Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kikapu]

Yes, a navigator with his “bubble sexton”!

[Londonrake]

In the early post war years long-haul aircraft could routinely have a third pilot, navigator, air engineer and even an HF radio operator up front.

https://blog.balpa.org/Blog/December-20 ... ck-changes

.

[Kikapu]

Surplus aviators from the war.

[Robin Hood]

The solution to the 737 Max8 problem is simple ..... says Trump!

Call it something else, add a few gizmo's, rebrand it to the gullible public who believe anything they are told and hey presto you have another US world beater ........ with a zero accident record!

https://simpleflying.com/donald-trump-says-he-can-fix-the-boeing-737-max-by-renaming-it/

[Kikapu]

You can put a lipstick on a pig, it is still a pig!

[Paphitis]

Paphitis,

Great post with great information, but the reason why we need multi crew in the cockpit right now, is because that is the way the cockpits are set up with hundreds of knobs, buttons, switches and gauges. Not too long ago, we had even more than what we have today, hence the reason why there were 3 pilots in the cockpit with the engineer behind the two in the front. As more automation has been introduced into the cockpit, the engineer’s position has been eliminated, and with time, we will get down to one pilot as more automation is introduced. Eventually, the single pilot too will be eliminated as the planes would become fully automated. There may be a “pilot” on the plane monitoring the system with his iPad from his small cabin to rest with a bed, until the time comes, even he too won’t be needed.

As we go into the future, reducing cost in plane building will become a priority, as well as time in producing them. With billions of more people in the world, there will be need for more and more planes. By having a fully automated planes to self fly without pilots would eliminate almost all of the instruments in the cockpit, which would be a major cost savings as they will no longer be needed. Even all the windows will be eliminated for the cockpits and the passenger sections. Today, only 15-20% of the passengers enjoy window view as the rest of the passengers do not.

Planes will fly more and more from point to point, flying 15, 20 and more hours, non stop, which is very hard on the flight crew. Today there are shortage of pilots in every airline and as more and more planes are needed by the thousands, fast production with less cost is going to be the standard, as there will be major shortage of pilots for the future aviation. With many more planes occupying the same space we have today, flying much closer together to fit them all in the air safely, all will be controlled by GPS satellites to separate them all without much input from humans to get the planes from A to B.

As with most professions in different industries with advancement in technology, pilots too will become redundant. I give it 30 years. Younger generation today are all growing up in the technological world, so for them to fly without a pilot on the plane will be no different than cars, trains, buses trucks and ships all being self driven. It will become second nature for them. It is inevitable.

Kikapu,

the flight deck is an amazingly well organized and very ergonomic work area. The layout is fantastic and the manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing are continuously making them better.

All pilots know where all the switches and knobs are, all the EFIS and Flight management and AP modes. A pilot can fly any aircraft single pilot, and you would do it successfuly for a while, but the workload will eventually overcome the single pilot. As a result, there is no capture of errors, and because of the workload more errors will be made. At some point, a major accident will occur.

Everything are in clusters. You will find the Flight Instruments of an A380 in the same place as where you will find them on a Cessna 172. The switches and knobs are actually ordered in a particular manner, and not much changes from aircraft to aircraft apart from minor nuances.

That is why we don't fly single pilot. The workload and the pilot stress is too extreme for this to be safe or responsible.

We also have 2 crew in case of pilot incapacitation. We have the 3 strikes principle. If the other pilot does not respond to a trigger with a copy or check, or read back an altitude or heading, the other pilot takes over. So we are trained to be able to fly it single pilot if we need to. It is achievable, and expected.

We have 2 pilots to share the load. We have:

a Captain, and
a First Officer.

Captain has overall Command of the aircraft.

But we split the roles like this:

Pilot Flying, and
Pilot Monitoring.

We usually take in turns sector by sector.

Pilot Flying is responsible for:

1. Flying the ship
2. Flight Instrument Scan
3. Engine Instruments
4. Standard Instrument Departure
5. Standard Arrival
6. Instrument Approach
7. Profile
and that's it.

Pilot Monitoring:

1. Radios and Comms
2. Power Settings
3. Flight Management Computer
4. Autopilot
5. Fuel calculations
6.Diversions
7. Flight Plan
8. Navaids
9 Check lists
10. Deviation call outs

One pilot compliments the other. This is one of the reasons aviation is so safe.

Sure airlines are going to want to cut costs but it won't happen at the expense of the Multi Crew, not anytime soon. It will end up costing the industry rather than save money because the airlines will start killing more people at an increase rate and questions will be asked. right now, the accident rate is low.

Airlines still carry 3 or 4 pilots but that is because the regulations require it on long haul because each crew requires a 4 hour rest in the bunk on flights in excess of 14 hours.

As for Flight Engineers, the pilots have taken over those duties essentially.

It all comes together like a well trained symphony orchestra. Everything is choreographed and everything is the same every sector. It's when things change you need to watch it.

it's a very procedural environment. Nothing changes between sectors. We do it the exact same way every time.

Even the patter between the pilots is very precise. In fact, if a word is spoken out of place the check must be repeated until the exact same terminology is used. If the exact word as written on the check list isn't used, then the check must be repeated until acknowledged in the precise way the procedure dictates.

[Robin Hood]

Paphitis:

It all comes together like a well trained symphony orchestra.

Exactly! It has to be that way ..... not a note out of tune ......so why pay for a ‘symphony orchestra’ ......... when you can get it all on a CD? It’s called progress!

Every word of your post supports the argument that the pilot will be replaced sooner rather than later! It is cheaper to use a triplex parallel control system based on electronics than to have two or even three pilots (to be extra safe) who take a vote every time on every decision that is made.

Computers can communicate with each other, they don’t get ‘words’ wrong ..... and then have to do it again! What they can do in a few milliseconds, a flight deck crew would need hours to cover. Computers working in parallel can process every single input many times a second and update the control system accordingly at the same rate. They never get tired and have to have a break and their constant vigilance can see things happening minutes before a human crew would be aware there was something wrong.

The automated system wins hands down against the human equivalent on every aspect of aviation tasked with getting passengers from A to B safely, as fast as possible and at minimum cost. It matters not whether that is applied to the aircraft itself or the crews that currently fly them.

One thing you have missed out when you talk about all the relationships of the crew and how they have to work together?

Let us be extreme and consider ...... putting you and me on the flight deck together as both being good pilots and with equal experience and capability? You will instantly have a clash of personalities which will have different consequences determined by whether it is you or me that is in the LH seat! Computers don’t have personalities; they don’t have good days and bad days; don’t get pissed off; don’t have rows with the Missus and don’t get head-aches, indigestion or heart attacks!

I always wanted to have your job but it never happened, although I did learn to fly in my mid forties. So it is not having a downer on you personally or the profession but when I couldn’t be a pilot ..... I ended up as an engineer in a discipline (in a way related to aircraft systems) that over my lifetime has seen massive changes at all levels, from the ‘drawing board’ to methods used on control systems that I used to design and commission. Even the field instruments went from simple pneumatic/mechanical devices to electronic ...... but the basic principles behind their operation has not changed one little bit in all those years. An aeroplane will always be an aeroplane and Newton’s and Bernoulli’s Theorems will always apply.

[Paphitis]

That's not the kind of progress the public is expecting.

Boeing and Airbus have not made a computer that is capable of Threat and Error assessment and management.

If they did, there would be no F-35 JSF or F-22. They are a long way away from replacing the pilot. It won't be happening in my life time or anytime soon.

The new generation of combat aircraft suggest it won't be happening within 50 years. but they will be making drones which will have their place.

The technology though is such where they can make remotely piloted aircraft very easily (pilots on the ground), but again, there are massive safety shortcomings by doing that, so its not a simple process, plus the market wouldn't tolerate it. The flying public wouldn't like it. Situational Awareness is a big challenge, therefore, there will be crashes as a result.

[cyprusgrump]

Paphitis:

It all comes together like a well trained symphony orchestra.

Exactly! It has to be that way ..... not a note out of tune ......so why pay for a ‘symphony orchestra’ ......... when you can get it all on a CD? It’s called progress!

Every word of your post supports the argument that the pilot will be replaced sooner rather than later! It is cheaper to use a triplex parallel control system based on electronics than to have two or even three pilots (to be extra safe) who take a vote every time on every decision that is made.

Computers can communicate with each other, they don’t get ‘words’ wrong ..... and then have to do it again! What they can do in a few milliseconds, a flight deck crew would need hours to cover. Computers working in parallel can process every single input many times a second and update the control system accordingly at the same rate. They never get tired and have to have a break and their constant vigilance can see things happening minutes before a human crew would be aware there was something wrong.

The automated system wins hands down against the human equivalent on every aspect of aviation tasked with getting passengers from A to B safely, as fast as possible and at minimum cost. It matters not whether that is applied to the aircraft itself or the crews that currently fly them.

One thing you have missed out when you talk about all the relationships of the crew and how they have to work together?

Let us be extreme and consider ...... putting you and me on the flight deck together as both being good pilots and with equal experience and capability? You will instantly have a clash of personalities which will have different consequences determined by whether it is you or me that is in the LH seat! Computers don’t have personalities; they don’t have good days and bad days; don’t get pissed off; don’t have rows with the Missus and don’t get head-aches, indigestion or heart attacks!

I always wanted to have your job but it never happened, although I did learn to fly in my mid forties. So it is not having a downer on you personally or the profession but when I couldn’t be a pilot ..... I ended up as an engineer in a discipline (in a way related to aircraft systems) that over my lifetime has seen massive changes at all levels, from the ‘drawing board’ to methods used on control systems that I used to design and commission. Even the field instruments went from simple pneumatic/mechanical devices to electronic ...... but the basic principles behind their operation has not changed one little bit in all those years. An aeroplane will always be an aeroplane and Newton’s and Bernoulli’s Theorems will always apply.

The flaw in your argument is that we still have train drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers… If we can’t yet automate emptying the dustbins in a simple repeated route, 2D environment, how do we make the leap to automated aircraft ‘sooner rather than later’…?

And clearly, the barriers to automation are not just technical. Unions obviously play a part but also public confidence… I think we are a long way away from the public being willing to board a pilot-free aircraft when automated cars still kill people.

Also (and this also applies to transport), there is a moral argument here too. How do you programme a moral judgement? When something pulls out in front of your automated vehicle, how does it decide if it should hit it and kill the passengers or swerve and run over the mother and baby on the pavement? A numbers game…?

[Robin Hood]

cyprusgrump:

The flaw in your argument is that we still have train drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers… If we can’t yet automate emptying the dustbins in a simple repeated route, 2D environment, how do we make the leap to automated aircraft ‘sooner rather than later’…?

And clearly, the barriers to automation are not just technical. Unions obviously play a part but also public confidence… I think we are a long way away from the public being willing to board a pilot-free aircraft when automated cars still kill people.

I am no expert so I can only explain things the way I see it from my own life experiences but I can see your argument and it is a valid one.

I think you have identified two limitations ...... “ Unions obviously play a part but also public confidence.....”.

The same could be said for the Auto industry, the print, even retail ..... the Unions were strong but eventually crumbled and had to give way to automation. I agree with you about unions and it has always baffled me why trains still need drivers, and even more so, guards?

Cars and trucks? Well at the moment the technology has not progressed far enough to implement it, I think mainly because it will need massive sums of money to provide the mass transit systems required to get the private motor car off the road. There is also the aspect of the MONEY made out of us having our own private means of travel! Let’s face it, such a change-over has to be done virtually in hours ..... as previously said ...... oil and water don’t mix.

Public confidence? That is a completely different aspect and I would explain that by saying you can convince a human of virtually anything if you get the propaganda right! We are subject to this sort of propaganda daily and not just the political version. Think about the drug/pharmaceutical companies! They still turn out drugs that were not quite what they expected and then fight any exposure that says any of their products are harmful. But we trust doctors not to kill us don’t we? But they do! But here big, big money is involved and evidence of these problems is buried with powerful voices speaking in defence of Big Pharma.

So, surely the inverse is true? Convince the people that air crashes are mainly due to pilot error ..... whether that is actually true or not ...... and people are told “Look our automated pilotless aircraft have not had any serious problems and no crashes ...... and you can travel from London to New York in our modern automated aircraft for $50 return ..... because we don’t have to pay two guys to sit up front and gaze out of the window just in case they are needed ................ or pay $500 return and have the ‘two pilots up front’ version if that makes you more secure!" Once the automated flights catch on and become the norm then the piloted version will become more and more expensive until it prices itself out of the market.

Also (and this also applies to transport), there is a moral argument here too. How do you programme a moral judgement? When something pulls out in front of your automated vehicle, how does it decide if it should hit it and kill the passengers or swerve and run over the mother and baby on the pavement? A numbers game…?

That is a difficult one to answer because a computer does not have morals, it will make a decision based only on the information it has ...... information it can assess and act upon in a split second. In modern drone warfare how many times have several civilians died, including women and children, because the priority was to kill an individual terrorist?

As humans we need thinking time and by the time we think it out it is too late. So we respond on instinct which could go either way. Program the system to preserve a child’s life at all costs and the system will say swerve to avoid killing the child ...... and maybe unintentionally cause an accident involving a bus-full of children.

I would say that is something that is impossible to deal with ..... you would have to just take your chances that the system makes the right decision ..... after all, we all place that trust in others when we are their passenger! Is that really any different?