how long

['97 Tercel]

My prediction is that there will continue to be human pilots in the front of airliners as well as increasingly capable auto pilots, until such time as they invent a system that is sufficiently advanced to function as an auto-SCAPEGOAT.

Exactly.

Captains are just Risk Managers and until they get a suitable replacement(30-40 years?) at least one human will be in the cockpit

[SpyPilot]

Never let an opportunity to reference Star Trek go to waste, especially TOS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Computer

[Rockie]

My prediction is that there will continue to be human pilots in the front of airliners as well as increasingly capable auto pilots, until such time as they invent a system that is sufficiently advanced to function as an auto-SCAPEGOAT.

Exactly.

Captains are just Risk Managers and until they get a suitable replacement(30-40 years?) at least one human will be in the cockpit

The Aeronautics Act disagrees with you.


"pilot-in-command"
«commandant de bord»
"pilot-in-command" means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time;


Replacing "pilot" with "circuit board" isn't going to happen as long as human beings are involved because no one will want to give it authority over their life, and you can't hold a circuit board responsible. Why do you think cars with autopilots have all those warnings? The driver is ALWAYS responsible.

I've asked this before as well and still no one has ventured to answer it, if it goes to a single pilot who is going to train them?

[valleyboy]

Most are thinking "inside the box" and looking mostly at the present and short term future. If you don't believe that
it will evolve into completely automated flight that that the only human input will be destination and departure time you are restricting your mind. WX will have little effect except in situations such as hurricanes and thunder storms for arrivals and departures but pilots not needed to deal with that. Enroute will be above all WX and low orbit and as I said before short travel will be ground based. Come on guys lets face it computers can fly much better and more efficiently that any human can or could. The tech by then will be solid and all traffic (except for the general aviation hobbyist) will be controlled by a world central computer. Ironically there will likely be fewer aircraft in the air at any one time. Humans directly operating machines will become non-existent. The only thing that might change this is we blow ourselves up before it evolves and yup by then all humans will be wearing body condoms with re-breathers

[trey kule]

Rockie asked..

“I've asked this before as well and still no one has ventured to answer it, if it goes to a single pilot who is going to train them? “


That is definitely a challenge. Particularly, as no where in the world right now is any plane being flown single pilot. I , for one, admit that I never have seen a single cockpit aircraft, or a plane being flown by one pilot. A training issue. Who knew?

Maybe some smart people could develop, oh I don’t know....some kind of simulation device.
Or maybe make a two person trainer. I know. I know . Far out ideas, like making a simulator for something like a space shuttle. Can’t be done. Simply impossible to train someone for something that has not been done before.

A question for the ages...Who trained the first pilot?

[Rockie]

That is definitely a challenge. Particularly, as no where in the world right now is any plane being flown single pilot. I , for one, admit that I never have seen a single cockpit aircraft, or a plane being flown by one pilot. A training issue. Who knew?

Maybe some smart people could develop, oh I don’t know....some kind of simulation device.
Or maybe make a two person trainer. I know. I know . Far out ideas, like making a simulator for something like a space shuttle. Can’t be done. Simply impossible to train someone for something that has not been done before.

A question for the ages...Who trained the first pilot?

Well, having trained many very experienced pilots in these airplanes including many new Captains I can confidently say you are full of shit, making the completely uninformed assumption these aircraft or the job are anything like boring holes in the circuit with your Cessna 172.

[Rockie]

WX will have little effect except in situations such as hurricanes and thunder storms for arrivals and departures but pilots not needed to deal with that.

I once knew a pilot who wanted an airplane that could do 400 knots because "it will outrun all the weather".

[Meatservo]

That is definitely a challenge. ..Who trained the first pilot?

Well, having trained many very experienced pilots in these airplanes ......, making the completely uninformed assumption these aircraft or the job are anything like boring holes in the circuit with your Cessna 172.

redacted to eliminate rudeness

Well I suppose the point is that automation could theoretically reduce the workload until an airliner really is no more challenging to operate than a Cessna 172. I am reminded of the humble Cessna Caravan, which operates single-pilot IFR in much of the same low-level controlled airspace as arriving and departing airliners, and has enough rudimentary automation and system-simplicity to allow it to be operated without too much trouble by one pilot. Maybe the somewhat less humble Pilatus PC-12 is a better example. Heck, even the new Pilatus PC-24- there you go- Which supports "Trey Kule"s point of view.

Alternatively, the aforementioned Cessna Caravan has a horrible safety record if you applied it to the 705 heavy-people-mover world. Partly because of pilot inexperience. In a world where there is ONLY one pilot, what would be the minimum qualification necessary? Rather than simply ask "who will train them", it might be more correct to wonder what kind of career progression will occur in this professional scenario. How many hours will a new-hire have? What kind of experience will they need to have? Where will they get this experience? 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? These questions support "Rockie"'s point of view.

Even now the question of experience bears examination. Many pilots who are convinced that human pilots are still relevant like to talk about the automation failing, and the experience and raw talent of the flight-crew being the lifesaving final solution. So when we get to the point (arguably in some cases we're there already) when the sum total of a flight-crew's experience consists of operating within the framework of a highly automated environment, from which orifice will they produce this "skill" and "experience" that will save their lives if/when the automation fails?

I think all these questions make for interesting debate.

[valleyboy]

I once knew a pilot who wanted an airplane that could do 400 knots because "it will outrun all the weather".

I would rather have low earth orbit aircraft which is well above the wx and certainly makes 400 kts look stationary

[Zaibatsu]

I wouldn't see ATC as a remote pilot for every airplane. They would just issue instructions on their computer screen during standard ops. If for some reason, the "computer brain" or whatever you want to call it, on a remote plane would fail, then they could focus on that one plane.

If you encounter turbulence at a certain flight level, don't you usually query ATC where the better flight level might be? It's easy to add sensors to airplanes to measure the turbulence, the computer brain could then request a climb or descend, or ATC could propose one. That's not hard to build in.

Once you commit to a pilot less aiprlane, the inputs become much easier. No interface is required, no need to confirm critical data for liability reasons, as the computer does it all anyway. A runway chance should be non event at that point. That's easy software to program. The whole IFR system is already set up pretty robust.

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.

There’s nothing very easy about what you suggest.

[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?