Embraer reveals vision for single-pilot airliners

[Meatservo]

People like to state that pilot error is the leading cause of accidents, but I can't help thinking that's because all the other potential causes of accidents are mitigated BY the pilots. There will always be some accidents, of that I am sure, and eliminating the possibility of pilot error will expose the other latent causes of error which are presently no big deal because there is a pilot present to be the final word on safety. "Dispatch error" and "programming error" and even "maintenance error" are largely non-events because of pilots being there to detect and circumvent these issues.

[Rockie]

but I can't help thinking that's because all the other potential causes of accidents are mitigated BY the pilots.

Nobody mentions the accidents that don't happen thanks to the pilot on board because it's impossible to compile statistics on something like that. But on any flight you would quickly run out of fingers counting the times a pilot exercises judgement and decides on a course of action based on prevailing conditions and circumstances. Every one of those instances could lead to disastrous consequences if the wrong decision is made, or no decision is made allowing a situation to develop without intervention.

Human experience allows us to make leaps in reasoning and project a situation into the future giving us some insight how it might turn out. That's the creepy feeling you have running up your neck when you don't like how something is developing. No hard data, just experience based instinct on how things are developing. How many pilots have decided on different course of action based on that experience and instinct, and how many accidents have been prevented by it?

Impossible to say of course because those accidents didn't happen. But untold thousands of those kinds of decisions are made every single day by pilots worldwide.

I would also suggest that anybody who thinks modern pilots simply "monitor" either haven't flown modern aircraft or do not know their job properly. Contrary to popular thought flying an aircraft properly using today's automation can be much more difficult than hand flying it. Scaling back the level of automation to suit the circumstances is one of the most important skills to learn. All the way to back to autopilot/auto-throttle/flight director off if necessary because it's easier.

[chu me]

It is interesting to note that we already send people into space and back without the pilot ever touching the controls ( and that includes docking in space ). I would suggest that if we can do these highly complex manuevers with a computer then we can fly a passenger aircraft also pilotless. It is a matter of getting the public to accept it. There was a time when jumbo aircraft were flown by three pilots. Now they are flown by two.
I beleive I commented in another form, that there was a time when people would not get on an elevator without an operator. There was also a time when people would not ride a train without an engineer, these things are done without a thought millions of times daily now. While it may not happen in my life time....it will surely happen. My four year old son will do it without thinking some time in his life.

So I do not believe that single pilot airliners are out of the question.

Sincerly

Chu Me

[Rockie]

It is interesting to note that we already send people into space and back without the pilot ever touching the controls ( and that includes docking in space ). I would suggest that if we can do these highly complex manuevers with a computer then we can fly a passenger aircraft also pilotless. It is a matter of getting the public to accept it.

A space flight is planned to mind-boggling detail for literally years before the actual event. Every bit of space junk that could possible interfere is tracked and the flight is planned around it, and if the weather isn't just so the flight is delayed until it is suitable. There is nothing else between the ground and space, and every second of the flight is conducted with the full time support of hundreds of engineers. Plus the flight crew is there equipped with millions and millions of dollars worth of training in case they need to take over.

How does that equate to flying into, say, New York on a stormy afternoon for instance?

[cgzro]

No seatbelts and no pilots.. Ryanair is gonna love it!

[Meatservo]

Not to mention, even though it was equipped, the space shuttle never did autoland. I mean if you were the pilot, and it was potentially the only time you would ever get to fly the machine, why would you want automation? Here is a point I'm interested in. The number of jobs that could be automated is growing all the time. I'm pretty sure that all the duties of a middle-level manager, especially at an airline, could be performed flawlessly by a computer. Someday maybe the only people in the world will be programmers, C.E.Os (because they would never let themselves be replaced by a computer, and besides who would be left to spend all the money?), politicians, unemployed people, and a few repairmen. The rest of us will be selling little crafts and artisan-baked breads and folk remedies beside the railway tracks in Thailand.

Some of you pilots tend to look down on the political aspect of all this, but I think it's important. The only reason the executives won't be replaced by computers is because they won't let that happen. What's wrong with us pushing back too? I don't care if I can be replaced by a computer: I need a job! I think it's OK to react emotionally to this. OR, encourage your kids to get into programming so that one of them can invent a "director" computer to replace the executives. I think this would save the airlines more money than getting rid of pilots.

[iflyforpie]

Not to mention, even though it was equipped, the space shuttle never did autoland.

The Soviet shuttle Buran did autoland. In fact, it never did carry any cosmonauts on its flight. Spam in a can.... anybody can fly in space.

[Beefitarian]

Not to mention, even though it was equipped, the space shuttle never did autoland.

The Soviet shuttle Buran did autoland. In fact, it never did carry any cosmonauts on its flight. Spam in a can.... anybody can fly in space.

The what? Oh right, look where having autoland get you. You're one of eleven non Soviets that has heard of the thing.

[oldncold]

This post has been done before cira 2007-8 evolved from a seifr vs twin thread I believe.

That stated the one of best things about two crew ifr is : after flying approaches to legal min and excuting the missed approach , the first officer is really the capt best friend when arriving back at base then bean counters or other psuedo mgt desk jockeys want to rag your ass . asking if you really couldnt get in there ? turning to my first officer and asking him/her did you seen anything? he /she replies they couldn't see shit. let alone a runway.

case closed.

[iflyforpie]

The what? Oh right, look where having autoland get you. You're one of eleven non Soviets that has heard of the thing.

Who said I wasn't Soviet, tovarishch? I just can't believe that nobody put an 'In Soviet Russia' joke in there....

[Shadowfax]

Almost ALL the pieces are already in place to completely replace pilots.
1- CPDLC- controller pilot data link communications - full digital data links are already established. It isn't a stretch to imagine that instead of one remote pilot "flying/monitoring" one remote plane, you simply hand-off the plane between "pilots/flight managers" along the route of flight. All you really need to do is give ATC full control - in reality an airline pilot is just an in-between link between ATC and FMS anyway. Instead of ATC sending a command for the pilot to input, just let ATC link into the FMS - presto! IN cruise flight even if you lose the link it's not a big deal - UAV's already have that scenario all thought out. Full auto land takes care of the approach. Might need some extra work to taxi it to the gate!
2 - Emergencies! Better flight logic and added redundancy will take care of most of it - the insurance companies the rest (think Braniff)
3 - Passenger buy-in - too easy. Admit it - most people are stupid lemmings looking to save a buck. A good PR campaign and cheaper tickets will seal the deal. It's commonly accepted in modern media that almost all modern airline accidents are caused by pilot error so why not eliminate that cause - the pilot!

2020 - bit of a stretch. 2030 - absolutely!

[URC]

.

[Nark]

I'm just a dumb (former)jarhead and pilot, so what do I know, but...

After chatting with UAV 'pilots' and having flown a very high-tech airliner, I don't see this happening for a very very long time.

The option for a handful of problems is to intentionally crash the UAV. Try to sell that in a PR campaign.
I think Rockie expanded on it, but there is simply too much that goes wrong, but is corrected by flight crews that prevents catastrophes.


Also, lets look at cost. My aircraft has a crew cost of roughly $150-200/hour to staff 4 people. Then add in hotel cost's for the overnights, and per diem.

I average between 22 and 26 hours (credit) on a trip over four days. I'll use 26 in this example.
$200/hour x 26 = $5200
3 nights of hotels average $200/night x 4 people = $2400
Per Diem: $1.75/hour x 91 hours away from base x 4 people = $637.

Rounded up, that is totaled to $317/hour. Or put another way, $4.17 per seat.
I think we are worth $5 per passenger.

[flatface]

Deleted

[Rockie]

Almost ALL the pieces are already in place to completely replace pilots.

Pilots can already be replaced if all you want to do is conduct surveillance or remotely fire a missile at someone, and you're not particularly concerned about getting the airframe back in one piece. After all the whole reason they have drones in the first place is so they don't have to put a human pilot at risk or worry about their physiological needs. But with passengers (which I am one as well as a pilot) until computers can think like a human and have as much to lose as they do then it's never going to happen.

Computers can't think and they don't know fear. Both of which are essential to keeping pilots and by extension their passengers alive.

[Sun85]

IMHO, pilotless passenger (or even cargo) flights will never happen. Even if it would make a great money-saver and would be fully embraced by the passengers. The reason - terrorism. The flight control centres would have to be protected like nuclear weapon facilities to prevent a raid by terrorists, who would then make 9-11 look like child's play compared to hundreds of airliners raining from the sky onto the heads of astounded citizens.

But even if the flight control centres would be impossible to raid, who would stop a hacker from sending a signal to a pilotless plane which would end up crashing it? No one would be able to provide a 100% hacker-proof link to a pilotless airliner. It's all 1's and 0's at the end of the day. Besides, people steal and/or sell technology, and once it falls into the wrong hands, paying someone to sit in the cockpit won't seem too expensive anymore.

And, like it has already been mentioned, the current planes will be flying for decades even if the pilotless planes are introduced some time in the future. Which means - don't worry, be happy, keep flying

[Canadian Skyhawk]

It will happen.

Passenger planes had four crew members in the 1940s: Pilot, FO, navigator and engineer. Notice how spacious a DC-4 cockpit is compared to a 737NG. In the 1950s, the navigator disappeared and we went to three crew members. In the 1990s, the engineer disappeared, and we went to two crew. Most light jets (Embraer, Citation, etc.) are already certified single pilot. After expensive category IIIC ILS approaches (not yet in service), the new GPSIII system - currently being launched - combined with upgraded WAAS and LAAS, will bring inexpensive and highly accurate autoland to every airport nationwide. In fact, flights will even become fully automated. One pilot only will be in the cockpit as backup. If he gets sick or attacked? A ground-based pilot will be the second back-up, as already exists for military drones. Eventually, the systems will get so reliable, that the pilot in the cockpit will be deemed useless. In any case, he will hardly ever touch the controls. It won't happen by 2020, but more likely by 2040. At least most of us will be retired by then!!

Passengers? We already have driverless trains and subways - some of which are travelling at 300 km/hour - with 100% passenger approval.

As far as terrorists are concerned, that's ridiculous! They can "simply" hack into any modern transit system and hijack dozens of driverless subway trains with thousands of passengers, right? Gee, why hasn't that happened yet? Because there's just too many layers of technology involved. It's easier to just use box cutters like they did on 9-11.

I'm not arguing for this, quite the contrary. But in the end, technology and lower costs win every time.

SIGH! I'm starting to think that I should just go buy a nice 172 and make holes in the sky.....

[Rockie]

It will happen.

I don't know why so many people think a PIC's only job is to manually fly the airplane. Who will be in command of these fully automated airplanes you envision and make all the judgement based decisions that are required on every single flight? Who will be there to determine the autoflight is not doing its job properly? Who will be there to program the autoflight system in the first place? If it's the one pilot you say will be required as back up, how will that pilot gain the necessary experience in the airplane to be able to competently make those decisions?

Airplanes are not short people mover trains that go in only one of two directions at slow speed on a strictly controlled track and are unaffected by weather, nor can they simply come to a stop when the vaunted automation stops working like it's supposed to. You will note too that long freight trains and passenger trains still require a crew to operate them because they require something called skill.

[Nark]

A lot of you folks have faith that UAVs are reliable.

[Changes in Latitudes]

A lot of you folks have faith that UAVs are reliable.

Lot's of things weren't that reliable 30,40,50 years ago that you don't even think of today.

[Rockie]

A lot of you folks have faith that UAVs are reliable.

Lot's of things weren't that reliable 30,40,50 years ago that you don't even think of today.

Ever wonder why there's a "U" in UAV?

[BTyyj]

For Pilots to be replaced completely, you would need a computer that could think for itself and make judgement calls based on multitudes of different information. We're not even close to making a computer like that.

The day a computer is made which can make decisions so accurately and efficiently that it could replace a Pilot, basically all other jobs would be replaced as well. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc, could all be replaced.

[Meatservo]

Ever wonder why there's a "U" in UAV?

Nope. I think everybody knows what the "U" stands for.

[Rockie]

Ever wonder why there's a "U" in UAV?

Nope. I think everybody knows what the "U" stands for.

I should hope so. Have you ever asked yourself why they're unmanned?

[Meatservo]

Well, mostly so they can make those aeroplanes do the jobs nobody wants, like buzzing around for hours and hours looking for stuff and getting their ass shot off. I bet those trailers where they have a full cockpit set up and lots of pilots controlling the machine on rotation is more expensive a set-up than it would be to train someone to fly a little single-engine turboprop around doing the same thing.

I once had a UAV of my own. It was a little less sophisticated, but the principle was the same: I wasn't sitting in the aeroplane, I was controlling it at a distance from a remote "control station". There were a couple of reasons I wasn't physically inside the aeroplane: one, the cockpit windows were just painted on; two, the aircraft was too small for me to fit in it; three, it would have been unsafe: I crashed it a lot and it wasn't built to the same standards as a man-carrying aircraft, and four, I could use the same "control station" to control multiple aircraft. Not at once, mind you, but when it crashed, the "crew" and "control station" were unharmed, ready for another mission with a replacement airframe.