it was perceived then, the writing was on the wall. Pilots would soon be redundant. The job would be eliminated.

Well, it took more than a few decades, but today another brick in that mortar was cemented in place. Is this profession being totally overtaken by the technology? Does it have much of a future? Will anyone at the pointy end of the aircraft any longer have to do anything more than program computers? Or second-guess how someone else is programming their computers? How many “pilots” will it take to watch over the systems while technology exerts control?

Just wondering.

[imjustlurking]

In Tom Wolfe’s book, The Right Stuff, he describes a revolt by the first astronauts, training in the 1960’s, where they collectively refused to agree to undertake their missions unless NASA agreed to forego its attempt to remove the flight controls from their capsule, effectively making them ‘monkeys in space.’

Today, Elon Musk, with his successful completion of his “Space Tourist” flight, with no-one on board having any flying qualifications whatsoever, moved science beyond that moment by successfully completing a much more complicated mission with astronauts who had not only no controls over their spaceship, but no training or requirement for any knowledge of manipulating those controls.

When I was 17, immediately after passing my PPL tests (only a short time after those initial astronauts were undergoing their training missions), I was asked why I chose to pursue a career as an airline pilot, because as it was perceived then, the writing was on the wall. Pilots would soon be redundant. The job would be eliminated.

Well, it took some time, but today another brick in that mortar was cemented in place. Is this profession being totally overtaken by the technology? Does it have much of a future? Will anyone at the pointy end of the aircraft any longer have to do anything more than program computers? Or second-guess how someone else is programming their computers? How many “pilots” will it take to watch over the systems while technology exerts control?

Just wondering.

If it's safer, more efficient, and less expensive, it's the natural direction to go. With aviation, the cost savings are no longer necessarily as beneficial compared to the potential risks.

[RippleRock]

I always chuckle a bit when this topic comes up.....though its usually someone new to the industry.

Does the technology exist today? Of course it does. Remotely controlling an aircraft in flight is only a tiny portion of the equation. Whatever system that replaces pilots had better be perfect right out of the gate, or it will be rejected.

The big kicker is "public perception". Who would board and aircraft without someone with a "vested interest" in their own safety in control? Who will be first? These are legit commercial considerations when aircraft manufacturers pitch a new design to airlines. What are the costs associated with "terror-proofing" the system? How about automated taxiing? Imagine a fully loaded and fueled pair of 777's taxiing into one another on the ramp or one not stopping when it should and ending up inside a terminal. Who's going to hit the brakes if a fuel truck decides they need to cut off an airliner on a blind-side on the ramp. How is the aircraft stopped in this event, then evacuated immediately if there is a fire? There will be a ton of testing required. Fail-safes on every aspect of the system ---every contingency-- will need to be double-checked, over and over. Then that new system needs to be integrated with the old. The two systems, old and new will need to run in parallel ---seamlessly--- for a long time as there is no way the change-over could be instantanious. All this change to infrastructure costs huge $$$, and it will need to exist at EVERY airport and in every terminal control zone. Is the Ukraine, or Bagladesh so eager to eliminate pilots that they would spend billions on infrastructure to do it? Not likely now, or in the next 50 years.

All new aircraft built today require two pilots. Single pilot aircraft maybe, (who will look out the right side in a right turn and call "clear on the right") but little has changed since the first L-1011 auto-landed nearly 50 years ago. Regarding the longevity of a newly produced machine (2021), I wouldn't remotely be concerned about a pilot career starting today.

[Sharklasers]

The Boeing engineers in India coding the MCAS at $3 an hour did way more to secure the future of my job then ACPA ever did.

[digits_]

I always chuckle a bit when this topic comes up.....though its usually someone new to the industry.

Does the technology exist today? Of course it does. Remotely controlling an aircraft in flight is only a tiny portion of the equation. Whatever system that replaces pilots had better be perfect right out of the gate, or it will be rejected.

The big kicker is "public perception". Who would board and aircraft without someone with a "vested interest" in their own safety in control? Who will be first? These are legit commercial considerations when aircraft manufacturers pitch a new design to airlines. What are the costs associated with "terror-proofing" the system? How about automated taxiing? Imagine a fully loaded and fueled pair of 777's taxiing into one another on the ramp or one not stopping when it should and ending up inside a terminal. Who's going to hit the brakes if a fuel truck decides they need to cut off an airliner on a blind-side on the ramp. How is the aircraft stopped in this event, then evacuated immediately if there is a fire? There will be a ton of testing required. Fail-safes on every aspect of the system ---every contingency-- will need to be double-checked, over and over. Then that new system needs to be integrated with the old. The two systems, old and new will need to run in parallel ---seamlessly--- for a long time as there is no way the change-over could be instantanious. All this change to infrastructure costs huge $$$, and it will need to exist at EVERY airport and in every terminal control zone. Is the Ukraine, or Bagladesh so eager to eliminate pilots that they would spend billions on infrastructure to do it? Not likely now, or in the next 50 years.

All new aircraft built today require two pilots. Single pilot aircraft maybe, (who will look out the right side in a right turn and call "clear on the right") but little has changed since the first L-1011 auto-landed nearly 50 years ago. Regarding the longevity of a newly produced machine (2021), I wouldn't remotely be concerned about a pilot career starting today.

The ground issue can easily be fixed by towing the planes to and from the runway. All you need is an ILS or LPV with autoland. Also note that pilotless does not necessarily mean autonomous. You could still have a remote pilot or controller sending high level commands (climb, descend, land, divert). You don't need to implement this globally either. I could see the US as a great first test case for pilotless airplanes. Lots of airspace, lots of well equipped airports. A regulator in the same country as the manufacturer. Then again, Airbus is usually a bit more innovative. Maybe a chance for Boeing to catch up?

First we get the freighters flying, then corporate jets, then if none crash, pax airliners.

[Sharklasers]

First we get the freighters flying, then corporate jets, then if none crash, pax airliners.

‘Tell me you’ve never flown corporate without saying you’ve never flown corporate’.
There is about a 0% chance that any owner or client I’ve ever met would bite on being the guinea pig in something like that. Hell for most of them the older grey haired well groomed pilot (who barely passed his last recurrent at flight safety) is as much part of the decor as anything else.
I agree we may see autonomous transport aircraft at some point but they will likely start in the military and then maybe freight but the US military averages a loss rate of 14.2 per 100000 flight hours on their large RPAs vs 1-2 per 100000 on their manned aircraft. The difference is even more stark when you compare it to the .6 fatal accidents per 1,000,000 flight hours for US airlines currently so that’s a pretty big gap to close before we load grandma up on a pilotless airline.

[digits_]

First we get the freighters flying, then corporate jets, then if none crash, pax airliners.

‘Tell me you’ve never flown corporate without saying you’ve never flown corporate’.
There is about a 0% chance that any owner or client I’ve ever met would bite on being the guinea pig in something like that. Hell for most of them the older grey haired well groomed pilot (who barely passed his last recurrent at flight safety) is as much part of the decor as anything else.
I agree we may see autonomous transport aircraft at some point but they will likely start in the military and then maybe freight but the US military averages a loss rate of 14.2 per 100000 flight hours on their large RPAs vs 1-2 per 100000 on their manned aircraft. The difference is even more stark when you compare it to the .6 fatal accidents per 1,000,000 flight hours for US airlines currently so that’s a pretty big gap to close before we load grandma up on a pilotless airline.

It's also new technology. Cutting edge. How many owners prefer the appeal of glass cockpits even though they don't fly themselves? Just because it's shiny.

Now imagine you can offer your passenger or client to sit in the front seats, pilotless, and enjoy the view that way. Or think about fractional ownership companies like Netjets or corporate jet charter companies who wish to get rid of those pesky pilots who aren't available 24/7 due to duty regulations and the desire for a personal life?

[Sharklasers]

First we get the freighters flying, then corporate jets, then if none crash, pax airliners.

‘Tell me you’ve never flown corporate without saying you’ve never flown corporate’.
There is about a 0% chance that any owner or client I’ve ever met would bite on being the guinea pig in something like that. Hell for most of them the older grey haired well groomed pilot (who barely passed his last recurrent at flight safety) is as much part of the decor as anything else.
I agree we may see autonomous transport aircraft at some point but they will likely start in the military and then maybe freight but the US military averages a loss rate of 14.2 per 100000 flight hours on their large RPAs vs 1-2 per 100000 on their manned aircraft. The difference is even more stark when you compare it to the .6 fatal accidents per 1,000,000 flight hours for US airlines currently so that’s a pretty big gap to close before we load grandma up on a pilotless airline.

It's also new technology. Cutting edge. How many owners prefer the appeal of glass cockpits even though they don't fly themselves? Just because it's shiny.

Now imagine you can offer your passenger or client to sit in the front seats, pilotless, and enjoy the view that way. Or think about fractional ownership companies like Netjets or corporate jet charter companies who wish to get rid of those pesky pilots who aren't available 24/7 due to duty regulations and the desire for a personal life?

Owners prefer glass cockpits because it’s sold to them in the name of safety, not because it’s shiny. Glass also improves dispatch reliability dramatically and often pays for itself in a short number of years. Do you think a variety of near basement level 703 operates have put G1000s in king airs and metros because the owners thought they were so cool and shiny? The numbers as they stand right now state that pilotless is less safe. Again, right or wrong business av clients will take an older grey haired well groomed sully look alike up front 100 times out of 100 before they put their families in a pilotless jet.

[ogc]

I would like to point out that the "commander" of that mission Jared Isaacman does have plenty of flying experience.

I do get your point though

[fish4life]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busine ... 21-7%3Famp

[scdriver]

I sure hope nobody ever tries to replace my job as a float pilot with some fancy autonomous caravan... In all seriousness though I find it hard to believe that any airline pilot will have their job threatened by automation anytime in the next 50 years. The time it'll take for autonomous airliners to be around for long enough and have a proven track record good enough for the majority of the public to be willing to pay for a seat on one will be lengthy. I can also imagine if this every does become a reality that there will be significant challenges with operating in the far reaches of the world with sketchier technology/infrastructure and personnel training.

[goldeneagle]

I would like to point out that the "commander" of that mission Jared Isaacman does have plenty of flying experience.

It doesn't matter how much experience one has driving if your car doesn't have a steering wheel and/or gas and brake pedals.

[ogc]

I would like to point out that the "commander" of that mission Jared Isaacman does have plenty of flying experience.

It doesn't matter how much experience one has driving if your car doesn't have a steering wheel and/or gas and brake pedals.

There are "manual" controls on the ship.

Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley demonstrated them on the first crewed demo flight.

That being said they are touch screen controls. But it can still be manually flown.

[Splash]

I don't foresee the complete elimination of pilots on commercial airliners, I however do see the potential of single pilot operations where the human element is more of an observer that will take control only when necessary, otherwise it's fully automated.

[Tdicommuter]

Automation is a threat to many aspects of our lives. Cost is the main stop gate for progress. If it takes 20,000,000 man hours, and 2 billion dollars to write the software, and test, then price the technology what would you need to charge to make a return on that investment? If an automated plane costs 70 percent more than non automated what would the potential savings be? What has the R.O.I become at that point? The military now had the technology to remotely fly planes anywhere on the planet... They are called drones. But what is stopping that from moving into a commercial plane... Cost. Military doesn't need to be profitable. Look at an assembly line today. Why are people still involved? The cost involved to write the lines of code, then manufacture the robot becomes too expensive at a point. There are people whose job is to look at, and cost out bringing in automation. If this was a slam dunk idea, it would be pushed hard. Instead it is trialed, and tinkered with as a novelty. Why does Mercedes, and Honda have a formula 1 team? Doesn't make money... But the innovation developed on their race cars trickle down into the mass industry. Airbus will be the same. Adding layers of automation to assist and make our jobs safer, not completely eliminate them.

Also to the space x model... When billionaires are paying whatever the costs... You can afford to justify the investment into that level of automation. Would customers on a plane do the same... 15000 dollars to fly yyz-yqr? Imagine what your NAV Canada fees would look like if they needed to upgrade to automated in order to communicate with an autonomous plane. Lol

[Clearprop913]

I believe the move to Pilotless cockpits will be a long ways away. Some may think its a good direction to take however the majority of the public and passengers who will actually be flying on these things would probably not be so confident. People can be bias/worried when they see a younger flight crew let alone the thought of no Pilot physically there.

[digits_]

Automation is a threat to many aspects of our lives. Cost is the main stop gate for progress. If it takes 20,000,000 man hours, and 2 billion dollars to write the software, and test, then price the technology what would you need to charge to make a return on that investment? If an automated plane costs 70 percent more than non automated what would the potential savings be? What has the R.O.I become at that point? The military now had the technology to remotely fly planes anywhere on the planet... They are called drones. But what is stopping that from moving into a commercial plane... Cost. Military doesn't need to be profitable. Look at an assembly line today. Why are people still involved? The cost involved to write the lines of code, then manufacture the robot becomes too expensive at a point. There are people whose job is to look at, and cost out bringing in automation. If this was a slam dunk idea, it would be pushed hard. Instead it is trialed, and tinkered with as a novelty. Why does Mercedes, and Honda have a formula 1 team? Doesn't make money... But the innovation developed on their race cars trickle down into the mass industry. Airbus will be the same. Adding layers of automation to assist and make our jobs safer, not completely eliminate them.

Also to the space x model... When billionaires are paying whatever the costs... You can afford to justify the investment into that level of automation. Would customers on a plane do the same... 15000 dollars to fly yyz-yqr? Imagine what your NAV Canada fees would look like if they needed to upgrade to automated in order to communicate with an autonomous plane. Lol

If cirrus can build their emergency autoland feature in a 2 million dollar jet, I'm sure Boeing or Airbus can come up with someting affordable as well....
https://www.wired.com/story/cirrus-garm ... fe-return/

Why would navcanada need significant upgrades? In the end it's antennas connected to computers. sure, changes will be needed, but nothing major. Processing CPDLC messages should, theoretically, be enough.

Autonomous cargo Caravan already exists and flies: https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs ... 15.article

If it makes sense on that scale, why not on airliners? The certification stuff is just paperwork and tests and regulations, it doesn't need further new engineering manhours.

[Tdicommuter]

Automation is a threat to many aspects of our lives. Cost is the main stop gate for progress. If it takes 20,000,000 man hours, and 2 billion dollars to write the software, and test, then price the technology what would you need to charge to make a return on that investment? If an automated plane costs 70 percent more than non automated what would the potential savings be? What has the R.O.I become at that point? The military now had the technology to remotely fly planes anywhere on the planet... They are called drones. But what is stopping that from moving into a commercial plane... Cost. Military doesn't need to be profitable. Look at an assembly line today. Why are people still involved? The cost involved to write the lines of code, then manufacture the robot becomes too expensive at a point. There are people whose job is to look at, and cost out bringing in automation. If this was a slam dunk idea, it would be pushed hard. Instead it is trialed, and tinkered with as a novelty. Why does Mercedes, and Honda have a formula 1 team? Doesn't make money... But the innovation developed on their race cars trickle down into the mass industry. Airbus will be the same. Adding layers of automation to assist and make our jobs safer, not completely eliminate them.

Also to the space x model... When billionaires are paying whatever the costs... You can afford to justify the investment into that level of automation. Would customers on a plane do the same... 15000 dollars to fly yyz-yqr? Imagine what your NAV Canada fees would look like if they needed to upgrade to automated in order to communicate with an autonomous plane. Lol

If cirrus can build their emergency autoland feature in a 2 million dollar jet, I'm sure Boeing or Airbus can come up with someting affordable as well....
https://www.wired.com/story/cirrus-garm ... fe-return/

Why would navcanada need significant upgrades? In the end it's antennas connected to computers. sure, changes will be needed, but nothing major. Processing CPDLC messages should, theoretically, be enough.

Autonomous cargo Caravan already exists and flies: https://www.flightglobal.com/civil-uavs ... 15.article

If it makes sense on that scale, why not on airliners? The certification stuff is just paperwork and tests and regulations, it doesn't need further new engineering manhours.

Landing is only one phase of flight... Does cirrus have an emergency taxi, take off... Etc?

Do you use CPDLC for push, taxi, take off, approach, landing clearances as well?

Paperwork, tests etc.. literally represent man-hours. You need to pay someone to do those things. You can't just wave a wand and say.. 'ok we are good to go now'

You are thinking quite basically on this one. Do we have the technical capabilities... Yes of course we do.

But if you want an automated plane to complete a full flight from start to finish does it interface with a mainframe somewhere? If it does who will encrypt the data to ensure it cannot be hacked. How much money would that cost? How does it interface with NAV Canada... Would it be able to in a country with antiquated ATC.

Even when you look at autoland... Can my airbus land itself now... Yes... Am I allowed to? No. Who certifies what approaches are autoland capable... NAV Canada. If you want every single approach to be a cat 3 that will also be expensive.

What I am saying is there are many many many layers of cooperation involved before you would ever get to the point that you will see a plane push from Pearson and take off to Seattle with no-one in it.

To use a comparator... How many engineers are working at Tesla right now on an automated car? How many years.... How many other companies are also working on the same thing.... How many years. Would you say billions were spent getting there. Unless you can make that back it was a loss. There has to be a direct way to justify that cost. Obviously from the airport's needing upgrading, all the way to the planes the amount of money needed to be invested to get to automated clearly exceeds the savings by getting rid of pilots otherwise we would be gone. At some point will that change... Yes. But not in a real hurry.

[digits_]

You conveniently ignored my example of the Caravan who did all that.... Apparently they flew a 172 like that as well...
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/ ... 655258002/


It's happened. It exists.

Your other arguments are comparing a pilotless airplane with a mythical 100% safe airplane. You don't have to do that. You have to compare it to a flawed system operating today. Pilots have intentionally killed more passengers than a hacked airplane likely ever will. If banking transactions can be done online daily without hacks, I'm sure a secure connection to an airplane can be made.

Yes, paperwork takes manhours, but obviously it's possible. Again, the remote areas or 3rd world countries with bad infrastructure argument doesn't have any influence on evolutions in North America or Europe. If all traffic within North America gets automated, it will already significantly affect our jobs.

The comparison with a car is irrelevant as well. Aviation is such a controlled environment that it is much easier to automate. Tesla is struggling with the equivalent of an autopilot. Airplanes have had that for decades.

[RippleRock]

I think most of us who see the big picture will agree this is a DUMB topic, barely worth our time.

The infrastructure costs and "selling it to the public" far exceeds the cost of continuing to have pilots pollute the flight deck. As companies like AC continue to drive WACON for pilots into the toilet, and pilots let them, this topic becomes even more redundant.

Let's discuss it again in 30 years. Thanks Ray....slow day I guess.