how long

[digits_]

If you design a pilotless plane you would never trust just 1 AoA (then again it is boeing).

The delays are not so much caused by that one tiny aspect but because boeing allegedly cut corners everywhere in their safety process.

[Meatservo]

.

[Rockie]

Meatservo said:

"Being able to hire experienced flight-crew without relying the probationary period of having them act in a subordinate position would seem to require that you have a pool of pilots who have gained that experience somewhere else. Would there be enough "somewhere elses" to supply the demand?"

To clarify, when I say "who's going to train them" I also include the lower tier jobs building up to transport category aircraft as you say. This is before the step up to transport category aircraft which from a purely technical standpoint require their own apprenticeship which precludes single pilot, but the job of a transport category PIC itself definitely requires apprenticeship. Being in the left seat of those is not a simple matter of switching seats, which anybody who has done it is abundantly aware of. That's why I am admittedly dismissive of people who pontificate on what it takes when they have never actually done it...like tsgarp.

[tsgarp]

Commanding a transport category aircraft between international airports is pretty much the easiest flying I have done. The presence of ample automation, a radar environment and a second crew member really make it an exercise in system management; not at all unlike software design, but easier. I get how someone of limited abilities, having attained the position of airline captain, could view the position as the pinnacle of aviation achievement. These are also the same sorts of people, of limited ability, who think that they got promoted into a high ranking staff officer’s job based on their brilliance, when the fact of the matter is that they got promoted out of the Sqns because they were a blow hard ass hole that everybody loathed and distrusted. Again, it comes down to not knowing what you just don’t know.

[Rockie]

MS flight sim doesn’t count garp.

['97 Tercel]

Intransigent what?

[valleyboy]

Remember we have an airplane that’s been grounded for over a year because one tiny aspect of automation wants fly it into the ground against the wishes of the two pilots.

That is not an accurate statement - yes the software might have been designed that was not logical to pilots. My factory course on Universal the instructor's first words were "remember, this software was not designed by pilots so don't expect it to make sense sometimes". He was correct but with training all fell into place. Software engineers are not pilots but training can compensate for that.

Both accidents was recoverable if the crews had reacted properly and were trained to a proper standard. The main issue in my mind with Boeing is not the software but the sales department selling the aircraft on operators by pushing easy training and just saying the only requirement was to train "differences" in their sales pitch. Unfortunately airlines jump at this to save money on training, which is viewed by the bean counters as pain in the ass expense. These crews were victims of poor training which could be traced back to Boeing but also you need to look at the corporate culture of the airlines as well. The result was horrific and created hundreds possibly thousands of victims if you count impact on surviving family members.
To this day the FMS system in the 76 and the 3 and 400 series 73 will get you into a bad situation on T/O if the fingers make a mistake. Decaying airspeed at TOCA is not a pleasant thing. Crews are trained and recover no problem.

Bottom line that social and news media fed the masses so much bullshit.

[Rockie]

Both accidents was recoverable if the crews had reacted properly and were trained to a proper standard.

What is the proper standard of training to compensate for a fatally flawed design that the manufacturer doesn't tell its customers about? More relevant to this discussion, how could this fatally flawed system have recognized and recovered from itself? I thought computers were infallable.

[pelmet]

Does anybody honestly believe that in one hundred or two hundred years, airliners(or whatever replaces them) will be flown by pilots(assuming civilization still exists). Start with that question(and Ignore the bracketed parts of the question to stay on subject) and once answered in a reasonable manner go back in time from that future point and ask yourself when pilotless airliners became mainstream.

Of course, there will still be a few DC-3's around.

[Rockie]

Does anybody honestly believe that in one hundred or two hundred years, airliners(or whatever replaces them) will be flown by pilots(assuming civilization still exists).

Who can say about the timeline? There won't be non-human flown airliners until true AI is invented and developed to the point humans are comfortable handing AI responsibility and authority over their lives, of course when that happens humans won't be required to do any job. Perhaps from the AIs' point of view humans won't then be required for anything and will consider us an unnecessary and destructive burden that should be cleansed from the planet.

If that happens next week so be it.

[digits_]

Both accidents was recoverable if the crews had reacted properly and were trained to a proper standard.

What is the proper standard of training to compensate for a fatally flawed design that the manufacturer doesn't tell its customers about? More relevant to this discussion, how could this fatally flawed system have recognized and recovered from itself? I thought computers were infallable.

Regarding infallable computers: how many fly by wire accidents have there been since it became mainstream? Pretty much zero. That's a computer operating your flight controls.

If you design a system where the system itself is the last line of defense against a crash, it will be designed differently vs when a human is still available to save the day.

Current autopilots are designed to kick off in case of trouble. In a pilotless airplane the autopilot will likely be the last working system in an airplane with dual engine failures and total power loss.

[Rockie]

Both accidents was recoverable if the crews had reacted properly and were trained to a proper standard.

What is the proper standard of training to compensate for a fatally flawed design that the manufacturer doesn't tell its customers about? More relevant to this discussion, how could this fatally flawed system have recognized and recovered from itself? I thought computers were infallable.

Regarding infallable computers: how many fly by wire accidents have there been since it became mainstream? Pretty much zero. That's a computer operating your flight controls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhuFcT-PnsU

Of course there are also the two MAX crashes where not strictly FBW, but incorrect sensor inputs to a flight control system that subsequently attempted, and succeeded in killing a whole bunch of people.

FBW is just another system subject to failures and incorrect responses like everything else. Did you know FBW systems degrade and have switches in the FD that can deselect them? Why would they put flight control computer switches in the flight deck?

[digits_]

FBW is just another system subject to failures and incorrect responses like everything else. Did you know FBW systems degrade and have switches in the FD that can deselect them?
Why would they put flight control computer switches in the flight deck?

Yes, but even in the degraded system, it is still electronics controlling the flight controls.

The switches are there because their are still pilots on board. No pilots means the degraded mode could be automatically selected (if it doesn't already) and a switch would not be necessary.

[DrSpaceman]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is real.

[garfield]

While there is still some time, please tell me where I can fly an airliner whitout AP/FD/AT (raw data) and have some fun?

[FL320]

While there is still some time, please tell me where I can fly an airliner whitout AP/FD/AT (raw data) and have some fun?

In the sim; that’s what we do.

[Rockie]

FBW is just another system subject to failures and incorrect responses like everything else. Did you know FBW systems degrade and have switches in the FD that can deselect them?
Why would they put flight control computer switches in the flight deck?

Yes, but even in the degraded system, it is still electronics controlling the flight controls.

The switches are there because their are still pilots on board. No pilots means the degraded mode could be automatically selected (if it doesn't already) and a switch would not be necessary.

No, you are not correct. The Airbus 320 for example today has a number of engineering bulletins alerting the crew to various guidance issues. One of them (since rescinded) was where due to erroneous inputs the FBW triggered high alpha protection which forced the nose of the aircraft down. The fix was to turn off two of the air data computers which forced the FBW system into direct mode and of course disconnected the autopilot precluding its further use. FBW is just a system that not only can fail on its own, but is wholly dependent on all kinds of inputs from other systems that themselves can fail or provide erroneous data that affect the FBW.

FBW is anything but foolproof, so I would stop regarding it as a failsafe alternative to a human with a brain.

[valleyboy]

You are describing the 727 - looks like you might need to go off shore to get that pleasure now. 340 kts on the down wind and transition to less than a mile final - now that was fun

[tsgarp]

MS flight sim doesn’t count garp.

If that’s all you’ve got, I’ll take my victory lap now. I expected better from a stable genius like you.

[Meatservo]

In a pilotless airplane the autopilot will likely be the last working system in an airplane with dual engine failures and total power loss.

It bloody well better be!!

The thing that pisses me off about automation is the expectations vs the realities of its true benefits. I do believe that there isn't really any job that couldn't be automated at some point: I like to believe we could automate top executives. However, they are the only ones who have the power to ensure they aren't ever replaced by computers. The thing is, by the time we have robot drivers and robot pilots and robot doctors and robot teachers and robot cleaners and robot geologists, we were supposed to be able to enjoy all the free time, wear togas, drink, work on art, in a beautiful garden maintained by all the robot workers. Instead what will probably happen is that fewer and fewer people will have fun jobs, people will keep reproducing until the world is full, we all have to take our food in pill form, and live in sea-cans.