'Pilotless' flights - Page 3
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
Like Tree16Likes

Thread: 'Pilotless' flights

  1. #21
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Even now they fly with 2 pilots just in case something happens to one. I just don't see them going from 2 to none. I just don't think it will ever happen.
    Well I questioned that too at first, but after reading the article, it sounds like that is possibly the goal. Also, i just don't see how it would work to have a backup pilot on the plane. You can't pay a guy who sits there and does nothing, possibly for his entire career the same you would pay a pilot today. They'd have to pay them less, or there would't even be any point in switching over to this new system from a money standpoint.

    Give how crappy the schedule is, who would want to do that line of work for little pay? I would see this being problematic, i would think there would be a shortage of these people willing to sit on a plane all day to land it in case of an emergency. And how effective are they really if they don't really fly anything day to day? More effective than a computer in an emergency? Hard to tell really.

    I mean psychologically, it does make me feel better to think there would be a knowledgeable and good pilot on the plane. I just question how that would really work out IRL.
    SID081108 likes this.
    Emma 08/31/01
    Aodhan 07/24/03
    Lillian 03/04/05
    Nathalie 07/01/07
    Cecilia Marie 1/10/10


    Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography

  2. #22
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,538

    Default

    I think a lot of flying is already autopilot. That said, they would still need to have someone on the plane. Mechanical error, 9/11. Any number of things could happen that would need a real pilot on the plane.

    ETA - I just thought of an example from a different POV. Automated phones. Some companies only have automated answering systems. It might save some companies money, but there are still companies that use live people. I do know there are several people who would chose to go with a company solely based on a live person being there to answer the phone. In a 911 situation, can you imagine if it was a computer? For important life or death situations, it is still better (IMO) to have a live person.
    Last edited by AlyssaEimers; 05-17-2013 at 12:28 PM.
    Spacers likes this.

    ~Bonita~

  3. #23
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    It is more about a pilot shortage. The thing is it is soo expensive to go to school to be a pilot and the starting pay is so low that they are having problems getting people to go into that field. My son wanted to be a pilot but the school would have been about $200k and they start new pilots at about $24k a year. It takes about 10 years before a pilot starts to earn a higher salary. So it just isn't feasible to start out with that much debt.

    Airlines Face Worst Pilot Shortage in Decades | TIME.com
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #24
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    It is more about a pilot shortage. The thing is it is soo expensive to go to school to be a pilot and the starting pay is so low that they are having problems getting people to go into that field. My son wanted to be a pilot but the school would have been about $200k and they start new pilots at about $24k a year. It takes about 10 years before a pilot starts to earn a higher salary. So it just isn't feasible to start out with that much debt.

    Airlines Face Worst Pilot Shortage in Decades | TIME.com
    Right, and the pay will be even worse if the role of pilot is reduced to "guy who sits on the plane in case there is an emergency some day" Because they would still need all the training as a regular pilot i would imagine, but wouldn't be able to justify even what they make today if all they will do is sit on the plane.

  5. #25
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I think a lot of flying is already autopilot. That said, they would still need to have someone on the plane. Mechanical error, 9/11. Any number of things could happen that would need a real pilot on the plane.

    ETA - I just thought of an example from a different POV. Automated phones. Some companies only have automated answering systems. It might save some companies money, but there are still companies that use live people. I do know there are several people who would chose to go with a company solely based on a live person being there to answer the phone. In a 911 situation, can you imagine if it was a computer? For important life or death situations, it is still better (IMO) to have a live person.
    Ah, so you think maybe there will be a niche market for an airline who 'features' real pilots. Thats an interesting thought. I wonder if that population would be big enough to sustain an entire airline company.

  6. #26
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,538

    Default

    I do not know what the answer is. I was shocked to see what pilots make because I know it used to be a lot more. I would have a hard time flying on a plane without a pilot. I do not think I would be alone in that.

    ~Bonita~

  7. #27
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Right, and the pay will be even worse if the role of pilot is reduced to "guy who sits on the plane in case there is an emergency some day" Because they would still need all the training as a regular pilot i would imagine, but wouldn't be able to justify even what they make today if all they will do is sit on the plane.
    One of the reasons it is so expensive for starting pilots is the number of hours of experience they are required to have by the FAA. With the price of jet fuel the cost of getting that many hours of flight time is very high. So the FAA is going to go from requiring all that time for a pilot to letting a computer do the flying? I think it is unrealistic that will ever happen.

    New rules going into effect next summer, based on recommendations from the Federal Aviation Administration, mandate that all newly hired pilots have at least 1,500 hours of flying experience. Captains are already held to this standard, but co-pilots currently only need 250 hours, the New York Times reports — making this the first increase in the co-pilot requirement since 1973.
    Read more: Airlines Face Worst Pilot Shortage in Decades | TIME.com
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #28
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    One of the reasons it is so expensive for starting pilots is the number of hours of experience they are required to have by the FAA. With the price of jet fuel the cost of getting that many hours of flight time is very high. So the FAA is going to go from requiring all that time for a pilot to letting a computer do the flying? I think it is unrealistic that will ever happen.
    Why? If its proven that computers can do it and can do it better than humans. Obviously if the technology never gets that good then yes, they would never go to that.

    You don't need to 'train' a computer. Thats kind of the point. The training is only required because of the nature of humans.

  9. #29
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KimPossible View Post
    Why? If its proven that computers can do it and can do it better than humans. Obviously if the technology never gets that good then yes, they would never go to that.

    You don't need to 'train' a computer. Thats kind of the point. The training is only required because of the nature of humans.
    Yes you do need to train a computer. It is only as good as the person writing the software. And there is no way anyone could possibly come up with every scenario that could ever happen in the air. I guess I just don't believe the technology would ever be that good that the FAA would approve planes to fly with no pilot.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #30
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,119

    Default Vague references to other debate issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by GloriaInTX View Post
    Yes you do need to train a computer. It is only as good as the person writing the software. And there is no way anyone could possibly come up with every scenario that could ever happen in the air. I guess I just don't believe the technology would ever be that good that the FAA would approve planes to fly with no pilot.
    Yeah i write software for a living, so i kind of have an idea of how it works. Saying thats like "training a computer" is more of a symbolic comparison as it works nothing like training. You had said "The FAA requires all this training, why would they all of a sudden just let a computer do it".... I'm just trying to say thats two totally different things. Instead of the FAA requiring training, which is a human way of cutting down on errors and mistakes, you instead require a lot of QA, a lot of testing, a lot of research, refactoring etc. etc. And I'm pretty sure that the FAA would require that this stuff seem pretty safe before ever allowing it to be used.

    If you have doubts it could ever be that safe I'm sure you aren't alone. Its hard for us to make that leap and accept that there are so many things that computers do better than humans. For accident causing scenario that is missed, there are thousands of other things that computers can do that humans can't. Ultimately it will become fairly evident which one causes more accidents.

    If at that point people are still squeamish about it, then its its simply psychological. To reiterate something i've heard around here before, it would be good if people made decisions based on facts, not emotions. For the record, i'm using that quote to try to get people to see pilot-less plains in a different light, and not to change anyone's opinions of anything else.

    The only thing that i can think of is that people feel more emotionally troubled by the idea of people losing lives at the hand of a computer than they do losing their lives at the hand of a human.

    Again....talking about pilots and computers...

    ..not anything else.
    Last edited by KimPossible; 05-17-2013 at 02:02 PM.
    SID081108 likes this.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions